Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

                                          CLICK IMAGE FOR DETAILS

                                        CLICK IMAGE FOR DETAILS

There are reports that Sir Martin Moore-Bick had a rough handling at the meeting with Grenfell Tower Survivors and family members of victims. In the narrow sense of the choice of judge to head the Public Inquiry, there has been controversy from the very moment of his appointment. What is needed is a judge with a combination of technical skill to unravel the cause and effect sequences of this unprecedented peacetime housing disaster, and people empathy who can get into the skins of the victims and their suffering on a level which guarantees trust. There is no doubt that Sir Martin passes the first test, but most people and all the victims feel he fails on the second.

This blog believes it is not the judge, but the format which is the issue. Public Inquiries led by judges or other senior civil or military figures have been used with success in the past. The successes have almost always been when the issue under review does not involve deaths. When death is the driver, as in Hutton and the early Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday inquires, failure caused more problems than existed before the procedure began and fostered suggestions of whitewash and cover-up. On the other hand a full forensic inquest, under a coroner sitting with a jury, offers a far better prospect of resolution and closure for victims and their families, as recently demonstrated by the final Hillsborough inquest.

The main difference between the two is that in the judge led inquiry it is the judge who decides on the conclusion, but in the inquest it is the people, represented by the jury, who determine the outcome. The Coroner makes recommendations in the light of the verdict. That is what should be happening for Grenfell.