The devastating fire that engulfed Grenfell Tower in Kensington last week was both tragic and disturbing. With fifty-eight people now missing and presumed dead thoughts begin to turn to the aftermath.

On Thursday the prime minister announced that there will be a full public enquiry into the blaze and this will surely be wide-ranging in its scope. Residents have cited a lack of coordination in the response from local and central authorities with a heavy reliance on the hard work of volunteers and charity workers.

There are also important questions to be asked including how the fire started in the first place, why it was as devastating as it was and whether it was a lack of fire safety regulations that let people down when it mattered most.

As grief turns to finger-pointing it is clear that justice must prevail and no other fire can be allowed to cause this much destruction and loss of life.

Lawyer have offered to work for residents pro bono and will begin to seek out ways in which compensation can be achieved so that the survivors can begin to put their lives back together.

Photo: AP – Matt Dunham

For the victims justice begins by holding those who were responsible for the conditions in which the fire took hold to account.

Labour MP David Lammy is a former barrister and has argued that the incident amounts to corporate manslaughter and arrests should be made.

In truth the allegation of corporate manslaughter is very difficult to prove and may not be applicable in these circumstances. Under section 1 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 there is a requirement that an organisation must have managed its activities in such a way that it:

(a) causes a person’s death, and
(b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.

Nevertheless there is some precedent and if charges are brought then there is a chance of success depending on the circumstances and what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. In particular a case from January 2016 involved a building firm called Linley Developments who were successfully convicted of corporate manslaughter after insufficient precautions were taken on a building site. A retaining wall collapsed and a worker died as a result.

Interesting the case also involved allegations of gross negligence manslaughter but these were not proceeded with after the defendants admitted breaches of the relevant construction regulations. However gross negligence manslaughter may be relevant in the context Grenfell Tower.

The crime is relevant where a death is the result of a grossly negligent act or omission by the defendant. In the light of R v Adomako [1994] there is a four-part test that must be applied:

a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased;
b) a breach of that duty of care which;
c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and
d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.

The Health and Safety Executive will also carry out a full investigation with the aid of the police and the fire brigade. This will take some time but also opens the door to a wide range of other, lesser offences within health and safety law that could be brought forward.

The worrying prospect and possible outcome is that the relevant bodies did act within the scope of the law and are therefore not guilty on most if not all charges. If this is the case it will place the relevant government authorities under huge scrutiny for not doing enough before tragedy struck.

The public enquiry is an important step in the right direction and while it will by no means scratch the surface of the hardship currently being endured in Kensington it will serve to expose those who should have done so much more before this awful event was allowed to occur.