"Persuasion* is a mere illusion, the ground of the judgement, which lies solely in the subject, being regarded as objective. Hence a judgement of this kind has only private validity - is only valid for the individual who judges, and the holding of a thing to be true in this way cannot be communicated."" .
Kant, 1787: 748.
In todays society the public demand and expect accountability from those in power, be they in the Government, in the business world or in the public sector. As a result, public inquiries have become an important instrument through which the decisions of those in authority and the subsequent events can be investigated and judged. Lord Justice Clarke (2000: pages 7-8) in the introduction to his Thames Safety Inquiry report identified two principal purposes of a public inquiry. Firstly, a public inquiry should seek to restore public confidence by carrying out "a full, fair and fearless investigation into the relevant events- (Clarke, 2000: para 5.10, page 8). Nothing should be swept under the carpet. Secondly, an inquiry should "identify the truth behind events- (Clarke, 2000: para 5.11, page 8).
Whatever its particular terms of reference, a public inquiry should attempt to promote understanding, not only of what may have gone on, but also what led to the events which are the subject matter of the Inquiry, and what may have been the motives and intentions of those involved. In this way, the complexities that surround all events and actions can be exposed and explored.
Although the use of public inquiries is commonplace there is a question as to whether such inquiries can give firm, concrete conclusions. Lord Justice Clarke talks of identifying the truth'. I would remark that in the sorts of circumstances giving rise to public inquiries, it is often rare for there to be one truth'. There are often a number of truths', all held with sincere conviction by those advancing them.
