The families of the 96 people who were killed in the crush at the FA Cup semi-final at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 have the news, 28 years later, that six men have been charged with criminal offences relating to the deaths, and to alleged lies and perverting of the course of justice. This landmark for the families, with court hearings and possibly lengthy trials still to be endured, is the latest step in the fight they have mounted for justice and accountability through so many years of legal letdowns.
The timing is desperately eloquent, just two weeks after dozens of people were killed in the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower: a warning to the government and justice system to conduct themselves properly for today’s victims and their families. Very quickly, survivors and families who lost relatives in the tower have filled the vacuum of local and national political leadership with outraged questions, protests and fears that justice will not be done. These people have the right to swift answers and accountability, not to suffer – as the victims of other disasters have – a series of proceedings that deliver not justice, but a prolonged extension of their nightmare. If the Grenfell Tower families endure a wait for justice similar to the one the Hillsborough families endured, they would not receive an announcement of criminal charges until 2045.
Theresa May, following her deficient response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, sought to meet the community’s outrage with the announcement of a public inquiry, but deep mistrust has formed already among residents about how truly independent, prompt and effective it will be. The Metropolitan police has announced a criminal inquiry into the apparently multiple failures that led to people being killed in their homes. The stages of investigation can already be seen stretching inexorably into the years ahead: the public inquiry to establish the causes of the fire and make specific and wider safety recommendations; inquests that will hear the same evidence all over again; civil cases for compensation.
We must wait for the full responses from Kensington and Chelsea council, the tenant management organisation, and contractors who worked on the tower – but already standard positions are being adopted, statements that correct procedures were followed. The human reaction to such horror is emotional, as seen in the tremendous outpouring of solidarity from residents and volunteers, but the corporate world and legal system is much more clinical and adversarial.
May has promised the victims public funding for lawyers through the public inquiry, which is not mandatory. Nor, scandalously, is funding available for bereaved families at inquests into the deaths of their loved ones, even when the institutions responsible for safety have public money for lawyers.
After the Hillsborough disaster, the families did not have public funding for Lord Justice Taylor’s official inquiry, or for the first inquest, held in Sheffield: 42 families mustered £3,000 each to pay for legal representatives.
A robust judge, overseeing an efficient, relatively prompt process, could deliver a valuable step on the road to justice for the Grenfell families. But a public inquiry has no legal status: it is up to the conscience of governments like May’s to implement an inquiry’s recommendations. Criminal liability is always difficult to establish, and at inquests and through civil cases there can too often appear to be an institutionalised inclination to deny liability and limit compensation as much as possible.
The Hillsborough families discovered in their civil settlement the pittances that English law considers adequate for the loss of loved ones, and the difficulty of being compensated for grief and psychological suffering. It took the effort and further trauma of a 25-year campaign against the 1991 accidental death inquest verdict for the families finally to see the verdicts of unlawful killing. That followed two years of evidence, the longest case ever heard by a British jury, at which May, exceptionally, provided public funding for lawyers.
After enduring all this, the Hillsborough families have proposed a “Hillsborough law”, which would establish a legal duty for public bodies and individuals representing them to be fully open and candid in court processes, and ensure that families have equal legal representation. The Queen’s speech purported to include a Hillsborough law, but it fell well short of those measures, and instead proposes a public advocate for disaster victims.
The Grenfell Tower residents, their advocates and the whole country must remain vigilant when the tragedy has moved off the front pages and towards the courts. The residents should have the best possible legal representation, and all organisations responsible must be pressed to conduct themselves decently, provide all relevant information openly, and accept fault if appropriate.
That should apply to May’s government too. Departments and ministers must be held to account on why the promised review of fire safety regulations was delayed, on the failure to implement recommendations from a series of reports, on the effect of incessant cuts to local authorities, public services and the fire brigade – and on the government’s apparent political and cultural resistance to health and safety regulation.
Horror has struck in Britain again; tragically, the justice system still has a long way to go.
