Bringing justice to the victims of the Grenfell Fire: inquest or inquiry?
As the burnt shell of Grenfell Tower looms over West London. Megan Bente Bishop explores whether a public inquiry, or an inquest, is the best way to ensure justice is granted for those who lost their homes, loved ones, and lives in the blaze.
UK Politics
By Megan Bente Bishop
______________________
One month ago, the whole of the United Kingdom watched in horror as firefighters desperately tried to combat the towering inferno in West London which has so far claimed the lives of around 80 people. Almost immediately, Prime Minister Theresa May called for a public inquiry in to how such a catastrophe could have occurred, with responses to the disaster waiting on the inquiry to move forward. Although launching a public inquiry appears as a step in the right direction in securing justice for those involved, the launch has been widely criticised, advising that an inquest may be more suited, giving the government less control over the terms of the investigations. Normally with an unexpected or unexplained death, an inquest is held, but a public inquiry of this scale will supersede them.
Inquests are held to determine the cause of an unexpected or unexplained death, conducted by the coroner and held in public with a jury. Typically, an inquest is only used to observe how and when an individual died and therefore cannot be used alone to determine responsibility over the death. Inquests can however be expanded if Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the right to life, is invoked. Part of the duty of the state is to protect life. Article 2 inquests are held to investigate whether the state or a public body may have played a part in the death of a person, or failed to protect a life when it knew, or should have known, a risk to the life of that individual. This could be of use for those who lost their lives in the blaze last month, with many arguing that the Government ultimately failed to provide residents with affordable but safe housing, resulting in their death.
It is this which has been suggested by many, including Sophie Khan, who represented the families of the six people that were killed in the Lakanal house fire in 2009. She told Newsnight two days after the fire that during an inquest, the Government would be subject to much more scrutiny, like we have recently seen in the Hillsborough inquest which came to an end last year. Khan suggested that she was concerned over how quickly Prime Minister Theresa May called for the inquiry, suggesting she could be hiding something. In response to these comments, a petition for a fully transparent investigation has reached over 160,000 supporters online. However, we can also see lessons learned from the inquests in to the deaths caused by the Lakanal House fire. Inquests hold little legal clout. Following the 2013 Lakanal House inquests, the coroner requested a stricter maintenance of building standards and a revision of the ‘stay put’ procedure in the event of a fire. This was not followed up by ministers, almost leaving history to repeat itself on a larger scale this summer.
A public inquiry on the other hand, is better placed to hold individuals or organisations to account and deal with the systemic issues that have contributed to a still rising death toll. Although a public inquiry does not involve a jury, an inquiry can still be independent from the government. Chaired by a Senior Judge, in this instance Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the Grenfell Tower inquiry is likely to be established under the inquiries act, which means Sir Moore-Bick will have statutory powers to summon witnesses, compel them to give evidence on oath and produce evidence. This strengthens the power of the investigation, the Counsel to the Inquiry can put detailed questions to witnesses, both on behalf of the inquiry and at the request of key interested parties.
Despite criticisms of an inquiry lacking independence, there are examples of successful, independent inquiries in the past, for example the ‘Mid Staffs’ inquiry which studied poor care resulting in needless deaths of patients under the NHS Foundation Trust in Mid Staffordshire. Chairman Robert Francis QC dutifully heard testimony from swathes of witnesses, determining that the harsh target culture in the NHS was responsible for the deaths of between 400 and 1200 patients. Mr Francis concluded the inquiry with recommendations that included increased accountability for hospital managers and senior NHS officials. The inquiry was run on a tight timetable and supplying many important recommendations which were taken on board by the government shows that an inquiry can be run effectively, which provides a model for the ongoing Grenfell Tower inquiry.
A final benefit of running a public inquiry is that it may run alongside any criminal investigations of prosecutions which may be ongoing, although it must be mindful of them as to not influence the outcome. An inquest on the other hand, would not be held until the completion of a criminal investigation. This suggests that a public inquiry could be faster in the long run in bringing justice to those who lost everything in the disaster.
Although an inquiry can hold groups or individuals to account, like an inquest, it holds no concrete legal force. To see a success like that of the ‘Mid Staffs’ inquiry, it is critical that the investigations in to the Grenfell catastrophe have the right chair. Sir Moore-Bick must work delicately and sympathetically with those who have been affected by the awful events of last month, as well as keeping with a rigorous timetable and dealing with the legal proceedings.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Many will support the ongoing inquiry into the Grenfell disaster whilst others will support an inquest instead. Although the fears of an inquiry having a bias in favour of the government are justified, successful management can result in inquiries promoting change, holding people and organisations to account in a way that an inquest cannot. By proceeding with the public inquiry, with careful monitoring we can be certain the same awful events do not happen again.
