Grenfell witnesses threaten to withhold evidence

Witnesses in the Grenfell inquiry who were involved in the tower’s refurbishment have threatened to withhold evidence unless they receive an assurance that their testimony will not be used to mount criminal prosecutions that could land them in jail.

Lawyers for the architects, builders and the client on the works threw the inquiry into confusion on Wednesday when they wrote to its chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, arguing that their clients could claim a privilege against self-incrimination as a reason for not answering questions.

They said they would speak openly only if the attorney general gave an undertaking that nothing they said would be used to further a prosecution against them.

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.

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,” the lawyers said.

There were groans from the bereaved and survivors in the inquiry when the threat emerged, and proceedings were halted for 70 minutes.

“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.”

He said the Grenfell community had been waiting to “get to the point of accountability” and the move had made them feel “almost thwarted at the doors of the court”.

The fire on 14 June 2017 killed 72 people. The public inquiry was set up by Theresa May in its immediate aftermath to get to the truth of what happened and why.

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.

Moore-Bick said the move was “very disappointing”, with cross-examination of witnesses due to begin next week, starting with staff at Studio E.

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.

(June 14, 2017) 

The fire breaks out in the early hours of the morning, prompting a huge response from emergency services, who are unable to bring the fire under control or prevent a severe loss of life.

(June 15, 2017) 

The then Conservative prime minister, Theresa May, visits the scene and orders a full inquiry into the disaster, and the government promises that every family will be rehoused locally.

(June 16, 2017) 

The communities secretary, Sajid Javid, orders an emergency fire safety review of 4,000 tower blocks across Britain, and it will emerge that 120 tower blocks have combustible cladding. Scotland Yard launches a criminal investigation into the Grenfell fire.

(June 18, 2017) 

The chancellor, Philip Hammond, says the cladding used on Grenfell Tower was banned in the UK.

(June 29, 2017) 

The retired judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick is appointed to lead the public inquiry. Kensington and Chelsea council’s first meeting since the disaster is abandoned after the council fails in a bid to ban the media from attending.

(July 4, 2017) 

Survivors have their first official meeting with the police and coroner.

(September 14, 2017) 

The inquiry formally opens.

(November 16, 2017) 

As the final death toll is confirmed to be 71 people, it is revealed that hundreds of households are still living in hotels.

(September 27, 2018) 

In defensive testimony at the inquiry, London fire brigade commissioner Dany Cotton said she would not change anything about the way the brigade responded to the Grenfell disaster, provoking anger from both survivors and the bereaved. 

(March 7, 2019) 

Grenfell survivors and the bereaved expressed frustration at Scotland Yard after they admitted no charges were likely until 2021. 

(October 28, 2019) 

The public inquiry report concludes that fewer people would have died had the fire brigade been better prepared. 

(November 5, 2019) 

Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg is forced to apologise after stating that victims of Grenfell did not use "common sense" and leave the burning building. 

(November 27, 2019) 

Grenfell cladding firm Arconic reveals it has spent £30 million on lawyers and advisors defending their role in the disaster. 

(January 27, 2020) 

The second phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry begins.

Stacee Smith and Grace Mainwaring

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 said it apologised “unreservedly”.

It said it had 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.

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.”

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 that the first phase of the inquiry had 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 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.

It added that it had placed its trust in consultants and experts, and it had been failed by inspectors it had 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 a 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.