NEWS


cladding’ and was ‘concerned primarily with the revamp of the lower four floors’, while the later report mentioning the use of ACM was ‘never sent’ to the company, which was ‘simply not involved’. Survivors noted later that they had been ‘genuinely shocked at corporates seeking to defend the indefensible’, stating in turn that ‘all have blood on their hands’. Internal emails were provided


by counsel Stephanie Barwise from Celotex, in which an executive admitted that it was ‘clearly wrong’ to use combustible insulation on any building, stating that ‘the fire hasn’t got a tape measure and if it starts at the ground floor it will love to race up’. Grenfell was also on a ‘must-win projects list’ provided by Celotex’s parent company in 2014, while Arconic ‘specifically targeted’ the project ‘as part of an attempt to double its sales in the UK’. RBKC was later said to be ‘at


the heart’ of the disaster, with its director of housing Laura Johnson stating in 2013 that Grenfell was ‘worth so little’ that anything spent on it was ‘money down the drain’. Another email from KCTMO director of assets and regeneration Peter Maddison stated that ‘value for money is to be regarded as the key driver’. Other evidence included that Studio E was appointed without an Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) process, whereby all tenders from the public sector valued above a certain financial threshold must be published. An email from the company had acknowledged it was ‘a little green on process and technicality’, and was picked ‘apparently on the grounds of speed and convenience alone’, due to working on a school at the base of the tower.


Ms Barwise accused all the


professional disciplines involved in the refurbishment of an ‘epidemic level of incompetence from a fire safety perspective’, and claimed that the decision to reclad Grenfell was ‘partly prompted’


by a belief shared by Studio E, the council and KCTMO that the building’s previous appearance ‘detracted’ from the school and leisure centre below. She said that they all ‘feared


Grenfell would appear a poor cousin’ to the facility, while Studio E regarded it ‘as an eyesore’, and that this ‘obsession with aesthetics […] was to dog the project’. She added that Studio E had expressed a view that Grenfell ‘created a poor-quality frontage’ for the school and leisure centre, ‘thereby endangering the success’ of it, ‘which remained RBKC’s priority throughout’.


Government involvement Finally, 24Housing reported on the intentions of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) towards its inquiry cooperation, which made ‘no specific mention of former housing ministers giving evidence’. The news outlet said that the inquiry’s opening statements ‘put further pressure’ on those former ministers, and central government was accused of ‘extraordinary inaction’ over high rise fires. MHCLG’s inquiry submission


said it was ‘willing to provide details of the steps it has been taking – and is continuing to take – on related fire safety’, while it also ‘restate[d] its position’ on actions taken post Grenfell, and agreed with the Hackitt Review’s analysis and its conclusion that regulations are ‘not fit for purpose’. It also reaffirmed a commitment to ‘bringing forward legislation’, but added that the focus in Phase 2 was ‘limiting the scope’ of its statement.


Witness threat causes delays Witnesses ‘threatened to withhold evidence unless they receive[d] an assurance that their testimony [would] not be used to mount criminal prosecutions’, which ‘threw the inquiry into confusion’. Lawyers for the firms wrote to chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick, arguing that clients could ‘claim a


privilege against self-incrimination as a reason for not answering questions’, and that they would ‘speak openly only if the attorney general’ confirmed this would not be the case. This resulted in ‘groans from the


bereaved and survivors’, whose counsel Michael Mansfield stated that the ‘timing of this application’ was ‘highly reprehensible and highly questionable’, and had ‘caused immense anxiety, distress and anger’, because the community wanted to ‘get to the point of accountability’. This move made them feel ‘almost thwarted at the doors of the court’. Sir Martin added that the move was ‘very disappointing’. It had been said by lawyers that


many individuals who worked on the refurbishment ‘could face the threat of being jailed for life’, with police investigations to ‘include gross negligence manslaughter where applicable’. The Guardian later reported that the threats caused the inquiry to be delayed; as a result, Sir Martin was then expected to ask the attorney general to prevent ‘the use of evidence given by witnesses […] against them in any future criminal proceedings’ so as to avoid the inquiry ‘being entirely derailed’ – because witnesses could ‘simply refuse to answer questions’. Lawyers for the companies


said it was ‘necessary because detectives are investigating’ potential crimes, though The Guardian said it was ‘unclear how detectives could be entirely restricted from following up leads generated from evidence to the inquiry’. Mr Mansfield said it was ‘totally without merit’, and urged companies to consider ‘whether they really want to put the families through more anguish, more agony’. Ms Barwise said that some


were ‘neutral’ because it ‘had been impossible to gather the views of all of their scores of clients in such a short space of time’, but noted that there was ‘utter outrage’ at the move: ‘Our clients find themselves placed in a wholly (Article continues overleaf)


www.frmjournal.com APRIL 2020 9


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