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”.