Former Sheku Bayoh inquiry chair paid more than £700k before quitting the role – as the probe costs keep rocketing
A former chairman of the public inquiry into the death of Sheku Bayoh was paid more than £700,000 before stepping down from the role, it has emerged, as the overall cost of the probe continues to climb. The disclosure is likely to renew scrutiny of the inquiry's expenditure and timescale, at a time when public inquiries in the UK are increasingly criticised for lengthy delays and mounting bills funded by the taxpayer.
The article did not provide further verified detail on the identity of the departing chair, the reasons for their departure, or the inquiry's total running costs to date. Sheku Bayoh, a 31-year-old man, died in police custody in Kirkcaldy, Fife, in 2015, and the long-running inquiry was established to examine the circumstances of his death.
- Former Sheku Bayoh inquiry chair paid over £700k before quitting
- Costs of the long-running probe continue to rise
- Renews scrutiny of public inquiry spending and delays
New here? Start with this
Sheku Bayoh, a 31-year-old man, died after being restrained by police officers in Kirkcaldy, Fife, in May 2015. His death prompted long-standing concerns from his family and campaigners about how he was treated, and eventually led the Scottish Government to set up a public inquiry to establish what happened and whether race played a part.
Public inquiries of this kind are independent investigations, chaired by a senior figure, that hear evidence and produce findings, but do not have the power to prosecute anyone. They are funded by the public purse, and their costs and timescales are set by the scale of evidence involved rather than a fixed budget, which is why bills can run into the millions and hearings can take years.
The Sheku Bayoh inquiry has been running for several years and has faced questions before about how long it is taking and how much it costs. Reports about senior figures' pay and the inquiry's overall expenditure matter because they touch on how public money is spent and on trust in the process for Bayoh's family and the wider public.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those calling for tougher scrutiny argue that a payment exceeding £700,000 to a chair who ultimately stood down, set against a headline cost that keeps climbing, raises legitimate questions about value for money and oversight. They point to a broader pattern in which UK public inquiries drag on for years and consume tens of millions in public funds, often without clear interim accountability for spending or timescales. For advocates of reform, robust scrutiny of costs is not an attack on the inquiry's purpose but a safeguard for public trust, ensuring that taxpayers' money is used efficiently and that inquiries remain properly governed rather than open-ended commitments.
The case against
Those defending the inquiry's resourcing argue that examining a death in police custody demands a senior, independent chair capable of withstanding legal and institutional pressure, and that such expertise is properly and fairly remunerated given the scale and seniority of the role. They contend that inquiries of this gravity necessarily take time and money to gather evidence, hear from bereaved families and institutions, and reach conclusions that can withstand challenge, and that rushing the process to save costs risks producing a weaker, less credible outcome. For supporters, focusing public debate on the price tag risks overshadowing the underlying purpose of the inquiry, which is to establish the truth for the Bayoh family and the wider public and to ensure lessons are properly learned.