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 3 Version 4
Grenfell witnesses threaten to withhold evidence Grenfell witnesses threaten to withhold evidence
(about 4 hours later)
People involved in cladding want assurances testimonies will not be used to mount prosecution cases against them People involved in cladding want assurances testimonies will not be used to prosecute 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 involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower have threatened to withhold evidence from the public inquiry unless they receive an assurance that their testimony 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”. Lawyers for the architects, builders and the client on the works threw the inquiry into confusion on Wednesday after they wrote to its chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to warn that their clients could claim a privilege against self-incrimination as a reason for not answering questions. They said they would only speak openly if the attorney general gave an undertaking that nothing they said would be used to further a prosecution against them.
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 Metropolitan police are conducting a parallel investigation into possible manslaughter and corporate manslaughter charges and a number of witnesses have already been interviewed under caution by detectives.
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. Lawyers for the architects Studio E, current and former staff at the main contractor, Rydon, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) and Harley Facades, which erected the cladding, argued: “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, 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. There were groans from the bereaved and survivors in the inquiry when the threat emerged and proceedings were halted for 70 minutes.
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 timing of this application … is highly reprehensible and highly questionable coming on the eve of evidence,” said Michael Mansfield QC on behalf of hundreds of bereaved and survivors. “It has caused immense anxiety, distress and anger.”
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. He said the Grenfell community had been waiting to “get to the point of accountability” and the move made them feel “almost thwarted at the doors of the court”. The fire on 14 June 2017 killed 72 people and the public inquiry was set up by Theresa May in its immediate aftermath to get to the truth of what happened and why.
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. Survivors fear the request could dent the likelihood of successful criminal prosecutions, which are a top priority for many. The counsel to the inquiry, Richard Millett QC, has already criticised the corporates for engaging in a “merry-go-round of buck-passing” in their evidence so far.
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. Moore-Bick said the move was “very disappointing” with cross-examination of witnesses due to start next week, starting with staff at Studio E.
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”. Similar undertakings 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, lawyers for the corporates said. Moore-Bick said he would decide whether to request the same from the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, on Monday after hearing representations from the bereaved, survivors and residents.
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. Meanwhile, key parties continued to state their cases. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), which owned the tower, confessed to six mistakes by its building control department and apologised “unreservedly”. It said it failed to: ask for comprehensive details of the cladding system; request an up-to-date version of the tower’s fire safety strategy; and identify that the cladding insulation was combustible and met regulations. It also apologised for issuing a completion certificate in July 2016 when it should not have done so.
“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.” However, the council said it did not believe these failures meant it should be held legally responsible for the building regulations breaches. Its lawyer,James Maxwell-Scott QC, said case law showed that if designs failed to meet building regulations, “those financially affected should look to designers, rather than local authority building control services, for compensation”.
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. But survivors and bereaved responded angrily to what they considered a far too limited apology by the owner of their homes. They said RBKC could hardly not admit failings given the first phase of the inquiry had concluded the works broke building regulations.
Alice Jarrett, representing the TMO, said it had “immense sympathy and profound sorrow”. “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.
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.” “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.”
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.” The Kensington and Chelsea TMO, 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.
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”. It added that it had placed its trust in consultants and experts, and it had been 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 Jarratt, representing the TMO, said: “The TMO believes it took reasonable steps to appoint competent specialists to achieve its aim of upgrading Grenfell Tower.”
The inquiry heard from one of those specialists, Artelia, which the TMO appointed as an agent. Richard Spafford, representing the firm, said that in November 2014, Claire Williams, an official at the TMO, asked Artelia whether there was any issue of flame retardance requirement” for the cladding, because she knew that at the 2009 Lakanal House fire where six people were killed, “one issue was that the replacement panelling was not flame retardant”.
She asked for advice and Artelia told her to ask Rydon. She did, but its answer is not yet known.
The inquiry continues.The inquiry continues.