Nick, Daniel Janner, And Henriques

capture1

Daniel Janner QC with his father

News yesterday that Daniel Janner QC, son of the late Lord Greville Janner, intends to take out a private prosecution against the Operation Midland witness Nick for perverting the course of justice. [link to Sunday Times story at foot of page]

The Sunday Telegraph revealed that Sir Richard Henriques, who is conducting an internal inquiry into the handling of VIP CSA investigations by the Met which is due to report on October 6th, had written to Lord Janner’s family with a summary of the allegations that Nick had made against Janner.

Sir Richard wrote to the Janner family: “Nick does not describe any specific incident involving Lord Janner. All Nick states is ‘he wasn’t the worst or one of the nice ones’.

“Nick states that he did not know who Lord Janner was at the time and that he never said what his name was.”

The evidence supplied by Sir Richard gives further credence to claims that Nick simply kept adding names of notable dignitaries to his list of alleged abusers, possibly to attract more attention to his claims.

Sunday Telegraph

Let’s get one thing straight from the start; Lord Janner was a paedophile who abused young boys. Following an investigation by Leicestershire Police the CPS originally felt that the evidential stage had been passed but that the public interest stage had not as Lord Janner had dementia. David Perry QC who following the appeal of six victims conducted an independent review and concluded that it was in the public interest that Lord Janner should be charged.

Here is a full list of the charges that were brought against Lord Janner:

Charges

1. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 16th August 1987 and 19th August 1987 committed buggery with Complainant 1, a child under the age of 16 years (namely 15 years).

2. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, between 21st June 1988 and 2nd August 1988 committed buggery with Complainant 1, a male person aged 16 years without his consent.

3. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 16th August 1987 and 2nd August 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 1, a boy aged under 16 years.

4. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st June 1988 and 2nd August 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 1, a male aged 16 years.

5. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 13th March 1984 and 27th March 1984 indecently assaulted Complainant 2, a boy under the age of 16 years.

6. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 27th March 1984 and 1st November 1984 indecently assaulted Complainant 2, a male aged 16 years.

7. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 3rd July 1981 and 15th September 1981 indecently assaulted Complainant 3, a boy under the age of 16 years.

8. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 3rd July 1981 and 15th September 1981 committed buggery with Complainant 3, a child under the age of 16 years.

9. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between the 10th October 1979 and the 7th December 1982 indecently assaulted Complainant 4, a boy under the age of 16 years.

10. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 committed buggery with Complainant 5, a child under the age of 16 years.

11. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 and on an occasion other than in charge 10 committed buggery with Complainant 5, a child under the age of 16 years.

12. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 indecently assaulted Complainant 5, a boy under the age of 16 years.

13. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 indecently assaulted Complainant 5, a boy under the age of 16 years

14. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

15. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

16. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

17. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 committed buggery with Complainant 6, a child under the age of 16 years.

18. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 1st April 1985 and 1st April 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 7, a boy under the age of 16 years.

19. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 1st April 1985 and 1st April 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 7, a boy under the age of 16 years.

20. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 16th June 1963 and 9th October 1969 indecently assaulted Complainant 8, a boy under the age of 16 years.

21. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 10th October 1969 and 31st January 1970 indecently assaulted Complainant 8, a boy under the age of 16 years.

22. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 24th August 1977 and 1st November 1978 committed buggery with Complainant 9.

CPS Blog

The Metropolitan Police passed Nick’s allegations against Lord Janner to Leicestershire Police who declined to include them in the charges set out above.

It seems to me that the specific case against Nick that his allegation against Lord Janner was an attempt to pervert the course of justice is very weak. Given that he didn’t originally name Lord Janner until an Exaro journalist showed him a photograph of Janner, according to Henriques, it appears that Nick could reasonably claim that his recollections had been contaminated and he had not deliberately set out to mislead the police.

That all said, other allegations that Nick made to Operation Midland against Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and Lord Bramall, for example, seem to be far stronger cases for perverting the course of justice than Nick’s allegations against Lord Janner. I note that in most of the stories from yesterday Harvey Proctor was quoted which may indicate that if any private prosecution did take place then it would relate to Nick’s Operation Midland allegations more broadly.

