Monday, 19 June 2017

Quoted in The Brief - Times Law - 19 June 2017

Public inquiry will not uncover causes of Grenfell Tower fire, lawyers warn

Responsibility for the Grenfell Tower disaster might never be completely established, lawyers have warned, as they predict that a public inquiry will run for years and potentially be inconclusive.

There were also fears that replacing a coroner's inquest with a public inquiry would curtail the rights of victims' families by excluding them from taking part in the process. Theresa May announced that she would order a judge-led inquiry to ensure that fire was "properly investigated".

MPs initially welcomed the prime minister's statement, but lawyers with experience of public inquires pointed to past investigations into the Iraq war and the Bloody Sunday shootings, which dragged on for years before reporting.

Lawyers that have acted in incidents similar to the Grenfell Tower fire have been particularly sceptical.

"We have had these before," said Sophie Khan, who acted for some of those affected by the 2009 Lakanal House fire in south London, in which six people died. Ms Khan predicted an inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire was unlikely to achieve much for the families of the victims.

"We have had the Iraq inquiry, we have had the Northern Ireland inquiry, you don't get any results out of them," Ms Khan told the Press Association.

"I am concerned why she [Ms May] has come out so quickly to say public inquiry. Nothing will happen because the government will set the terms, the government will decide when to hold it, the government will decide what documents will be there, the government will decide when the outcome will be."

Ms Khan also warned that by holding an inquiry rather than a coroner's inquest, the families could be excluded from participating in the proceedings. "They are trying to curtail their rights," said the lawyer. "By saying they will have a public inquiry they will cut them out totally of the investigation process."

Ms Khan was adamant that holding conventional inquests would be fairer. In that process, she said, "families can participate, can cross-examine the witnesses, make submissions, put questions to the coroner, and for the coroner to lead it rather than the government."

Nicholas Griffin, QC, a barrister who has worked on several public inquiries, said that their success relied on appropriately establishing the terms of reference. If they are too focused, he said, "you may not have the depth that you need". On the other hand, "if they are too broad it may go on for much too much time and cost a lot of money. You have got to get that balance."

Griffin said that, theoretically, the inquiry could proceed in parallel with any criminal investigation by the police, but that there could be difficulties in practice. "There may be difficulties if you have an inquiry that is looking into exactly the same thing a criminal investigation is looking into because the inquiry is not going to want to do anything that is going to prejudice that criminal investigation."

https://nuk-tnl-deck-prod-static.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/fac7fead96dafceaf80c1daffeae82a4.html

Saturday, 17 June 2017

Quoted in The Times - 17 June 2017 - Grenfell Tower: public inquiry is not the answer, warns lawyer

Grenfell Tower: public inquiry is not the answer, warns lawyer

Protesters in Regent Street, London, demand justice for the victims of the Grenfell Tower fireCARL COURT/GETTY IMAGES

The public inquiry established by Theresa May may not be the best way to establish what went wrong at Grenfell Tower, a lawyer has said.

Holding conventional inquests into the deaths could give victims’ families a greater role and ensure that an independent coroner — not the government — is in charge, said Sophie Khan, who acted for some of those affected by the Lakanal House fire in Camberwell, south London, in 2009, in which six people died. There are also fears that a public inquiry could run for years and potentially be inconclusive.

The prime minister announced that she would order a judge-led inquiry to ensure the events at the 24-storey block were “properly investigated”. MPs welcomed the statement but lawyers pointed to past public inquiries into the Iraq War and Bloody Sunday shootings, which dragged on for years before reporting. Lawyers who have acted for those involved in similar incidents have been particularly sceptical.

“We have had these before,” said Ms Khan. “I am concerned why she [Mrs May] has come out so quickly to say public inquiry. Nothing will happen because the government will set the terms, the government will decide when to hold it, the government will decide what documents will be there, the government will decide when the outcome will be.”

She warned that families could be excluded from participating. “They are trying to curtail their rights,” she said. “By saying they will have a public inquiry they will cut them out totally of the investigation process.”

