article: The prime minister has announced that there will be a public inquiry, but how will that differ from an inquest? More importantly, which will provide the best chance of delivering answers to the critical and haunting questions of what caused the fire, and which organisations or individuals bear responsibility? An inquest is an independent inquiry into a violent or unexplained death, so as a matter of course, there will be inquests into those who lost their lives in Grenfell Tower. Inquests are held in public and conducted by a coroner. The coronial system can be traced back to the 11th century. The inquest is inquisitorial and not adversarial - that is, the process does not seek to determine or apportion responsibility for the death. Its remit is limited: it solely determines who, where and how the deceased died. But inquests can be expanded if Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to life - is invoked. There is a general duty on the part of the state to protect life, and Article 2 inquests are held where the state or a public body may have played a part in the death of a person, or failed to protect a life when it knew - or ought to have known - of a real and immediate risk to the life of that person. Such inquests will generally be conducted with a jury, and can be greatly expanded to become wider reaching inquiries into not only by what means the deceased died, but also the circumstances surrounding the death. This can cover the involvement of a range of private and public organisations. The recent inquest into the death of 96 football fans at Hillsborough in 1989 was an example of this expanded "Article 2" type of inquest. The coroner can make what are known as Regulation 28 recommendations to prevent future deaths. This involves writing to individuals, bodies or organisations and advising what they need to do to prevent future deaths or guard against danger to the public. However, these recommendations have no legal force. The person, body or organisation in question may face overwhelming moral pressure to comply, but would not be under a legal duty to do so. Sometimes the bodies or organisations concerned will already have reviewed or changed systems or practices in advance of the inquest. If they have not and they do not comply with the recommendations, it is then down to government to legislate to change the law to prevent or guard against further loss of life. The lack of legal force behind coroners' recommendations was seen after the inquests in 2013 into the death of three adults and three children who died in a fire at the Lakanal House flats in Camberwell, south-east London. The coroner, Judge Frances Kirkham, made clear recommendations, which included updating the building regulations and clarification of the "stay put" policy which advises residents to remain in their flats in the event of a fire. Those recommendations were not followed by ministers. What does have legal force is
summary: Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower there have been calls for both an inquest and a public inquiry.