It would appear to this blogger that Daniel Janner QC is attempting to clear his father’s name by prosecuting someone who has made false allegations to the Met but whose allegations were not included in the very credible charges brought by Leicestershire Police.

I’ve been pretty blunt about what I think about Nick on The Needle, I’ve no doubt he is a fantasist who has misled the police and now, potentially, his false allegations might end up undermining the very genuine complainants against the late Lord Janner because if this does go to court then those genuine complainants will be forgotten and all everyone will remember are Nick’s false allegations.

So why hasn’t Nick been prosecuted before now ?

The first reason is that Operation Midland was a huge embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police. They’ll want to forget about this as quickly as possible and the last thing they’ll want to do is have the full details of how gullible they were revealed in open court. It’s bad enough that Sir Richard Henriques is going to report but the public won’t get to see the full cringeworthy details of the botched investigation.

The second reason is that if a police prosecution were brought then the CPS, assuming the Evidential Stage is passed, would conclude that it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute Nick. It should go without saying that anyone desperate enough to claim that Harvey Proctor attempted to cut off his penis with a penknife but was stopped from doing so by Ted Heath has some serious emotional and mental health issues but also the CPS might conclude that other genuine victims of child abuse may be put off from coming forward if such a high profile complainant as Nick were to be prosecuted.

A private prosecution takes this out of the hands of both the Met and the CPS. Generally a private prosecution costs upwards of £100,000 but given that Daniel Janner QC or a colleague in his legal chambers can process the paperwork at ‘mates rates’ the cost shouldn’t be quite so high.

As soon as the application for a private prosecution is processed then the CPS must by law look at the allegation of perverting the course of justice independently and the public interest case is not so overwhelming that the CPS might not conclude that a Crown prosecution should take place.

So, the bottom line is that just applying for a private prosecution ensures that the CPS must look at the evidence and decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute themselves.

What I would point out though is that just because Nick is a fantasist, it doesn’t follow that Lord Greville Janner wasn’t a paedophile because he was.

A man whose claims about a Westminster paedophile ring prompted a £1.8m police investigation could face prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The claimant, known only as “Nick”, made a series of lurid allegations about a number of influential figures including the former prime minister Edward Heath, Lord Bramall, the former head of the armed forces, the former home secretary Leon Brittan and the former Tory MP Harvey Proctor.

No evidence was found to back up his claims.

He also alleged that the former Labour MP Greville Janner — later Lord Janner — was part of the ring.

Janner’s family have written to an internal Metropolitan police inquiry demanding that Nick be prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

“If the CPS does not take action then I will be consulting our legal team about launching a private prosecution of Nick,” said Daniel Janner QC, the son of the peer, who died in December while facing allegations of sexual assault.

Sunday Times

Advertisements

30 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

30 responses to “Nick, Daniel Janner, And Henriques

  1. Pingback: Nick, Daniel Janner, And HenriquesAlternative News Network | Alternative News Network

  2. Joy

    Personally I am appalled at the press hype surrounding Nicks allegations. I was hopeful that finally the police would join the dots connecting a paedophile ring operating countrywide and with people of influence participating, together. This has not happened.
    Nick is being called a fantasist. Really? Why? Because you find it hard to believe such things could happen? Well they do.
    I reported similar allegations to the police several years ago though the location was elsewhere in the UK. I made a formal statement. I was subjected to several days of video interviews. My statement includes links to Janner’s London home in the mid to late 1969’s. My police investigation was given an operational name and I was assured they were taking my allegations seriously. Really? These investigatirs were not even aware of operation midland or the Leicestershire investigation!
    No wonder prosecutions do not happen when major investigations do not get circulated around the country.
    Much money is spent but with very little result/outcome. My experience is that very few people in authority know how to deal with a person coming forward with historical abuse claims and much depends on the case handlers experience and knowledge.
    The system continues to disappoint.

  3. You can blame Exaro for the “press hype”

    Just because you were abused it doesn’t follow that everyone who makes an allegation of CSA is telling the truth.

