Grenfell Inquiry day two: lawyers for the survivors make their case

Day two
Arguments began in earnest today at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, as lawyers representing survivors of the fire and bereaved families made their opening statements.
Danny Friedman QC set the tone by telling the judge, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, that his clients had come to the inquiry today “in a calm rage”.
He went on to criticise the stay put policy, citing the expert report provided to the inquiry yesterday by Dr Barbara Lane, which said the policy failed at 1.26am, nearly an hour and a half before residents were eventually told to leave.
Mr Friedman said: “You are going to hear from many of the people who escaped from floors 13 downwards, mostly because they left early despite the stay put advice and told others to do the same, but others because of extraordinary fortune as well as bravery on their part and on the part of firefighters.”
Another lawyer representing the survivors, Pete Weatherby QC, returned to this topic later, pointing out that even by 1.08am one firefighter indicated that Grenfell residents on level 5, the floor above where the fire started, were reporting that their flat was on fire. Mr Weatherby said this showed “an unequivocal compartmentation breach”.
Today’s statements also included significant revelations about the checks on fire safety of the tower during the refurbishment between 2012 and 2016.
Lawyer Sam Stein QC revealed that Exova Warrington was the fire consultant on the refurbishment.
This is especially striking as Sir Ken Knight, the chair of the government’s fire safety advisory panel, was at the time of the refurbishment chair of the impartiality committee at Warrington Certification, part of Exova.
Towards the end of the day, lawyer Imran Khan QC urged Sir Martin to consider the extent of which race played a role in the disaster, pointing out the disproportionate representation of black and minority ethnic residents in tower blocks.
He added: “In short, the question that we might want to ask and have answered is whether RBKC [the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea] and TMO and its associates were guilty of institutional racism.”