Grenfell judge jeered as families’ anger boils over at inquiry opener
THE retired High Court judge leading the Grenfell Tower inquiry left the first hearing to boos and jeers after he refused a request to be heard by the QC acting on behalf of the survivors and their families.
The inquiry has had a rocky road since Sir Martin Moore-bick was appointed by Theresa May at the end of June, and any cautious optimism that had emerged in recent weeks since the terms of the investigation were announced seemed to disappear as he left the room, with families describing his failure to listen as “disrespectful”.
During his opening Sir Martin described the Grenfell Tower inferno, in which at least 80 people died, as a “tragedy unprecedented in modern times”.
He told the packed hearing: “The inquiry cannot undo any of that, but it can and will provide answers to the pressing questions of how a disaster of this kind could occur in 21st-century London and thereby, I hope, provide a small measure of solace.”
He recognised that residents of Grenfell wanted him to appoint a member of their community as one of the assessors who will give him expert advice, but refused their request as it “would risk undermining my impartiality in the eyes of others”.
“We are all searching after the truth about the cause of the fire and the massive loss of life that it caused and we owe it to those who died, and to those whose homes have been destroyed, to work together to achieve that goal,” he concluded.
But as he stood to leave the Edinburgh Suite of the Grand Connaught Rooms in central London – a room with 16 chandeliers that could not be farther from the tower block on the Lancaster West estate – Michael Mansfield QC, the families’ representative, also got to his feet.
“I would like to make a request on behalf of the families,” the human rights lawyer said, as Sir Martin left the room and shut the door behind him to boos and jeers of “hello”, “rubbish” and “disgraceful”.
Mr Mansfield said that he wanted to raise with the judge the need for another hearing in which the families are legally represented, and to discuss their wish for him to appoint a panel to sit alongside him.
He revealed that he had written to Sir Martin requesting such a panel and the judge had told him he was “considering” it, but no mention was made of it during the opening.
Karim Mussilhy, 31, whose uncle Hesham Rahman died in the blaze, said that he felt it was “disrespectful” to survivors.
He said: “It was quite upsetting that Sir Martin comes down, gives a speech, someone then tried to make a request on behalf of the families and that wasn’t even listened to. It would take two seconds of his time.
“It would have made a massive dif-
‘It would have made a massive difference if he had listened, not walked away’
ference if he had listened, not walked away as he was making that request. There is so much lack of confidence in the whole Grenfell Tower thing… that is a small thing you can do to make us feel like we are being listened to. We were not listened to before and it feels like it is happening again.
“It is our inquiry, not theirs. We are the ones who have lost family, homes, everything.”
Sir Martin said that he would split the inquiry into two phases, with the first examining how the fire spread and the response of the emergency services, to start taking evidence by the end of the year.
The second part of the inquiry will look at the design and refurbishment of the building, the response to the warnings from residents that it was a fire hazard, building regulations and the “factors or motives” that led to the choice of Aluminium Composite Material panels and the combustible insulation.
The judge has received more than 300 applications from people or groups wishing to be core participants to the inquiry, allowing them to be legally represented at the hearings.
However, Sir Martin said that those wishing to question any witnesses would have to apply in advance and it would be up to his discretion whether the request would be granted.
Mr Mussilhy said that the fact that people would be given a chance to give evidence but potentially not be able to cross-examine witnesses meant “it feels like they only want to listen when it suits them, when it benefits them”.