“… analysed documentary and oral evidence, formed a view on the credibility of witnesses to the Inquiry and reached some views that she felt able to express, on behalf of the Defendant, in concluded, not provisional terms.”
“MR HOLLIDAY: These are my letters, in a sense, I mean I have Miss Snook as an assistant, I have Richard, I have Daniel, others in the team, and I’ve delegated to the team to do various pieces of work, so ultimately everything comes out from me, even if it’s not under my name, so there’s nothing that’s gone out from this Inquiry that I haven’t seen and been involved in. MS MCGAHEY: Sure, but what I’d like to know is actually who created the first draft. MR HOLLIDAY: I can’t even remember who created the first draft. Why is that relevant? They get reviewed and reviewed and reviewed. MS MCGAHEY: Because we would like to know who originated the criticisms and how they developed, because that is a procedure that – MR HOLLIDAY: The approach that I’ve taken is to delegate particular pieces of work to different people, so they’ve not all been created by one person, they’ve been created by someone in the team and I have reviewed all of them. I’m very comfortable that I’m within my rights as chairman to delegate parts and parcels to people in the team, but everything ultimately I have seen before it goes out, so you should just assume that they all come from me.”
“MS MCGAHEY: ... we would like the names of the Executive and Non-Executive Directors who have been interviewed, please, and the basis on which they were selected. MS SNOOK: Okay. We will take that away and respond to you if we consider it appropriate outside this meeting.”
“I should also stress that although my involvement at the start of the Inquiry may have involved limited attendance at the Inquiry offices on a weekly basis, I was engaged with the work of my Inquiry from the outset. I attended a number of team meetings and had regular telephone meetings with team members.”
“43. … Counsel for the Tribunal should never be invited to assist in the writing of the report or to make submission upon the draft report.”
“Every one of the proposed criticisms should have originated entirely with Mr Holliday, without any form of involvement by any member of the Inquiry team. … I would be grateful for your assurance that … the potential criticisms are those of Mr Holliday alone, and that Mr Holliday was not presented by any member of the Inquiry team with suggested criticisms, draft letters or any other material that might have had any influence on the potential criticisms that were ultimately identified in the letters sent to any of my clients.”
“5. I do not agree with the proposition that I was not engaged with the work of the Inquiry or that I unlawfully delegated tasks that were for me alone. Anything that was delegated was done so on a legitimate basis and in keeping with my understanding of the norms of how a non-statutory public inquiry is run. The Claimants do not make clear what these ‘tasks’ are but they do suggest that I delegated the task of identifying ‘potential criticisms’ of the Claimants at the PCI stage (namely the initial stage at which those who may be criticised are invited for a ‘Potential Criticism Interview’ or ‘PCI’). Although my team helped to identify and formulate the potential criticisms at the PCI stage, my draft findings and conclusions were reached only by me on the basis of my own views and where, on further reflection or consideration of the evidence, I adopted a position that was different from that advanced at the PCI stage. 6. There are substantial differences between certain of the criticisms included in the PCI letters and my draft findings. Running this inquiry has been an organic process and my draft findings differ significantly to the potential criticisms at the PCI stage. There are many instances where I have concluded that matters identified in the potential criticisms should not be included for criticism in my draft findings and equally there are some instances where I have identified criticism for inclusion in my draft findings which have not been previously identified. Additionally, there were a number of people who were identified for potential criticism, who on further consideration, were not included at all in my draft findings. Preparing my report has been a continuous and evolving process with changes being made on the basis of my further consideration of the evidence and on my further reflection, as I have already described. 7. I should also stress that although my involvement at the start of the Inquiry may have involved limited attendance at the Inquiry offices on a weekly basis, I was engaged with the work of my Inquiry from the outset. I attended a number of team meetings and had regular telephone meetings with team members. However more importantly, as the work of the Inquiry grew and I was in a position to draft my findings, I dedicated as much time as was necessary to complete the important work of my inquiry, be it 5 days per week or my whole weekend. In particular I was spending increasingly more time at the Inquiry offices and these attendances were supplemented with telephone conferences, working sessions at the offices of DLA Piper (who were external legal advisors to the Inquiry) and I also spent time in Devon working on my draft findings so that I would be free of any distractions as I focussed on reviewing the evidence and drafting my findings accordingly. In drafting my findings, I specifically undertook my own evidence review process to assist me reach my draft findings, which included reviewing extracts of evidence, interview transcripts (including PCI transcripts), my own notes, and the interim report. In drafting my findings I also asked my team to challenge my thinking, help me identify any flaws in my logic and bring to my attention any other evidence for me to look at. Being a non-lawyer my team also assisted me in finessing the language used in my drafting. But this was stylistic input rather than substantive input. My draft findings are my conclusions and mine alone.”
“[T]he Inquiry is considering including criticism of you in its draft Final Report and wishes to give you an opportunity to respond to the potential criticism in interview.”
“43. Further, the statutory obligation to hold the hearings in public must be maintained. It follows that the evidence must be received and submissions on law and evidence by counsel for the Tribunal or for the parties must be made at public hearings. Counsel for the Tribunal should never be invited to assist in the writing of the report or to make submission upon the draft report.”
“performed or operated an integral part of a system which performed public law duties, which was supported by public law sanctions and which was under an obligation to act judicially, but whose source of power was not simply the consent of those over whom it exercised that power … .”
“… operating as an integral part of a governmental framework for the regulation of financial activity in the City of London, was supported by a periphery of statutory powers and penalties, and was under a duty in exercising what amounted to public powers to act judicially … .”