by Sailesh Mehta
FROM LAW TO POLICY AND SAFETY, INQUIRY WILL HAVE LESSONS FOR ALL
The Government has acted surprisingly quickly in announcing a full Public Inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower in London. There was no other political option available: as the death toll mounts and local anger and public disquiet threaten to further damage a weakened Government. An apology (made in Parliament on Wednesday) and an Inquiry were necessary.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick has been appointed Chair of the Inquiry. The appointment has led to a chorus of disapproval. Partly because he fits the “jobs for the boys” mould of upper middle class, public school and Oxbridge educated white Anglo-Saxon male. And partly because the Government has suggested there would be consultation with the community before appointment – there was none. David Lammy MP has suggested that a Judge who has lived in a block of flats would be a better appointment – unfortunately, one would have to look far and wide to find a senior Judge (or even an MP) who meets that criteria. What Sir Martin brings is gravitas, experience, a proven ability to handle vast amounts of data and deal with complex areas of law.
What is more important than the appointment of the Chair is the Panel of Experts to assist Sir Martin. This Panel should be diverse in their expertise and their cultural backgrounds, to win back support of the local community. The Terms of Reference are also of crucial importance in winning back public support for the Inquiry. If the Terms are too narrow (as currently feared by advisers to the Grenfell families) then again there will a huge loss of support and confidence in the process, and the Inquiry will lose its potency.
The Saville Inquiry (into the Bloody Sunday massacre), the Scarman Inquiry (into the state of policing after the Brixton Riots) the MacPherson Inquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s murder) and the Chilcott Inquiry (into the invasion of Iraq) all took many years to report. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry will have to report within a very short time span – the grieving families need to have closure quickly and the public will insist that lessons learnt are immediately implemented to avoid another inferno. There could be a time clause introduced within the terms of reference to ensure that the Inquiry works quickly and efficiently.
Already, the lawyers are gathering. Most are well-intentioned and are providing much needed free advice to grieving families and residents on subjects as diverse as housing, benefits and immigration law.
All Governments would rather that lawyers did not exist – even liberal States have corners they would prefer to remain unlit by the harsh light of fearless inquiry. Public funding will ensure the families of the deceased will have a voice in the Inquiry through legal representation. However, the number of
lawyers in a room is inversely proportional to the speed of the clock, so the Chairman will impose tight deadlines on disclosure and cross-examination.
There will be three key areas of interest: the cause of the fire, lessons learnt and recommendations for the future, which may include suggestions about law reform and more “hands on” regulation. The role of the local authority, particularly its buildings regulations department, the supplier and fitters of the lethal cladding, the management committee for the building, the fire advisors, particularly those that carried out a fire risk assessment and devised the “stay put in case of fire” policy – all will come under scrutiny. The role of the fire brigade’s regulation of the building could also come under scrutiny. The Inquiry is likely to hear from experts in fire law as well as building regulations experts. A number of race groups are already asking why so many BME residents seem to be housed on the upper (and more dangerous) floors. Once the Report is produced, a yearly “audit” would ensure implementation.
The Metropolitan Police has begun a criminal investigation into the fire. “Corporate manslaughter” and similar allegations have been widely aired by politicians. This is a horrendously difficult area of law and the burden of proving it is (rightly) very heavy. As a result, such allegations are rarely prosecuted and often result in acquittal after trial. Mrs. May has said “for any guilty parties, there will be nowhere to hide”. That is as it should be, but politicians of all hues should be slow to raise expectations that cannot be met, and only have the effect of pressuring investigators into rash judgments.
Other bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, and the Fire Brigade will be carrying out their own investigations. Often, they wait their turn after the Police investigation is near completion. However, in this case, there is a good argument for a joint investigation to speed up the process. These bodies will investigate a wider range of organisations and will have a greater range of offences to investigate. Typically, such investigations can take 12 months or more before a decision is made about whom to prosecute.
The problem of fire safety in high-rise accommodation is of international concern and many countries around the world will be watching developments anxiously. Over the last 50 years, as the poor have moved into cities looking for employment, the high rise block has been the cheap solution for most cities’ housing problems. Already, vulnerable and poor people crammed in badly-built flats from Mumbai to Beijing to Rio are asking their local representatives questions about fire safety. They will be watching what happens in the UK with keen interest.
Sailesh Mehta is a Barrister at Red Lion Chambers. He heads the Fire Law Group and regularly prosecutes and defends in serious fire cases involving fatality.
The next steps after the tragic events at Grenfell Tower