    Sadly, people sometimes lie.

    • Joy

      Sadly that is true. People lie and can be convincing. My abusers say I am lieing and that I have been a liar all my life. My answer to that is that as a child I was a good liar. I hid the truth well. If I didn’t there were consequences.

      At some point lies unravel and truth is revealed.

  4. tdf

    “Let’s get one thing straight from the start; Lord Janner was a paedophile who abused young boys.”

    We can’t say that. Those claims were never tested in a court of law.

  5. North Down

    It is very disheartening and depressing how the effort to expose elite child abusers in the UK has been completely nobbled and crushed by the corrupt establishment.

    At least we know that the guilty cannot escape justice forever, if not in this life, then in the next.

    The Powers who control the United Kingdom are utterly corrupt and degenerate.

    I fear that God will not much longer hold back from pouring out His wrath upon this country. The cries of hundreds of thousands or even millions of abused children appeal to Him for justice, and He is not deaf.

    “LORD we know Your heart is broken by the evil that You see
    And You’ve stayed Your hand of judgment for you plan to set men free
    But the land is still in darkness and we’ve fled from what is right
    we have failed the silent children who have never seen the light…

    But I know a day is coming when the deaf will hear His voice
    When the blind will see their Saviour and the lame will leap for joy
    When the widow finds a husband who will ALWAYS love His bride
    When the orphan finds a Father who will NEVER leave her side”

    • Joy

      I am not a religious person, but I am spiritual….my memories of an appalling abusive childhood until I married remained hidden, until they surfaced in my 40’s. The years that followed of “remembering” then processing and understanding what happened to me and that I was not “going mad” were made possible by my firm belief that there is a reason…and over time more and more links to what happened to me have appeared from other survivors in the press! I was/am not alone.

      Institutions should be afraid, we have a voice now. How can all of us be lieing? With fear, comes mistakes and the truth does come out.

      It continues to be a long road we are travelling but there is light at the end of the tunnel, where before there was none.

      • North Down

        Hi Joy, there is definitely light at the end of the tunnel! Don’t give up hope!

        I was sexually abused as a child for many years. I don’t understand why God allowed that happen, or why He didn’t prevent it.

        But I do know that God loves me, and that He didn’t want me to be abused.

        If you liked the song above, here are a few more:

        “For my father and my mother have forsaken me,
        but the LORD will take me in.”

        ~Psalm 27:10

  6. Whistleblowing GP

    Who will collect the weight of understanding of those who have been abused ? Surely there is a way for individuals to say and me, and me, and me such that that there a roar that will be heard and demand redress.
    I am so fed up with the deafening silence or at best murmuring of those who have a Duty of Care.The systematic abuse was not by chance and not wilthout profit for those quietly complicit in Health, Education, Social Care, Local Government.

  7. Terry B

    I’m no legal expert and I’m sure Daniel Janner is however but aren’t they going to have to be careful that this doesn’t backfire?

    If the aim is to clear Janner Snr then doesn’t this risk bringing out the evidence that would have been used in the prosecution?

    How about a civil action against the Janner estate by the victims that would have been included in the prosecution? Didn’t Janner put all his properties in his children’s names when it became clear that he was going to be prosecuted? Not bad for someone with dementia.

  8. Joy

    I’m no legal expert either, but I suspect Janner’s son wants a civil action, because his father’s estate is on hold whilst it is unclear if the victims are going take a group civil action against his estate. I think I read somewhere that his estate is considered to be worth around £2million.

  9. dpack

    a few thoughts:
    although a prosecution or claim against “nick” might well have merit and be successful i don’t see how that version of the macalpine defence would have any bearing on a class action by janner’s victims if they can present real and overwhelming evidence regarding his behaviour in a claim for damages against his estate in a properly conducted and entirely different case .

    it may well muddy the waters with the public perception of such matters and make the press and police very cautious in the future (as they should have been regarding “nick’s” statements ), that would please those who wish to keep a lid on such matters but as mentioned it does have the potential to backfire if evidence of janner’s actual activities is presented for instance as an example of the sources “nick” may have used to create his statements.

