Janner ‘was innocent or would have given it away in dementia’
CHIEF REPORTER LORD JANNER’S failure to confess to being a paedophile while suffering from Alzheimer’s disease is evidence of his innocence, his family have told the Goddard sex abuse inquiry.
In a 9,000-word document submitted to the inquiry, the Janner family’s lawyer said that at no time during his illness did he admit to any crimes against children.
“There is an aspect of the disease that you may wish to seek expert advice upon, namely that there is a period of disinhibited behaviour during which Lord Janner’s alleged sexual predilec- tion towards young children would have exhibited itself,” wrote Michael Pether, the family solicitor.
“Those who spent time with him in these final years, including his day to day care-givers, could confirm that no such exhibition took place.”
The Crown Prosecution Service announced in April last year that Lord Janner would have been charged with 22 counts of indecent assault and sexual assault against nine alleged victims but it was not in the public interest to do so due to his illness.
Lord Janner, a former Labour MP and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, died in December at the age of 87, having never been convicted of any offence.
His family estate is now facing a series of claims for civil damages from alleged victims.
The Goddard inquiry, to be chaired by Dame Lowell Goddard, a New Zealand judge, will begin hearing evidence in public of the claims against Lord Janner and of alleged institutional failures in September.
The document supplied by the family’s solicitor has been submitted to the inquiry as part of an attempt by the Labour peer’s three children to restore his reputation, which has been shredded as a result of the allegations.
“They [the family] unequivocally believes that these are false allegations,” Mr Pether, from the law firm BLM, wrote in the submission.
Liz Dux, specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon, who is representing 16 alleged victims of Lord Janner, said: “If the Janner family want to submit evidence about what he did or did not say in old age that is a matter for them.
“Its evidential value is for the inquiry to assess. However, one has to ask why these submissions are being aired in the public domain before any evidence has been heard, especially given the family have refused to participate in the inquiry.”