Early procedural hearing establishing inquiry processes, core participant representation, disclosure protocols, and Phase 1 hearing schedule. Sets framework for how the inquiry will operate and who will participate.
00:00:11 good morning everyone and welcome to this procedural hearing let me begin by apologizing to the lawyers present for
00:00:22 apologizing to the lawyers present for the limited space available I'm afraid that as on the previous occasion we thought it very important that we should have as much space available for members of the public but particularly your clients to ensure that
00:00:34 particularly your clients to ensure that they could actually be present in the room during the course of this hearing thank you all for your submissions which I have read and found very helpful I'm
00:00:45 I have read and found very helpful I'm particularly grateful to those who represent the bereaved survivors and residents for agreeing who should present which parts of their submissions
00:00:56 present which parts of their submissions and of course I have read and I shall reread all the written submissions which you've sent but it's obviously very helpful to have each topic addressed only once one of the things that struck
00:01:11 only once one of the things that struck me is that some of the points that have been raised in the written submissions have been overtaken to various degrees by discussions between the inquiry team and some of you over the last few weeks
00:01:26 and some of you over the last few weeks to that extent I would suggest that there's no need to spend time rehearsing submissions which have now been overtaken the inquiry team has
00:01:37 overtaken the inquiry team has circulated a running order which allocates the time to each body or group of people who wish to address me I'm sure you'll do your best to limit yourselves to the times suggested as
00:01:51 yourselves to the times suggested as I've said I've got the written submissions and I'll be able to look at those again after the hearing and of course there'll be a transcript of this hearing which I can also review and just
00:02:02 hearing which I can also review and just to remind you that as on the previous occasion the proceedings are being recorded they're also being streamed live to other locations for that reason amongst others when you're invited to
00:02:14 amongst others when you're invited to speak I'd be grateful if you come up to the reading desk here it's necessary for you to do that in order to be seen on camera and for you to be recorded
00:02:25 camera and for you to be recorded I say both for the purposes of the streaming and for the purposes of the transcript so we'll adopt the same procedure that we did on the previous occasion which seemed to me to work quite well I hope you felt the same
00:02:37 quite well I hope you felt the same so with those few introductory remarks then going to invite counsel to the inquiry mr. Richard Miller Queen's Counsel to open the proceedings mr.
00:02:56 Counsel to open the proceedings mr. chairman by way of introduction what I'm going to do is to update the core participants or CPS as to the work of the inquiry since the last procedural
00:03:08 the inquiry since the last procedural hearing in mid-december 2017 and to set out the inquiry teams proposals to take us down to the start of the oral hearings for phase one I start with
00:03:23 hearings for phase one I start with representation present today excluding me and the inquiry legal team are some 12 counsel and solicitors teams representing a total of 28 organizations
00:03:37 representing a total of 28 organizations and governmental CPS and 504 cps who are bereaved survivors and residents of Grenfell tower who I shall call BS ARS
00:03:49 Grenfell tower who I shall call BS ARS some CPS are present and have not put in written submissions and who don't wish to address you some CPS are both present and have put in written submissions but
00:04:00 and have put in written submissions but don't wish to address you either at all or at any length some CPS are neither present nor have put in any written submissions that Thames Water is a recently added CP who has put in no
00:04:14 recently added CP who has put in no written submissions but may may wish to address you all CPS have an updated speaking list which is correct as at Friday last as at the December hearing
00:04:27 Friday last as at the December hearing that speaking list is only for this procedural hearing number two and establishes no precedent the reason that we have the Metropolitan Police here as the first seat
00:04:38 the first seat to speak as we also did at the December 2017 hearing is said that they can provide a brief update on the Criminal Investigation the CPS will then speak in
00:04:51 Investigation the CPS will then speak in two successive groups first those representing the be SRS who have agreed to speak in the order g5 g 11 and g3 each having agreed between themselves to
00:05:04 each having agreed between themselves to cover separate topics and second the cps who are organizations or government departments in terms of total numbers of cps in this inquiry those currently with
00:05:17 cps in this inquiry those currently with CP status are 128 cps from bereaved families of the deceased including one who currently has no legal representation 209 cps who were
00:05:32 representation 209 cps who were residents of grenfell tower or visitor's at the time of the fire for CP leaseholders who were not resident at the time of the fire 163 CPS from the
00:05:46 the time of the fire 163 CPS from the walkways and 28 at CPS who are organizations including the TM o the council and the NPS Metropolitan Police Services and various government
00:05:58 Services and various government departments on the 20th of March 2018 the enquiry published a list of CPS with certain exceptions to date the chairman
00:06:11 certain exceptions to date the chairman has granted core participant status to a total of 532 individuals and organizations as I say 504 RB SRS in 28
00:06:24 organizations as I say 504 RB SRS in 28 our organizations or government departments mr. chairman you received some 22 applications from core participants to have their names
00:06:35 participants to have their names withheld from the list for a variety of personal reasons among the 22 CP applicants were 7 course it core core CP CPS who asked to be allowed to remain
00:06:47 CPS who asked to be allowed to remain anonymous
00:06:48 anonymous throughout the inquiries proceedings you granted anonymity three core participants whose names appear in the list as AAA CCC and DDD
00:06:59 appear in the list as AAA CCC and DDD and refused the applications of the other four of the 16 who only asked for their names to be withheld from the list you rejected 12 of their applications
00:07:10 you rejected 12 of their applications and deferred for pending the receipt of further information you have published a ruling setting out the principles which you have applied in making these decisions in addition to the documents
00:07:23 decisions in addition to the documents on the inquiries website all CPP's present here today have the following documents first our counsels statement dated the 12th of February 2018 the
00:07:36 dated the 12th of February 2018 the program and all other CP submissions which were circulated last Friday I propose to do two things mr. chairman first to update the cps
00:07:48 first to update the cps as to the inquiries progress and speed of progress on numerous fronts and second to present and explain the detailed next steps taking us down to
00:07:59 detailed next steps taking us down to the start of the oral hearings for phase one in this opening address I do not propose to provide answers to all the many points made in the various written submissions put in by CPS but will wait
00:08:12 submissions put in by CPS but will wait instead to hear what further points are made to you during this hearing can I start with an update on Assessors first
00:08:24 start with an update on Assessors first tenant voice Assessors in addition to the three Assessors who have been appointed to the inquiry the Chairman is currently considering a number of individuals with relevant expertise and
00:08:36 individuals with relevant expertise and experience in the field of social housing and tenants rights to assist in particular with consideration of the issues from the tenants perspective in relation to item 1e of the inquiries
00:08:50 relation to item 1e of the inquiries terms of reference the chairman has identified a group of potential candidates as tenant voice Assessors and they will be interviewed over the next few weeks from a shortlist
00:09:04 few weeks from a shortlist so far as architect Assessors are concerned the chairman is also considering a number of individuals from the field of architecture to assist with consideration of issues related to items
00:09:17 consideration of issues related to items 1 B 1 C and 1 D of the inquiries terms of reference insofar as they relate to matters of design and the choice of materials for use in high-rise buildings
00:09:30 materials for use in high-rise buildings this Assessor is required for phase 2 and so there is less urgency the inquiry is also looking at retaining an expert architect once these individuals have
00:09:43 architect once these individuals have been appointed CPS will be notified and details will be published on the inquiries website the inquiry continues actively to consider the requirement for further additional or supplemental
00:09:55 further additional or supplemental expertise as the evidential picture develops second position statements from CPS position statements were received
00:10:08 CPS position statements were received from certain cps during the course of february these have now been disclosed to all cps some position statements were provided with supporting documents in some cases redactions have been sought
00:10:20 some cases redactions have been sought to some of those supporting documents the inquiry team has had to consider carefully whether to disclose the documents with the redactions as applied
00:10:31 documents with the redactions as applied by the relevant CP or without the potential redactions or else challenge the claimed redactions and obtained a ruling from you mr. chairman prior to disclosure to CPS generally in the end
00:10:45 disclosure to CPS generally in the end the inquiry has decided to disclose the documents containing the redactions for the time being but will decide upon the appropriateness of the redactions with the relevant CP in slower time we have
00:10:57 the relevant CP in slower time we have also withheld to unredacted documents because redactions to them may be required and we have been chasing a supporting document from our BK c which
00:11:08 supporting document from our BK c which has not yet been provided and we will provide that as soon as we get it third completion of phase one document disclosure
00:11:19 disclosure the process of disclosure to CPS for the phase 1 hearings commenced on the 19th of February and is continuing on a rolling basis to date three tranches of
00:11:33 rolling basis to date three tranches of material have been disclosed to CPS and made available on the electronic workspaces that material includes floor plans photographs and videos including
00:11:45 plans photographs and videos including media taken on the night of the fire it also includes a large amount of forensic material which is relevant to the cause and origin of the fire as we previously
00:11:57 and origin of the fire as we previously explained the phase 1 disclosure will principally consist of primary evidential material relating to the events of the night the vast majority of this has been provided to the inquiry by
00:12:09 this has been provided to the inquiry by the Met although as much of as possible of that primary material will be disclosed in advance of experts reports the process is affected by the MOU or
00:12:21 the process is affected by the MOU or Memorandum of Understanding that the inquiry has with the Met in particular the recording inquiry is required under the MOU to notify the Met of the
00:12:32 the MOU to notify the Met of the intention to disclose that material and then follow the processes outlined in the MOU before disclosure to CPS generally can occur well there the
00:12:43 generally can occur well there the inquiry is making concerted efforts to engage with the Met in an effective and in an efficient way the process is a complex one and can be time-consuming that means that some primary evidential
00:12:56 that means that some primary evidential material will not be disclosed until close to or at the same time as the experts are disclosed at the end of this month we are I should say very grateful to the Met for their great and
00:13:08 to the Met for their great and continuing assistance and their cooperation with the inquiry over the release of phase 1 documentary material for disclosure in addition the inquiry
00:13:20 for disclosure in addition the inquiry will also be disclosing a limited amount of phase 1 material which has come from third party document providers other than the Met this will be relevant for
00:13:31 than the Met this will be relevant for exam
00:13:31 exam to the physical state of the building on the night and includes key drawings and manuals relevant to its operation those who have provided those documents
00:13:43 those who have provided those documents to the inquiry have recently been notified of the inquiries intention to disclose these documents and the redactions protocol that we have is being followed with those providers
00:13:54 being followed with those providers tight timetables are being imposed by the inquiry in that regard at present the inquiry team is not aware of any significant redaction issues
00:14:05 of any significant redaction issues which are likely to arise in respect of this documentation for the avoidance of doubt there is no question of material being held back until disclosure of inquiry experts reports as and when the
00:14:18 inquiry experts reports as and when the inquiry has the relevant permission to disclose the material from the relevant document providers it will be disclosed as soon as possible thereafter in the case of the Met this requires going through the processes as I said
00:14:30 through the processes as I said identified in the MOU which can take additional time looking forward the aim is that by the beginning of April CPS should be in a possession of the vast
00:14:42 should be in a possession of the vast majority of the relevant material for phase one at that stage we intend then to do a reconciliation exercise in particular to check whether there are
00:14:53 particular to check whether there are any categories of further material to which we ought to be alerting CPS in the interests of transparency that will also apply to the expert reports in order to
00:15:04 apply to the expert reports in order to check whether there is any material which was provided to the experts which has not been referred to in their phase 1 reports but which ought to be disclosed to the CPS at this stage that exercise cannot sensibly be carried out
00:15:17 exercise cannot sensibly be carried out until we have finalized the phase 1 experts reports and the associated disclosure which will accompany those reports in terms of the format in which documents are disclosed we have already
00:15:29 documents are disclosed we have already taken steps to ensure that there is a field tree structure on the relativity electronic documents platform for the phase 1 disclosure which gives useful subcategories a letter about the folder
00:15:42 subcategories a letter about the folder structure and field tree including guidance about assessing the field tree will be provided to CPS if any CPS are experiencing difficulty in this regard
00:15:53 experiencing difficulty in this regard then they should contact the inquiry team without delay fourthly phase 2 disclosure the process of gathering and identifying relevant documents for phase
00:16:04 identifying relevant documents for phase 2 is continuing in parallel with the phase 1 disclosure exercise to date approximately 330,000 documents have been received from some 45 providers of
00:16:17 been received from some 45 providers of documents that number is continuing to rise week by week we currently estimate that the inquiry will eventually receive over 400,000 documents out of the 330
00:16:33 over 400,000 documents out of the 330 thousand documents so far received a substantial number of documents are exactly matching duplicates and have been marked as such leaving aside duplicates approximately
00:16:44 leaving aside duplicates approximately 183 thousand documents have now been through the first stage relevance review with some 95,000 left to review the inquiry continues to provide monthly
00:16:55 inquiry continues to provide monthly bulletins to CPS about the disclosure process and those will continue in the February bulletin the enquiry published a list of all document providers who
00:17:06 a list of all document providers who have provided documents to the inquiry at that point we are continuing to identify potentially relevant providers of documents as the inquiries work progresses the March disclosure bulletin
00:17:19 progresses the March disclosure bulletin is in preparation and will be circulated to CPS very shortly our current intention is that phase 2 disclosure should take place on a rolling basis once proper and
00:17:30 rolling basis once proper and proportionate checks have been done for relevance to screen out genuinely duplicate documents we anticipate that a significant volume of documentation will
00:17:41 significant volume of documentation will be disclosed at that stage a number of CPS have to have queried whether the inquiry might be applying a test of relevance which is too restrictive to
00:17:53 relevance which is too restrictive to avoid any doubt about this we've instructed reviewers in our teams to take a broader approach to relevance using the list of issues as a starting point where they
00:18:04 issues as a starting point where they have queries those queries are referred to more senior counsel the reviewers work is then spot-checked by a more senior counsel as a result we are able to say with some confidence
00:18:16 are able to say with some confidence that our approach to relevance is not unduly restrictive we are also retaining all documents on our system say that if an issue arises at a later stage we can
00:18:27 an issue arises at a later stage we can go back and search through any documents which we have previously marked as irrelevant fifthly firefighter statement disclosure as you may be aware mr. chairman the
00:18:41 as you may be aware mr. chairman the process of taking written witness statements from the members of the lfb who attended the fire at grenfell on the night has been undertaken by the Met as part of their criminal investigation the
00:18:54 part of their criminal investigation the met has been disclosing statements to the inquiry pursuant to MoU with them as and when they have been completed and signed that process has been has been
