You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Grenfell Inquiry delayed further as chair recommends ‘self-incrimination’ plea be granted
The chair of the Grenfell Inquiry has written to the attorney general to recommend that an undertaking which would ensure that evidence given by corporate witnesses cannot be used in any future criminal proceedings is taken forward.
The inquiry team confirmed today that hearings would be delayed until at least 24 February while the attorney general Geoffrey Cox takes his decision on whether to grant the undertaking.
The decision comes after a last-minute legal bid was submitted to the inquiry team last Wednesday by core participants asking for guarantees that evidence given in the inquiry could not be used in future criminal proceedings.
Without it, some of the witnesses threatened to stay silent by claiming the legal right of privilege against self-incrimination.
On Tuesday, the inquiry team wrote to participants informing them that there will be no further hearings this week while inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick and panel member Thouria Istephan consider the legal application.
In his submission today, Sir Martin said that it would not be possible for the inquiry to properly fulfil its terms of reference if witnesses did not have an assurance that the answers they give to questions will not be used in furtherance of criminal proceedings against them.
READ MORE
He wrote: “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.”
Sir Martin recommended in his letter that the undertaking should be limited only to the oral answers a witness gives during the inquiry, and should not cover any documents or statements that have already been provided to the inquiry.
He suggested that it applies to both natural and legal persons, meaning some companies may be covered.
At this stage it will apply to only the first three modules of the inquiry, but the inquiry team will reserve the right to approach the attorney general with a similar request for other modules.
In a session earlier this week, lawyers representing the survivors and the bereaved voiced their opposition to the granting of the undertaking.
Stephanie Barwise QC, who represents the larger of the two groups of victims affected by the disaster, said that the application amounted to “sabotage” and that her clients were utterly “outraged” at the timing of the application.
Richard Millett QC, who is the leading counsel for the Grenfell Inquiry team, recommended Sir Martin back the application. Mr Millett argued that the purpose of the inquiry was to find out exactly what happened during the fire and that without the application being submitted the inquiry would not get the truth and would have only a partial picture.
The decision on whether to take forward the undertaking and the terms of which any undertaking is implemented will now be made by the attorney general.
In his letter, Sir Martin stressed that the undertaking did not grant anyone “immunity from prosecution”, did not apply to statements or documents already given, and did not prevent prosecuting authorities from making use of answers given by one witness in furtherance of proceedings against another.
He finished the letter by impressing the “urgency of the matter” for the attorney general, saying it is in the public interest that the work of the inquiry is not delayed longer than necessary.
