NEWS Grenfell public inquiry hearings begin
THE INQUIRY, led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, saw two days of hearings in December to ‘establish the framework’ for the investigation. BBC News reported on
proceedings, which were to ‘look into the best way for witnesses to give evidence’, while survivors of the fire called for Sir Martin to ‘give them a more central role in the inquiry and for the community to be represented on the panel’. Previously, he appointed three assessors to look at housing, local government and technical matters, with the hearings taking place at the Holborn Bars in central London. The two days dealt with ‘case management issues’ including proposed timetables, matters concerning witnesses and the disclosure of evidence’, with Sir Martin’s inquiry also looking to produce an ‘initial report’ that would explain the ‘immediate cause and spread’ of the fire, as well as an ‘assessment of the evacuation process’. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced its own investigation that will look at whether authorities ‘failed in their legal obligations to residents’. That investigation will also study whether the government has ‘adequately investigated the fire’, which will involve ‘looking into the public inquiry’, and will conclude in April.
BT.com also reported lawyers
urging Sir Martin to ask Prime Minister Theresa May ‘to install a panel of decision-makers to sit alongside him’, warning him ‘not to express an opinion on whether he feels a panel should assist him in making decisions, because it could be seen as influencing’ Mrs May. Representing 24 of the
families, Michael Mansfield urged the choice of panel members ‘from a diverse background’, adding that he
wanted to ensure there was ‘no confusion that a consultative panel is no substitute for a decision-making panel, of which we are advocates’. Richard Millet, counsel to
the inquiry, responded that the team ‘intended to involve people affected by the tragedy as much as they can’. He also noted that it
would be pursuing a ‘ruthlessly independent and effective investigation’, adding: ‘However, the question of the composition of the panel does give rise to rather different considerations. We would suggest […] that it is properly a matter for the Prime Minister, as the sponsoring minister, to decide under the Act whether she wishes to appoint other members to sit as decision-makers with you on the panel. ‘We would suggest,
respectfully, that it would be wrong for you to express any view either way before she has made that decision, since that might be seen to be influencing her decision on that matter.’ In turn, he warned Sir Martin to approach the choices with an ‘entirely open mind’ if he was asked for his views by the Prime Minister. Sir Martin responded by thanking the core participants for ‘helpful’ and ‘thought- provoking’ submissions, adding that he would respond in
10 FEBRUARY 2018
www.frmjournal.com
writing and stating that ‘there have been clear indications […] that, with the benefit of continuing dialogue, it should be possible to take the inquiry forward in a way that enables the work to proceed as quickly and smoothly as possible, while at the same time ensuring that the needs of all the core participants, but particularly those of the bereaved, survivors and local residents, are fully met’.
BT.com later reported that Sir Martin ‘will not ask’ for an overhaul, writing in a letter: ‘I am and must remain completely independent of the Government and in my view it would be wrong for me to take the initiative by advising the Prime Minister either to appoint additional members to the panel or not to do so. My role in the matter is limited to responding to a proposal made by her. That must be a matter for her own judgment, free of any unsolicited advice from me. ‘If proposals were made to
expand the panel I should, of course, consider them carefully and with an open mind, but unless and until that occurs, I must refrain from comment. For these reasons I refuse the formal application that I should consult the core participants on the identity of potential additional panel members and make recommendations to the Prime Minister for appointments.’ Organisations involved
in refurbishing and managing Grenfell Tower were asked in his letter to provide statements about their work to the inquiry, including the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation. In one concession, Sir Martin said he would consider ‘on a case- by-case basis’ if lawyers could question witnesses, with evidence hearings hoped to start after Easter 2018
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
