Grenfell Tower: A long wait for justice as Inquiry into tragedy prepares for Phase Two

Jennifer Sadler-Venis

This is expected to be a long process, and the survivors and bereaved face a significant wait until any parties might be held accountable for the disaster. On 6 March 2019, the Metropolitan Police announced that their investigation would not be completed until the Inquiry’s conclusion. As such, if they do press charges, this won’t be until 2021.

Bill Kritharas, Health and Safety Officer of the IBA Environment, Health and Safety Law Committee and partner at Sparke Helmore Lawyers, acknowledges the strain this places on the bereaved, residents and survivors: ‘When an incident involves a human tragedy of this magnitude, it would be heartbreaking to hear that the investigation and any enforcement action will be delayed for possibly a number of years.’

‘However, correctly identifying the causes of this incident and making sure that correct recommendations are made and implemented, to ensure that a similar incident does not occur again, is of paramount importance,’ he says.

Phase One sought to establish exactly what happened on 14 June 2017. According to the December 2018 statement from Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the Inquiry Chairman, ‘[t]here are currently a total of 598 core participants, of whom 568 are individuals, 10 are government or institution bodies of one kind or another, and 20 are commercial bodies.’

The first Phase was, therefore, an opportunity for those affected to tell their stories, as well as for firefighters and expert witnesses to contribute to the discussion of the disaster.

The Inquiry will now examine this evidence and produce a report describing what happened on the night of the fire. The report is expected in late Spring 2019, and Moore-Bick hopes to ‘consider some recommendations in the light of the findings in the Phase 1 report.’

At the time Phase One closed in December, the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (the ‘Regulations’) came into force. The Regulations, known colloquially as the ‘cladding ban’, apply to the external walls of certain non-commercial buildings of at least 18 metres above ground. Materials used in the construction or refurbishment of these walls must be of European Classification A2-s1, d0 or A1 – that is, of limited or no combustibility. Under the Regulations, the materials used in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower – aluminum panels containing a plastic filling – are banned for such buildings.

However, the Fire Brigades Union argues that the ban does not go far enough. Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the FBU, said: ‘These measures do not deal with the existing cladding on nearly 500 buildings across England where people live and work every day. The government’s proposals only apply to buildings over 18 metres high, plus hospitals, care homes and student accommodation – when they should apply to all buildings, whatever their height or use.’ Wrack argues that the Regulations should allow only the highest A1 standard to be used, rather than continuing to permit A2 materials.

As far as Wrack is concerned, ‘[t]his announcement is designed for political convenience, not for thoroughgoing change. The failings in the fire safety regime are far wider than just the materials used. The whole deregulated system and weak guidance needs to be overhauled.’

UK Communities Secretary James Brokenshire has given government backing for councils to replace cladding panels similar to Grenfell’s, providing a £400m fund for this work. Refurbishment work is underway or complete at 79 per cent of social housing blocks, but 154 private residential blocks remain untouched.

The UK Cladding Action Group said government support amounts to ‘completely hollow words’. Councils are only able to take over in 10-20 per cent of cases, where certain strict criteria is met. Otherwise, private owners can place the burden of refurbishment costs on the leaseholders, and renters in Manchester for instance have received individual bills of up to £27,000.

Recommendations leading to real change in legislation, policies and processes are more likely to follow Phase Two of the Inquiry. Moore-Bick has described how the second phase will examine the regulatory framework and ‘the role of the relevant authorities in relation to it, as well as the response of various organs of central and local government to the disaster’.

Although the Inquiry will be looking to ascertain accountability, for many the blame game has been ongoing since the tragedy occurred. The London Fire Brigade, for example, has faced scrutiny. Meanwhile, Behailu Kebede, the owner of the flat the fire started in, has been a media scapegoat, according to Rajiv Menon QC, who represented Kebede at the hearings.

At one hearing, Menon told the Inquiry that ‘Kebede was subjected to a campaign of what can only be described as harassment by sections of the media’.

Discussing the wait for accountability, Kritharas says ‘Grenfell appears to be a very complex case involving many companies and thousands of pieces of evidence and witnesses. Inevitably an investigation of this nature takes a significant amount of time and resources to get it right and to obtain the admissible evidence required to secure convictions [...] and to make sure it does not happen again.’

Whatever happens next, Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council and the Crown Prosecution Service have signed the Charter for Families Bereaved through Public Tragedy, which means they must ‘avoid seeking to defend the indefensible or to dismiss or disparage those who may have suffered where we have fallen short’.