COMMENTARY

The pictures were unbearable. To wake yesterday to the horrific news of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, to hear eyewitness reports of children trapped in blazing flats and mothers waiting for a rescue that never came, brought back appalling memories for me.

This disaster has parallels with an earlier fatal fire in a block of flats where six people, including two small children and a baby, lost their lives, at Lakanal house in Camberwell, south London, on July 3, 2009.

I was the solicitor for the bereaved families and at the inquest I saw the immeasurable pain and grief on their faces as the details of the deaths were read out. Some things are too dreadful to be forgotten.

Yesterday’s news reports made me distressed and angry that apparently nothing has been learnt from Lakanal house. The only consolation for those families, mourning the loss of their loved ones, was that their deaths might at least ensure that such a fire could never happen again.

Instead, it seems many of the same mistakes have been repeated, and more have died in similar, unimaginable conditions.

For me, it is deeply frustrating. As a campaigning human rights lawyer, I want to help prevent future disasters. If the recommendations of the inquest had been implemented and if the Lakanal house fire had been taken seriously enough, this new tragedy should have been prevented.

Until yesterday, the Lakanal house blaze was the country’s worst tower block fire. It began with a fault in a TV on the ninth floor and spread in minutes throughout the maisonettes, which had been built in 1958.

Six people had followed the advice to remain in their homes on the 11th floor. They were Dayana Francisquini, 26, and her children Thais and Felipe, aged six and three; helen Udoaka, 34, and her threeweek-old baby Michelle; and designer Catherine hickman, 31.

Within an hour and a half, all of them were dead. At one point during the ten-week hearing, we heard a transcript of the 999 call made by Catherine. For more than 40 minutes she was on the line with the operator, becoming increasingly agitated as choking smoke filled her apartment.

Herlast words described how the flames were at her door, and that something had fallen on her. Meanwhile, Dayana and helen were seen frantically waving at their windows, while their husbands were below. They then retreated with their children to huddle in a bathroom where they died of smoke inhalation.

All the women had been urged to stay where they were, in accordance with the ‘stay put’ policy. The theory is that tower block apartments are constructed as selfcontained units, sealed off by fire-resistant materials, and that a blaze in one should not spread easily to the others. It is called ‘compartmentalisation’.

residents who stay calm and keep their doors tightly shut ought to be able to rely on rescue within the hour. But if the firewalls do not hold, that ‘stay put’ advice can become a death sentence.

Both yesterday and in 2009, some people survived because they ignored the rules and fled. But in both cases, that was a difficult, dangerous undertaking, and may have been impossible for other residents. At Grenfell Tower, the single fire escape reportedly became blocked. At Lakanal house, there was no proper fire escape.

In both cases, there had been recent renovations. It is too early to say whether lack of fireproofing in the refurbishment at Grenfell Tower contributed to the tragedy, but this possibility will have to be investigated.

At Lakanal house, the compartmentalisation was fatally breached by sub-standard building works and materials during the renovation. Suspended ceilings had been constructed, creating tunnels along which the flames could rush.

Those carrying out the renovations are