Thursday, 24 October 2024
Statement by THE CHAIR
SIR ROSS CRANSTON: Well, good afternoon everyone, welcome to this preliminary hearing of the Cranston Inquiry. I’m Ross Cranston. The hearing is being held in public and it’s also being live streamed, for the benefit of those who have an interest in our work but can’t be with us here today.
As many of you know, the wider background to the Inquiry is the well known and continuing problem of people seeking to cross the Channel from France to the UK in small and often unseaworthy boats. Although this continues to be a politically controversial issue, the focus of the Inquiry is not on those wider debates but rather on one such journey across the Channel on 23 and November 2021, and that tragically ended in the loss of at least 27 lives.
The purpose of this hearing is to provide an update on the work of the Inquiry so far and to outline our plans for the remainder of the investigation.
As background, let me explain that I was appointed on 11 January this year by the Secretary of State for Transport under the previous Government, the Right Honourable Mark Harper, Member of Parliament. I should say at the outset how grateful I am to Mr Harper for his support throughout the time he was in office.
On Monday this week, I met the current Secretary of State for Transport, the Right Honourable Louise Haigh, Member of Parliament. I’m grateful to Ms Haigh for her commitment to continuing to support the work of the Inquiry.
Now, at the Inquiry’s opening hearing in March this year, I highlighted some important features of the terms of reference and outlined the approach which my team and I intended to take to the investigative work of the Inquiry. I don’t wish to repeat today what I said in March. However, I’d like to stress now, as I did then, three points.
First, in all our work, my team and I will not lose sight of the fact that for those who lost their lives on November 2021 and for their friends and loved ones, this was, above all, an immeasurable human tragedy.
Secondly, this is an independent Inquiry. It’s independent from government, from its sponsor department, the Department for Transport, and from any of the individuals or organisations it investigates or liaises with in the course of its work.
Thirdly, my task is to fulfil the terms of reference. You can find those on the Inquiry’s website but let me just give a brief summary: these require me to identify those who tragically died; to examine the circumstances of their deaths; and to make recommendations to reduce the risk of a similar event occurring.
It follows that the overarching question which guides all of my decisions concerning the conduct and procedures of the Inquiry is this: what would best and most effectively assist the Inquiry in its work and so enable me to discharge the task conferred upon me by the terms of reference?
With that said, I turn to the work which the Inquiry has undertaken so far. In summary, over the past seven months my team and I have established the procedural framework for the Inquiry, and we’ve made significant progress in our investigation.
So let me flesh that out a little.
Firstly, following on from the initial procedural inquiry issued in February, we have published a full set of procedural protocols. They deal with every stage of the process up to and including the full hearings. These protocols, which are available on the Inquiry’s website are (1) the disclosure protocol which sets out the arrangements for the disclosure of material to the Inquiry by any person, institution or organisation which has been asked to provide material to us or which has provided material voluntarily. I refer to them as the material providers.
The material providers include what we have called the Full Participants. For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the work of the Inquiry, I should explain that the Full Participants are the families of some of the victims and a survivor represented by Duncan Lewis Solicitors, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Home Office, and the Department for Transport.
The second protocol is the redaction protocol and, as its name suggests, it sets out our approach to the removal of information, such as personal data or information which is sensitive and irrelevant to the Inquiry’s terms of reference from the material to be disclosed by material providers.
The third protocol is the witness evidence protocol. That sets out the approach that the Inquiry will take to the witness evidence, including the Inquiry’s process for requesting witness evidence from persons, institutions and organisations, the form of draft statements provided in response to the Inquiry’s requests and the process for finalising those statements.
Number (4) is the witness handling protocol, which sets out our approach to the management of witnesses who will give oral evidence at the full hearings. It covers matters such as the circulation of evidence proposals for witnesses and their questioning.
Fifthly, there’s the anonymity protocol, which again, as its name suggests, sets out the approach that will be taken by the Inquiry to applications for anonymity by any person.
Then, finally, there’s the funding protocol which relates to the awards to be made to a person eligible in respect of expenses properly incurred in respect of obtaining legal advice or representation in connection with the Inquiry.
