1.Many of the agencies involved in the responses to Salisbury,Grenfell and Manchester were well briefed on what was soon expected to be law – the Hillsborough law. It was considered best practice and its principles were applied to the aftermath. Here is what I learned. A brief🧵
2. The Duty of Candour did have an important and focussing effect on public bodies. Agencies created their own charters and made much of signing them.They were firm with legal teams that they wanted to adhere to them.
3. Duty of Candour does not apply to private sector who are often involved in both causation and response. The private sector make up the majority of the firms under scrutiny at Grenfell. The Met at Grenfell relied heavily on private sector contractors in the response...
4....none of whom would be compelled by this duty. The military units at Salisbury would also not be eligible I believe.
5.DOC does not apply (understandably?) to any operations classified as Secret. Some Salisbury material is at this level, and at end of last year, Manchester families had to leave the inquiry so material at that level could be heard ‘in camera’. It will be redacted from reports.
6. One of the reasons I campaign so vigorously for us to examine the role of ‘community nudge’ after disaster is that I believe it interferes with our ability to sit down with families and be honest with them about our own failures/difficult issues that are coming to light
7. This was a particular issue at Manchester. It also creates a false camaraderie between state and families which leaves families feeling groomed and misled later.
8. Access to funds for the fight continues to be a major consideration and families of UK disaster should immediately be eligible for more support. But the quality of the legal advice also needs overhaul.
9.Independent Legal advice 2017-8 was poorer than I had seen delivered in the 80s and 90s. Many solicitors seemed unaware of previous fights or long roads ahead. Families have not accessed workshops and events that were such a defining feature of the fight for justice in the 90s
10. If you look at time line of events 2017 -2018, there were 5 major terrorist incidents, Grenfell Tower and the Salisbury poisonings in 12 months. This would be a substantial case load for one Independent Advocate.
11. One suggestion has been to consider a team of advocates rather than place the responsibility on one. One stumbling block then is how this interacts with Coronial law and the role of the Chief Coroner - who also has an enshrined advocacy role for families after disaster
12. There is also a suggestion that the proposed law is enhanced to include a 'protected pathway' through which families get the support and information they need without the fight.
13. One of the reasons that I follow health care scandals so closely is that every day we see individual families treated as poorly as disaster families. Some of most defensive and awful behaviour is perpetuated by health agencies despite a DOC.
14.The Disaster Response Community, Disaster Advocacy groups and MOJ have held events to try and apply the law in practice. One of reasons I would imagine gov has not yet responded to Bishop’s report is that, while collegiate,meetings have ended with more questions than answers.
15. Not fair that at the worst time of your life you also have to become a specialist in 10 different types of law and get your coat on every morning to have yet another fight with an agency that has 100 x your resource. Reform is long overdue.
16. Finally huge credit to those charities/ org who attempt to navigate families through the initial pathway - @INQUEST_ORG, Disaster Action, @Human_aspects and previously the Centre for Corporate Accountability @steve_tombs
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