00:19:06 signed that process has been has been ongoing since in numbers since November 2017 as it last Friday the 16th of March the inquiry has received in total some
00:19:18 the inquiry has received in total some 415 statements in all with 45 statements just confirmed this week as having been delivered the inquiry team has been
00:19:29 delivered the inquiry team has been reviewing those witness statements on a rolling basis since they started coming in in November it may help if I explain in detail the process that we have been
00:19:40 in detail the process that we have been undertaking under the MoU with the Met the inquiry cannot disclose any firefighter witness statement to any CP without first notifying the Met and
00:19:53 without first notifying the Met and giving them an opportunity to object on the grounds that such disclosure may prejudice their criminal investigation it became clear early on to the inquiry
00:20:05 it became clear early on to the inquiry that a large number of these statements are potentially relevant and should be disclosed to CPS as the inquiry teams review progressed
00:20:16 as the inquiry teams review progressed we've been able to form an increasingly clear view as to which statements should be disclosed and which need not on the 31st of January to save time we asked
00:20:28 31st of January to save time we asked the Met for permission to effect blanket disclosure to all CPS of all firefighter witness statements on the 9th of February the Met refused our request and said they would only permit disclosure
00:20:39 said they would only permit disclosure to CPS of any given statement after a review of each one by them for potentially prejudicial material that was a process that would clearly take a long time accordingly on the 13th of
00:20:52 long time accordingly on the 13th of February we provided a batch of 23 unquestionably relevant statements to the Met for their specific consideration on the 20th of February the Met accepted that some 16 of these could be disclosed
00:21:03 that some 16 of these could be disclosed without prejudicing the investigation as to the remaining 7 on the 9th of March the Met explained their objections in part by detailed reference to certain highlighted passages in those seven
00:21:15 highlighted passages in those seven statements they maintained their objections to disclosure not only to the highlighted passages but to the whole of each statement they also helpfully indicated however that if the Chairman
00:21:27 indicated however that if the Chairman still considered it appropriate to have these statements disclosed nonetheless notwithstanding their objections than they would respect that decision the chairman after consideration took the
00:21:39 chairman after consideration took the view that it was hard to discern from the Metz letter or the highlighted parts of the statements what the offences might be that were being investigated or why disclosure to the CPS might
00:21:50 why disclosure to the CPS might prejudice the investigation or impede or compromise its integrity accordingly on the 12th of March the Chairman decided that for the purposes of his conduct of this inquiry the disclosure of these
00:22:03 this inquiry the disclosure of these seven firefighter statements would not impede or compromise the Met investigation the firm view of the Chairman and of the inquiry team is that not disclosing these relevant statements
00:22:14 not disclosing these relevant statements would certainly impede the inquiry over and above the initial 23 firefighter statements a further 13 statements were notified to the Met on the 27th of
00:22:26 notified to the Met on the 27th of along the 12th of March a further list of 85 statements was also notified we are aiming to disclose those 121 firefighter statements to CPS via
00:22:39 firefighter statements to CPS via relativity as soon as possible subject only to having the redactions completed by the LF B and checked by us and provided that the met do not raise any tenable objections under the MOU the
00:22:52 tenable objections under the MOU the redactions are to remove sensitive personal information about the firefighters such as personal health issues or private contact details which
00:23:03 issues or private contact details which would be potentially caught by the Data Protection Act the process that we are now adopting doing our best even still to accommodate the Mets concerns is to identify rolling weekly batches of
00:23:15 identify rolling weekly batches of firefighter witness statements to the Met that we wish to disclose to CPS and then the Met has up to 14 days in which to identify any objections to disclosure
00:23:26 to identify any objections to disclosure under paragraph 12 of the MOU following which statements to which there is no tenable objection will then be disclosed we have just this week sent a further
00:23:37 we have just this week sent a further list of 30 further relevant firefighter statements to the Met for disclosure pursuant to the MOU we are continuing to receive firefighter statements from the Met but we think we
00:23:48 statements from the Met but we think we already have a sufficiently significant body or firefighter witness statements to enable us to begin phase one of this inquiry the delay is regrettable but it
00:24:00 inquiry the delay is regrettable but it has arisen out of the inquiries great desire to advance its own work whilst at the same time taking care not to impede or prejudice the Mets separate investigation that has required us to
00:24:12 investigation that has required us to understand in full the basis of the Mets position the putting the firefighter witness evidence into the public domain would or may impede or prejudice its
00:24:23 would or may impede or prejudice its investigation we are now satisfied that on what we know so far it would not do so of course if the Met can identify a tenable objection in relation to a
00:24:34 tenable objection in relation to a particular firefighter statement or part of it then of course we would consider that care
00:24:39 that care as we must the met has also required that the inquiry team carry out the necessary redactions to firefighter witness statements that are to be disclosed there has been much discussion
00:24:51 disclosed there has been much discussion with the met and the lfb about what is to be redacted the met have been concerned understandably that sensitive material should come out or at least that families should be briefed first
00:25:03 that families should be briefed first this was always impracticable the subject matter of this inquiry is itself sensitive and the evidence is in many
00:25:14 sensitive and the evidence is in many instances distressing but it would be a failure of our public duty if the inquiry were to sanitize the evidence accordingly what will we redacted from
00:25:25 accordingly what will we redacted from any relevant firefighter witness statement will only be material that by law must be redacted under the data protection act the redactions will be those affected by the lfb and
00:25:36 those affected by the lfb and double-checked by the inquiry this also now follows the format agreed with the LF be for treatment of the firefighters contemporaneous written notes or form
00:25:48 contemporaneous written notes or form tends there are five hundred and fifty eight of those documents they will be duly disclosed redacted for DPA material once the LF B and we complete the
00:26:00 once the LF B and we complete the redactions process and that process is very nearly completed following disclosure of the firefighter witness statements to the cps we propose to do
00:26:11 statements to the cps we propose to do the following one we will select which statements we wish into u course to form part of the inquiry record since not all those disclosed to cps will necessarily
00:26:22 those disclosed to cps will necessarily be the evidence on which the inquiries report is based two of those firefighter statements which will enter the inquiry record in due course we will decide
00:26:34 record in due course we will decide which statement maker should be called to give oral evidence in deciding which witnesses to call to give live evidence the inquiries general approach is that
00:26:46 the inquiries general approach is that whether a particular witness is able to give detailed evidence which in the opinion of the inquiry team is directly relevant to one or more issues that will be subject to investigation by
00:26:57 that will be subject to investigation by the inquiry there will inevitably be some witnesses whose evidence whilst relevant may not further advance the inquiries investigation in those circumstances particularly where the
00:27:10 circumstances particularly where the evidence will provide a useful degree of context the inquiry will take that witness's statement or the relevant parts of that statement as read into the record 3 once we have identified those
00:27:23 record 3 once we have identified those statements as those which we would like to have in the record we will notify CPS we recognize that there may be firefighter statements which the inquiry has decided not to put into the record but for which a particular case can be
00:27:36 but for which a particular case can be made to include it we will remain open-minded about that for once we have decided which firefighters state firefighters we would like to call to give live evidence we will approach them
00:27:49 give live evidence we will approach them through the L FB FB you and the met with a view to doing three things first liaison with them as to how they would wish to give their evidence secondly
00:28:01 wish to give their evidence secondly programming in their attendance dates and thirdly if need be arranging a familiarization visit to the hearing room fifth we would then publish to the
00:28:13 room fifth we would then publish to the CPS a list of those we intend to call with a provisional program of evidence again we recognize that there may be firefighters whom the inquiry has
00:28:25 firefighters whom the inquiry has decided not to call to give oral evidence but for whom a particular case can be made to call them and again we will remain open-minded about that subject always to practical and timing
00:28:38 subject always to practical and timing matters sixth as with all matters final decisions about what goes into evidence lies with the inquiry CPS will be aware that the most reliable evidence comes
00:28:51 that the most reliable evidence comes from witnesses who have not been prepped by their representatives or their employers indeed we must draw all CPS attention and their lawyers attention to
00:29:03 attention and their lawyers attention to section 35 2 of the inquiries Act which makes it a criminal offense without the court inquiries consent to distort or otherwise alter any evidence document or other thing
00:29:16 any evidence document or other thing that is given produced or provided to the enquiry panel or to prevent any evidence document or other thing from being given produced or provided to the
00:29:27 being given produced or provided to the inquiry panel the offense carries a prison sentence the witness statements that come to the inquiry are there evidence saved to the extent that they add to it
00:29:38 add to it will they alter it in a public inquiry hearing of course if a witness firefighter or otherwise wishes off their own bat to make a supplemental
00:29:51 their own bat to make a supplemental statement or correct their evidence in some way then as the chairman said paragraph 34 of his 20th of December response he or she is able to do that
00:30:02 response he or she is able to do that and so far as they are firefighters he or she should contact the Met six 999
00:30:13 or she should contact the Met six 999 call production and disclosure there are some 560 audio recordings of nine nine nine calls which were made from the tower on the night by relatives and
00:30:26 tower on the night by relatives and friends of those in the tower and by members of the public in the neighboring area that figure includes duplicate recordings although the majority of these calls were to the lfb they include
00:30:40 these calls were to the lfb they include a small number that were handled by sorry Fire and Rescue Kent Fire and Rescue and Northwest fire control all these recordings have been disclosed to the inquiry by the Met on word
00:30:52 the inquiry by the Met on word disclosure of these audios to the CPS is subject to the MoU with the Met these audio recordings have been transcribed by the lfb and the written transcripts
00:31:04 by the lfb and the written transcripts have been disclosed to the inquiry directly by the lfb the enquiry team has been listening to each audio and checking them against the transcript and also for potential relevance that
00:31:17 also for potential relevance that exercise has allowed to filter out recordings that are plainly of no relevance such as those from passersby who offered no particular insight into the progress of the fire
00:31:29 insight into the progress of the fire there are two particular aspects to disclosure of the 999 calls first production to the relevant BS our witness statement maker to assist then
00:31:41 witness statement maker to assist then to make a statement for the inquiry and second wider cross disclosure to the cps generally I take each in turn first
00:31:54 generally I take each in turn first production to individual be SRS who are making inquiry statements the inquiry intends to provide the 999 audio recording of a call and the accompanying
00:32:06 recording of a call and the accompanying lfb transcript - first of all the BS our CP who is making an inquiry witness statement and who was the caller and secondly ABS our CP who is making an
00:32:19 secondly ABS our CP who is making an inquiry statement and who can be identified as present when the call was made and who heard the call we will only provide the audios to the solicitors for
00:32:31 provide the audios to the solicitors for the relevant witness where we have identified that person with a high degree of confidence the purpose of the provision of the audio recording is so
00:32:42 provision of the audio recording is so that the witness can refresh their memory of the call where this is relevant to their evidence the witness may also be able to comment on any conversation with or by others or any
00:32:54 conversation with or by others or any background noise which can be heard on the recording the enquiry expects that the witness will wish to quote from the transcript in their witness statement if the solicitor for the witness considers
00:33:07 the solicitor for the witness considers that it would be useful to prepare a further transcript of the audio and exhibit it to the statement then that would be most welcome there would be need to have early discussion of the
00:33:19 need to have early discussion of the format of any such transcript once the audio has been used to produce the statement then it must be returned safely to the inquiry the inquiry has discussed this proposed course with the
00:33:31 discussed this proposed course with the Met
00:33:32 Met at length it is fair to say that they are not able to agree disclosure of the audios to anybody but the identified caller
00:33:40 caller however the inquiry sees no good reason why we should not proceed to disclose not only to a caller but also a person who can be identified as present when
00:33:51 who can be identified as present when the call was made and who heard the call and who is giving a statement the inquiry considers that the steps that it will take when disclosing specific recordings to identified persons are
00:34:02 recordings to identified persons are sufficient to meet any concerns over sensitivity the RL RS solicitors for the BS RS will already appreciate the sensitive and sometimes distressing
00:34:14 sensitive and sometimes distressing nature of these recordings secondly cross disclosure of the 999 calls to all CPS the inquiry team is firmly of the
00:34:26 CPS the inquiry team is firmly of the view that the recordings of the 999 calls on the night of the fire form an important body of contemporaneous evidence of what happened and to whom we
00:34:38 evidence of what happened and to whom we have yet to hear any cogent reason for not disclosing them at least in transcript form at this stage to all CPS as to what goes into the inquiry record
00:34:50 as to what goes into the inquiry record and in what form will be a matter for later decision members of the inquiry team have been listening to all the audios of the 999 calls they have been
00:35:02 audios of the 999 calls they have been comparing them to the transcripts and reviewing them for relevance the transcripts are not all perfect on occasion there are missed transcriptions
00:35:13 occasion there are missed transcriptions unsurprisingly they do not record background noise or third party conversations with another person physically present with the caller these limitations do not however detract from
00:35:26 limitations do not however detract from the value of the transcripts as we look towards the phase one hearing the times of the calls are recorded on the transcripts there are some which are highly illustrative or revealing of the
00:35:38 highly illustrative or revealing of the conditions in the building at different levels at different times on the night they also show what fire survival guidance or FSG was given and on some
00:35:52 guidance or FSG was given and on some occasions that when and to whom or at least as to which flat or floor there are some which do not reveal anything much beyond the pattern of fire survival
00:36:04 much beyond the pattern of fire survival guidance that was given and the nature of the response but even they form a useful body of evidence from which general fact patterns can be derived in order to disclose the transcripts of the
00:36:17 order to disclose the transcripts of the 999 calls to all CPS as we would wish the Mets position is that we formally need the consent or non objection of the Met under the MOU even though they came
00:36:28 Met under the MOU even though they came from the lfb the inquiry gave notice on the 2nd of January that we wish to convey as the 999 transcripts on the
00:36:39 convey as the 999 transcripts on the 29th of January the Met responded and said they had no objection in principle but as with the firefighter statements they wanted to know which specific 999 transcripts we proposed to disclose and
00:36:51 transcripts we proposed to disclose and wanted to take a call by call approach again this would be a cumbersome an immensely slow task they also said that their position would depend on the sensitivity of the material which is not
00:37:04 sensitivity of the material which is not a ground for objection under the MOU we do understand the Mets concerns here the material is indeed in some cases distressing however and at the risk of
