Grenfell Tower fire
 

Grenfell Tower: fire-proof cladding specified by architects used only on ground floor
Non-combustible panels were fitted to base of building but cheaper panels were used for upper floors, documents show
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...loor?CMP=fb_gu

Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police
 

Police investigating the Grenfell Tower fire say they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect that corporate manslaughter offences may have been committed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40747241

Give it thirty years and three official enquiries and there might possibly be a decision.

For what would who be prosecuted? And what would it achieve?

It's not like anyone set it on fire deliberately .

So you don't believe in the concept of criminal negligence then?

What is it then - enlighten me!

An extra thirtynine pence per sheet was the cost of total fireproofing. The cladding in use and used there is fireproof from most angles but fires in real life tend not to follow perfect angles as tested in laboratories.

The charge of corporate manslaughter is specifically targeted at non-natural persons such as companies or local authorities. No one goes to prison; but the company or local authority can be penalised. The penalty is an unlimited fine. Current Home Office guidelines suggest 5% of annual revenue for a first offence. Naturally, the stigma and disgrace of the conviction would attach to the corporation involved and to its CEO and its senior management. It would also send a signal to other corporations that they and their senior management could be publically shamed as well if they do likewise.

The corporate manslaughter conviction would not protect an individual such as the CEO or senior management from being prosecuted as well on the same crime.

Given that this cladding was being used all over the country before this unfortunate fire and that there was no law against using the stuff, why is it now suddenly a crime for it to have been done in this case?

Certainly it would be criminally stupid to use it now but that's being smart after the fact.

It seems that the building regulations stipulated that this cladding shouldn't be used above a certain height, but the wording was such that it could be read as a guideline only. It's clearly been ignored by both the building industry and the inspectors who with a nod and a wink have basically indicated that builders can use the inferior cladding.

Given all that, given that the reason the fire spread the way it did still hasn't been established beyond speculation and that the spread confounded the fire experts, I can't see how a prosecution could succeed.

The council was surely entitled to rely on what the experts were telling them and on the fidelity of the buildings inspection system.