The Weekly Round-up: Phase 2 of the Grenfell Inquiry

16 February 2021 by

Grenfell Tower in June 2017

In the News:

Having been temporarily suspended in early January as a result of an increase in COVID-19 cases, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry hearings resumed on 8 February 2021. The fire killed 72 people.

The hearings are being conducted remotely using a Zoom-based video platform, which the Inquiry describes as “a temporary measure to be used only for as long as absolutely necessary”.

The Inquiry conducted Phase 1 of the investigation, which focused on the events of the night of 14 June 2017, on 12 December 2018. Phase 2 is currently underway, which examines the causes of these events, including how Grenfell Tower came to be in a condition which allowed the fire to spread in the way identified by Phase 1.

The Phase 2 hearings are organised into seven modules focusing on different key topics. In the order in which they will be heard, according to the Inquiry’s provisional outline timeline, the modules are:

  • Module 1: The primary refurbishment – overview and cladding (September to October 2020)
  • Module 2: Cladding products – testing/certification, product marketing (November 2020 to March 2021)
  • Module 3: Complaints and communication with residents; management of Grenfell Tower, compliance with Fire Safety Order 2005; fire risk assessment; active and passive fire safety measures internal to building (April to July 2021)
  • Module 5: Firefighting (July to October 2021)
  • Module 6: Government (October to December 2021)
  • Module 7: Further evidence from expert witnesses (December 2021)
  • Module 4: Aftermath of the fire (January 2022 to February 2022)

The Inquiry is currently focused on Module 2. So far, it has heard that cladding manufacturer Arconic considered withdrawing its combustible panels for sale after several high-rise cladding fires in the UAE. Debbie French, the UK sales manager at the time of the fire, admitted that the company marketed a more flammable version of the panels because a fire-retardant version was less likely to secure contracts due to its price.

For those interested in getting a more detailed view, much of the Inquiry is available to view free online on YouTube.

Alternatively, the BBC provides a weekly overview in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Podcast.

In Other News:

  • In the High Court, Mr Justice Warby granted HRH The Duchess of Sussex summary judgment in her claim for misuse of private information against Associated Newspaper Limited, publishers of the Mail on Sunday, for five articles in February 2019 including extracts from a letter to her father, Mr Thomas Markle. The claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and copyright of the letter. The contents of the letter were personal matters, not matters of legitimate public interest due to her role as a high-ranking member of the Royal family.
  • The Good Law Project is challenging the award of a contract to a company run by long-term associates of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings. The £550,000 contract to conduct focus groups on the government’s pandemic messaging was not put out to competitive tender. The GLP is also challenging two government contracts awarded to a lobbying and PR firm cofounded by Paul Stephenson, who worked alongside Cummings for the 2016 Vote Leave campaign.

In the Courts:

  • QSA & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v National Police Chiefs’ Council & Anor [2021] EWHC 272:
    • Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham dismissed a judicial review of the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s policy that prostitution-related convictions remain recorded on the Police National Computer until those convicted are one hundred years old.
    • Each of the three claimants was forced or groomed into prostitution in their teens. Two suffered sexual abuse as children and were still children when they were forced into prostitution by older men. None of the claimants have been convicted of any offence for more than 20 years. They feel angry, degraded, endangered and held back in their chosen professional fields by the records of their convictions.
    • The claimants argued that the policy was unlawful since it interferes with their rights under Article 8 ECHR, is not in accordance with the law, and is disproportionate.
    • The court found the rule to be in accordance with the law, since “as a hard-edged rule that does not allow for the exercise of discretion, its effect on the claimants’ Article 8 rights is plain and entirely foreseeable.”

On the UKHRB:

  • Following on from an earlier post on the problem of “vaccine hesitancy”, Rosalind English summarises some legal risks posed by private vaccination enforcement measures.
  • An analysis of the Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling that Ryanair’s “Jab and Go!” campaign was irresponsible and in breach of the Broadcast Code.
  • Samuel March summarises a recent ruling that removed the requirement for defendants in criminal trials to state their nationality to the court at preliminary hearings.
  • Michael Spencer sums up a recent successful judicial review of the Universal Credit childcare payment system.
  • Ruby Peacock and Susana Ferrin Perez analyse a landmark judgment in which a Bordeaux court took pollution into account in deciding that an asylum seeker with asthma and sleep apnea could not be returned to his country of origin.
  • Conor Monighan summarises the Divisional Court’s decision that the Intelligence Services Act does not permit the government to engage in computer hacking.

New and Upcoming Publications

Leave a Reply

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: