This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Lord Janner to be prosecuted over child sex abuse claims
Lord Janner to be prosecuted over child sex abuse claims
(about 5 hours later)
The future of Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, will come under intense scrutiny after she confirmed that her previous decision not to charge Lord Janner in connection with child abuse allegations had been overturned.
The director of public prosecutions has been forced to defend her decision not to prosecute Greville Janner after a senior counsel successfully argued that the peer should be charged with historical child abuse offences.
The ruling means Janner will face a trial of the facts, where a jury hears the evidence against an individual considered too ill for a full trial. This is expected to be held into the 22 offences allegedly committed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Related: Lord Janner case: what is a trial of the facts?
The decision follows a review of the case under the CPS victims’ right to review scheme, which allows people to have their case looked at again no matter who in the CPS took the decision not to prosecute. The review, by David Perry QC, concluded that it was in the public interest to bring proceedings before a criminal court.
Alison Saunders said she had “demonstrated her personal commitment to tackling the sexual abuse of children” but did not apologise after she became the first DPP to have a major decision reviewed and overturned.
Saunders told the BBC she would not resign. “I don’t think this is a decision I should resign over. It is one I took very carefully and with the victims at the heart of that,” she said. Saunders defended her previous decisions in a statement, saying it was she who referred the decision to an independent lawyer for review.
The independent review, conducted by David Perry QC, concluded that it was in the public interest to bring proceedings before a criminal court.
It means Lord Janner could face a trial of the facts, in which a jury hears the evidence against an individual considered too ill for a full trial. This is expected to cover 22 offences allegedly committed in the 1960s, 70s and 80s by Janner, who now has dementia.
Saunders is facing calls to resign from some MPs and those who claim they were abused by the former Labour MP. They say she did not accept advice from a senior lawyer in April that the Crown Prosecution Service should prosecute Janner and had failed to take the wishes of Janner’s alleged victims into account.
Saunders said in a statement that she had hoped the alleged victims would be able to give evidence as part of the Lowell Goddard public inquiry into historical child abuse claims, which was ordered by the home secretary, Theresa May, in February.
Saunders told the BBC she would not resign, pointing out that it was she who referred the decision to Perry.
“I don’t think this is a decision I should resign over. It is one I took very carefully and with the victims at the heart of that,” she said.
Related: DPP's U-turn on Lord Janner is a sign that review system is working
Related: DPP's U-turn on Lord Janner is a sign that review system is working
“I requested a non-CPS lawyer to advise on this case so that the review would be seen as fully independent. That was the right thing to do, and was a decision I made in the interests of fairness and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system,” she said.
“The review has concluded that this forum [Lowell Goddard], albeit a public one, cannot substitute for the adjudication of the courts. I accept the outcome of the review and will now be bringing this prosecution to allow for that adjudication to happen.”
“I have always said that in my view this was an extremely difficult and borderline case because of the strong arguments on both sides. However, the review has concluded that this forum, albeit a public one, cannot substitute for the adjudication of the courts. I accept the outcome of the review and will now be bringing this prosecution to allow for that adjudication to happen.”
A statement from the CPS said the case against Janner would begin with a hearing at Westminster magistrates court on 7 August.
Some MPs and abuse survivors’ groups have called for Saunders to step down. A statement from the Crown Prosecution Service said the case against Janner would begin at a hearing on 7 August.
It will be the first time that allegations against Janner – which have been the subject of three failed police investigations – will be aired in a courtroom.
“The director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders will now bring criminal proceedings against Greville Janner for child sex offences. This follows a review of the case under the recently introduced CPS victims’ right to review scheme, which allows victims to have their cases looked at again, no matter who in the CPS made the original decision not to prosecute.”
The 86-year-old peer’s family strongly denies claims he used his position as an MP to abuse vulnerable young boys at a children’s home.
It will be the first time that allegations against Janner – which have been the subject of three failed police investigations – will be aired in a courtroom. The 86-year-old peer’s family strongly denies claims he used his power as an MP for Leicester to abuse vulnerable young boys at a children’s home.
Saunders said in April that Janner would have been charged with a string of sex offences against children, but it was not in the public interest to do so because he had been diagnosed with dementia and was unfit to enter a plea.
Saunders said in April it was not in the public interest to charge Janner because he had dementia, which meant he was unfit to enter a plea. Her decision was challenged by alleged victims in the right to review process. It is believed to be one of the first times that alleged victims have overturned a DPP’s decision. The climbdown by the CPS follows a review by Perry, a Treasury counsel.
It later emerged that she had rejected the advice of the sex offences expert Eleanor Laws QC, who suggested that he should be charged.
But a former, DPP Lord Macdonald, insisted the position taken by Saunders – who acknowledged there was enough evidence to charge Janner – was reasonable. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I do think that Alison Saunders’ position was a perfectly respectable, perfectly defensible position. Many eminent lawyers have agreed with her and said she was right.”
