Daniel Janner, QC: My fight to defend my father’s name against the inquiry into child sexual abuse

April 27 2017

After a five-month review, the chairman of the discredited independent inquiry into child sexual abuse has dithered and finally decided to maintain a separate and bizarre strand of investigation into my late father, Lord Janner. This is another shocking decision following a catalogue of misjudgements and catastrophic failures.

My beloved father, a person of the highest repute, who devoted himself to a lifetime of public service, was wholly innocent of any wrongdoing and he was never convicted of any offence. Yet he and he alone is the only individual singled out with a separate strand. Why him? Why has the chairman, Alexis Jay, not picked on someone convicted of an offence? Why is he not placed in the Westminster strand that covers dead politicians? Why, when he is not an institution, and the inquiry is specifically tasked to investigate institutional failings?

The answer is plain as a pikestaff. The inquiry was set up in the wake of the mass hysteria following the Jimmy Savile scandal and the false allegations against the late Lord Brittan [one of the three chairmen who resigned did so because she knew Lord Brittan]. After the collapse of Operation Midland, the only politician left in the high-profile line of fire was my late father. He is seen as low-hanging fruit. An easy target for the lynch mob.

Yet the allegations against him have never been tested in cross-examination. And the inquiry has unjustly refused us the right to cross-examine the complainants. So we will face day after day of untested false allegations. It will turn into a macabre proxy criminal trial while my late father lies in his grave unable to answer back.

I believe that they are false allegations, which is why my family want their evidence tested in the civil proceedings that have been launched against his estate.

My late father was not in the country when the most serious offences were said to have taken place between August 16 and 19, 1987 [when he was in Australia, as evidenced in his passport, which we possess and provided to the inquiry]. It is inconceivable that the alleged offending, if true, would have stopped in the late 1980s given the nature of paedophile offending.

Tony Butler, the retired deputy chief constable at Leicestershire police, said in 1991 that 400 witnesses were spoken to by his force and none mentioned our late father. There is not a single mention of him in any social service record, yet complainants make allegations against others. He told the BBC in 2015 that the reason there was no arrest in 1991 was “from what I can recall of the evidence, and from looking at papers now, I don’t see there was a justification to arrest Greville Janner”. All the allegations relate to Leicester. Nowhere else. My late father vigorously denied the 1991 allegations in parliament and in the Kirkwood report.

As Sir Richard Henriques observed in his report on Operation Midland: “Prominent people . . . are more vulnerable to false complaints than others . . . They are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers, and those with mental health problems. The internet provides the information and detail to support a false allegation. Entertainers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations meeting, as they do, literally thousands of attention seeking fans who provoke a degree of familiarity which may be exaggerated or misconstrued in their recollection many years later. Deceased persons are particularly vulnerable as allegations cannot be answered.”

So Professor Jay’s weak decision will bring further ridicule and undermine the integrity of the inquiry.

Sadly, it comes as no surprise, given the shambolic track record of the inquiry. Professor Jay is its fourth chairman. Numerous barristers have walked out or resigned. The inquiry has lost the support of countless genuine victims. The Shirley Oaks Survivors Association said that it had become a stage managed event and described Professor Jay as “an uninspiring leader”. Professor Jay is not competent to chair the inquiry because she is not a lawyer and unqualified to make difficult complex quasi legal decisions. She is simply out of her depth. In March, the inquiry leaked the private information of 90 people who had signed up to an “inquiry victims and survivors forum”. This was a serious betrayal of trust and a breach of the Data Protection Act 1988.

The inquiry will fail because it is unmanageable and too vast and will not tell us anything we don’t already know. It veers between a bloated expensive irrelevance and a vindictive witch-hunt which will be condemned by history. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/daniel-janner-qc-my-fight-to-defend-my-fathers-name-against-the-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse-5cb0gkhxm   https://archive.is/ooxpl

FEB 1st 2017 Lord Janner’s family to ‘undermine’ sex abuse inquiry strand into their father after being given formal role in investigation  https://archive.is/kamqn


4 thoughts on “Daniel Janner, QC: My fight to defend my father’s name against the inquiry into child sexual abuse

  1. Daniel Janner may be correct on his emphasis for a lawyer as chair but on that he has not substantiated his case as lawyers are at the heart of the criminal justice system where we have appeal judges unaccountable controlling final scutiny of many “unfair trials”. An “in house” situation that lacks (probably the world over) in both “accountability and transparency.”
    Sir Richard Henriques only sees the light to any great extend when reviewing the “sooooo outlandish” operation midland stupidy “credible and true” thing. On reading some of the report of Sir Richard Henriques on Lord Janner he does not have his feet on the ground and makes big deal out of things like sharing a hotel room into something (although possible) that is and still is an everyday ordinary life event. (Though nowdays people of note will be more cautious because of the risk of false allegations) But in the context rather than noting that it is a normal event and in todays terms would be considered unwise it is still normal and nothing should be read into it on it’s own.
    This reliance on just stories is a very ill founded method for obtaining truth when the human race is known since the beginning of time to have a strong propensity to lie. Of course if there are concrete that can be found and pieced together and the key stories tie in unprompted then that changes to a verificable information and helpful.
    Which is I consider a more concrete reason that Prof jay has a question mark in that her Rochdale report banded the unstantiated figure of 1400 about. So though there probably is some real abuse going on (As abuse does happen so in each area statistically by the numbers is a possibility) the report really was weak on real facts.
    Finally Daniel Janner is correct there has already been a lot of work done investigating Lord janner and it is clear there is nothing there and further digging just gives a platform to the false accusers which an enquiry of this kind needs to minimise not encourage.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.