The particular Metropolitan Police is investigating Greater london Fire Brigade’s use of a “stay put” policy during last year’s fire at Grenfell Tower.
The tower’s residents had been told to stay in their flats within the early stages of the fire – the so-called stay-put policy.
BBC home affairs correspondent Ben Symonds said the Met has been considering possible health and safety offences.
It comes as lawyers designed for London Fire Brigade have been setting out its role at the Grenfell Tower system public inquiry.
Fulfilled Police commander Stuart Cundy mentioned: “Seventy people, plus baby Logan, died as a direct result of that will fire.
“It’s a total obligation on us to be taking a look at the most serious potential criminal accidents that may have been committed. ”
This new line of query is part of a wider law enforcement investigation looking into the refurbishment from the tower and its impact on the open fire.
The Met is usually looking at all aspects of the administration of the fire and London Fireplace Brigade’s response to identify whether the crime was committed.
The most likely offences would be beneath the Safety and health at Work Act , which needs public bodies and companies to shield the safety of the public.
Offences under the act generally result in fines, though prison content are possible.
- Grenfell: Seven points we learnt this week
- What happened at Grenfell Tower?
- Grenfell Inquiry: What five reviews reveal
Previously the Fulfilled has told survivors of the fireplace that Kensington Council and the Renter Management Organisation were being researched in connection with corporate manslaughter.
Meanwhile, eight men and one woman are arrested in daybreak raids over allegations of scams in connection with the fire.
‘No evacuation plans’
On Monday, an expert report posted to the Grenfell inquiry by Dr Barbara Lane discovered that the fire brigade’s policy to inform people to stay in their homes acquired “effectively failed” barely half an hour following the fire started at 01: twenty six BST on 14 June.
A change in policy suggesting that residents leave was not produced until 02: 47.
On the final day of starting statements at the inquiry, Stephen Walsh, for the London Fire Brigade (LFB), said a mass evacuation associated with Grenfell Tower could not have occurred at a stroke.
This individual said it was a “fundamental misunderstanding” that fire commanders could modify policy at any time when the building had not been designed for a simultaneous evacuation.
“If there is no policy used by the building owner which provides for any policy of simultaneous evacuation plus there are no evacuation plans plus there are no general fire alerts – what is an incident leader on the fire ground to do? inch he asked.
The building had only a single set of stairs and the incident commanders had absolutely no way of communicating with everyone in the constructing, he said.
At the same time, the conditions were rapidly transforming, in some cases second-by-second, with lobbies plus stairwells filling with toxic plus potentially lethal smoke, the listening to heard.
Mr Walsh added that despite the “stay-put” plan, firefighters did evacuate residents in a early stage.
These were also making decisions about the stability of getting residents out safely, plus dealing with the willingness of occupants to leave flats, which they recognized to be safe, to enter darkish, smoke-filled corridors.
The particular Fire Brigades Union (FBU), which usually represents many of the Grenfell firefighters, decided there was “no obvious and safe substitute strategy” to telling residents which they should stay put.
Martin Seaward, for the FBU, mentioned commanders and firefighters were still left in an “impossible situation”.
The refurbishment of the building got seen material installed that caused it to be a “highly combustible death trap”, which the brigade lacked the training plus procedures to tackle, he mentioned.
Both the union as well as the LFB flatly denied claims that will firefighters were guilty of unconscious racism as they worked.
On Tuesday, Imran Khan, an attorney for some of the bereaved and survivors, cited the “stereotypes” used in firefighters’ descriptions of residents from dark or minority backgrounds.
On Wednesday, the inquiry noticed that the man who lived within the flat where the fire started had not been responsible for the tragedy.
A lawyer for Behailu Kebede said his client had known as 999 and alerted his flatmates and neighbours as soon as he noticed smoke.
States that his client had loaded a suitcase and left home to burn were a “nasty lie”, the hearing was informed.
Since the fire, law enforcement have been so concerned for their safety that they suggested he get into a witness protection programme.
Day-by-day: the inquiry so far
- Day time 1: Tribute to baby since Grenfell inquiry opens
- Day 2: Households walk out as Grenfell video proven
- Day time 3: Victim’s son ‘prays meant for death’ to join father in paradise
- Day time 4: Grenfell niece tribute stress for aunt
- Day 5: ‘We can never play again’
- Day 6: Grenfell Tower system dad blames firefighters
- Day 7: Handicapped woman was placed on 18th flooring
- Time 8: ‘Catastrophic’ safety failures defined
- Time 9: Refurbishment ‘turned tower in to death trap’
- Day 10: Kitchen fireplace resident ‘did the right thing’