Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances of the Death of Bernard ...

undertaking. For the family the subject matter was deeply personal. That was bound to
set their experience of the inquiry apart from ours.
2.30 There were occasions during the hearings when members of the family
intervened, without invitation or notice. Where that was not oppressive to witnesses I
accommodated it, recognising the emotive nature of the process for the family. There
were times, however, when interventions by members of the family went beyond what
was acceptable, levelling accusations at witnesses inside or outside the hearing room.
That should not have happened. I repeat the inquiry’s regret and apology to the
witnesses concerned.
2.31 The family made a request on the final day of hearings to make a further
personal statement in addition to their Counsel’s closing statement. I felt some sympathy
for their request. It was understandable that at the end of this long process the family
might feel a pressing need to voice a final word and would leave the hearings frustrated
without it. This was particularly so as the need for the inquiry to be put on a statutory
basis meant a delay of nearly six months between the initial hearings and the final day.
However, the procedures I had adopted in consultation with the interested parties made
no provision for the family to speak in person again. Counsel for some of the witnesses
argued that a further statement by the family might open a door to fresh allegations that
witnesses had no opportunity to answer. Partly for these reasons and, partly, because of
unscheduled interruptions earlier that day and previously, I decided that, in the particular
circumstances, it would be verging on partiality to permit another statement at that stage.
2.32 Clearly, it would not be appropriate or fair for the family to introduce new
evidence or to make new allegations in the closing stages of the inquiry, but I would
have preferred to accommodate the family’s request to have some personal voice in the
closing procedures.
The witnesses
2.33 I am grateful to all the witnesses who gave evidence to the inquiry. Good prison
staff are naturally upset by a death in prison and will question for themselves whether
they might have prevented it. For some, it was clear that their association with events in
the period leading to Sonny Lodge’s death affected them deeply and the effects continue
today. In most occupations, people are able to make errors or omissions without tragic
consequences. Prison staff bear a heavy burden of responsibility, often with little thanks
15