Saunders’ decision was challenged by alleged victims of Janner in the right to review process.
Macdonald said he agreed with Perry’s assessment, but the result showed the review system was effective. “I think it is a very good thing that decisions can be open to review in this way,” he said. “It was courageous of the DPP to have this case put through that system and I think the system has proved that in this case it worked well.”
Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who first named Cyril Smith as a paedophile in parliament, told the Guardian the DPP should step down. “Alison Saunders has brought the criminal justice system into disrepute. She did not take into account the alleged victims in this case.”
Asked whether he believed Saunders should stay in her job, the peer said: “I do, yes. I think she is a good DPP, I think she is a good lawyer, a good manager, I think she retains the confidence of her service. I know there are some sections of the media that have a bit of a bee in their bonnet about her, but … this is a very difficult job. I think she is a woman of complete integrity, and I don’t think she should resign.”
Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion, questioned Saunders’ initial decision. “Serious questions need to be asked about Alison Saunders’ judgment in this case, especially given that the CPS had previously acknowledged that the facts of the case passed its evidential test.”
Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who first named Cyril Smith as a paedophile in parliament, told BBC News that Saunders should step down. “Alison Saunders has brought the criminal justice system into disrepute, and I don’t say that lightly. This follows on from a number of poor decisions by Alison Saunders, in one particular case, in relation to FGM (female genital mutilation), but also in relation to another decision around journalists.
Liz Dux, the solicitor who represents some of the alleged victims, said: “Our clients have waited long enough for their very serious allegations to be brought before a court. They have felt deeply frustrated by the criminal justice system.”
“In regard to Lord Janner, her initial decision, [there were] real concerns there. The timing was all wrong, it took her a long time to make the decision. She then announced the decision during purdah, when parliament was not sitting, even though there was a lot of public interest in this. But, most of all, the issue that it was just a cold decision; it did not take into account the alleged victims in this case. There was a lot of public interest in this, and she failed to accept that.”
Janner, the former MP for Leicester West, will face charges related to alleged offences of buggery and indecent assault committed against children between 1963 and 1988.
Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion, questioned Saunders’s initial decision. “Serious questions need to be asked about Alison Saunders’ judgment in this case, especially given that the CPS had previously acknowledged that the facts of the case passed its evidential test. It’s vital that survivors of child abuse know that the criminal justice system serves them, and that establishment figures are properly investigated.”
The youngest alleged victim was an eight-year-old boy at the time. Janner is charged with indecently assaulting him between 1969 and 1970, and of buggery against him between 1963 and 1969. Another alleged victim was nine, while the others were aged between 12 and 16. Perry, one of the country’s most respected prosecutors, agreed with Saunders that the peer’s ill health meant Janner would be deemed unfit to stand trial and that no action could be taken against him. But they disagreed over whether it was in the public interest to bring charges. Perry said that charging Janner would have a “potential deterrent effect” on future offenders and would allow the alleged victims to tell their stories in court. It is still possible that a judge could throw out the case against Janner if his lawyers successfully argue against a trial of the facts, halting any need for evidence or testimony from his alleged victims.
Liz Dux, the solicitor who represents some of the alleged victims, said: “This is a vindication of our efforts to challenge the DPP’s original decision not to charge Janner, which was clearly not in the interest of justice. Our clients have waited long enough for their very serious allegations to be brought before a court. They have felt deeply frustrated by the criminal justice system.”
Lawyers for Janner will be able to contest the evidence before a ruling as to his guilt or otherwise is made. A finding of guilt could be made but a conviction is unlikely because of Janner’s health.
The charges relate to alleged offences of buggery and indecent assault committed against children between 1963 and 1988 by the former Labour MP. The youngest alleged victim was an eight-year-old boy at the time of the alleged offence. Janner is charged with indecently assaulting him between 1969 and 1970, and of buggery against him between 1963 and 1969. Another alleged victim was nine at the time. The others were aged between 12 and 16. Perry, one of the country’s most respected prosecutors, was appointed by the DPP to reassess her decision under the victims’ right to review scheme introduced in 2013. He agreed with Saunders that the peer’s ill-health meant that he would be deemed unfit to stand trial and that no action could be taken against him. But they disagreed over whether it was in the public interest to bring charges. Perry said that charging Janner would have a “potential deterrent effect” on future offenders and would allow the alleged victims to tell their stories in court. In April, Saunders had ruled that a prosecution would not be in the public interest. If a judge rules that Janner is unfit to be tried, a hearing in his absence could be conducted in which both the alleged victims and other witnesses could testify. It is still possible that a judge could throw out the case against Janner if his lawyers successfully argue against a trial of the facts, halting any need for evidence or testimony from his alleged victims.
Lawyers for Janner, who has denied any wrongdoing, will also be able to contest the evidence before a ruling as to his guilt or otherwise is made. Perry and Saunders agree that the most likely outcome of court proceeding will be an absolute discharge, which is not a conviction.