00:37:17 distressing however and at the risk of sounding insensitive the subject matter of this inquiry is a mass fatality and the contemporaneous evidence is in part distressing but it cannot be sanitized I
00:37:30 distressing but it cannot be sanitized I should also add that we have had no representations from any rlr for any CP who is abs are that we should clear in advance with their client the cross
00:37:42 advance with their client the cross disclosure of any 999 call and the relevant transcript we have identified the audio recordings that we propose to disclose to sig tube specific witnesses
00:37:53 disclose to sig tube specific witnesses who have indicated that they will provide a witness statement disclosure of those recordings to the and our Ella's will begin shortly that will be an ongoing process as individual CPS confirm that they will make an
00:38:05 CPS confirm that they will make an inquiry statement as to the lfb transcripts we have identified and are continuing to identify those which we consider to be relevant for disclosure and they are now going through the
00:38:16 and they are now going through the inquiries redactions procedures together with the LF B as with the firefighter statements and the LF B form tends the transcripts will be redacted for
00:38:28 transcripts will be redacted for sensitive personal information caught by the Data Protection Act but nothing else
00:38:36 vii production and disclosure of BS our witness statements as matters stand we have now been informed by the RL RS for
00:38:48 have now been informed by the RL RS for the BS RS that for some 135 BS RS that they are ready and willing to provide witness statements for phase one for
00:38:59 witness statements for phase one for those who gave police statements and it is not all of them some 112 met packs have been collated from the met database which was itself a lengthy and
00:39:10 which was itself a lengthy and time-consuming exercise hundreds at 107 packs have been collected from the inquiry by the relevant RL ours and five are here to be collected today they
00:39:22 are here to be collected today they comprise their police statements there are exhibits where these can be traced and the CCTV images relating to them these all relate to tower residents or people who escaped the tower on the
00:39:34 people who escaped the tower on the night of the fire we have prioritized the provision of MPs packs from tower residents because their evidence is
00:39:45 residents because their evidence is likely to be the most relevant to the facts in phase one this material is in the inquiries view sufficient to enable those individuals to produce a witness
00:39:56 those individuals to produce a witness statement for the inquiry covering the events of the night to which the phase 1 issues relate as CPS are aware the met required witnesses to provide their
00:40:08 required witnesses to provide their written consent for any police statement to be released to the Inquirer the met provided a list of BS RS showing whether they have provided the requisite
00:40:19 whether they have provided the requisite consent there are still some 25 tower residents EPS in this category who have confirmed to their thrall through their RL RS that they do intend to give a
00:40:31 RL RS that they do intend to give a witness statement but who have yet to provide the consent there are 10 tower residents who have provided consent where we are waiting for the Met to prepare the relevant packs there are a
00:40:43 prepare the relevant packs there are a further 34 tower residents EPS who have not indicated whether they are intending to provide an inquiry statement we would encourage their RL RS to bring us up to
00:40:54 encourage their RL RS to bring us up to date with what their clients want and we will obtain the packs from the met many BS RS want to see their CC t images of them leaving the tower those have been
00:41:06 them leaving the tower those have been provided in the packs as to the 999 calls I have already explained that the audios will be provided but only to the relevant caller or person present who
00:41:17 relevant caller or person present who have confirmed that they will give a phase 1 statement to the inquiry we have done an analysis which so far shows that at the moment we have identified 24 callers of whom 4 have indicated that
00:41:30 callers of whom 4 have indicated that they are providing witness statements to the inquiry for phase 1 as at today's date we have not received any witness statements from any BSR nor having been
00:41:41 statements from any BSR nor having been given any update in the council's written submissions as to when the inquiry might reasonably expect to see any statements however we have had very
00:41:52 any statements however we have had very recent informal indications that many witness statements from be SRS will be produced to the inquiry by the 30th of March we warmly welcome those indications and we do look forward to
00:42:04 indications and we do look forward to receiving as many statements as can be done but we will also urge each rlr to tell us as soon as possible where they are up to with each of their clients who is preparing a witness statement or who
00:42:17 is preparing a witness statement or who wishes to do so what the difficulties are and what the expected time frame is as I will explain shortly the
00:42:25 the yes ours have requested that the inquiry begin on the 21st of May with a period of memorialization of the deceased followed immediately by evidential openings the Chairman is warmly in
00:42:38 openings the Chairman is warmly in agreement with this timetable provided it is adhered to to make this timetable work it is essential that the be SRS phase one witness statements come to the inquiry as soon as possible that is
00:42:52 inquiry as soon as possible that is because they need to be considered and then disclosed to the other cps we then need to identify the witnesses we would seek to call to give oral evidence program that evidence meet the witnesses
00:43:06 program that evidence meet the witnesses familiarize them with the process and ensure that we have appropriate arrangements in place for them to give evidence in the way that is most comfortable for them the later the
00:43:17 comfortable for them the later the statements arrive the less satisfactory will be our preparations the less satisfactory our preparations the greater the risk that a witness is overlooked or feels rushed or undermined
00:43:29 overlooked or feels rushed or undermined to repeat there is a lot to do between receipt of a statement and the start of oral hearings a flee venue and
00:43:41 oral hearings a flee venue and arrangements for attendance first venue a number of options were explored before the permanent venue initially focusing on West London but working outwards from
00:43:53 on West London but working outwards from there we have researched over 150 venues these included the suggestions made by CPS following the last procedural hearing Olympia Kensington and Chelsea
00:44:05 hearing Olympia Kensington and Chelsea College and Newcomb house in Notting Hill Gate being examples these were either unavailable for the period that we require or unsuitable for various different reasons Hoban bars was and
00:44:18 different reasons Hoban bars was and remains the best available option chosen after taking several factors into account it is large it is well provisioned enough for the operation of the inquiry and for the accommodation of
00:44:30 the inquiry and for the accommodation of a reasonable number of those wishing to attend hearings it has enough rooms to provide on-site the facilities that the PSRs have are for it will be available for the length
00:44:41 for it will be available for the length of time that we are likely to require it and it allows us to be a permanent fixture many of the local community options that we looked at would require us to take everything down at weekends
00:44:52 us to take everything down at weekends for example say that the building could be used for other purposes in addition to the hearing venue the inquiry will ensure that its proceedings are widely accessible by streaming them
00:45:03 are widely accessible by streaming them online and providing a venue within the borough where residents and survivors can come together to watch the proceedings special arrangements for the
00:45:14 proceedings special arrangements for the giving of oral evidence by B SRS it is not possible for the inquiry to be specific about what special arrangements will be needed until we know which of
00:45:25 will be needed until we know which of the BS our witnesses we intend to call that depends on the the provision by them of a witness statement to the inquiry or deciding to call the maker
00:45:36 inquiry or deciding to call the maker and a proper assessment by the rlr of their individual client and closely azon with the inquiry team as to the range of
00:45:47 with the inquiry team as to the range of specific measures these are all set out at paragraph 12 of the inquiries protocol on vulnerable witnesses for such witnesses there will be various options for giving live evidence such as
00:45:59 options for giving live evidence such as screens live link pre-recorded evidence statement read sitting or standing with the family or friends and support organization members if needed a witness
00:46:11 organization members if needed a witness table regular breaks interpreters and notices of questions through the inquiry team so far as counseling is concerned the inquiry is presently discussing the
00:46:23 the inquiry is presently discussing the provision of support with the NHS is grenfell outreach team and Hestia their outreach workers will be familiar to many be SRS as they have supported at public meetings and community events
00:46:35 public meetings and community events since the fire outreach workers will be present and they will be visible at procedural hearings and also the screening at Notting Hill Community Church they will provide direct support
00:46:47 Church they will provide direct support and signposting for attendees and we will make private space here at and VARs available for them to hold meetings they're working on a joint proposal for the evidential hearings to
00:47:00 proposal for the evidential hearings to ensure that attendees and witnesses have access to on-site counseling and support bringing in other providers as appropriate we expect this in April and
00:47:11 appropriate we expect this in April and we will share these proposals with our LRS in due course so far as travel and subsistence are concerned we have agreed that we will pay a fixed daily amount
00:47:22 that we will pay a fixed daily amount for attending the hearings which will more than cover reasonable travel and subsistence costs to get here from North Kensington so far as concerns meeting the reasonable costs of attending
00:47:34 the reasonable costs of attending meetings with their solicitors we would we would meet those costs that the SRS will need to claim those back through their solicitors and we would pay them back as disbursements because we can't check them ourselves
00:47:45 check them ourselves we will meet loss of earnings expenses for those who attend as witnesses but not for CPS who choose to attend the hearings other than to give evidence the hearings will be live streamed online
00:47:57 hearings will be live streamed online and to a local venue to encourage as wide participation as possible next refreshment provisions suitable for all dietary demands again this is difficult
00:48:10 dietary demands again this is difficult to do given the varying numbers of people who are likely to attend each day there will be hot and cold drinks available here at home and bars there are plenty of places to purchase food in
00:48:21 are plenty of places to purchase food in the area as indicated we have agreed that we will make a fixed daily payment that will cover the reasonable costs of a day and will allow attendees the widest possible choice in how to use it
00:48:33 widest possible choice in how to use it so far as concerns child care we have been asked about the provision of child care at inquiry events and provision for the cost of child care to support meetings in relation to the inquiry
00:48:45 meetings in relation to the inquiry including meetings with their solicitors we have discussed before the difficulties of providing childcare where we don't know what the specific task will be on any given day but we
00:48:57 task will be on any given day but we would be willing to meet the costs incurred and again be SRS our LRS solicitors will need to provide us with the evidence of those costs for us to reimburse them so far as
00:49:09 for us to reimburse them so far as religious needs are concerned we will be providing a dedicated prayer room here at home and bars as well as information about local places of worship more
00:49:21 about local places of worship more generally so far as concerns community engagement the establishment of a community advisory group it was proposed following the December procedural hearing as a way to strengthen and
00:49:32 hearing as a way to strengthen and encourage further participation and build confidence in the work of the inquiry the inquiry team has consulted with a number of groups either representing or working with the be SRS
00:49:43 representing or working with the be SRS both those who are CPS and those who are not although there was some support for the idea it is clear that the proposal does not command the overall confidence of the be SRS the inquiry team will
00:49:56 of the be SRS the inquiry team will continue with its program of community engagement to ensure that all those who wish to understand and participate in the work of the inquiry are able to do so should the views of local groups on
00:50:09 so should the views of local groups on the proposal for a community advisory group change or further ideas come forward we should be happy to visit the proposal ninth commemorations of the
00:50:23 proposal ninth commemorations of the deceased first of all the way forward the inquiry has always embraced the idea that its work should be as inclusive as
00:50:35 that its work should be as inclusive as possible so far as consistent with its functions and the terms of reference that extends to designing it in such a way as to offer an opportunity for those families who lost loved ones at Grenfell
00:50:49 families who lost loved ones at Grenfell publicly to commemorate them as individuals calmly and with dignity this we feel can and should be done in a
00:51:00 we feel can and should be done in a special period of hearings immediately prior to the start of our evidence hearings CPS and bereaved families in particular may memorialize their loved
00:51:12 particular may memorialize their loved ones in any way they think best whether as a presentation or as an audio recording or a short video film or or in any other way by starting the
00:51:24 or or in any other way by starting the public hearings of this inquiry in this way we can ensure that however technical and scientific the issues may then become however dry however legal we will
00:51:36 become however dry however legal we will never lose sight of who our work is for and why we are doing it secondly article 2 and the inquest and the inquest
00:51:48 2 and the inquest and the inquest function many BS RS have submitted to the inquiry in their submissions that the chairman should take and discharge all the functions of the inquests in order to discharge the state's article 2
00:52:01 order to discharge the state's article 2 obligations first it should be noted that the Chief Coroner has not actually asked us to do so secondly the inquiry
00:52:12 asked us to do so secondly the inquiry will carry out its terms of reference and seek to do so by reference to the detailed list of issues to the extent that the issues cover all the matters that article 2 requires then the inquiry
00:52:24 that article 2 requires then the inquiry will reduce the relevant evidence and make the relevant findings that will cover who died where they died when they died and within this within the scope of
00:52:36 died and within this within the scope of the tio are how they died and the circumstances we have carefully considered the written submissions prepared on this point by the be SRS we
00:52:47 prepared on this point by the be SRS we have formed their final view on this point and it would therefore be very useful to hear today from the be SRS representatives as to the precise practicalities of the inquiry
00:52:59 practicalities of the inquiry discharging its terms of reference while also performing the coronal functions thirdly in any event on the question of promptness on under article 2 it would
00:53:11 promptness on under article 2 it would be unusual to expect the inquiry to fulfill the corneal function in full in advance of the police investigation especially where the quality of the evidence relating to any systemic issues
00:53:22 evidence relating to any systemic issues relevant to the criminal investigation is unlikely to degrade over time therefore there would anyway be no lack of promptness or other failure to ply with Article two in the inquiry
00:53:34 ply with Article two in the inquiry leaving to the coroner likely post criminal trial if any of those aspects of the circumstances surrounding the deaths that we do not cover the
00:53:45 deaths that we do not cover the combination of the criminal proceedings and the inquiry means that the promptness requirement is fully satisfied and it is entirely legitimate for investigations to be phased under
00:53:56 for investigations to be phased under articles two and three so that for example coronal proceedings await other investigations including criminal proceedings the case law makes it clear
00:54:07 proceedings the case law makes it clear mr. chairman that not everything has to be done at once provided that the factual evidence is being gathered now as it is than other questions for example about the precise circumstances in which in which each individual came
00:54:20 in which in which each individual came to meet their deaths can occur at a later stage tenth disclosure of experts reports and exhibits very good progress
00:54:32 reports and exhibits very good progress is being made in the preparation of experts reports for phase one we currently anticipate that reports from Colin Todd Neve Nick Dade Luc Bisbee and
00:54:44 Colin Todd Neve Nick Dade Luc Bisbee and probably Barbara Lane will be served at the end of this month and they phase one report from Professor Jose torero will follow in April as I have already
00:54:55 follow in April as I have already explained a significant amount of evidential material is likely to be disclosed at the same time that these expert reports are served and will be disclosed as supporting documents and
00:55:06 disclosed as supporting documents and listed as such in the relevant field tree on relativity the experts have been instructed to ensure that all information which is relied on by them
00:55:17 information which is relied on by them in their reports is cross-referenced and exhibited to those reports steps have been taken to try to ensure that relevant documentation is disclosed as soon as possible
00:55:28 soon as possible prior to that some of the material already disclosed to cps will be relied upon by the experts in their reports given the processes which are necessary to follow under the MoU
00:55:40 are necessary to follow under the MoU with the Met it is simply not possible to disclose all material which will be rely
00:55:46 rely by the experts in advance of their reports being disclosed that is because we do not anticipate resolving all of the outstanding disclosure issues which arise in respect of that material with
00:55:57 arise in respect of that material with the met before the reports are ready to be disclosed the processes for finalizing experts reports and liaison with the Met are therefore currently proceeding in parallel as I've already
00:56:08 proceeding in parallel as I've already mentioned once the experts reports are finalized the inquiry team will check whether there is any material which has been provided to the experts but not relied upon by them but which should be
00:56:19 relied upon by them but which should be disclosed to the CPS but which yet has not been but that exercise can't be done until the experts reports are finalized and it's not practical or proportionate
00:56:30 and it's not practical or proportionate at this stage to list all the documentation provided to the experts some of which will be relevant in any event to phase 2 and not phase 1 a number of queries have been raised about
00:56:41 number of queries have been raised about the scope of the experts report at phase 1 as to those so far as Professor Nick beneath McDade is concerned she will
00:56:52 beneath McDade is concerned she will consider the primary evidence relating to the calls and spread of the fire in the compartment of origin as well as reviewing the reports which were prepared for the Met on that topic
00:57:04 prepared for the Met on that topic insofar as the available evidence allows professor Nick Dave's report will provide a preliminary view on the issues of calls origin and spread of the
00:57:15 of calls origin and spread of the initial fire within the compartment of origin as to professor Barbara Lane her phase 1 report will where it is possible to do so Express a preliminary view
00:57:27 to do so Express a preliminary view about the extent to which the design and construction of the exterior of the building and the fire safety measures within the building were compliant with the relevant building regulations and
00:57:40 the relevant building regulations and other relevant guidance CSU's for C D F and 5b and D in the list of issues we accept that these questions will implicitly arise when she is
00:57:52 will implicitly arise when she is expressing a preliminary view on the active and passive for fire safety measures at grenfell tower and the extent to which they failed to control the spread of fire and smoke and
00:58:04 control the spread of fire and smoke and contributed to that spread however her report will not investigate the detailed factual circumstances as to how any instances of non-compliance came about
00:58:15 instances of non-compliance came about those are more complex questions that we'll have to await further detailed work in Phase two the instructions to the seven experts currently instructed by the inquiry were disclosed to the
00:58:27 by the inquiry were disclosed to the core participants on the 30th of November last year more recently to further experts have been instructed and their written instructions and Seavey's have also been made available to CPS
00:58:41 have also been made available to CPS those experts are mr. Rodney Hancock's he has been instructed to provide a report for Phase two of the inquiry on issues relating to the gas supply to a
00:58:52 issues relating to the gas supply to a two Grenfell tower including the compliance with the relevant regulatory framework of the gas supplies to and within the tower and the steps taken by relevant parties to isolate the gas
00:59:03 relevant parties to isolate the gas supplies on the night he has also been asked to express an opinion on the extent to which the presence of gas in the tower contributed to the spread of fire and the conditions in the building
00:59:15 fire and the conditions in the building on the night secondly dr. Ivan's Stoyanov he has been instructed to provide an opinion for Phase two on the supply of water to the tower and in particular the adequacy of the water
00:59:27 particular the adequacy of the water pressure for the purposes of fighting the fire the inquiry is also actively considering the appointment of other experts in key areas these include as I said before an architectural expert and
00:59:39 said before an architectural expert and an expert in Building Control and inspection and as I've also said in social housing management we know that a number of BSR representatives have
00:59:50 number of BSR representatives have encouraged the inquiry to instruct an expert in toxicology this will be kept under review at this stage we can say that Professor Edwin Galia will be considering issues around toxicology
01:00:02 considering issues around toxicology insofar as they are within his expertise a number of BS RS have asked whether there is any evidence of power surges having contributed to the fire in the flat of origin at
01:00:13 flat of origin at Phil tower on the night the position is as the evidence currently stands there is nothing to suggest that an electrical surge played any causative role in the cause or spread of the fire but having
01:00:26 cause or spread of the fire but having said that the inquiry will continue to review the evidence as it develops in terms of applications by core participants to rely on their own expert evidence the position remains that an
01:00:39 evidence the position remains that an exceptional case would need to be made out and any such applications would need to be made promptly as soon as the perceived need for such reports is identified the enquiry is an
01:00:51 identified the enquiry is an inquisitorial process and independent experts have been instructed by the inquiry so as to provide objective and unvarnished views about matters pertinent to the inquiries
01:01:02 pertinent to the inquiries investigations unless and until CPS make applications to rely on their own expert evidence it would be premature to consider any timetable in relation to any other expert evidence xi site visits
01:01:21 any other expert evidence xi site visits certain cps have requested access to the building to be arranged by the inquiry i can only repeat the point i made previously that the tower remains a crime scene for the time being and
01:01:33 crime scene for the time being and access to it is controlled strictly by the met it is likely to remain so until july of this year we are also aware that there have been a number of safety issues at the tower
01:01:45 number of safety issues at the tower which have affected the progress of work by the Met as I said in my counsels statement number one of 15th of November 2017 if any CP would like access to the
01:01:59 2017 if any CP would like access to the building then they should please direct all their requests to the Met and inform us miss Clarke who will appear today for the Met will explain that there is a program of visits to the tower for
01:02:10 program of visits to the tower for bereaved families and for residents if non BSR cps wished to visit the tower once the BSR visits have concluded then CP requests for visits must come to the
01:02:22 CP requests for visits must come to the chairman so that he can regulate such requests for purpose of a particular cps participation in the inquiry the NPS would then facilitate the visit itself
01:02:34 would then facilitate the visit itself 12 written and oral openings under Rule 11 of the enquiry rules the RL r4 ACP may make an opening statement at the
01:02:45 may make an opening statement at the commencement of the first of any oral hearings that will be the start of the phase one evidential hearings following the personal portrait hearings on the
01:02:58 the personal portrait hearings on the footing that the evidential hearings will start on Monday the 4th of June this year then all RL ARS seeking to make an opening statement Oh at phase one must file with the inquiry
01:03:11 at phase one must file with the inquiry Asics inked succinctly outline of what they intend to say by email by 4:00 p.m. on Friday the 18th of May ie 14 days
01:03:22 on Friday the 18th of May ie 14 days before the evidential hearings begin all document references must please be accompanied by their u RN their unique reference number on relativity all RL
01:03:35 reference number on relativity all RL ours who have provided a written outline will be invited to make their oral openings to the inquiry during the first week those who have not provided a written outline will not be
01:03:46 provided a written outline will not be permitted to speak unless the chairman allows it a draft speaking timetable for opening statements will be circulated by the inquiry team at an appropriate time
01:03:57 the inquiry team at an appropriate time in advance we asked the RL ARS to be sick synced to cooperate with each other in order to avoid duplication and to restrict their submissions to the issues in phase 1 13th and finally order in
01:04:13 in phase 1 13th and finally order in which the evidence will be presented it is hard to say at this stage precisely in what order the evidence will be adduced the Chairman intends to be as
01:04:24 adduced the Chairman intends to be as flexible as possible our present thinking is that following the opening statements we would start by inviting the inquiry experts to make oral and visual presentations of their
01:04:37 visual presentations of their provisional conclusions thus far followed in very broad terms by the factual evidence about the flat of origin then the factual evidence of the
01:04:49 origin then the factual evidence of the firefighters who carried out firefighting and search-and-rescue and who made command decisions as much as possible in chronological order down to a particular point in the night then the
01:05:03 a particular point in the night then the factual evidence of the BS ours again as much as possible in chronological order down to a particular point in the night and then any further factual evidence
01:05:15 and then any further factual evidence that may be necessary followed by the expert evidence in the light of all that factual material I must repeat no firm
01:05:26 factual material I must repeat no firm decisions have been made or will be made about the order and structure of phase one evidence until we have a sufficient body of BS our witness statement evidence to hand however we anticipate
01:05:40 evidence to hand however we anticipate that provided we receive enough BS our witness statements on or soon after the end of March we should be able to present a clear program for Phase one evidence by the end of April at the
01:05:53 evidence by the end of April at the latest mr. chairman thank you very much thank you very much mr. minute name is Clarke you're here for the Metropolitan Police Service would you like to come
01:06:04 Police Service would you like to come and make some submissions thank you
01:06:24 sir my name is Amy Clark and I'm instructed by Sarah Winfield of the Metropolitan Police Service along with mr. Jeremy Johnson Queen's Counsel the Metropolitan Police have not provided
01:06:36 Metropolitan Police have not provided any written submissions in advance of today's home but I'm very grateful for the opportunity to outline three broad areas and I hope very briefly first of
01:06:47 areas and I hope very briefly first of all the police investigation the Metropolitan Police remain committed to carrying out a meticulous thorough and fearless investigation in order to identify all of those who may have
01:06:59 identify all of those who may have committed criminal offences and to refer files to the Crown Prosecution Service in due course of appropriate that process carries with it a great weight
01:07:10 process carries with it a great weight of responsibility to the public generally but of course in particular to those victims of the fire an umber of criminal offences are being investigated and nothing has been excluded from the
01:07:23 and nothing has been excluded from the scope of the investigation which is progressing to date over 5,000 investigative tasks have been generated within the investigation and data has been gathered thus far from 154
01:07:37 been gathered thus far from 154 different organisations we said at the last hearing that the forensic evidence or picture about the cause and spread of the fire was not going to be complete until autumn 2018 and that remains the
01:07:50 until autumn 2018 and that remains the case until the off-site testing and reconstruction work has been completed and therefore we are currently still working to that timescale particularly
01:08:01 working to that timescale particularly given the scale and complexity of the task at hand the second broad area service I'd like to address you honor the arrangements between the inquiry and
01:08:12 the arrangements between the inquiry and the Metropolitan Police Service the inquiry and the Metropolitan Police are of course entirely independent from one another and there is no sense in which the Metropolitan Police is delegating it
01:08:25 the Metropolitan Police is delegating it investigative functions or vice-versa and as we have said previously the inquiry serves many important functions that the criminal investigation cannot
01:08:36 that the criminal investigation cannot for example it will enable a public examination of everything which is in the broad terms of reference and within that all core participants and in
01:08:47 that all core participants and in particularly in particular the bereaved survivors and residents will be able to take part in that process and that is something that plainly the criminal investigation cannot fulfill conversely
01:09:01 investigation cannot fulfill conversely the inquiry cannot make decisions and determinations of criminal liability and that can only be achieved by a criminal investigation which is followed if appropriate by criminal trials justice
01:09:16 appropriate by criminal trials justice can only be achieved in that regard if the process is able to take place such that any individual or corporation who may have committed a criminal offense is held accountable in an independent and
01:09:29 held accountable in an independent and fair investigative and judicial process so the consequence of the two processes running in tandem is of course well known but in essence its that the
01:09:40 known but in essence its that the inquiry will need to make use of evidence that is obtained in the course of the police investigation but do so in a way that minimizes any risk of prejudice to the investigation in the
01:09:52 prejudice to the investigation in the first instance but also to any future criminal prosecution that task will be difficult but so far we are cooperating
01:10:03 difficult but so far we are cooperating with the inquiry in a way that we consider to be very productive and helpful to that cause and I'm very grateful for mr. Miller's comments early on in his opening statement in respect
01:10:15 on in his opening statement in respect of the acknowledgement of quite the level of cooperation from the Metropolitan Police and the fact that that and will continue long into the future the NPS has provided material
01:10:29 future the NPS has provided material voluntarily on a weekly basis now since September 2017 and so far in excess of 2,000 documents have been provided to the inquiry in the event that there is ever
01:10:41 in the event that there is ever something that the Metropolitan Police consider cannot be disclosed to the inquiry in the first instance and that certainly hasn't arisen to date we will of course notify you sir of that
01:10:53 we will of course notify you sir of that extremely promptly the second stage of the process is of course the disclosure on word to call participants once it has been disclosed to the inquiry and the
01:11:05 been disclosed to the inquiry and the inquiry has indicated a large number of specific documents that it wishes to provide to call participants for the purpose of phase one and it is right to say that the Metropolitan Police have
01:11:17 say that the Metropolitan Police have expressed at certain points some general concerns about the risk of prejudice and in some instances as we discussed this morning in relation to statements we
01:11:28 morning in relation to statements we have asked the inquiry to confirm that it considers the provision of particular material necessary to the discharge of its functions and so of course you have
01:11:40 its functions and so of course you have done so and in all of those cases the Metropolitan Police have confirmed that no formal objection has been raised as to the provision of that material onward to core participants in taking that
01:11:54 to core participants in taking that approach the Metropolitan Police seek to facilitate the full disclosure to this inquiry and we bear in mind at this juncture that none of the core participants who whose conduct is being
01:12:05 participants who whose conduct is being investigated have raised any concerns about that onward disclosure and that approach sir is all within the context of a criminal investigation this is
01:12:17 of a criminal investigation this is constantly evolving and last week's public announcement for example about the testing of dolls brings that into particularly sharp focus whilst the
01:12:28 particularly sharp focus whilst the investigation is developing the evidential picture about the cause and spread of the fire will not be complete and as we have previously said there is therefore a risk that the evidence will
01:12:40 therefore a risk that the evidence will develop further after the phase 1 hearings have been completed and that may have some impact on any interim conclusions or reports and we also reiterate that it is
01:12:52 and we also reiterate that it is extremely difficult to assess the extent to which the public examination of evidence at this point in the investigation might prejudice future
01:13:03 investigation might prejudice future criminal proceedings and so I highlight this not in the context of making a particular submission or application of any nature but I simply highlight it in order to remind you sir that having both
01:13:18 order to remind you sir that having both processes running in tandem does present its own risks and it is a delicate balance to balance both interests but we
01:13:29 balance to balance both interests but we are working closely within the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and of course will continue to do so and so far we have been working together to ensure
01:13:40 we have been working together to ensure that any such risks are minimized lastly and most briefly so I'd like to touch upon access to Grenfell tower as mr.
