This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/29/grenfell-inquiry-thrown-into-confusion-over-legal-move-by-witnesses

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Grenfell witnesses' legal move throws inquiry into confusion Grenfell witnesses threaten to withhold evidence
(about 3 hours later)
People involved in cladding likely to claim privilege to allow them not to answer questions People involved in cladding want assurances testimonies will not be used as evidence against them
The Grenfell Tower public inquiry has been thrown into confusion after witnesses involved in the design and choice of materials used in the combustible facade said they were likely to claim privilege against self-incrimination as a reason for not answering questions. Witnesses at the Grenfell Tower public inquiry have threatened to withhold evidence about the disastrous design and choice of materials used on the refurbishment unless they receive an assurance from the government that what they say will not be used to mount criminal prosecutions that could land them in jail.
There were groans from the bereaved and survivors when the inquiry chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, announced that Harley Facades, which erected the cladding, some employees and former employees of Rydon, the main contractor, and witnesses for the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation (KCTMO) were likely to claim the long-established right when cross-examination was due to start next week with testimony from the architects Studio E. The inquiry was thrown into confusion early on Wednesday when the chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, revealed that lawyers for the architects, builders and the client on the works had written to him saying their clients would claim privilege against self-incrimination as a reason for not answering questions unless the attorney general gave an undertaking that nothing they said would be used “in furtherance of a prosecution against them, thereby giving them complete freedom to tell the truth without any concern for the future”.
The move led to hearings being paused and the inquiry room cleared so the bereaved and survivors and their legal representatives could consider their response. Cross examination of witnesses is due to start next week with the architects, Studio E. Lawyers for staff at the main contractor, Rydon, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation and Harley Facades, which erected the cladding, are among those who asked Moore-Bick to request the undertaking. He said he would consider doing so after hearings conclude on Thursday.
The Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017 killed 72 people and the public inquiry was set up in its immediate aftermath to get to the truth of what happened and why. There were groans from the bereaved and survivors when the threat emerged and proceedings were halted for 70 minutes. The fire on 14 June 2017 killed 72 people and the public inquiry was set up in its immediate aftermath to get to the truth of what happened and why.
Moore-Bick said the privilege being requested “protects a person from being required to answer questions if to do so truthfully might expose him or her to a risk of prosecution”. Moore-Bick, a retired appeal court judge, said: “This development has caused me a little surprise because hitherto there has been the fullest cooperation.” No one during the Grenfell inquiry, which started in 2018, had yet claimed the privilege, he said.
The Metropolitan police are conducting a parallel investigation into possible corporate manslaughter and manslaughter charges and a number of witnesses have already been interviewed under caution by detectives. The lawyers told Moore-Bick in a letter: “The “scope of self-incrimination is broad and extends not only to refusing to answer questions or give information that may directly incriminate the witness but also to answer or provide information which ‘might lead to a line of inquiry which would or might form a significant step in the chain of evidence required for a prosecution’. Without an undertaking ‘witnesses will legitimately and reasonably be entitled to refuse to answer questions’.”
Moore-Bick said counsel for the witnesses asked him on Tuesday night to request that the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, grants “an undertaking that nothing said by a witness … will be used in furtherance of a prosecution against them, thereby giving them complete freedom to tell the truth without any concern for the future”.
The retired appeal court judge said: “This development has caused me a little surprise because hitherto there has been the fullest cooperation.” No one during the Grenfell inquiry, which started in 2018, had yet claimed the privilege, he said.
The second phase of the Grenfell Tower public inquiry was due to start its third day of evidence when Moore-Bick announced the application had been made. The inquiry is examining the events and decisions that led to the fire, in particular the refurbishment. It has already heard explosive evidence that architects, contractors and the client knew about the combustibility of cladding panels.
“Metal cladding always burns and falls off,” an architect emailed a fire engineer in spring 2015. An employee of the facade installer told a colleague: “As we all know, the ACM [the combustible cladding panels] will be gone rather quickly in a fire!”
