FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Grenfell Tower

How Those Responsible for the Grenfell Tragedy Could Be Punished

We spoke to a lawyer about the potential cases that could be brought against those guilty of allowing the fire to happen.
Photo: Rick Findler/PA Wire/PA Images

This morning's front pages wasted no time demanding those responsible for the Grenfell Tower fire be brought to justice. The Mirror said the fire was "criminal", the Metro said we have to "Arrest the Killers". David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, said the fire was "corporate manslaughter", and hundreds of lawyers offered their services for free to those affected.

But is there really any chance of the council, the building's management company or the government facing criminal charges? Or will this be another case of enquiries kicked into the long grass and little in the way of justice?

Advertisement

We spoke to Jo Maugham QC, one of the lawyers who offered legal assistance, to find out what the next legal steps could be.

VICE: So all of the front pages are saying that criminal charges should be brought forward. Do you think there is a likelihood of that happening?
Jo Maugham QC: I certainly think we're in that arena. I think it was right for David Lammy to say that we ought to be looking at corporate manslaughter – or not corporate manslaughter, just, you know, manslaughter charges

I see.
There were lots and lots and lots of warning signs here, and I think that's what's making people so angry. The presence of all the warning signs, and a failure to address them. That's absolutely something I'm looking at; I think that's the arena we're in.

And all these warning signs – the letters from residents and that kind of thing – do they strengthen any potential legal case?
Yeah, because they show that the council or whoever else those warnings were addressed to were aware that residents believed there to be an issue. One of the striking things about those warnings is that they are very, specific about exactly what the difficulties are, and yet nonetheless got ignored. So it's quite difficult for anyone to say, "We had no idea."

Yeah. Is there a precedent for this kind of thing? I hadn't heard the phrase "corporate manslaughter" until today.
Manslaughter is killing somebody where you don't intend to kill them – that you have some intention short of killing them, which is criminal. And corporate manslaughter is where a corporation bears responsibility for a death that is not intended. It's been a long time since I've done any criminal law, but the notions of manslaughter and corporate manslaughter are well known.

Advertisement

Right. And looking at it from the perspective of the residents, do you think they have a case to sue the management company? What kind of case would they have?
Well, you're basically suing for negligence typically in this sort of situation, or for breach of a statutory duty. But here it's likely to be negligence, and you're saying that somebody's conduct fell short of a minimum standard that the law tolerates before it imposes a financial burden for loss that follows a failure to observe that standard.

Right.
So the law says, "Does your conduct fall below a particular standard?" Answer: we don't know, but quite possibly yes. If yes, has somebody suffered loss because of your conduct falling below that standard? Answer here: clearly yes. Fundamentally, those are the main questions.

We're quite used to seeing corporations get away scot-free for a range of crimes – do you think this will break the mould? Is success inevitable?
Well, I think it's inevitable that there will be legal cases. Nobody regards success in a legal case as inevitable – well, certainly no one with their head screwed on; these cases are always complex. But you're absolutely in the territory where you're thinking about manslaughter, and you're also thinking about whether there's been negligent conduct, but somebody other than me is going to have to make predictions about what the answer is.

Sure. There have been reports that, when complaints were made on the residents' blog, the management company for the building made legal threats. If that was the case, were they in their rights to do that, and would that have any implications for any legal case now?
I've seen those reports as well. I don't know whether they are true. Let's just assume that they are true – they would form part of a relatively well-known pattern of those who are in the wrong seeking to silence people who are pointing out that they are in the wrong. And it's pretty upsetting – pretty disgraceful – if, as the reports suggest, the public authority was told it was doing something wrong, and its reaction was to threaten to sue the people complaining. You know, that's an appalling, appalling state of affairs. Absolutely appalling.

Advertisement

Thanks, Jo.

@samwolfson

More on VICE:

REVEALED: London Landlords Are Routinely Missing Deadlines To Address Serious Fire Hazards

The Government Is Using 'A Public Inquiry' to Dodge Grenfell Fire Questions

Should Rich People's Houses Be Seized to Help Grenfell Victims?