01:13:52 upon access to Grenfell tower as mr. millet indicated visits to the tower for those who have believed' survivors and relevant residents and has been arranged through the Metropolitan Police and that
01:14:04 through the Metropolitan Police and that is an ongoing program of visits that are very carefully planned and that is happening entirely outside of the inquiry process and as mr. millet quite
01:14:15 inquiry process and as mr. millet quite rightly pointed out access generally to the tower is restricted by the Metropolitan Police on the basis that it still remains a crime scene and access will remain so restricted whilst it is a
01:14:27 will remain so restricted whilst it is a crime scene the Metropolitan Police have facilitated access to the town not only for those bereaved survivors and
01:14:39 for those bereaved survivors and residents but also for experts that the inquiry has instructed and in respect of any other visits or any potential visits in the future the Metropolitan Police
01:14:50 in the future the Metropolitan Police are currently reviewing its position about how best to manage that and we welcome the comments made by mr. minute earlier this morning about that difficulty in letting people have access
01:15:02 difficulty in letting people have access right that's right that primarily the concern will always be to preserve the evidential integrity of the tower and that will be managed very carefully on a
01:15:13 that will be managed very carefully on a case-by-case basis and of course so once you have made any determination that it is necessary for anybody else to have access to the tower but of course as
01:15:24 access to the tower but of course as ever we will direct directly liaised with the inquiry team as and when those matters arise so those were the three brief points I'd like to address it it's very grateful to you for coming mr.
01:15:42 very grateful to you for coming mr. Freedman I think you're next to speak if you'd like to thank you sir III appear
01:15:55 you'd like to thank you sir III appear with Stephanie Barr wise Queen's Counsel today on behalf of the group of five firms that Murphy Diamonds Hickman and Rose HOD Jones and Alan and ITN
01:16:08 Rose HOD Jones and Alan and ITN solicitors we act for 277 core participants 62 of them come from bereaved families relating to now 48
01:16:22 bereaved families relating to now 48 deceased people of which 10 were children you have our written submissions were grateful for the indication that you've read them and so this morning we would like to address
01:16:34 this morning we would like to address you on two matters in particular right thank you firstly we seek a final ruling the you will answer as best you can the questions of when where and how
01:16:47 can the questions of when where and how each of the 72 deceased died as part of reasonably discharging the terms of reference and because this is required
01:16:58 reference and because this is required to ensure a prompt investigations of these deaths under the Human Rights Act secondly we seek your further direction
01:17:09 secondly we seek your further direction on the scope of phase 1 particularly with regard to toxicity electricity and what we call the obvious
01:17:20 electricity and what we call the obvious or admitted non-compliance with the building regulations and on those matters miss bar wise will follow on please can we first turn to the inquest
01:17:33 please can we first turn to the inquest function issue and we're at paragraph five of our submissions what we mean is that when this inquiry comes in phase one to investigate the cause and spread
01:17:46 one to investigate the cause and spread of the fire we want you to cover questions of when where and how in the building the fire caused the 71 deaths and to that we add Maria del Pilar known
01:17:58 and to that we add Maria del Pilar known as pili locally who is the 72nd victim of the fire and she died at the end of January this year we understand that you will also hear a testimonial from her
01:18:10 will also hear a testimonial from her husband Nicholas Burton and he's particularly grateful for that in phase two sir you can go on to consider the systemic and policy implications of
01:18:21 systemic and policy implications of those findings in substance that means that by the time you finish reporting you would have answered all of the questions that an article 2 inquest
01:18:32 questions that an article 2 inquest would answer under Section 5 of the coroner's and justice Act 2009 but without you formally being appointed a coroner under Schedule 10 of that Act we
01:18:47 coroner under Schedule 10 of that Act we say that very outcome is anticipated by the relevant legal framework under the 2009 Act there is no need to wait to be
01:18:59 2009 Act there is no need to wait to be asked by the Chief Coroner and if there is no need for everything to be done at once you must do what you can do now starting with the legal framework the
01:19:11 starting with the legal framework the inquest proceedings have been deliberately suspended pending the conclusion of a public inquiry under paragraph 5 of schedule 1 of the 2009 Act the coroner retains jurisdiction but
01:19:25 Act the coroner retains jurisdiction but Graaff 10 of schedule 1 means that she will only resume the inquest if in the aftermath of the public inquiry there is sufficient reason to do so that leaves
01:19:38 sufficient reason to do so that leaves open the proper role for this inquiry to ensure that there is no such reason barring new and post inquiry reporting evidence and your point really is that
01:19:50 evidence and your point really is that the inquiry you would say can and therefore should answer the questions that would have to be asked quite and there's been some helpful starting
01:20:03 there's been some helpful starting discussions but it is worthy to remember that there was a time under our law when we couldn't make that submission and you couldn't do it because under the previous coroner's act 1988 this
01:20:16 previous coroner's act 1988 this mechanism that we've just spoken about to achieve the humane effective and expeditious avoidance of overlap between the two procedures did not exist so it's
01:20:29 the two procedures did not exist so it's particularly worthy today for all of us to recall the Kings Cross underground fire of 1987 that led to 31 fatalities the public inquiry chaired by desmond
01:20:42 the public inquiry chaired by desmond fennel Queen's Counsel with a Jungian Burnett and Robert J as his counsel to the inquiry recommended that the duplication involved in holding both a
01:20:53 duplication involved in holding both a public inquiry and a coroner's inquest should be avoided and that the government in England should review existing requirements to hold a separate inquest where a public inquiry has been
01:21:04 inquest where a public inquiry has been set up and hence the structure we now have that was always available under Scots law and was incrementally introduced into English law round and I after 1999 now mr. fennell had found and
01:21:18 after 1999 now mr. fennell had found and I think we've sent this fruit to you at chapter 19 paragraph 40 that it quote did not seem to me to be in the public interest or in the interest of the
01:21:29 interest or in the interest of the bereaved to have two separate public inquiries in cases of this sort in this way unnecessary distress to the tips and witnesses and the inevitable
01:21:41 tips and witnesses and the inevitable additional expense the public could be avoided and also I think extracts from Lord comes report on Piper alpha I have
01:21:52 Lord comes report on Piper alpha I have you to thank for that as well I think well I hope so because of course on Piper alpha what mr. fennel could not do under English law in 1988 Lord Cullen could do under
01:22:06 law in 1988 Lord Cullen could do under Scots law when he reported on the power Piper Alpha oil rig explosion of the very same year and he sought in his words to comprehend all that involved
01:22:19 words to comprehend all that involved loss of or danger to life and again I'm going to quote from the stage of the initial ignition to the stage when the last survivor reached helped and his
01:22:30 last survivor reached helped and his chapter 10 dealt with the causes of loss of and danger to life 167 people had died a hundred and thirty-five bodies were recovered he gave findings as to the medical causes
01:22:42 gave findings as to the medical causes of death that were ascertainable adding additional conclusions as to factors which in his words contributed to the deaths of the decease and otherwise summarize last-known movements and
01:22:54 summarize last-known movements and whereabouts after the fire began appendix H to his report contained information relating to each decease including where their bodies were discovered post-mortem evidence
01:23:05 discovered post-mortem evidence including toxicology were available and that concerning inhalation of smoke and or gas was summarized not always but often the causation results were tragically the same and nothing to say I
01:23:18 tragically the same and nothing to say I found Piper alpha extracts particularly interesting and healthful would I be right in thinking that you would submit that this inquiry should really do what
01:23:30 that this inquiry should really do what Lord Kennedy makes similar types of findings indeed I I don't want to be pertinent not to impose the form on you or indeed say that we wouldn't do it
01:23:41 or indeed say that we wouldn't do it slightly different here but it gives you an indication of what we're asking for once should what much just add on this in chapter 10 that you'll see that in the final party
01:23:52 the final party at a conclusion about the cause and spread of the fire again adding pertinently for today that the death toll was considerably higher than it would have been had the instructions been given that personnel should
01:24:04 been given that personnel should immediately abandon the accommodation and attempt to escape as soon as they could so it's helpful to know that because I think Piper alpha as you rightly say gives one in a reasonably
01:24:17 rightly say gives one in a reasonably clear indication of the sort of findings that I think you submit ought to be made in this case of course they're going to be different in many respects but in
01:24:28 be different in many respects but in substance the same sort of findings yes and and and and one one one puts one's feet onto the ground of this inquiry by
01:24:39 feet onto the ground of this inquiry by saying in concrete terms your team with the assistance of the core participant legal teams will need where possible to correlate the statements of survivors
01:24:52 correlate the statements of survivors firefighters the nine nine nine calls and the other available evidence of calls and messages sent to the outside world this is a 2017 disaster we have
01:25:07 world this is a 2017 disaster we have the 2017 technology that wasn't available in 1988 what we're asking for is sensitive work sir but it is not
01:25:19 is sensitive work sir but it is not difficult if we work together now rather than waiting several years sometimes and it's important to say this sometimes we
01:25:30 it's important to say this sometimes we don't know but it may not be possible always to discover with any degree of probability where a given person's last steps were but at least the bereaved
01:25:42 steps were but at least the bereaved will know that you and we have tried and of course it will be less of an ordeal for a family to know that now than to wait several years for that same answer
01:25:54 wait several years for that same answer now you have already declared that there is much force in the proposition that the bereaved should not be made to wait for indeterminate inquest dates several years after the fire in or
01:26:06 years after the fire in or discover the fate of the people they grieve for you posed to us last time two questions do the terms of reference permit it and what would be the procedural implications and our answers are yes they do and the enquiry rules
01:26:20 are yes they do and the enquiry rules 2006 have been drafted to enable the very job to be done but just on the terms of reference and for your note we're at paragraph six of the written submissions they self-evidently permit
01:26:32 submissions they self-evidently permit the investigation of the inquest type questions because they asked you at Roman one to examine the circumstances surrounding the fire and thereafter at Roman two to report your findings and
01:26:44 Roman two to report your findings and just pausing there you may have seen that terms of reference for both Piper alpha and kicks cross are to examine the circumstances of the fire and and the explosion as the case may be and so
01:26:56 explosion as the case may be and so hence those circumstances we say could not sensibly exclude an examination of the fate of the people who lost their lives during the fire and neither could they avoid reflection on how those
01:27:07 they avoid reflection on how those fatalities might reasonably have been prevented sir how long it took for people to live or die in grenfell tower
01:27:18 people to live or die in grenfell tower that night is the ultimate measurement of the building's life threatening features so - is it the touchstone to judge the quality of the emergency
01:27:30 judge the quality of the emergency response there is then a non exhaustive list of subparagraphs in terms in the terms of reference and there caveated by the words including and therefore we
01:27:41 the words including and therefore we infer not limited to and those sad paragraphs I'm just going to summarize but they concern or or consider the course spread preventability and response to the fire again the fate of
01:27:54 response to the fire again the fate of the principal victims could hardly be removed from their concern as of today we are yet to see any public admissions by the council or the various contractors that any features of the
01:28:07 contractors that any features of the refurbishment were causative of the deaths surely the inquiry will need to answer that so not only does the coronal statute anticipated outcome of you of
01:28:19 statute anticipated outcome of you of you fulfilling it functions to obviate duplication but the terms of reference permit you to do so indeed as you know our public law rests on a duty to take account of relevant
01:28:30 on a duty to take account of relevant considerations and equally not to rely on those that are really relevant and we submit respectfully it would be unreasonable to pursue the task of investigating the cause and spread of
01:28:42 investigating the cause and spread of the fire and their emergency response to it but not to consider the movements of each of the deceased after the start of the fire the interaction with emergency services and/or third parties the
01:28:53 services and/or third parties the medical cause of death when we're available postmortem and toxicology so the task should not be overstated it is to consider readily ascertainable
01:29:06 to consider readily ascertainable evidence and then briefly as an inquest to report the investigation is already underway because your counsel through their pro forma questionnaire two
01:29:18 their pro forma questionnaire two survivors have sought to discover who was where and with whom in the building during the fire section seven of the questionnaire for those witnesses asked
01:29:30 questionnaire for those witnesses asked that question 64 how long did you remain in the flat if so on whose advice and in particular if it was firefighters what did they say to you question 68 what
01:29:42 did they say to you question 68 what made you decide to leave your flat question 72 was anyone left in your flat when you left what was the relationship how did you think they would get out and then question 79 to 80 to deal with the
01:29:55 then question 79 to 80 to deal with the escape through common parts and then the stairs including were you alone or with others if you were with others who were they
01:30:03 they these questions are forensically obvious questions if I may say so
01:30:15 they will intend and when they are aside from just being questions for lawyers they're also a compassionate vehicle to
01:30:27 they're also a compassionate vehicle to Chronicle in one place a set of accounts and queries which to many people are presently struggling with alone there
01:30:38 presently struggling with alone there are undoubtedly agonizing gaps in knowledge for instance knowing that loved ones walked up two floors not down but not knowing why or losing the grip
01:30:51 but not knowing why or losing the grip of your child's hand and not knowing what have next and then there are what we understand terrible twists of fate
01:31:02 we understand terrible twists of fate between those who deliberately ignored the firefighters advice to stay put and those who did not whether due to disability or otherwise and it killed them we do submit that the inquest type
01:31:17 them we do submit that the inquest type questions are forensic ly and rationally connected to the terms of reference but delay in seeking their answers also exposes the bereaved to an avoidable
01:31:28 exposes the bereaved to an avoidable harm anyone and I do mean anyone will find it difficult to a grief to accept the truth of an awful fate until they
01:31:39 the truth of an awful fate until they know what truth actually is if the answers to their plea if not now when is please wait for the indeterminate date of a caronia Ling quest then surely
01:31:51 of a caronia Ling quest then surely that's an unreasonable answer it does not sufficiently respect the dignity of their grief and their fortifies both contemporary common law and the human rights act and that is where we ultimately rest our submission if one of
01:32:04 ultimately rest our submission if one of the core components of the investigatory obligation under article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights is to conduct a prompt investigation into the cause and circumstances of a death
01:32:16 the cause and circumstances of a death then this inquiry is the chosen public vehicle to investigate the fire must not abrogate its responsibility under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to meet that obligation
