Inquiry is gutless, says Lord Janner’s son
THE son of Lord Janner has accused the Government’s inquiry into child sex abuse of being “gutless and weak”, amid fears it will re-examine discredited claims against deceased politicians.
Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Daniel Janner, who is a Queen’s Counsel and the secretary of campaign group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform, describes the Westminster strand of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA), which starts today, as a “totally unnecessary monthlong trashing of the reputations of public figures, the vast majority of whom are dead”.
This strand of the IICSA is expected to explore a series of unfounded claims against Lord Brittan and possibly former prime minister Sir Edward Heath.
Lord Janner faced 22 allegations of sexual offences dating back 50 years against nine victims. He was ruled unfit to stand trial due to suffering from dementia, and has never been convicted of any offence. A civil case against the late Labour peer collapsed in 2017 after the victims withdrew their claims.
The inquiry has written to Lady Brittan warning her that she is likely to be “upset” by the re-examination of previously discounted allegations against her husband, the former home secretary. She received £100,000 in damages from the Met Police over a botched investigation into unfounded claims that a paedophile ring existed in Westminster.
A £2 million inquiry into Heath found no corroborating evidence to suggest he had sexually abused children.
The inquiry has been marred by delays, with three chairmen and a number of senior legal counsel resigning since it was set up.
Today begins a totally unnecessary month-long trashing of the reputations of public figures, the vast majority of whom are dead, in the Westminster strand of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Having recovered from losing three previous chairmen and counsel to the inquiry, it will now risk losing trust and undermining any progress it has made over the past four years.
The inquiry has conveniently forgotten that it was set up following Tom Watson’s claims in 2012, in a parliamentary question to David Cameron, then the prime minister, that there was a child abuse network reaching into Downing Street. He cynically rode the bandwagon of hysteria following the Jimmy Savile scandal for political gain. That hysteria manifested itself in the naming of former politicians such as Sir Edward Heath, Lord Brittan, my late father Lord Janner and others for alleged historical child abuse allegations that have now been dropped.
Another manifestation of this hysteria was Theresa May, then home secretary, setting up the IICSA. She did so with insufficient thought as to its scope, management, cost and potential damage to individuals wrongfully singled out. It has already spent over £60million and there is no end in sight. Badly briefed, Mrs May went on The Andrew Marr Show in late 2014 to declare the claims as “the tip of the iceberg”. They were, in fact, the tip of an ice cube. Will the IICSA reflect this truth?
The inquiry should have dropped the Westminster and follow-on strand into my late father long ago, after all civil claims had collapsed and the allegations had been proved as entirely false. But it is gutless and weak. It is caught in the headlights of the “automatically believe the victim” syndrome.
Mr Watson’s claims were debunked as false by Peter Mckelvie, a former child protection officer, in 2015. He said: “He should have waited until the
‘The IICSA will live-stream uncontrolled allegations from a series of fantasists and gold-diggers’
picture was complete. He should have met me face to face. I was the source of the PMQ … I had never mentioned claims of abuse at Dolphin Square and Elm House.”
Det Ch Insp Paul Settle, the detective who led Scotland Yard’s inquiry into these claims, said he was “astonished” that the inquiry was spending resources investigating claims of a cover-up. So, during the forthcoming weeks the IICSA will live-stream uncontrolled allegations from a series of fantasists and golddiggers. They will give credence to dossiers that have been dismissed.
Many of those accused are dead and lie silent in their graves, incapable of answering back. The preliminary hearings have disgustingly singled out Leon Brittan and Edward Heath. It is most likely the presumption of innocence will disappear, as will the right to due process. Is it any wonder that Lady Brittan has told friends that she is “distraught”, having received a letter from the inquiry warning her that she “will be distressed”.
As Lord Campbell-savours said during a Lords debate on Dec 20 last year: “I have a fundamental objection to the inquiry’s management. It gives credence to hearsay and allows for the presumption of guilt in the court of public opinion. It should confine itself to considering only cases where guilt has been established in court. Without due process the door is open to huge injustice and the trashing of reputations and is an affront to every tenet of natural justice I have nurtured over a lifetime.”
The whole process is deeply flawed since cross-examination is prohibited. Lines of questions can be suggested to the panel. But probing, testing, questioning of those making allegations – which lies at the heart of any judicial or quasi-judicial process combing fairly for the truth – is simply not allowed.
It is deeply disturbing that the searching spotlight of truth has become the flickering flame of bureaucratic inertia and costly political posturing. Instead of this damaging inquiry we need an investigation into the impact of false allegations on those so maliciously attacked.