‘The appellant argued that all the relevant evidence pointed to the decision not to hold the inquiry being a sham. The basis on which it had been suggested that this was a decision taken in the public interest was, Mrs Finucane argued, spurious. Moreover, the process of consultation and discussions was entirely cosmetic. The outcome had been predetermined. (See Lord Kerr’s summary of the grounds of challenge at paras 50-52)’
UKSC Blog, 26th March 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
