Lord Janner: the Iraq war, fiddling expenses and lies
Lord Janner Watch: a look at Labour peer Lord Greville Janner in the media.
Daily Mirror (page 20): “Janner could still face charges over child sex”
He could. But he won’t. Tom Pettifor has an “exclusive”.
Greville Janner could still be charged with child sex offences after one of his alleged victims challenged the decision not to prosecute the former MP.
It could be changed if the CPS could prove: a) Janner does not have dementia; b) prove he is a criminal threat.
An internal review will be carried out into the ruling it was “not in the public interest” to put the peer on trial, despite evidence he had allegedly been involved in child abuse.
An internal review of Janner’s mind? He’s 86. How long will this review take?
But at least one person came forward yesterday after Ms Saunders last week said she had notified alleged victims of their right to a review. An outside legal expert may lead it due to the controversy around the case.
Could. May. This isn’t news.
Ms Saunders had said there was enough evidence to prosecute Lord Janner, 86, for 22 sex offences, and that he was too sick to stand trial. Last week she added there was “no ongoing risk to the public” based on the opinion of four medical experts.
She also revealed the peer had not been interviewed by police and had not instructed a solicitor as he “wouldn’t be able to understand”.
Oh. And this:
Janner’s family said he “is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing”.
Innocence is still presumed, right?
Matthew Parris in The Times: “Out of order”:
DPPs are independent, they make decisions on the information they have, and the whole idea of their office is that they should accept no interference from politicians, peers or newspaper editorials. They must stand outside what some prattling MP has called — in that sinister phrase — “the court of public opinion”. This general election is corroding the judgments of people who ought to (and, worse, do) know better.
The Guardian: “Lord Janner’s alleged victims seek formal review of DPP decision”
A group of people who say they were abused by Lord Janner are seeking a formal review of the decision not to prosecute the former Labour MP following child sex abuse claims.
So. Not “one” as the Mirror said , but a “group”.
Lawyers representing a number of his alleged victims have written to the DPP to formally request a review of the decision…
Liz Dux, specialist abuse lawyer at the law firm Slater and Gordon, said: “Our clients … very much hope that she gives their request the careful attention it deserves. All they have ever wanted is for the opportunity to give their evidence and to be heard.”
Some alleged victims have been heard in the media. But this is the law at work. There are rules. Claims need to be tested and put against barriers to a verdict. That is being denied.
In a letter to the Times, a cross-party group of MPs said the decision was damaging public confidence, while the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, expressed sympathy with calls for a review. He added that it was essential people understood how the DPP had come to such a “highly controversial” decision.
Damaging public confidence in who? MPs? The police? That damage has been done. It’s been a drip-drip of stories: Stephen Lawrence; dodgy dossiers; expenses fiddles; Rotherham… and on and on…
“I have to say here is an individual where there are some very serious allegations made and a lot of totally understandable disquiet that he is not going to be facing justice in any way,” Clegg said on LBC radio.
Which amounts to his saying nothing at all.
Lord Falconer, a former lord chancellor, said Saunders was wrong, and suggested there should have been an open hearing before a jury to decide whether Janner was fit to enter a plea.
This is the same Lord Falconer who opined in the Guardian:
The Blair government’s role in the war against Iraq “absolutely undermines the basis of our democracy” according to Lord Falconer, one of the ex-prime minister’s closest allies during the build up to war in 2003.
Speaking before the 10th anniversary of the September dossier, which contained the infamous claim that Saddam Hussein could mobilise long distance weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes and which formed the backbone of the case for invasion, the former lord chancellor said: “I think it [the run-up to war] has had a hugely damaging effect on politics. I supported and continue to support the use of force.
“But in terms of people’s trust in politicians the impression is that the government misled the country in relation to the reasons for war and embarked upon war in circumstances where there wasn’t a proper justification.”
Now he wants it all in the open. He was justice in the arena. He’s retired now.
Falconer, who was a Home Office minister at the time the dossier was published, was later accused, along with senior Blair aide Sally Morgan, of applying pressure on the then attorney general Lord Goldsmith to clear the way for invasion by declaring it legal in March 2003.
Falconer denies the allegations.
As the self-serving line up to champion the rule of law, transparency and power to the people, another day ticks by….