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 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Grenfell witnesses threaten to withhold evidence | Grenfell witnesses threaten to withhold evidence |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| People involved in cladding want assurances testimonies will not be used to mount prosecution cases against them | |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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 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”. |
| 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. | |
| 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. | 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, 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. | 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 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’.” | 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’.” |
| 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. | 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. | 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 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. | 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.” | “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. | 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”. | 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.” | 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.” | 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”. | 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. | The inquiry continues. |