Companies are ‘sabotaging’ Grenfell inquiry
Hearing put on hold for several weeks as chairman backs request to prevent firms self-incriminating
THE head of the Grenfell Tower inquiry has asked the Attorney General to guarantee that the contractors behind the botched refurbishment will not face prosecution over their evidence.
Sir Martin Moore-bick was forced to accept the demands of several companies and individuals who last week threatened to stay silent under questioning by claiming “privilege against self-incrimination”.
Their application came just days before oral evidence was due to begin, and prompted fury among those affected by the tragedy, who claimed it was an attempt at “sabotage”.
Yesterday, Sir Martin said his investigation into how and why dangerous material came to be installed on the block would be compromised if witnesses were not properly questioned.
The inquiry has already concluded elements of the refurbishment did not comply with building regulations and the outer cladding fuelled the inferno.
His decision to write to the Attorney General means the inquiry has been effectively derailed until a response is received, with hearings now postponed for several weeks.
In a 12-page ruling, the retired Court of Appeal judge insisted this would not amount to immunity from future prosecution, and that answers given by one witness could be used “in furtherance of proceedings against another”.
He requested that oral evidence provided by an individual or “legal person”, such as someone speaking on behalf of a company, could not be used in criminal proceedings against them or to decide “whether to bring such proceedings”.
His ruling concluded: “Without an undertaking of the kind described above, it is very likely that witnesses who were involved in the procurement and design of the refurbishment, the choice of materials and the execution of the work will claim privilege against self-incrimination, or, if they do not, that they will be considerably less candid than would otherwise have been the case as a result of trying to avoid saying anything that might harm their position in the future.”
Lord Porter, building safety spokesman for the Local Government Association, said he was “extremely concerned” at the move and urged the Attorney General to “ensure the truth comes out”.
He said: “We are concerned that either granting this request or, if it is denied, any subsequent refusal by witnesses to answer the Inquiry’s questions, will frustrate justice and hamper attempts to learn the lessons of Grenfell – lessons which are all the more urgent given the large number of buildings still covered in dangerous cladding and the subsequent blanket of fear that remains imposed on those who live in them.”
The latest setback comes barely a week after the inquiry’s top lawyer made a call for greater transparency from the organisations linked to Grenfell’s doomed refurbishment.
Richard Millett QC made the appeal as he accused corporate core participants of displaying “no trace of any acceptance of responsibility” for the disaster, which left 72 people dead in June 2017.
Days later, it emerged an application regarding self-incrimination had been spearheaded by four officials from Rydon, the contractor, along with the tenant management organisation, the architects, the cladding subcontractor and two further specialists. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, witnesses can refuse to provide evidence if it could incriminate themselves.
Michael Mansfield QC, representing one group of survivors and bereaved families, described the move as “abhorrent”.