Now, those protocols might seem detailed and specific, which they are, but they’re necessary. They provide the framework for the work of the Inquiry. They’re an essential resource for any person who wishes to engage with the work of the Inquiry.
The second step in our work was the preparation of a list of issues, and that was published in June, following consultation with the Full Participants. Now, that document shows the detailed focus of the Inquiry’s investigative work. It’s on the website. It sets out over 30 questions grouped under six broad headings which the Inquiry will look to answer. We’re keeping this list of issues under review as the Inquiry continues.
The third aspect of our work so far has been disclosure to us, what could be called inward disclosure. At the opening hearing in March this year, I noted that the process of gathering material from those most closely involved in the events of 24 November was underway. All material disclosed to the Inquiry has been uploaded to our document management system. The Inquiry team has reviewed and analysed that material, and assessed its relevance. Where appropriate, further disclosure has been sought from the material providers, and further sources of material have been identified.
To date, we have received many thousands of documents from the material providers, as well as audio files which are in the process of transcription; in preparation for the disclosure of documents to Full Participants and others, what could be called outward disclosure; and, in accordance with the protocols of disclosure and redaction that I’ve referred to, the Inquiry team has identified information in the disclosed material which the Inquiry proposes to redact. The team is now in the process of liaising with material providers so they have an opportunity to review and approve the proposed redactions and to identify any further redactions they would like.
We will make the final determination on the appropriateness of any proposed redaction in accordance with the redaction protocol.
As to the process of disclosure to the Full Participants of relevant documents, which we take the view that ought to be disclosed to aid their effective participation in the full hearings, I’m pleased to say that that process has begun. The first tranche of material being disclosed to the Full Participants was made on Monday of this week.
That outward disclosure process will continue as tranches of relevant material are disclosed to the Full Participants, and it’s expected to conclude before the end of the year.
The next aspect of our work so far relates to witness statements. Following consideration of the material disclosed to the Inquiry, we made decisions as to those persons from whom a witness statement was required. At the end of July, the Inquiry team issued initial requests for witness evidence from the persons we identified. Those requests sought evidence from organisations and also from individuals and families, including those who were most closely involved with the incident on 24 November 2021.
The Inquiry has now received the vast majority of draft witness statements in response to those requests. I know that preparing a witness statement is a burden. For individuals, it can be a stressful experience to prepare such statements, so I’m grateful to all of those who have done so.
The Inquiry team has analysed the draft statements; where appropriate further information and clarification has been sought from those who have provided statements. The Inquiry has also identified a small number of additional persons from whom it has requested a witness statement. The process of finalising those statements is now underway and I expect that process to be completed in the next couple of weeks.
Once the witness statements are finalised, the Inquiry team will apply the appropriate redactions, using the same process I described earlier, in relation to the material disclosed to the Inquiry. After the completion of that process, copies of the statements will be provided to Full Participants.
A sixth step in our work has been our site visits. In order to understand the context of the events which the Inquiry is considering, members of the Inquiry team and I have undertaken a number of site visits: to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on 29 February in Fareham and 14 May in Dover and Lydd; to the Border Force on 22 April, in Dover and Ramsgate; and to the RNLI on April in Poole and on 16 July in Dungeness.
I want to thank all of those who organised those visits and made them so profitable an occasion from our point of view.
Finally, at the end of June, I held informal meetings with some of the families of the victims and one of the two survivors. They are represented by Duncan Lewis. The meetings involved videolinks to France, Iraqi Kurdistan, Ethiopia and Somalia, and I want to thank Duncan Lewis in particular for the assistance they provided in facilitating those meetings.
I’m sure you’ll appreciate that getting us this far in such a relatively short period has involved a huge amount of work on the part of my team and I’m very much in their debt. But I’m also grateful to those I’ve called the material providers. The progress we have made to date would not have been possible without their co-operation.
As I said at the opening hearing, all of those who engage with our work must do so on the understanding that there is but one purpose to this whole exercise, which is to find out the truth. Their task is to assist the Inquiry in its investigation and in getting to the truth of what happened, and this requires their full co-operation.