Ms Khan said that in conventional inquests, “families can participate, can cross-examine the witnesses, make submissions, put questions to the coroner”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/grenfell-tower-public-inquiry-is-not-answer-warns-lawyer-7qmxfrk5m

Quoted in The Independent - 16 June 2017 - Grenfell Tower fire: Thousands demand Theresa May hold inquest instead of inquiry amid 'whitewash' fears

Grenfell Tower fire: Thousands demand Theresa May hold inquest instead of inquiry amid 'whitewash' fears

'The decision ensures the Government has control over any uncomfortable revelations'

Concerns have been raised that a public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire could potentially be a “whitewash” as it will be Government-led and as such will not have the independence of an inquest.

More than 50,000 people have signed a petition calling for an inquest to be held instead of a public inquiry, which Prime Minister Theresa May announced on Thursday.

The solicitor who represented bereaved relatives in the inquests following the Lakanal House fire said she believed the sudden decision to call a public inquiry was a deliberate attempt to avoid close scrutiny of the various public bodies involved in the running and maintenance of Grenfell Tower.

Sophie Khan told the BBC’s Newsnight: “In an inquest, they lose control of what a jury verdict will do. The juries will come out with narrative verdicts which may be very difficult for the Government to hear.

“You can’t have both, you can only have one or the other.”

An inquest into the death would almost certainly have been jury-led because of the possible involvement of public bodies in the deaths, and guided by a coroner who acts independently of the Government. But inquests do not go ahead once a public inquiry has been announced.

The petition on change.org states: “Theresa May’s decision to carry out a public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy ensures that the Government has control over any uncomfortable revelations about the negligence and poor planning of the Grenfell estate by the Tory-run Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

“Bu choosing a PUBLIC INQUIRY the government protects itself as well as those who should be held accountable. It also blocks any possibility of an INQUEST from taking place: the necessary process would unearth the true causes of the fire for the public interest.”

Started by Andrew Gow, the petition urges signees to: “Prevent the Government from whitewashing the truth and keeping the UK’s planning and regulation laws in the dark ages any longer. Stand with the residents of Grenfell as well as the residents of the UK’s 4,000 other tower blocks and make sure this does not happen again.”

In a public inquiry, surviving residents of the fire and bereaved families will not have the right to participate and ask questions.

In an inquest, they would be able to question the coroner and witnesses and even to call their own expert witnesses with agreement. An inquest is not a trial, although criminal proceedings can result from their findings and from the findings of public inquiries.

Multiple private and public organisations will be probed at the inquiry, with the question as to how the fire was able to engulf the entire tower so quickly at the forefront of people’s minds.

With the death toll almost certain to rise above the figure of 30 already confirmed, the instruction given to residents to remain in their flats will be examined.

Former housing ministers are likely to come under scrutiny after it emerged reports recommending the installation of sprinklers into tower blocks were sat on. Kensington and Chelsea council, which owned the 24-story building, will be one of the public bodies with questions to answer, as will the company KCTMO, which managed the tower on the council’s behalf.

And private companies, including the building companies and sub-contractors who carried out recent renovations to the tower, and the manufacturer of the cladding suspected of having caused the rapid spread of the fire, will also be under investigation.

London Fire Brigade will also have to explain its actions after residents were instructed to remain in their flats after the blaze broke out in the early hours of the morning.

The public inquiry was announced amid growing public anger after the initial shock of the fire. A police-led investigation into the fire is currently ongoing and it is likely to be some time until the inquiry takes place.

Ms May said: “Right now people want answers, and it’s absolutely right, and that’s why I am today ordering a full public inquiry into this disaster. We need to know what happened; we need to have an explanation of this, we owe that to the families. To the people who have lost loved ones, friends, and the homes in which they lived.”

An inquest was carried out into the six deaths in the 2009 Lakanal House fire in Southwark, but the recommendations of the coroner - including the installation of sprinklers - were not acted on by a majority of councils, including Kensington and Chelsea. Southwark Council was subsequently taken to court for being in breach of safety regulations by the London Fire Brigade and fined £570,000.