Witnesses linked to Grenfell revamp want protection from prosecution, inquiry told

Support us and go ad-free

Witnesses involved in designing and choosing materials for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment are applying to claim “privilege against self-incrimination” to protect themselves from the prospect of prosecution, the inquiry into the disaster has been told.

Groans filled the hearing room as chairman Martin Moore-Bick said on Wednesday that he had been invited to ask Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC for an undertaking that “nothing said by a witness in answers to questions in the inquiry will be used in furtherance of a prosecution against them”.

It would allow them have the “complete freedom to tell the truth without any concern for the future”, he said.

It comes after the inquiry heard that certain key firms which revamped the high-rise block appeared to know two years before the disaster that a planned cladding system would fail if exposed to fire, according to internal emails disclosed on Tuesday.

Scotland Yard said in September that it had completed 17 interviews under caution in its investigation into the fire regarding gross negligence manslaughter, corporate manslaughter and health and safety offences, and said “the number will continue to increase”.

The application was made by counsel for firms including external wall subcontractor Harley Facades, main contractor Rydon, and the TMO (tenant management organisation), he said.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Moore-Bick said the development had caused him a “little surprise” as “hitherto there has been the fullest co-operation with the inquiry”.

The retired appeal court judge said: “Very recently I’ve been advised that, when they are called to give evidence, which of course will start next week, many of the witnesses who were involved in the design and choice of materials are likely to claim privilege against self-incrimination as a reason for not answering questions.

“Privilege against self-incrimination is a rule of law that protects a person from being required to answer questions if to do so truthfully might expose him or her to a risk of prosecution.

“It is a very broad principle and will extend to any answers which might assist in, or lead to, a prosecution.

“This development has caused me a little surprise because hitherto there has been the fullest co-operation with the inquiry, both in the form of giving written statements and in the provision of documents, and no-one so far has sought to avoid doing that or to answer any of our questions on those grounds.

“At all events, an application was made last night by a number of counsel for various core participants, including, among others, Harley, certain employees or ex-employees of Rydon, and the TMO, as well as some others.

“What they’re asking me to do is to apply to the Attorney General for an undertaking that nothing said by a witness in answers to questions in the inquiry will be used in furtherance of a prosecution against them, thereby giving them complete freedom to tell the truth without any concern for the future.”

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. Standard practice if they want the fullest disclosure. The alternative is for people to decline to answer important questions, because everyone has a right to remain silent under the law. This should have been anticipated, and I am surprised it wasn’t. The difficulty involves striking a balance between getting to the root cause of the tragedy, and exacting vengeance on those responsible.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.