I acknowledge that engaging with the Inquiry in responding to our requests is resource intensive for the material providers, and I thank them. It’s imperative they continue to co-operate to aid the Inquiry in the considerable work which still has to be undertaken in the coming months as we prepare for the commencement of the full hearings.
Let me now look forward and give a brief outline of the next stages of our work up to the full hearings.
The first thing to say is that our full hearings will take place in March next year, so the steps I’m about to outline must be completed in just over four months. It’s a challenging timetable but with the commitment and the full co-operation from material providers and a vast effort on the part of my team, the full hearings will begin on 3 March. I don’t expect them to last more than three or four weeks.
As I’ve already noted, the process of disclosing documents to Full Participants will continue and it’s expected to conclude before the end of the year. In parallel, the process of finalising witness statements, preparing them for disclosure and disclosing them to Full Participants will also continue.
Then there is the preparation for oral evidence at the full hearings. Following the finalisation of witness statements, we will determine the witnesses who will be called to give evidence at the full hearings. We will share the draft list of witnesses and a draft witness timetable with Full Participants well in advance of the full hearings so they can arrange their diaries.
The Inquiry team will prepare an evidence proposal for each witness. That will include a list of topics which the Inquiry proposes to cover with that witness, and a list of documents that the witness may be asked to consider and comment upon during their evidence.
Counsel to the Inquiry, Mr Rory Phillips, King’s Counsel, supported by the Inquiry team, will undertake the substantial task of preparing questions to be put to the witnesses giving evidence at the full hearings. You will find further details of the evidence process and the approach to the questioning of witnesses in the witness handling protocol to which I have referred.
As to the full hearings, further details will be made available on the Inquiry’s website in due course. For the moment, I wish to reiterate two points I made at the opening hearing, which are reflected in our protocols.
First, the process I will follow will be consistent with the inquisitorial nature of the Inquiry.
Accordingly, there will be an opening statement by Mr Phillips followed by short statements by those Full Participants who wish to make them. Thereafter, the evidence will be called and questions put to witnesses by Counsel to the Inquiry. As set out in the witness handling protocol, Full Participants will have the opportunity to suggest specific questions for witnesses to Counsel to the Inquiry. They will also be able to make short closing statements at the end of the full hearings.
Secondly, it’s my intention to hold the full hearings in public. As I acknowledged at the opening hearing, there may be exceptional circumstances which justify hearing evidence in private. However, a decision to hold any part of the full hearings in private will only be made after careful consideration and a decision by me, and I would usually expect to give public reasons for any such a decision.
So that’s all I wish to say at this stage.
I’ll now ask representatives of the Full Participants if they wish to make brief statements.
So, firstly, Phillippa Kaufmann, King’s Counsel, who represents the families and the survivor.
MS KAUFMANN: Sir, I don’t have any statement to make. I’m grateful to you, sir, for your update, and to see things are progressing apace.
SIR ROSS CRANSTON: Thank you very much indeed. Mr James Maxwell-Scott, King’s Counsel, appears for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
MR MAXWELL-SCOTT: Yes, I’m in the same position. I am very grateful for the update and I don’t wish to make a statement this afternoon.
SIR ROSS CRANSTON: Well, thank you. Ms Freya Foster, you’re here for the Home Office.
MS FOSTER: Yes, sir. Equally, I am grateful for the update but don’t have any statement to make this afternoon.
SIR ROSS CRANSTON: Thank you very much. Finally, Mr Myles Grandison, you represent the Department for Transport, and I now see you.
MR GRANDISON: Thank you, sir. No, we don’t have anything to say at this hearing. I’m grateful for the updated timetable.
SIR ROSS CRANSTON: Well, thank you very much indeed.
I’d like to conclude the hearing by once again expressing my gratitude for the assistance provided by the material providers so far, but I would reiterate that there’s still a significant amount of work to be done ahead of the full hearings. I count on the continuing assistance and co-operation of all of them. It’s vital to the success of the Inquiry.
Well, that concludes our business this afternoon. Thank you all for coming today, and thank you as well for those who are watching the hearing online.
Good afternoon.
(The hearing concluded)