01:32:28 meet that obligation and our previous written submissions noted the norm of an island case of Jordan in 2014 Mr Justice Stevens held the investigation into the death of a close
01:32:40 investigation into the death of a close relative impacts on the next of kin at a fundamental level of human dignity and he took it to be axiomatic that undue delays in an investigation would cause undue hardship in the seminal case of
01:32:54 undue hardship in the seminal case of Edwards in the United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights went on at paragraph 86 to say that a lack of promptness not only erodes the amount
01:33:05 promptness not only erodes the amount and quality of available evidence but drags out the ordeal for very family members and that is the legal principle at stake it would not have been available to the victims of the Kings
01:33:17 available to the victims of the Kings Cross fire in 1987 but 30 years later the victims of the grenfell fire seek its vindication at this inquiry as
01:33:29 its vindication at this inquiry as Parliament intended shortly then on procedural implications to exceeding - our request that answer is in paragraph
01:33:40 our request that answer is in paragraph 8 of our submissions we make no claim that importing the inquest function into the process would qualify the status of the inquiry rules including the formality of requiring leave to question
01:33:51 formality of requiring leave to question under Rule 10 1 and the default principle against repetition in the absence of very good reason under Rule 10 for we say rule 10 must be
01:34:02 10 for we say rule 10 must be interpreted with a recognition under both the common law an article to that bereaved families will want someone council to the inquiry or their council to ask a relevant question of a survivor
01:34:13 to ask a relevant question of a survivor firefighter or third party as to the fate of a deceased person we as a group of lawyers for the bereaved and survivors will obviously prioritize which one of us on behalf of a
01:34:24 which one of us on behalf of a particular bereaved family will apply to lead on proposals of questioning thereafter the work will entail combining all all written and documentary accounts that which is non
01:34:35 documentary accounts that which is non disputed and otherwise unnecessary to investigate further can be read into the record as we this morning as to when and how you report that must be a matter for you but
01:34:48 report that must be a matter for you but unlike an inquest we can address you on the facts and you could call for written Anna annexes two closing submissions that would assist you in reaching your final conclusions can i end my part of
01:35:01 final conclusions can i end my part of the submissions by saying that the application should not be regarded as requiring something somehow unduly onerous or complicated it doesn't it's
01:35:14 onerous or complicated it doesn't it's not only humane and required in law but readily achievable the inquest questions travel with and are complementary to any sensible
01:35:25 are complementary to any sensible narrative of how this fire began and spread we well understand that the inquiry is concerned to urgently identify dangerous technical practices
01:35:38 identify dangerous technical practices Maloney friend is just about to address you on some obvious ones you will want to make remedial recommendations as soon as you can however if you and we cast
01:35:52 as you can however if you and we cast our minds to the Watson Street fire in Glasgow in 1905 up to 39 residents dead or the garment workers building fire in New York in 1911 a hundred and forty-six
01:36:05 New York in 1911 a hundred and forty-six mostly women killed the modern history of terrible fires teaches us that the identification of dangerous practices and amending building regulations will
01:36:16 and amending building regulations will never alone be enough change will only come when the political and economic will to make it happen becomes overwhelming and the inquiry therefore
01:36:27 overwhelming and the inquiry therefore needs to be a cultural event as well as a technical one if it ends up not telling the chronicle of the deaths foretold then it will only have told half the story it will not be the
01:36:39 half the story it will not be the inquiry it was meant to be and forgiving forgive me for pressing one more time but it will drag out the ordeal and arrest the grief of those who should be
01:36:51 arrest the grief of those who should be its greatest concern so thank you and can I
01:36:55 can I and over to miss Bartos thank you very much mr. freaking yes as far as sir I'm
01:37:08 much mr. freaking yes as far as sir I'm going to deal with the second of our topics and what you have termed the significant degree of flexibility concerning the scope of phase one I should like to briefly touch on three areas these are toxicity electricity and
01:37:22 areas these are toxicity electricity and obvious or admitted non-compliance with the building regulations on toxicity addressed at paragraph 21 of our submissions there is two issues first
01:37:33 submissions there is two issues first the role the toxic fumes played in contributing to deaths and second any risk to the life or health of survivors residents and firefighters from exposure
01:37:45 residents and firefighters from exposure to toxic fumes during or in the aftermath of the fire at present no inquiry expert addresses other matter
01:37:56 inquiry expert addresses other matter survivors were treated for cyanide poisoning this strongly suggests the required causal link to examine toxicity for the purposes of the inquest function
01:38:07 for the purposes of the inquest function should you choose to take it on but given the link to the wider issues of safety of the building toxicity ought in any event to be firmly within the scope of the inquiry what do
01:38:20 within the scope of the inquiry what do you have in mind I mean insofar as there were post mortems done the pathologists will have tested for various toxic materials in
01:38:31 tested for various toxic materials in the blood more importantly carbon monoxide and we will have that evidence are you suggesting we should be doing something else
01:38:42 something else well so it is indeed a complicated question I understand that sometimes one has to give specific instructions to a coroner to test for every possible cause
01:38:54 coroner to test for every possible cause of death you've identified the principal - as I understand it carbon monoxide and hydrogen but there is a an issue about
01:39:05 hydrogen but there is a an issue about what actually killed them it won't in all cases have been the carbon-monoxide and obviously as he'll be aware sir the cladding materials contain we believe substances which are
01:39:17 contain we believe substances which are highly toxic and therefore it is relevant to consider the issue yes thank you
01:39:25 you there is the secondary question of toxicity in the atmosphere after the fire during the fire and after the fire and it is the burning of those polymeric
01:39:36 and it is the burning of those polymeric substances in the cladding materials which give rise to particular source of toxicity and it's an issue so that we feel should be addressed both parts of that issue we welcome that the inquiry
01:39:50 that issue we welcome that the inquiry will consider the contribution of the gas supply including incomplete works to the spread of fire and has appointed mr. Rodney Hancock's it was however an
01:40:01 Rodney Hancock's it was however an electrical appliance which appears to have been the immediate cause of the fire in flat 16 and we do ask for the role of electrical systems to be considered in terms of source and spread
01:40:12 considered in terms of source and spread as seeing yes I'm grateful sir I appreciate that the inquiry is aware that in May 2013 there was a series of power surges and we've provided some
01:40:23 power surges and we've provided some detail at paragraph 22 of our submissions as to how Grenfell residents experienced those events and this inevitably begs the question whether a similar surge or similar issues
01:40:34 similar surge or similar issues exacerbated the fire in 2017 we're aware that the trash Juan disclosure includes a preliminary report which reflects awareness of the issue but no further
01:40:45 awareness of the issue but no further expert analysis has yet been obtained and whilst we welcome that the inquiry will keep this under review we do suggest that a further report on the subject should be commissioned the
01:40:57 subject should be commissioned the finalists who which we submit should also be considered in phase one is any obvious or admitted non-compliance with regulate Building Regulations Council to the inquiry told us this morning that
01:41:09 the inquiry told us this morning that the compliance questions as we have called them namely whether the cladding system and fire safety measures accorded with Building Regulations will be considered by barbara lane with
01:41:21 considered by barbara lane with phase one that is most welcome news I should emphasize we do not seek to have brought into phase one the resolution of which party is responsible for the use
01:41:32 which party is responsible for the use of the material but we do ask that the fact of a product or systems obvious or admitted on suitability should be recorded by the inquiry within phase one certain core participants are publicly
01:41:45 certain core participants are publicly declaring outside this inquiry that their own products is used at groennfell tower patently did not conform to the building regulations salat exposition statement confirms to some extent its
01:41:57 statement confirms to some extent its position taken in the media Ryden however claimed in a press release immediately following the fire dated the 15th of June 2017 that its work met all building regulations yet its position
01:42:12 building regulations yet its position statement is simply silent on this point that duality is artificial runs counter to the victims and the general public's interest and should be resolved at the
01:42:23 interest and should be resolved at the earliest opportunity so whatever important questions there may be about the building regulations fitness of purpose this is not one of them on a building over 18 meters tall
01:42:35 them on a building over 18 meters tall the insulation materials stuck against the external wall of the building to be clad must be of limited combust ability as defined by the regulations no one has
01:42:46 as defined by the regulations no one has positively suggested to you or in the public domain that any insulation material used on Grenfell Tower complied with that requirement this particular debate is therefore confined to the
01:42:58 debate is therefore confined to the question of whether the cladding panels accorded with the regulations we and the government as reflected in its building safety programme explanatory note issued
01:43:09 safety programme explanatory note issued following the fire regarded as clear that on its proper interpretation approved document b part 4 of the regulations paragraphs 12.5 and 12 point 7 require the core of the panels to also
01:43:22 7 require the core of the panels to also be of limited combust ability on a building over 18 metres tall and we would expect some other core participants may take the same view the aluminum composite panel Reynaud bond
01:43:35 aluminum composite panel Reynaud bond manufactured by our conic is not a material of limited combust ability as is apparent from the original and subsequent British Board of a gram a certificate issued in respect of it our
01:43:47 certificate issued in respect of it our conics physician statement however remains silent on this issue if it is obvious and or accepted by corporate corporate events that these materials were not compliant with building
01:43:59 were not compliant with building regulations then neither the victims nor the wider public should have to await Phase two for the elephant in the room to be called what it is namely a building improperly envelopes in unsafe
01:44:12 building improperly envelopes in unsafe materials not one of the interested core participants needs more time to establish where the materials complied with the building regulations or not it would be wholly surprising if they did
01:44:24 would be wholly surprising if they did not already know the answer if you say now that you will leave the door of phase one open to consideration of matters of obvious non-compliance then
01:44:35 matters of obvious non-compliance then the parties can address the issue in their openings and if they choose not to then both you and your counsel should do so including the compliance questions
01:44:46 so including the compliance questions within phase one to the extent possible fulfills one of your own design aims for phase one which was the urgent need to find out what aspects of the building's design and construction played a
01:44:57 design and construction played a significant role in enabling the disaster to occur there are two questions one is what happened namely how the fire was caused and how did it engulfed the building so rapidly but
01:45:09 engulfed the building so rapidly but necessarily entails consideration of how adequate the materials were the other question is the impact of the regulatory requirements on the adequacy of the materials used the answers to these
01:45:21 materials used the answers to these questions are not mutually exclusive both may entail negative findings namely that the materials did not conform to building regulations and those regulations are in some respects not
01:45:33 regulations are in some respects not sufficiently clear it is of course a matter for government and corporate they choose to say about both these questions and when it is however undoubtedly vital
01:45:44 and when it is however undoubtedly vital to the victims and the wider public including the construction industry that the answers to both these questions should be known sooner rather than later those for whom we act are burdened not
01:45:56 those for whom we act are burdened not only by not knowing but are also plagued by highly conflicting narratives in the media we invite you to declare the obvious as soon as possible and then in Phase two to establish why it happened
01:46:09 Phase two to establish why it happened those are my submissions thank you thank you very much no running sheets just you're next mr. Medfield
01:46:36 thank you may I just say by interim word of an introduction that in fact I represent along with Leslie Thomas who's going to address you after me we have
01:46:49 going to address you after me we have divided up the topics about we together with and I forgive me if I do this once I'm not going to do it every time I stand up is to recite who else is
01:47:01 stand up is to recite who else is alongside me but there are a number of barristers as well I'm going to mention them by name Allison Monroe Jamie Burton Justin Bates Thalia Mara and Philip Dale we we are instructed by
01:47:15 and Philip Dale we we are instructed by eleven firms I'm only going to read them again once Antony Gold bernburg Pierce Dayton Pierce Glen Duncan Lewis Hanover Bangalore Huddle's Jane's
01:47:26 Bangalore Huddle's Jane's Russell Cooke Saunders law Saunders solicitors Slater and Gordon I hope they won't mind me reading them rather fast but however that's the representational
01:47:37 but however that's the representational position yes all council and all solicitors have obviously combined so far as the survivors and the bereaved and residents are concerned to ensure this as much cooperation and
01:47:49 this as much cooperation and non-duplication as possible however as you've just been addressed on matters which flow into what I would want to address you on it's principally the
01:48:02 address you on it's principally the question of overlap phase one and phase two but may I just pick up on toxicity to begin with because this was a specific matter that I raised in December and I raised it then because
01:48:18 December and I raised it then because I'm sure many people here have visited the scene as you have yourself there was at the time and persists a concern by people who are still living in the area
01:48:30 people who are still living in the area about the risk not just to their own health on a longer-term basis and we know from reports that at least five individuals have been treated at Kings
01:48:44 individuals have been treated at Kings Hospital four cyanide poisoning that may just unfortunately be the tip of the art of the iceberg because as you mentioned
01:48:56 the iceberg because as you mentioned yourself
01:48:57 yourself carbon monoxide is also another threat as it were so it not only to those who lived and survived in the tower and their own personal health but also those in the walkways and elsewhere and
01:49:10 in the walkways and elsewhere and obviously there will be hopefully medical reports from the hospital relating to those who were treated as well as the post-mortem reports the problem with the post-mortem reports may
01:49:22 problem with the post-mortem reports may be this that the condition of the deceased that were examined may not provide enough material to make an assessment as to whether there was a
01:49:35 assessment as to whether there was a toxic element in the death or contributing to the death so it does require we would submit at this stage the instruction of an expert with
01:49:47 the instruction of an expert with specific as it were instructions to examine the health consequences to the individuals and to the environment because people who live there have been
01:49:58 because people who live there have been saying very still live there been saying that on the night the product from the burning cladding as well as the insulation could be found a long way
01:50:10 insulation could be found a long way from the tower itself they were picking it up off the ground and of course some will be saying do we get contaminated by merely picking it up so these are all the issues there they're not difficult
01:50:22 the issues there they're not difficult to foresee but we would say this is a separate topic that needs consideration yes so I don't say more on that particular aspect may I turn to the more substantial matter and that is the
01:50:35 substantial matter and that is the position and in fact your own observations which we welcomed after the December submissions that I made about overlap between phase one and two simple
