Grenfell Inquiry delayed by ‘immunity’ bid from corporate witnesses

Crimes against health and safety at work are punishable by up to two years in prison, but in the application the companies’ lawyers noted that a manslaughter charge could lead to a life sentence.

During Monday’s evidence session, Stephanie Barwise, who represents the larger of the two groups of victims affected by the disaster, said her clients had expressed “utter outrage” at the timing of the application.

“Our clients are profoundly upset and angry that the application is being made at all in circumstances where hitherto these participants have all claimed to be being co-operative, and therefore should not at this very late stage be seeking to protect themselves,” she said.

“The very fact of their application perhaps explains why the position and witness statements say so very little and do not truly engage with the real issues with which this inquiry is concerned.”

She also pointed out that firefighters involved in tackling the blaze in June 2017 were just as much at risk of future prosecution but had agreed to give evidence.

“The timing of this application appears disingenuous and an attempt at sabotage,” she added.

But Jonathan Laidlaw, the lawyer representing Harley Facades, said clarifying the legal position of witnesses would actually help the inquiry’s progress.

“We would suggest that the conclusion you should be driven to is in fact that the best interests of the public inquiry, and therefore of the public interest, lie in the mechanism of the undertaking of the sort we invite you to consider,” he said.

He added: “It is the undertaking which is most likely to lead to full and frank answers that the inquiry, through its counsel, have called for.”

Closing the session yesterday, Richard Millett, who is the leading counsel for the Grenfell Inquiry team, said he and his colleagues were “surprised and dismayed” by the timing of the request for the undertaking by the witnesses.

However, he argued that the purpose of the inquiry was to find out exactly what happened during the Grenfell Tower fire and that without the application being submitted the inquiry would not get the truth and have only a partial picture.

He concluded: “When you balance the factors in favour of seeking the undertaking with the factors against doing so and the answers to those factors, counsel to the inquiry’s submission is that the scales come down in favour of seeking the former in the public interest.”

He urged Sir Martin to impress the urgency of the request on the attorney general and try and ensure that the inquiry could resume as soon as possible to undo the “derailing” impact of the application.