    going after exaro or the msm for defamation would almost certainly backfire and would be, in my non expert opinion, unlikely to succeed as they would almost certainly present real evidence from other witnesses and documents relating to victims and events that are nothing to do with “nick’s claims” or their direct ” investigations” to show why they had ” honest” reasons to believe “nick” . they might have trouble explaining why they favoured “nick” over a large number of other sources of data and why they failed to check his claims more thoroughly for discrepancies but that would not be the substance of the case against them .

    clearing janner’s name and by doing so preventing any actions for damages against his estate seems an unlikely outcome of prosecuting “nick” for perverting the course of justice which begs the question what is janner jnr’s motive?

  10. Jack

    I have no sympathy for this odious family as they have clearly been involved in a cover up of their grubby family secret for years.

    • Aardvark

      Yes, but it’s the whole grubby, odious system, that has let the likes of Janner, get away with it, from the top brass in the Police, who quashed investigations, from orders from above, to the CPS, continuously dismissing cases, multiple times, that should obviously have been tried in a Court of law.
      The establishment is riddled with corruption, it is now overwhelmingly obvious, that there has been a cover up and it’s very much ongoing. There has to be an across, political party agreement to cover everything up, as all parties have had multiple offenders and the abuse in care institutions in Borougha and regions, has been rife.

      This is so obviously not just about Janner, he was a blatant, serial, child abuser, because he knew he could get away with it. The elephant in the room, that no one is talking about here, is Keith Vaz. When Janner should have been in court being prosecuted for child abuse, Keith Vaz was leading a standing ovation for him in the House of Commons. Similarly, the NEC, applauded, Vaz recently, when there are all sorts of allegations about him, wouldn’t it be wise to discern, whether these allegations are true first, or are they confident it will all be covered up again. It’s beyond farcical, that Vaz is on the Privy Council, and is the Chair of the HASC, but most outrageous of all, why on earth is he the Chair of the IICSA? Grilling those, who should in fact, be grilling him, about his time as Solicitor for Children in Richmond and Islington, when Child abuse was rife in those boroughs, while they are about it, they should also be grilling Margaret Hodge, Paul Boateng and Mary Porter, Derek Sawyer and many, many others! It’s a sick joke, which many on Social media are also perpetuating, those who are in fact complicit with the cover up, but there is a far greater awareness of all this and the tide is changing and the truth , as they say, will out!

      • Aardvark

        ‘Dame’ Shirley Porter that should read, not Mary, still a Dame, after all that corruption scandal etc! All very strange, the people that get into powerful positions, what they get away with and what they help other people get away with. It’s a festering sewer and they are trying to cement the lid back down, but the noxious gas keeps blowing it off!

      • Jack

        Vaz is a protected person for some reason. That much is clear.

  11. dpack

    in westminster and in a wider context blackmail,reward and whitewash are a significant aspect of these issues.
    it seems likely that keeping the lid on that and the implications of it is even more of a priority than protecting individual offenders or the reputation of a particular party.

    protecting how such power has been and is used is even more important.

    in the westminster context using knowledge of such things to harm a rival party by exposing it’s offenders could lead to revenge in kind which could explain why some have failed to follow up what they started and is also likely to attract the attention of dark forces who have exploited such things across a wide range of assets, that is the sort of attention very few could defend against no matter how much they would like to expose what they know, this might explain why quite a few more have either gone quiet and/or got out or in a few cases refused “friendly advice” and got dead.

    much of that sounds like my tin foil hat has slipped but after 4 yrs of poking about in the sewers i recon it ain’t far off a significant bit of reality.

  12. callie

    Janner was not prosecuted for very good reasons. If none of you know what they are, Google Frank Beck. Until recently Janner had only ONE accuser, despite other boys being given ample opportunity to make complaints. And that one accuser is a deeply compromised witness, used by the state to imprison Beck. As for Nick – it was blindingly obvious to anyone who read his blogs that he was fantasizing. I’m sorry, but if you believed that then you simply don’t understand the human psyche. Worryingly, police had to be alerted to those blogposts.As for why he wont be prosecuted – his job has a lot to do with it.