search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
NEWS


Grenfell inquiry Inquiry hears from key companies in second phase


AHEAD OF being suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the second phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry had resumed after a pause for legal considerations around testimony; and before it was paused, it heard from individuals from a range of the companies responsible for the refurbishment of the tower.


Resumption of inquiry


The second phase began with a focus on decisions ‘taken in the months and years before the fire’, its immediate aftermath and the government’s role. It is expected to last 18 months, with 200,000 documents – including emails, phone transcripts and commercial agreements – to be released. Statements from lawyers for architects Studio E, builders Rydon, installers Harley Facades, insulation manufacturer Celotex and Arconic, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) opened proceedings. Opening weeks contained


submissions for an overview of the primary refurbishment, including cladding, the testing and certification,and fire safety measures including complaints and communications with residents. ‘Key revelations’ included that ‘almost none’ of the clients, consultants or contractors during the refurbishment were ‘accepting much blame’ and ‘ignored pleas from the inquiry not to engage in a “merry-go-round of buck-passing”’. In the first week, the inquiry also


heard that refurbishers ‘knew cladding would fail’; witnesses threatened to ‘withhold evidence’; and a consultant was not sent a key report. However hearings were delayed due to the witnesses’ threat, which saw them ask for assurances that ‘anything they say will not be used in criminal prosecutions against them’. Then, with the recent reshuffle seeing Geoffrey Cox replaced by Suella Braverman, the inquiry heard that Ms Braverman would


12 MAY 2020 www.frmjournal.com


‘aim to make a decision’ allowing it ‘to be able to resume’ on 2 March. The Guardian reported on her decision to allow witnesses to ‘give evidence without incriminating themselves’, permitting them to do so ‘without it being used by police and prosecutors to later charge them with criminal offences’, which meant that the inquiry restarted on 2 March ‘after a delay of almost a month’. Survivors and bereaved campaign group Grenfell United said the decision made them ‘nervous’, adding ‘we can’t help but worry about how this will impact prosecutions later. It is clear that corporate lawyers are playing every trick in the book. Truth at the inquiry must not come at the expense of justice and prosecutions. For our continued participation the government must make sure the inquiry process does not undermine prosecutions. ‘If prosecutions are affected


by this decision we will hold the government accountable. Grenfell was a tragedy but it was not an accident. The people responsible for knowingly encasing our families in a death trap and the people that allowed them to do it must face the full force of the law. We expect criminal prosecutions at the end of this and will not settle for anything less’. Corporate entities will not be


protected, with protection only applying to ‘some of the issues being examined’, including


refurbishment, cladding, insulation and testing, certification and marketing of cladding products. The attorney general’s office stated that ‘any individual who gives evidence … cannot have that evidence used in any prosecution against them in the future. The undertaking does not provide immunity from prosecution against anyone’.


Other issues the protection will apply to include RBKC and Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation’s (KCTMO’s) handling of complaints from residents and communications with them. The Guardian pointed out that many survivors and bereaved are concerned that a ‘broader undertaking’ could ‘hinder attempts to bring charges as serious as gross negligence manslaughter’, though the Metropolitan police was ‘neutral’ on the application, while the director of public prosecutions and Health and Safety Executive were consulted. Ms Braverman added: ‘In making this decision I have had the victims of the fire and their loved ones at the forefront of my mind. I cannot begin to imagine what they have gone through and I know that the issue of an undertaking will have caused them further anguish. The undertaking I am providing to the inquiry means it can continue to take evidence from witnesses who


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60