Janner: Inquiry hears of opportunities to try peer missed due to mistakes
THE Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) is investigating how public bodies handled sexual abuse allegations made against former Leicester politician Greville Janner.
Lord Janner was accused of committing acts of abuse in children’s homes, schools, a flat in London and in Parliament itself over three decades.
Those allegations were never tested in a court after he died, aged 87, in December 2015.
Following his death, an official report by a retired High Court judge identified three occasions – in 1991, 2002 and 2007 – when the former Leicester West MP should have been put on trial.
However, those opportunities were missed because of mistakes by the police or prosecutors, the report concluded.
His family insists he is innocent of all allegations.
The hearing, parts of which are taking place in private session to protect alleged victims’ identities, has been asked to consider whether Lord Janner was treated preferentially because of his social and political status.
It is expected to sit for three weeks. At the end of each day of closed sessions, the team is releasing a summary of the evidence and submissions it had heard.
The inquiry heard evidence from a retired senior police officer. For the reasons given by the chairman in her ruling dated the March 5, 2020, his evidence was given in closed session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in open.
The officer provided a summary of his career. He explained that for a period of 11 years he was the lead officer for ACPO on all matters relating to child protection and sex offenders, working at a national level within government departments and other agencies to represent the police service on all aspects of policy and strategy development in those areas.
The officer was asked about his involvement in a Leicestershire Police investigation into historical allegations concerning Lord Janner. He stated he had no recollection of any of the events of that period and was reliant upon the documentation that had been provided to him to refresh his memory.
When asked, he refuted the suggestion made by another witness to the inquiry that he had given an instruction not to arrest Greville Janner. He was asked to clarify a series of previous comments in which he had accepted he could have given such an instruction. He stated his previous comments were made without the benefit of reviewing all of the documentation and he could now say “categorically” that he did not make that decision.
The officer was also asked about the decision not to prosecute Lord Janner. He stated there “wasn’t a cover-up”.
He suggested there were “a lot of other issues” that may have led to the fact that [Lord Janner] wasn’t prosecuted”, including the culture of the criminal justice system at the time, which he described as being “fairly brutal in relation to victims making allegations of child sexual abuse”.
The officer also referred to the practice of defendants using “background information as a way of discrediting them” and “lots of applications by defence for disclosure of background files, particularly if they were in care or been involved in the social services”.
The Inquiry also heard evidence from a Senior Crown Prosecutor from within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about his involvement with a Leicestershire Police investigation into historical allegations concerning Lord Janner. For the same reasons, his evidence was also given in closed session.
The following is a summary of evidence that can be stated in open.
The witness explained at the time of the investigation he was an articled clerk within the CPS. His role was to liaise with the police and to deal with documentation in relation to the investigation into Lord Janner. He said any correspondence or documentation he created would have been seen and approved by his principal.
He explained he had no decisionmaking role in relation to the investigation into the allegations concerning Lord Janner.
The witness said that during the investigation further lines of inquiry had been identified and he was concerned that the police had not conducted some of those inquiries.
He acknowledged feeling frustrated as a result.
He stated he thought the decision not to take any action against Lord Janner was right at the time and that he continues to think that now.