Grenfell tower

[transam]

"This is an incredibly tragic incident. Our thoughts are with the residents and their families who have suffered such personal loss. We will fully support and co_operate with the investigation into the fire"

Ray Bailey director of Harley Facades cladding. 16th June 2017

28th January 2020 lawyer for Harley Facades

" We collectively write to request that u seek an undertaking from the Attorney General preventing the use of evidence given by witnesses to the public inquiry against them in any future criminal proceedings

With out it witnesses will legitimstely and reasonably be entitled to refuse to answer questions and would there fore not be in a position to give relevant evidence before the enquiry "

 

[fillyboy]

Standard law in most of the western world. Already been discussed.

 

[transam]

Ray Bailey should have considered that prior commenting

 

[transam]

They should be questioned in a proper court

Refusal to answer questions should result in Contempt of court charges and they should be taken straight down to the cells to await transport to the nearest prison

 

[fillyboy]

They should be questioned in a proper court

Refusal to answer questions should result in Contempt of court charges and they should be taken straight down to the cells to await transport to the nearest prison

Fifth amendment in America protects against self incrimination, similar laws in UK and much of the world. I think in the UK Jurys are allowed to conclude certain things from refusal to self incriminate in certain cases.
In the case of Grenfell, it's arguably better 'they' are given immunity if the whole truth comes out, so 'lessons are learned', but agreed, it's all rather tacky and immoral.

 

[bernardgreen]

it's arguably better 'they' are given immunity if the whole truth comes out

Give them immunity when giving evidence about Grenfell.

Then use that evidence to seek convictions on charges related to the attaching of inflammable cladding to other buildings.

 

[Brigadier]

I think in the UK Jurys are allowed to conclude certain things from refusal to self incriminate in certain cases.

I read the judge's comments from a big claim case some years ago, and their nature surprised me.
I always thought that courts basically concerned themselves with matters of fact, evidence, and things that could be proven. However, the judge made a lot of subjective comments on the character of the witnesses; specifically, whether he found them to be open, cooperative, and truthful, or guarded, evasive, and untrustworthy.

(Basically, IIRC the contractor ignored the plan of work, then were called on it, then caused a multi - million pound fire. Then, despite numerous key clearly - evident points at which a claim could be reasonably foreseeable as on its way, the contractor didn't inform its insurers. When belatedly informed of the claim, the insurers refused to cover it on the basis of not being told at first opportunity. The size of the (now uninsured) liability would have collapsed the contractor, who then took their insurers to court).