Manchester Arena Inquiry v Romdhan

Enforcement of a statutory notice requiring a person to attend a public inquiry is remedial and principally directed to securing compliance and obtaining relevant evidence, rather than punishment. A bench warrant is an extreme remedy, but may be issued where attendance is necessary and proportionate after weighing the competing interests. The court must give due and proper consideration to the inquiry chairman’s decision, while recognising that the chairman’s view carries weight. A witness’s persistent attempts to avoid providing evidence do not make enforcement inappropriate. The fact that the witness is outside the jurisdiction does not, without more, defeat the necessity or proportionality of a warrant where there are compelling reasons to believe that the witness has relevant evidence to give.

The Chairman of the Manchester Arena Inquiry issued a notice under section 21(1)(a) of the Inquiries Act 2005 requiring Ben Romdhan to attend and give evidence. Romdhan left the jurisdiction before the hearing and accepted both the legality of the notice and his breach of it. The Chairman certified the non-compliance under section 36(1)(a) and applied for a bench warrant.

Romdhan opposed the application on the grounds that a warrant was unnecessary and disproportionate, contrary to the purpose of section 36, and unenforceable because he was abroad. The central issue was whether issuing a warrant, in the proposed form and for the duration of the Inquiry, was necessary and proportionate to secure his attendance.

1. Application granted. A bench warrant was issued, returnable to the Inquiry Hearing Room and expiring when the Inquiry ended.
2. Section 36 of the Inquiries Act 2005 is remedial and calculated to secure compliance with a section 21 notice. Its focus is obtaining relevant information rather than punishment. The chairman’s decision carries weight, but the High Court must give due and proper consideration to whether an enforcement order is appropriate: [13].
3. A bench warrant is an extreme remedy. The governing test is necessity and proportionality, requiring the court to weigh the competing interests. On the evidence, there were compelling reasons to conclude that the respondent had relevant evidence concerning the Inquiry’s terms of reference, especially the radicalisation of Salman Abedi and potentially the storage of the bomb: [19]-[21].
4. The chairman was entitled to proceed on the basis that the respondent would give evidence once compelled to attend. The proceedings would be conducted fairly, and there was an established process for addressing claims of privilege against self-incrimination: [29]-[30].
5. The respondent’s sustained efforts to avoid providing evidence did not make a warrant less appropriate: [31].
6. Having regard to the remedial purpose of section 36, the exceptional nature of a warrant, and the competing interests of necessity and proportionality, the warrant was plainly necessary. The respondent’s absence from the jurisdiction did not alter that conclusion: [27], [32].