Contractors and product suppliers involved in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment are scheduled to appear in open court next week to answer questions about the sale and installation of highly flammable cladding and insulation on the 24-story block. Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick informed Attorney General Geoffrey Cox that evidence of fraud and conspiracy has emerged during the proceedings.
The second phase of hearings, set to resume on 24 February 2020, will examine the marketing of polyethylene-filled panels and polyisocyanurate foam. These materials transformed a routine kitchen fire on 14 June 2017 into a deadly blaze that claimed 72 lives and injured 70 others. The first phase of the public inquiry, completed in 2019, established that a fridge-freezer fire on the fourth floor spread through a window and ignited the external cladding system within minutes.
The new phase will investigate decisions made at the board level. In a letter dated 30 January, Moore-Bick requested that witnesses receive no immunity, warning that questions to employees of cladding manufacturers and sellers about how they marketed potentially dangerous products could lead them to invoke privilege against self-incrimination.
The letter, made public on 12 February, lists suspected offenses under the Fraud Act 2006, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Prosecutors are monitoring the sessions closely. A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson confirmed that a dedicated team is reviewing evidence as it is disclosed, adding that charges remain a live option.
Internal documents already submitted to the inquiry show that insulation manufacturer Celotex knew its RS5000 foam was not suitable for building facades without a fire barrier, yet marketed it anyway. A 2014 email from product manager Simon Blake stated that the company was testing a configuration it knew would fail.
Similarly, Arconic, the U.S. conglomerate that produced Reynobond PE cladding sheets, removed the product from its European catalogue in 2016. A sales slide presented to Grenfell’s refurbishment team in 2014 carried a fire performance rating of class E, the second lowest under EU rules, yet described the panels as ideal for tower blocks. Arconic’s former fire engineer, Claude Wehrle, who is on the witness list, told colleagues in 2015 that the polyethylene burned like crazy.
Wehrle has refused to give oral evidence, citing French law, a move that has angered survivors. Rydon Maintenance, the main contractor overseeing the £8.7 million refurbishment, along with Harley Facades and 11 other firms, requested a pause in hearings on 30 January to argue for self-incrimination protection.
Moore-Bick refused the blanket demand and ordered proceedings to resume on 24 February. The Metropolitan Police have amassed 27 million documents in their investigation. Detective Chief Inspector Matt Bonner told bereaved families that the paper trail is already extensive and that proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed, not admissions in the inquiry room. Officers have interviewed 650 witnesses under caution and seized laptops from Celotex, Arconic, and Rydon.
Prosecutors are considering individual manslaughter charges against managers as well as corporate offenses carrying unlimited fines. The Grenfell United campaign group stated on 13 February that fines are meaningless while decision-makers walk free, adding that companies do not kill people, directors do.
Lawyers for the bereaved intend to call Arconic’s former vice-president Peter Field, Celotex ex-managing director Jonathan Roper, and Rydon project manager Simon Lawrence. All three have denied wrongdoing through legal representatives. If the CPS proceeds, charges could be filed before the inquiry ends, expected in 2021, though complex cases often take longer.
The Serious Fraud Office is also monitoring evidence for possible jurisdiction over international supply chains. Moore-Bick has promised that nothing said in the hearing room will be withheld from detectives.
He told survivors on 12 February that any admissions or inconsistent statements, while a potential bonus, are unlikely to provide the foundation for a decision to prosecute given the vast volume of documentary evidence already available to police. The next weeks will determine whether boardroom cost-cutting becomes a criminal matter or remains another chapter in a long apology.