It has heard how Harley Facades said it could save £454,000 by using ACM. KCTMO gave final approval for the cladding in October 2014.
Lawyers representing the architects Studio E, Osborne Berry (a subcontractor on the facade), as well as Zak Maynard, Gary Martin, Daniel Osgood and Katie Bachellier, employees of Rydon, also signed the letter to Moore-Bick requesting the legal protection.
Their letter said: “The nature of the police investigation is very broad in scope and is concerned with numerous potential offences, ranging from regulatory breaches to the most serious of criminal offences, all of which carry potential custodial sentences.
“We collectively write to request that you seek an undertaking from the attorney general preventing the use of evidence given by witnesses to the public inquiry against them in any future criminal proceedings.”
It said the “scope of self-incrimination is broad and extends not only to refusing to answer questions or give information that may directly incriminate the witness but also to answer or provide information which ‘might lead to a line of inquiry which would or might form a significant step in the chain of evidence required for a prosecution’. Without an undertaking ‘witnesses will legitimately and reasonably be entitled to refuse to answer questions.’”
It added that such undertakings from the attorney general had been made in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, the Baha Mousa inquiry, the al-Sweady inquiry, the Azelle Rodney inquiry, and the undercover policing inquiry.It added that such undertakings from the attorney general had been made in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, the Baha Mousa inquiry, the al-Sweady inquiry, the Azelle Rodney inquiry, and the undercover policing inquiry.
The Metropolitan police are conducting a parallel investigation into possible corporate manslaughter and manslaughter charges and a number of witnesses have already been interviewed under caution by detectives.
When hearings eventually restarted, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea confessed to six mistakes by its building control department and said it “apologises unreservedly for those failings”. They included failing to: ask for comprehensive details of the cladding system; request up-to-date version of the tower’s fire safety strategy; and identify that the cladding insulation was combustible and meet regulations. It also apologised for issuing a completion certificate in July when it should not have done so in 2016.
However, the council said that it did not believe these failures meant it should be held legally responsible for the building regulations breaches. James Maxwell-Scott QC, for the council, said case law showed “the common understanding that designers were responsible for producing designs that complied with the building regulations and that, if they failed to do so, those financially affected should look to designers, rather than local authority building control services, for compensation”.
Survivors and bereaved responded angrily to the council’s limited apology. They said RBKC, which owned Grenfell Tower, could hardly not admit failings given the first phase of the inquiry already concluded the works broke building regulations.
“There is no confession here, barely any honesty and certainly no true remorse,” said a spokesperson for Grenfell United. “And they have not opened up about all the other ways they were disturbingly reckless in the project from start to finish and how they treated us before and after the fire. It is insulting to us that they are trying to argue that, despite signing off a building that was a death trap, they should not share any responsibility for it. This argument makes them no better than all the companies we have heard this week, passing the buck and minimising their own role in the disaster.”
The Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation, which was the client on the refurbishment, made no admissions of responsibility in its opening statement. It said that “value engineering” exercises in which costs were cut could not be blamed for the disaster. It added that it placed its trust in consultants and experts, and it was failed by inspectors it appointed, who produced 35 reports about the works and never raised any concerns about the cladding or health and safety problems.
Alice Jarrett, representing the TMO, said it had “immense sympathy and profound sorrow”.
She said: “The TMO believes it took reasonable steps to appoint competent specialists to achieve its aim of upgrading Grenfell Tower. Like so many others, we wish now to understand how, with this infrastructure in place, there were such terrible failings in both the design and construction of the works.”
Artelia, which was appointed by the TMO as its agent, criticised its stance. Richard Spafford, representing the firm, said: “Running through the TMOs submissions is the portrayal of itself as nothing more than a reactive passive inexperience bystander, powerless as those around it let it down.”
This was not the case, he suggested. “There was a drive for value engineering [cost cutting] from the TMO,” he said, adding that one TMO official, Claire Williams, had identified her own “VE hit list”.
The inquiry continues.