Leading QC Urged Lord Janner Be Charged


If the cap fits…


The director of public prosecutions rejected the advice of one of the country’s principal authorities on sex offences when she ruled that Lord Janner of Braunstone should not be charged with child abuse.

Eleanor Laws, QC, was leading counsel to Leicestershire police’s investigation into the veteran Labour peer and recommended that he be put on trial despite his age and dementia.

There is recent precedent — Michael Collingwood was convicted in his absence by Exeter crown court in 2010 of abusing six young girls. Like Lord Janner the defendant was suffering from advanced dementia.

Alison Saunders ruled this week that because of Lord Janner’s illness it would not be in the public interest to prosecute despite there being sufficient evidence to charge him with 22 offences against nine alleged victims over three decades.

Mrs Saunders’s decision, which was communicated to police at the start of the week, caused surprise and anger among complainants and detectives who had expected the case to go to court.

Ms Laws, who is also leading counsel to Operation Pallial, the country’s largest historical abuse investigation into children’s homes in north Wales, said yesterday that she was unable to comment because her advice to the DPP was the legally privileged property of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Times


Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

10 responses to “Leading QC Urged Lord Janner Be Charged

  1. Pingback: Leading QC Urged Lord Janner Be Charged | Alternative News Network

  2. Anon

    His family has stated that he is innocent.

    There are a lot of allegations flying around in the Social Media.

    If his representatives were to sue for Libel then that would provide the oppurtunuity for the allegations to be determined in a Court of Law.

    • Sabre

      The only chance of Janner succeeding with a libel action at this stage would require that the case be heard by a bent judge without a jury.

      • Anon

        having a trial without a jury might be a bit difficult to arrange.

      • Sabre

        @Anon libel actions are not criminal trials, libel actions are often heard by a judge without a jury. Under very special circumstances some criminal trials can be heard by a Judge alone.

      • BarrieJ

        The state would have absolutely no problem at all in providing a ‘suitable’ judge and in the event of a criminal trial, a compliant jury as well.
        We are governed by criminals.

      • Sabre

        You’re preaching to the converted Barriej.

      • Last of the Truffle Snorting Heroes

        Part of the DPP’s reasoning for refusing to put him on trial is around his supposed inability to instruct his legal representation. I’m pretty certain that only the libelled individual could initiate such an action. It would be highly likely to end up a costly misadventure for the Janners anyway as his victims would have an interest in a libel case action being defeated and his ‘libellers’ would have an interest in bringing the victims evidence into play.

  3. joekano76

    Reblogged this on Floating-voter.

  4. Jack

    The Collingwood case shows that the CPS in general and Saunders in particular are not being completely candid on this matter. The media should be pressing Saunders to explain why she never mentioned that a course of action similar to that taken in the Collingwood case was an option and secondly why she has chosen not to take this option.