header-logo header-logo

Grenfell Inquiry promises preliminary report by Easter 2018

15 September 2017
Categories: Legal News , Public
printer mail-detail

The public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire, chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, has formally opened.

It will examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire on 14 June 2017, establish the facts and make recommendations to prevent a similar tragedy happening again. A preliminary report will be produced by Easter 2018.

Sir Martin will be assisted by deputy High Court judge Richard Millett QC, of Essex Court, as Counsel to the Inquiry. Millett’s role includes presenting evidence and questioning witnesses and providing Sir Martin with legal advice.

Assisting Millett will be Bernard Richmond QC, of Lamb Building, a criminal defence specialist and Assistant Coroner; and Kate Grange QC, of 39 Essex Chambers, who specialises in commercial, construction, public and inquiry law.

The Solicitor to the Inquiry will be Caroline Featherstone, who was a nurse before qualifying as a solicitor in 1998 and is now a Deputy Director in the Government Legal Department. The Secretary to the Inquiry is Mark Fisher, previously Director of the Office for Civil Society and Innovation in the Cabinet Office.  

On the first day, Sir Martin rejected calls for a survivor to be included as one of his team of assessors as that would ‘risk undermining [his] impartiality’.

He was heckled as he left for declining to take a question from Michael Mansfield QC, who is advising some of the locals involved in the inquiry.

It will be up to Sir Martin to decide what documents should be produced and who should give evidence. Former residents of the tower, families of residents and people who live nearby will be invited to take part in the inquiry, and many will have applied for ‘core participant’ status. The government has promised to fund legal representation for participants.

The inquiry’s terms of reference include the scope and adequacy of building and fire regulations, guidance and industry practice relating to high-rise residential buildings, whether these regulations, guidance and practice were complied with, the arrangements made by the local authority and other bodies for receiving and acting upon information from local residents and other sources relating to the risk of fire, and the action taken in response. It will also cover the response of the London Fire Brigade and the response of central and local government in the days following the fire.

Categories: Legal News , Public
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll