Entirely proper to include family views
The Hinckley Times team should be congratulated for the comprehensive two-page coverage of the report by Professor Alexis Jay of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and the response of the various organisations, including the Police, Crown Prosecution Service and Local Authorities, who were criticised in the report for their collective failure to respond effectively to the multiple allegations of child molestation involving the late MP Greville Janner. (HT, 27th.Oct.)
It is entirely proper that the feature should include an opportunity for Lord Janner’s family to comment on the report and perhaps both understandable and predictable that they should use the opportunity to restate their belief in his innocence and to criticise the committee for devoting a strand of their inquiry to the allegations, declaring that the report “offers no proof whatsoever of his guilt”. It should, of course, be remembered that it was never part of the terms of reference for the Inquiry to establish the MP’s guilt or innocence but to review the way in which the alleged victims and their complaints were treated by the responsible authorities.
Daniel Janner QC is correct in suggesting that the multiple failures of the various agencies to deal effectively with the allegations at the time deprived his father of a just outcome as much as it has those who claimed to be his victims, as he was never able to defend himself against what he calls their “false allegations”. He is quoted as saying that the withdrawal of numerous civil claims against the MP’s estate “speaks for itself”. However, perhaps an alternative explanation could be that the claimants were never truly interested in the possibility of financial recompense but solely in achieving justice. Now that prospect is forever denied by the late Peer’s death it would be understandable if they decided to put the past behind them and get on with the rest of their lives.
That Lord Janner “died an innocent man” is undoubtedly true in a strict legal sense, since in English law there is a presumption of innocence until a guilty verdict is established in a properly constituted court of law. However, in the court of Public Opinion, no such legalistic niceties prevail.
A.Y., Burbage.