Introduction
This article examines the implications of the resignation of Lord Bracadale as Chair of the Sheku Bayoh public inquiry on 21 October 2025 over insurmountable concerns about the appearance of bias held by numerous core participants to the Inquiry.
Mr Bayoh died on 3 May 2015 after an incident in the street in Kirkcaldy involving officers of Police Scotland.
The Inquiry has already heard 122 days of evidence, but with closing submissions still to be heard, the Inquiry will conclude before, and the report authored by a new Chair, to be appointed by the Scottish Ministers.
The Inquiry has already heard 122 days of evidence but, with closing submissions still to be heard, the Inquiry will conclude before, and the report authored by a new Chair, to be appointed by the Scottish Ministers.
“An appearance of bias” – meetings between Lord Bracadale and the family of Sheku Bayoh
Lord Bracadale’s resignation was prompted by concerns which stemmed from five private meetings that Lord Bracadale held with the family of Mr Bayoh. Those meetings were held without advising other core participants to the Inquiry. There was also some criticism about the provision of Inquiry documents to the family ahead of disclosure to core participants.
As a result, in June 2025, an application was made by the Scottish Police Federation and other core participants to the Inquiry which argued that Lord Bracadale ought to recuse himself. The application was advanced on the basis that the meetings Lord Bracadale had held with members of Mr Bayoh’s family without advising core participants gave rise to an appearance of bias. It was not suggested that his conduct was in fact biased.
On 13 August 2025, Lord Bracadale issued a decision refusing the application. In so doing, he set out the reasons for the meetings with the family. These included obtaining and retaining the family’s confidence in, and engagement with, the Inquiry. In addition, Lord Bracadale regarded the participation of the family as essential to the Inquiry fulfilling its terms of reference. These included the treatment of the family on 3 May 2015, their experience of the subsequent investigations into Mr Bayoh’s death, and the overarching issue of Mr Bayoh’s race.
Lord Bracadale considered that if the family did not engage with or participate in the Inquiry, its overall effectiveness would be seriously undermined.
Judicial review proceedings were initiated by the Scottish Police Federation. Several other core participants of the inquiry joined the process, and a hearing was set down for November 2025.
Lord Bracadale resigned ahead of this hearing, citing the irretrievable loss of confidence of core participants to the Inquiry. He observed in his letter of resignation that his decision to meet with the family had been for a reasonable purpose: “the Families had already lost confidence in the investigating institutions with which they had contact, including Police Scotland, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service… I consider that if I had not had meetings with members of the Families, it is likely that they would have walked out of the Inquiry”.
Form over substance?
It is not uncommon for the Chairs of public inquiries to meet with bereaved families. These meetings must, however, be conducted transparently and fairly.
Baroness Hallett, Chair of the COVID-19 Inquiry, met with families during the consultation about the Inquiry’s terms of reference in 2022. Her Honour Deborah Taylor, Chair of the Nottingham Inquiry announced in February 2025, engaged with survivors and victims’ families to take views on the Inquiry’s terms of reference. Similarly, the Chair of the Southport Inquiry, Sir Adrian Fulford, clarified in his opening statement that his “immediate priority was to organise a series of visits and meetings in Southport in order to meet the victims and their families”, and stressed that “this is not a trial and I sit as a Chair and not a Judge”. This was a reminder that public inquiries are not required to follow the rules of evidence used in a conventional trial[1].
In his recusal ruling, Lord Bracadale placed reliance on a “… well-established pattern of the chair of a public inquiry meeting privately with… family members”[2].
Counsel for the applicants criticised this approach and submitted that information about these meetings was available and that they took place in plain sight. In contrast, the meetings held in the Sheku Bayoh inquiry were private and not intimated to other core participants. The record of the meetings was incomplete. Evidential accounts were given by family members in the first meeting with Lord Bracadale, which were described as “very powerful” in a subsequent meeting. Reference to the evidence was made. The meetings took place at various stages during the hearings on the evidence. There was no intervention when inappropriate references were made during the meetings. Letters from Lord Bracadale to the family were not initially disclosed to core participants. For those reasons, the core participants submitted that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.
Counsel to the Sheku Bayoh Inquiry, who also resigned, observed that there was no evidence of misconduct by Lord Bracadale in any of the submissions calling for him to recuse himself. This is because the concerns of core participants were to do with the “appearance” of bias, not bias itself.
Lord Bracadale’s resignation serves as a salutary warning about the potential pitfalls of efforts to include and support bereaved families participating in a public inquiry. Meetings with families are often a pivotal part of the inquiry process, but they must be managed with care. As Counsel for one of the core participants in the Sheku Bayoh Inquiry submitted, there is “nothing exceptional within the inquiry context which relieved the Inquiry from the application of the ordinary rules of natural justice and fairness ordinarily demanded in an administrative and quasi-judicial context”[3].
[1] Ross v Costigan (1982) 41 ALR 319 [paras. 334-335]
[2] Para. 61
[3] Para. 23
When the NMC recently applied for an extension to Ms Richmond’s interim order of conditions,…
Introduction This recent judgment of the High Court provides a practical roadmap where the prosecution…
