Dear Sir…

images

Letters in The Times 18/04/2015

Sir, Your article may have been taken to suggest that, as DPP, I took a decision in 2007 not to prosecute Lord Janner for a variety of serious sexual offences (“The senior lawyers who failed to act”, Apr 17). This is not true. As the present DPP, Alison Saunders, has confirmed to me, the case in question was never referred to CPS headquarters from the local CPS area in which it arose, as it certainly should have been under CPS rules then in force. This grave failure meant that the case never came to me. Had it done so I should undoubtedly have given it my close personal attention.

Ken Macdonald, QC

The Times

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

15 responses to “Dear Sir…

  1. Pingback: Dear Sir… | Alternative News Network

  2. Anon

    “The current DPP … has confirmed to me … that the case never came to me.”

  3. Sabre

    … And so the arse covering begins …

  4. Sabre

    This is a 20+ year old story to some of us. Are we any closer to discovering whether or not Leon was unjustly smeared?

    Any progress on Pete,Mike,Del and Paul amongst others?

  5. Dan

    Statement from Commissioner Adam Simmonds on Lord Janner case

    Published on Thursday 16 April 2015 at 16:21

    “Today is a dark day for our justice system. A substantial number of victims of child abuse, who have carried the weight of such heinous crimes with them for the best part of two decades have been terribly let down in the worst possible way.

    “It has taken them years for the Criminal Justice System to take them seriously. They were offered a ray of hope in the events following the death of Jimmy Saville and in the public pronouncements from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) last year that her and her team would pursue justice for abuse victims whether their cases were “30 days or 30 years old,” that ray of hope has disappeared and their chances of achieving justice clouded once again in the most cruel way.

    “The DPP has confirmed in her statement this morning that Greville Janner escaped being brought to justice for his crimes not once, but on three separate occasions in 1991, 2002 and 2007. Her statement openly admits that mistakes were made both by Leicestershire Police, but also and critically to this case, the CPS, in the application of the evidential test in previous investigations. Put simply, in previous investigations the public interest test would have been passed and prosecution would have followed.

    “The DPP announced in her decision today that due to Greville Janner’s medical condition, suffering from serious Alzheimer’s disease, it is not in the public interest to prosecute him for 22 crimes consisting of 14 indecent assaults on a male under the age of 16 between 1969 and 1988, 2 further indecent assaults between 1984 and 1988, 4 counts of buggery of a male under 16 between 1972 and 1987, 2 counts of buggery between 1977 and 1987.

    “Greville Janner may not have been found guilty in court, but a man who has protested his innocence and accused victims of lying in my view has a lot of strong and compelling evidence against him. I believe in the right to a fair trial that underpins our justice system, and stand by the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, but I for one will take the DPP’s statement that ‘but for medical considerations, it would undoubtedly have been in the public interest to prosecute’ extremely seriously.

    “Moving forward, the question remains how a person fit to stand trial can be brought to justice, yet where a perpetrator has died, as had Jimmy Saville, that a Metropolitan Police report can conclude ‘Jimmy Saville was one of the UK’s most prolific known sexual predators.’ It is a sad and worrying state of affairs that although a potential perpetrator is still alive, the victims of his crimes are not able to seek justice for what he has done.

    “I want to be able to reassure every any victim of abuse or exploitation, that the criminal justice system is on their side. Every single report of abuse or exploitation is taken seriously by those of us charged with the duty of protecting vulnerable people. I know today’s news will weaken people’s confidence. But the fight to put victims at the heart of the system and not the alleged offenders goes on.”

    Adam Simmonds
    http://www.northants.police.uk/#!/News/25733

  6. Gary

    It wasn’t me…

  7. BarrieJ

    Admit to mistakes having been made………………………..
    It’s beginning to get a rather familiar feel to it, rather like there’s a pattern emerging. The cover up is underway, in clear site, before our very eyes.
    The contempt these people show for us beggars belief.

  8. Dan

    It is from today’s Sunday Times

  9. The story line seems to be that in December 2013 – exactly 22 years since Keith Vaz gave his unconditional support to Mr Greville Janner, a fellow Leicester MP, – police raided Lord Janner’s home and office.

    Oddly it took the police until May 2014 to make an appointment to question Greville, Lord Janner. At that point a journalist contacted me, since I’d been commenting on the issue, and told me the CPS had told the police not to accept Lord Janner’s claim of galloping alzheimers at face value. So it appeared the CPS were keen to receive the evidence.

    Then I read on another blog site that the DPP. Alison Saunders’, legal adviser was in the same chambers as Greville Janner’s son and that it was a CPS decision not to prosecute Lord Janner; and presumably not to have a ‘fitness for trial hearing and therefore not to have a trial of the facts – something that has recently been done for another alleged sexual predator.

    So which is it? Is it a CPS and DPP decision not to continue with this case? Or is it a reluctant Leicestershire Police decision? Given the very unusual statement issued by the police they appear to have put themselves in the clear. But so does the DPP. However could it be that the whole establishment is in fact working together – police, DPP and Theresa May – to ensure the embarrassment of a trial is avoided because so much more manure could hit the fan if it ever came to trial?

    Bearing in mind the way children in Leicester feel about Social Services and the police and given my own experience of absolute corruption within Leicestershire police and the overhaul of social services in Leicester there appears to be a lot more fancy footwork and finesse to this case than at first glance meets the eye.

    For Theresa May and the police to criticise the DPP, who in fairness has given chapter and verse of why she thinks Janner had a good case to answer, is very odd. If there is unrest over this case then surely the Attorney General can over rule the DPP’s decision, but not a peep out of the Attorney General.

    Cynics may argue that the whole issue of Child Sex Abuse and a Westminster ring was deliberately mishandled in order to put off this issue until after the General election.

    First we had the sister of Sir Michael Havers appointed – Lady Butler Sloss, then we had a friend of Leon, Lord Brittan appointed, Fiona Wolf. Then when those enquiry heads fell off their perches the whole board of enquiry was told to stand down. Why? Had the Home Office tested the water with board members and found who would be least manipulated and got rid of them? Very oddly, Professor Alexis Jay said she’d only been invited to one board of enquiry meeting.

    Keith Vaz, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, appointed by Harriet Harman, made ever so many noises of sympathy and regret to victims. Yet he welcomed Lady Butler Sloss’s appointment and hailed her as ‘a woman of absolute integrity,’ clearly knowing she was Sir Michael Havers sister. Then Vaz, a man of undoubted straw, saw which way the wind was blowing and urged the Home Secretary to find another Chairman for the enquiry and did the same again for Fiona Wolf.

    Then – in a blaze of publicity with the BBC acting as police propaganda merchants – we saw Cliff Richard’s home being raided. Now it seems to me that Cliff Richard is quite possibly entirely innocent and that the powers that be decided to raid the home of a well loved innocent patsy in order to ensure that the names of perpetrators of child sexual abuse were not named in any news media until after they had been convicted. Something Vaz tried to do back in 1991. This would of course ensure that no sexual predator would ever be found guilty just because other witnesses would not know it was finally time to come forward.

    Are these facts correct? Is there more to add?