01:50:48 overlap between phase one and two simple point that we were putting then and maintain is that it should not become an artificial or hermetically sealed situation and therefore may I just for
01:51:00 situation and therefore may I just for this
01:51:01 this for these purposes quote your own words and adopt them you said this in in your later ruling on these matters having listened to the arguments I've just sent
01:51:14 listened to the arguments I've just sent done it in synopsis forms I've come to the conclusion that for the time being at least it would be sensible to retain a significant degree of flexibility in
01:51:26 a significant degree of flexibility in relation to the scope of the different phases that in and that in due course it may be sensible to allow phase one to flow seamlessly into Phase two with a
01:51:37 flow seamlessly into Phase two with a minimum of interruption and then you go on and indicate that it would be sensible in fact to include with in phase one and then you list the issues
01:51:49 phase one and then you list the issues at three a nine a B and a I think it's H s and H and 12 C may I develop that for the purposes of what is about and I am
01:52:00 the purposes of what is about and I am really wanting to apply the flexibility approach to the imminent need for certain aspects of this inquiry and I say it because I hope I'm not being
01:52:12 say it because I hope I'm not being unfair to your own counsel but I didn't detect unless it was implicit and I missed it in the observations and the statement made by counsel this morning any reference to flexibility in fact
01:52:26 any reference to flexibility in fact quite the reverse because when it came to for example and the first dimension of this topic is statements being prepared by the bereaved the survivors
01:52:39 prepared by the bereaved the survivors and the residents we we returned to the phraseology that existed before the last hearing namely sticking to the narrative
01:52:51 hearing namely sticking to the narrative of the night what happened on the night I don't want to traverse all the arguments as to why we say yes of course that's a good starting point but it can't be kept to that because how a fire
01:53:05 can't be kept to that because how a fire spread is intrinsically linked to why it spread and who are going to be in the forefront of being able to at least assist and I
01:53:17 being able to at least assist and I would describe some of them as experts in their own right that is the people who lived there who've been in the building for some time before had been aware of the risks and on the night were
01:53:29 aware of the risks and on the night were able to identify as far as they're concerned what went wrong on the night so I would ask first of all therefore that when it comes to family they won't
01:53:42 that when it comes to family they won't all want to do it they won't or want to include but I would ask that consideration is given so that when statements are being drawn out from the I'm going to call them family members
01:53:54 I'm going to call them family members that they are not if they don't wish to be limited to what they may have seen on the night or heard on the night but if they have observations I'll put it in
01:54:05 they have observations I'll put it in that way about the risks involved it may relate to the actual materials because they'd noticed what had happened in other incidents like Lake and Hall and
01:54:16 other incidents like Lake and Hall and so on so there they are in a position to indicate what they had been noticing and warning about these these matters and obvious things that were clearly missing
01:54:31 obvious things that were clearly missing on the day whether it was a matter of compliance or not there are practical issues that many of them can speak about now as the issues are presently divided
01:54:42 now as the issues are presently divided can I just ask you to turn to a couple to demonstrate why we say may help you know I don't think it's intended to prevent anyone from dealing with
01:54:54 prevent anyone from dealing with whatever he wishes to do or she wishes to deal with in the statement no they don't need to feel that somehow they can't say things that they would like to say well may I just follow that through
01:55:07 say well may I just follow that through that that's a we're very grateful for that indication but can I just indicate if you'd be kind enough to look at issue number five in the list of issues and 5a
01:55:26 now that is it's a very obvious question I'll read it out in case those don't have it in front of them what were this is under the heading fire and safety
01:55:37 is under the heading fire and safety measures within the building at the time of the fire now 5a is included in phase one what were the fire resistance prevention mitigation evacuation and other safety
01:55:49 mitigation evacuation and other safety measures headed fire safety measures in place at the time of the fire now that's these are extremely important issues plainly but those who are living and it
01:56:02 plainly but those who are living and it may have survived the fire will be and others who who who visited the premises will be in a position to indicate not just that what were in place but what
01:56:13 just that what were in place but what we're not in place I think it's an obvious yes well and I think the families don't want to be in a position whereby of course they can put it in the statement but my next point would be
01:56:25 statement but my next point would be they don't want to have to keep coming back to give their Evers a point we discussed before you yourself indicated sympathy for not bringing family members back so that if on the first occasion
01:56:36 back so that if on the first occasion let us say the first week or so of your inquiry that a family member who's got some pertinent observations about what would have made a difference whether
01:56:47 would have made a difference whether it's sprinklers on the inside sprinklers on the outside all those points they I would submit not only why should they be allowed to say it in the statement but
01:56:58 allowed to say it in the statement but that you might consider allowing them to say it in phase one that's really what it comes to yes now I won't perhaps labor the point by making the same thing
01:57:12 labor the point by making the same thing under parent su eleven the fire same point comes up however there are two areas in the issues which I would submit could be added to the list that you
01:57:23 could be added to the list that you yourself made in relation to this that is scope number eight on the list of issues is headed communications
01:57:36 issues is headed communications with residents so once again but almost explicitly it is inviting residents to give their observations and of course
01:57:47 give their observations and of course one of the most important ones and again just an example is d what concerns warnings and other statements were expressed about the fire safety of Greenville town by its residents or any
01:58:00 Greenville town by its residents or any other person extremely important it's one of the aspects with the United Nations report reporter recently discerned is that the residents felt
01:58:11 discerned is that the residents felt they have been ignored not listened to on key issues which would undoubtedly have made a contribution to ensuring
01:58:22 have made a contribution to ensuring that there was no fire in the first place or at least no spreading fire and of course all the other aspects I didn't go through the other aspects of issue 11 so sorry notice you have this u8 that
01:58:34 so sorry notice you have this u8 that they would have the facility to put it in their statements and additionally to give that evidence before you if they wish not all of them would want to do that there is another one which I
01:58:46 that there is another one which I suggest an issue which as it were bridges the two phases and that's number 10 response to recommendation now I'm
01:58:57 10 response to recommendation now I'm only going to give one example obviously it could be left but many of the residents and again that same group are anxious to indicate what the response
01:59:10 anxious to indicate what the response was and the the particular aspect of this is 10 B were appropriate steps taken by central and local government and others relevant other relevant
01:59:22 and others relevant other relevant bodies to act upon such recommendations now that's relating to obviously other investigations other inquests and so on as well as clearly warnings that they've
01:59:34 as well as clearly warnings that they've been given by the residents that could be left but we suggest again that the residents and that grew residents bereaved and survivors will and do have
01:59:46 bereaved and survivors will and do have not all of them some of them have observations about how local and central authority basically overlooked and the points that they were making so
01:59:58 and the points that they were making so I'm making it shortly but I would ask therefore that certainly issues eight and ten at least considered for phase one because we say you can't separate
02:00:12 one because we say you can't separate them out in the way that it's otherwise countenanced now this this spreads beyond the compilation of statements on
02:00:23 beyond the compilation of statements on behalf of the families there are two other aspects which touch on exactly this issue of ensuring that there is a clear indication right at the start of
02:00:36 clear indication right at the start of the inquiry as to where it's going not just phase one because the only friend indicated again in the statement that basically the openings we're going to be
02:00:47 basically the openings we're going to be limited to phase one well that's all right if you have a clear indication of phase one but if you're taking a flexible approach to phase one which we would submit is absolutely necessary
02:00:59 would submit is absolutely necessary then the openings for example on behalf of these groups would have to we say include four in fairness to everyone not
02:01:10 include four in fairness to everyone not just the core participants who are residents and so forth but core participants who maybe in some way or another responsible and we have now position statements and it would be
02:01:23 position statements and it would be again a travesty not to be able to refer to position statements in the opening of the whole of the inquiry although it's faith the phase one of the inquiry if
02:01:34 faith the phase one of the inquiry if they're going to as it was you've put it in in that judgment that there's going to be a seamless flow from one to the other and there are going to be clear overlap areas then what the issues are
02:01:47 overlap areas then what the issues are namely what was missing what went wrong and who is the person or organization responsible for the failure whether it's
02:01:58 responsible for the failure whether it's a non-compliance or whether it's an actual item that is not provided I think on the last occasion I mentioned hose reels there very simple points but to divide it up between what
02:02:12 points but to divide it up between what was or wasn't there on the night too well will later discover who failed to either put it there or make it ineffective for a later time we said
02:02:23 ineffective for a later time we said would be diluting the accountability issue because one of the in investigative and inquest questions is accountability is being able to identify
02:02:36 accountability is being able to identify those responsible so I don't take that longer other than to say we say this impacts on the openings and the openings should be able to embrace the bigger if
02:02:48 should be able to embrace the bigger if as it were tapestry of what's happened in this case not limited to what happened on the night this also affects a third issue and that's experts we've
02:03:01 a third issue and that's experts we've given an illustration so I'm not going to repeat it it's in in the submissions we've made you will find this in paragraph 23 that experts we we said
02:03:14 paragraph 23 that experts we we said that this is imminent as we gather expert reports may be available within the month that expert reports also are not artificially divided between the two
02:03:27 not artificially divided between the two phases where there's a clear relationship between the two because when witnesses start to give evidence it's important that we all have an idea
02:03:38 it's important that we all have an idea of what it is that we're as it were aiming for what are the targets here what are the target issues what happened on the night yes is the focal point but
02:03:49 on the night yes is the focal point but arising out of that almost like a a wheel are going to be spokes going in many directions and everybody needs to know which direction they're going and what are the key aspects of the failures
02:04:02 what are the key aspects of the failures in practice and a non-compliance rather than leaving it for later because then you miss at the factual stage what it is you would have asked had you known that actually it makes a great difference
02:04:13 actually it makes a great difference well I'll give an example it's just come up last week that is the Met Police have issued a well it is apparently they've issued a report about fire doors that the fire
02:04:24 report about fire doors that the fire doors were not resistant for long enough and only 15 minutes well that's the kind of issue you need to know all that not what happened but what didn't happen and what would have made a difference all becomes as it were elided into one issue
02:04:37 becomes as it were elided into one issue so I think we make the point very clearly so we would ask for expert reports to certainly be prepared with that in mind and I come finally I'm
02:04:48 that in mind and I come finally I'm sorry I hope I'm not over running too much the site visit there was a third topic I was going to raise perhaps I didn't need to be reassured about that I
02:04:59 didn't need to be reassured about that I think so yeah I mean I'm going to turn up tomorrow and find out what happened know it well if you've got an appointment to be I'm sure you'll be will after I mean as many others I've
02:05:10 will after I mean as many others I've been down many times but I've never managed to get into the tower but as long as the Metropolitan Police are prepared and managed and we're quite happy to be managed but as long as it
02:05:21 happy to be managed but as long as it could happen before the opening of the inquiry that we could get to see that is that I can't speak on behalf of all lawyers they may not want to go but on behalf of the of the legal
02:05:32 behalf of the of the legal representatives I understand the families can go under the program so that's not a problem so I don't take it any further thank you very much right now mr. Thomas you going to speak
02:05:46 right now mr. Thomas you going to speak as well on behalf of your clients your tournament
02:06:00 good afternoon sir I'm some dealing with um generally to two specific topics and I and I hope to be brief can I just still firstly with the topic
02:06:13 can I just still firstly with the topic of experts and this is just really to supplement what has already been said and to assist your inquiry team with
02:06:26 and to assist your inquiry team with some of the issues that we we have in mind are and are concerned about and the first is this firstly we we thank you for the provision of fundings that
02:06:39 for the provision of fundings that you've provided to allow us to instruct some experts that that really does assist particularly in terms of leveling the playing field in terms of equality
02:06:51 the playing field in terms of equality of arms so we thank you for that but make that really in truly effective the time the timetable in and I know that we're working under a tight timetable
02:07:02 we're working under a tight timetable for good reasons but the timetabling needs to be just thought that thought about just a little bit more and let me give you a couple of examples you have
02:07:16 give you a couple of examples you have set a timetable in relation for when we are going to be receiving the expert reports that you have instructed there
02:07:29 reports that you have instructed there needs to be inserted into that time for the experts that we instruct time for
02:07:40 the experts that we instruct time for them to digest it and also it needs to be thought about very carefully when
02:07:51 be thought about very carefully when that expert evidence your expert evidence is given and when our expert evidence is like to begin thereafter okay and and I'll explain what I mean
02:08:03 okay and and I'll explain what I mean when I say our expert evidence to be given should an application be made in accordance with what we said earlier on and what I mean is this firstly for our
02:08:16 and what I mean is this firstly for our expert evidence to have real understanding our experts will firstly need if they so wish access to the site
02:08:27 need if they so wish access to the site that must follow and secondly access to any physical exhibits that other experts
02:08:38 any physical exhibits that other experts have seen so that just needs to be impacted in we would wish to reserve our opinion on the timing of the position on
02:08:54 opinion on the timing of the position on the hearing of expert evidence battery factor noon an opportunity for our experts to consider their evidence because we haven't got it yet and we can't say until we until our expertise
02:09:08 can't say until we until our expertise I'm glad that that makes sense so that's all I want to say in relation to the experts that there short point by I hope
02:09:20 experts that there short point by I hope understandable pointers can I turn then to the personal portraits or pen portraits however you want to describe
02:09:32 portraits however you want to describe them and and and secondly can I thank your counsel for making contact with me in relation to what's being proposed I think a lot of ground has been made in
02:09:46 think a lot of ground has been made in relation to this pretty well got an agreed arrangement more or less more or less and conversations between counsel
02:09:57 less and conversations between counsel absolutely absolutely I'm not gonna be long can I just take this opportunity to to emphasize on it but I know that you understand this and and and get this but
02:10:10 understand this and and and get this but just in relation to just how important the these pen port rates are the and I know that this is being
02:10:24 televised as it were live and so some may not understand the significance of pen portraits and what they mean the pen portraits of the bereaved not just the
02:10:36 portraits of the bereaved not just the breed the loss of the community in which tent Grenville tower represents is nothing less than a testimonial to dead a sketch of who they were where they
02:10:51 a sketch of who they were where they lived their connection to the tower is their contribution to the local community and what we want to achieve is
02:11:04 community and what we want to achieve is done so that when the inquiry when you sir come to hear the evidence it can that evidence can be put in its proper
02:11:15 that evidence can be put in its proper context this is not because what is being sought is sympathy but more empathy so that you know the people who
02:11:29 empathy so that you know the people who are being referred to they are not just another statistic not just another number not just another dead person we
02:11:43 number not just another dead person we are dealing with real people who had real lives who've suffered real loss and who are in real pain and so sir and I
02:11:55 who are in real pain and so sir and I know that mr. Miller touched upon this when he addressed you this morning but there are one or two things that are really important when you come to hear
02:12:06 really important when you come to hear this really sensitive and if I may say so at times delicate evidence there will be issues of translation there will be
02:12:21 be issues of translation there will be much distress we will need to take into account cultural differences in terms of
02:12:33 account cultural differences in terms of people trying to express themselves and trying to express themselves in a way that at times may seem upset and for
02:12:45 that at times may seem upset and for them upsetting for others listening and they really needed to be real cultural sensitivity when that evidence is being
02:12:57 sensitivity when that evidence is being heard bearing in mind that a towel was a real melting pot of different cultures races religions all coming together
02:13:10 races religions all coming together therefore sir the timing and takin of these portraits is a sensitive matter and we are really heartened by what your
02:13:22 and we are really heartened by what your counsel what your team is doing and communicating to us in relation to how that evidence is to be taken finally may
02:13:33 that evidence is to be taken finally may say this we would like your team and you sir to also bear in mind that in taking in the taking of these pimpled trains
02:13:46 in the taking of these pimpled trains the inquiry must also consider the wider suffering there are many people from the community who were not residents but who
02:13:58 community who were not residents but who shared the profound grief sense of loss of those who lived within the tower there were going to be some people from the walk who also call participants they
02:14:13 the walk who also call participants they have had their lives shaken to the core they were terrified they watched friends neighbors died and even these individuals have the rights
02:14:26 even these individuals have the rights to be able to stand up and say how this has devastated their lives and what it means to them so I know that there will
02:14:37 means to them so I know that there will be flexibility so you've indicated that
02:14:43 in terms of that flexibility all we ask is when these pen portraits they're not going to be narrowly constrained I have had discussions with your council in
02:14:55 had discussions with your council in relation to the timetabling of it and the and and so I don't need to trouble you with that thank you for listening to me
02:15:00 me thank you very much for your submissions
02:15:08 yes mr. Weatherbee you're next
02:15:23 yes thank you sir together with Sam Steen I lead Fiona Murphy and Mark Henderson for approximately 150 bereaved and survivor
02:15:37 approximately 150 bereaved and survivor core participants instructed by Jan gear Mahmood from Bishop Lloyd Jackson Martin how from how inko and our fan party from
02:15:48 how from how inko and our fan party from Oliver Fisher can I say that I'll be addressing as briefly as I can three topics which I have dealt with before
02:16:00 topics which I have dealt with before but there is further discussion which we submit would be profitable to all and can I also start by saying perhaps
02:16:12 can I also start by saying perhaps stating the obvious that for the bereaved and the survivors there is keen as anybody else indeed keener than anybody else and that this process should move on as quickly
02:16:25 this process should move on as quickly as possible and as cooperatively as possible in order to get to and the result that we all hope to achieve and
02:16:36 result that we all hope to achieve and can I say that we are grateful to mr. millet for the comments that he's made this morning and indeed through the informal contact that we've had with with him and his team previously and we
02:16:50 with him and his team previously and we don't doubt that your team are working very hard indeed we don't doubt that the matters that they're dealing with in this public inquiry are both very major and very
02:17:03 inquiry are both very major and very complex tasks of course there's a but coming
02:17:08 coming the but is the matters that I'm going to talk to in the next few minutes and they are essentially around disclosure but to
02:17:20 are essentially around disclosure but to get there I want to touch upon what effective participation by the bereaved and survivors looks like or should look like and also I want to return to the issue
02:17:31 issue statements the reality is the fact is as we stand here today that we have had only 1962 documents disclosed to us
02:17:48 mostly individual photographs of the building or the inside of the building out of the 330 thousand documents that
02:18:01 out of the 330 thousand documents that the inquiry has gathered to date and that means that the disclosure to date is just over 1/2 of 1% of the material
02:18:13 is just over 1/2 of 1% of the material that the inquiry team has and that doesn't include the massive material that the Met has and that does concern us
02:18:32 we do we do understand that a lot of that material will be irrelevant to phase 1 and phase 2 some some of it will be duplicated some of it will be more relevant to one
02:18:43 some of it will be more relevant to one phase than the other but having said that when I come to the list of matters that we are concerned about a lot of it or or a significant amount of and we
02:18:56 or or a significant amount of and we don't know what because we don't know what it is but there must be a significant amount of documentation that needs to be disclosed and we are here
02:19:07 needs to be disclosed and we are here two months away from the starting date for for phase one and that's what concerns us let me touch on as an example I'll come back to it in due course but the material that was
02:19:20 course but the material that was supplied to the experts there are there are nine experts as we understand it currently instructed by the inquiry and we have not had disclosed to us the
02:19:32 we have not had disclosed to us the material that must have been given to them or seven of them in indeed some four months ago and whereas we've heard this morning that the met may wish to
02:19:43 this morning that the met may wish to have some input into that we simply don't understand why that material which must have gone through the potential relevance test and must be
02:19:55 the potential relevance test and must be in a form to be provided to experts why that sort of material could not be supplied they have two suits ep's well more general material which is easy to
02:20:11 more general material which is easy to assimilate or digest well I'm grateful for that indication but I'm slightly
02:20:23 for that indication but I'm slightly alarmed by it as well because if disclosure is going to be made on the basis that we will not understand it then the disclosure throughout this process is going to be extremely
02:20:35 process is going to be extremely problematic eyerly a made a submission I repeat it now that's the only way with respect for disclosure to be to be made
02:20:47 respect for disclosure to be to be made is in tranches as its considered and not to be over concerned about which part of the inquiry it relates to because if that happens then it becomes so
02:20:59 that happens then it becomes so intertwined disclosure will not be made well if that is the plan then we would very much age that you revisit that we're in a position where we we are
02:21:13 we're in a position where we we are going to have to assimilate and work a large amount of documentation for a large number of experts dealing with very complicated matters starting in perhaps two and a half months time also
02:21:27 perhaps two and a half months time also as mr. Thomas has just referred to also we're going to have to instruct our own experts to consider at least impart some of that and therefore the earliest
02:21:38 of that and therefore the earliest disclosure that could could be made would have greatly aided that part of the process without effective disclosure
02:21:49 the process without effective disclosure it puts us in a position where our clients bereaved and survivor CPS are simply not going to be in a position to effect
02:21:58 effect we participate or their effective participation in this whole process is going to be severely diminished and it seems taking again where we started with
02:22:10 seems taking again where we started with the disclosure of the expert material provided to the experts with respect it once it's passed the relevance test and there are no particular objections to
02:22:23 there are no particular objections to its disclosure then there seems to be no advantage to the inquiry to hold it back pending the reports itself may I then
02:22:34 pending the reports itself may I then follow again what had probably quite straightforward submissions about effective participation and we've set them out again in our written submissions yes they've been repeated
02:22:46 submissions yes they've been repeated assertions through the past months that it's for the inquiry to investigate rather than for court participants in the written response to the first
02:22:57 the written response to the first preliminary hearing there was reference a number of times and I'm quoting to the wish of corpus participants to monitor
02:23:08 wish of corpus participants to monitor at the work of the inquiry and looking for reassurance that the inquiries is doing its job properly I don't think
02:23:19 doing its job properly I don't think those are words that I used or indeed other cause discord has has been representatives let me develop this in two very short submissions firstly not
02:23:33 two very short submissions firstly not only do we agree but we indeed emphasize that is for the inquiry to investigate both and domestic and convention law
02:23:44 both and domestic and convention law it's crystal clear that the inquiries under such a legal duty to conduct an independent and a thorough investigation
02:23:55 independent and a thorough investigation any failure to seize or gather relevant information or evidence and testimony a failure to pursue rigorously lines of
02:24:06 failure to pursue rigorously lines of investigation or a failure to pursue accountability would be a breach of those obligations on in particular a breach of article two so no
02:24:18 particular a breach of article two so no argument from us and that the legal responsibility for a full and effective inquiry
02:24:24 inquiry lies on the public inquiry itself however there is a further legal obligation on the inquiry in that it has
02:24:36 obligation on the inquiry in that it has to facilitate effective participation by the bereaved and the survivors and once again this is a complementary legal obligation on the inquiry articulated in
02:24:50 obligation on the inquiry articulated in the cases which are well known and referred to in our written material particularly from from Jordan the requirements of effective participation are not well developed in the case law
02:25:03 are not well developed in the case law but that's because what constitutes effective participation will differ from inquiry or case it's a case but in our
02:25:16 inquiry or case it's a case but in our submission in a inquiry such as this into a major public disaster with such loss of life the requirements of
02:25:28 loss of life the requirements of effective participation go far beyond monitoring or being reassured about what the inquiry is doing and in the domestic case law in particular the higher courts
02:25:41 case law in particular the higher courts have regularly referred to the requirement that the bereaved properly represented but also that they're provided with all relevant material and I read into that all relevant material
02:25:54 I read into that all relevant material exposed it expeditiously and we've referred in the written submissions thereto arming Humberstone and in particular Smith an Oxford coroner and
02:26:06 particular Smith an Oxford coroner and the words of Lord Justice Sullivan in in the Bentley case and I'm quoting in an article to case it will be difficult to justify any refusal to disclose relevant material and again I have the word
02:26:20 material and again I have the word expeditiously putting together those two parts the obligation to investigate unequivocally on the inquiry but that does not give an
02:26:33 inquiry but that does not give an effective participation mean that the inquiry should take some kind of paternalistic approach to leave it to the inquiry to investigate everything or
02:26:45 the inquiry to investigate everything or indeed to manage the disclosure in the way with respect that has just been indicated effective participation requires involvement it requires the
02:27:00 requires involvement it requires the right to make meaningful submissions regarding lines of inquiry it requires the right to transparency of the process it may include the opportunity to
02:27:12 it may include the opportunity to question witnesses and underpinning all of those parts of effective participation is the need for full disclosure at an early stage in order to
02:27:24 disclosure at an early stage in order to allow core participants to engage with that process staying with the expert disclosure matter how can we make proper informed submissions about what the
02:27:38 informed submissions about what the experts should be looking at how can we for the bereaved and survivor core participants point out other areas of the lines of questioning unless we have
02:27:50 the lines of questioning unless we have the underlying material and how can we properly instruct our Advisory experts without without that material to Allied
02:28:01 without without that material to Allied effective participation with reassurance and monitoring and the fact that the inquiry itself is doing a good job is we would say a fundamental error position
02:28:15 would say a fundamental error position statements that's paragraph 41 of your response to the first hearing you indicated that it would be helpful to everyone involved in the inquiry that
02:28:27 everyone involved in the inquiry that the corporate and public authority CPS provide physician statements and requested them by the 9th of February and that approach had followed
02:28:38 and that approach had followed submissions from the bereaved and and survivor representatives which were happily met with almost universal agreement by the corporate and public authority
02:28:50 corporate and public authority representatives however as you pointed out in your response what we had submitted and what the corporate CPS had
02:29:01 submitted and what the corporate CPS had agreed to were not one and the same thing nevertheless the request for position statements we viewed as a very positive mood by the inquiry and having
02:29:13 positive mood by the inquiry and having seen recently having seen the position stains or at least most of them because there was some delay in in providing them to us and we can see that they will
02:29:26 them to us and we can see that they will very much assist the process and reduce the work of the inquiry and and everybody including us in understanding how each of the organizations interact
02:29:39 how each of the organizations interact however having said that to describe them properly as position statements may be going a little too far because
02:29:50 be going a little too far because virtually all of the position statements so filed have constituted more of the version offered by the corporate participants rather than what we were
02:30:03 participants rather than what we were with submitting it should be requested from them and the difference is perhaps best considered by posing the question
02:30:14 best considered by posing the question what is the aim of position statements and the aim of position statements we would submit I hope that's not a
02:30:26 would submit I hope that's not a guillotine may I have your attention please may I have your attention please fire has been reported in the building this report is being investigated please
02:30:38 this report is being investigated please remain at your workplace whilst the fire alert exists mr. Weatherbee I think for the moment we should stay where we are and you carry on if you
02:30:54 I'm conscious of the bereaved and survivors position given such a warning well if you'd rather rise we can do that
02:31:07 well if you'd rather rise we can do that I'm afraid afraid I think it would be appropriate yep alright well we'll rise now would it be sensible to break down get something to
02:31:18 sensible to break down get something to eat rather than come back in that twenty minutes break again I'm in Italian I've passed one please may I have your
02:31:29 passed one please may I have your attention please may I have your attention please
02:31:43 you