Two recent hearings of the Independent Investigation Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in London heard arguments for and against abandoning its investigation into the allegation of sexual abuse made against the late Greville Janner. Now the Chair of the IICSA has determined that this module will go ahead but that the majority of its evidence will be adduced and examined in private and that any report will similarly be limited. In this article, Christopher Stanley, Litigation Consultant with KRW LAW LLP in Belfast, who represents a survivor of abuse in both Belfast and then in London, provides an insight into the manner in which the IICSA has approached the inquiry into the allegation against Greville Janner. Introduction The operation of a statutory inquiry is, after the initial impact of victim statements, taken little notice of until, perhaps, the publication of a report and recommendations. In Ireland, in relation to the Conflict, we saw this in the Smithwick and Barron inquiries in relation to the murder of two senior RUC officers and the Dublin-Monaghan Bombings of 1974 respectively. My wistfulness covers territory extensively covered in Village – historic institutional sexual abuse. At the point of publication of the auspicious inquiry report there may be either the furore of joy or outrage or muted despair as a 20,000 page document enters the space of the circular filing cabinet. I have been unexpectedly involved either directly or indirectly, either as lawyer or observer, in a number of statutory inquiries in both England and Northern Ireland: those investigations established under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005 or by the exercise of specific legislative provisions available under devolved powers. These have included, in England, those concerning the torture and murder of Baha Mousa, the unlawful killing of Al-Sweady, the Mid-Staffs Hospital Inquiry (my Mother had been a victim), the aborted Detainee Inquiry; and in Northern Ireland the as yet to occur Patrick Finucane inquiry, and the Historical Institutional Abuse (HIA) inquiry into systemic sexual abuse. One of the module strands of the HIA Inquiry concerned The Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast. Arising out of the ‘failure’ of this module there continue to be demands by victims for further investigations into their abuse and the knowledge of and manipulation by state agencies and agents – a particularly low point in Ireland’s Dirty War exacerbated by the stench of collusion and political corruption. Representations had been made to have ‘Kincora’ and its associated institutions within the remit, jurisdiction and terms of reference of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry (IICSA) in London. These were refused by the British government – the HIA would suffice. However, a number of victims were trafficked from Northern Ireland to London to continue their abuse as sex workers. Hence my presence at the IICSA on behalf of one of these ‘others’, on 25 September 2019. I represent a client (‘A’) who was trafficked from Belfast to London to be a sex-worker into the notorious Piccadilly Rings, a Dilly-Boy. He also ‘worked’ in a male brothel in West London. The account of his abuse in Belfast and London has been published in Village. His sister and brother were also abused in Northern Ireland and his brother was also trafficked to England but he was then 18. ‘A’ was 16 when he arrived in London having escaped the ‘care’ of the system. At the request of the IICSA he has provided a detailed Witness Statement which alleges that he was 17 when he was approached by Greville Janner in Piccadilly and then lived with him for a week at his Dolphin Square flat in Westminster and accompanied him to a performance at Earls Court where he met Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson. The date of that performance at Earls Court cross-referenced with Prince Andrew’s diary engagements and the date of birth of ‘A’ suggests he was 17. The date of that performance at Earls Court cross-referenced with Prince Andrew’s diary engagements and the date of birth of ‘A’ suggests he was 17. ‘A’ was paid by Janner for sexual services and provided with meals and clothes. Janner also appeared as a witness on his behalf at Bow Street Magistrates Court when ‘A’ was charged with offences relating to prostitution. ‘A’ had a number of convictions resulting in fines. His other clients included a member of the London Metropolitan Police. Being arrested and charged was seen by our client as an occupational risk. Finally, ‘A’ freely admits that he would not have thought of making a complaint to any institution as he had been abused by politicians, social workers, judges and policemen – those who were trusted with the protection of the vulnerable. Having been invited to provide a Witness Statement to the IICSA in relation to the module “An inquiry into the institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse involving the late Lord Janner of Braunstone QC” I attended what in effect was a case-management hearing. ‘A’ is not a Core Participant (yet) but a potential witness. My expectations of the culture and organisation of the IICSA, given the seriousness of its work, had been raised following what can only be described as a troublesome beginning. They had been raised because of the relative silence around it proceedings. These are my observations of one day at the IICSA. 24 September 2019 A first preliminary hearing into the allegations against Greville Janner had taken place in 2016. Despite its website and apparent accessibility, the physical location of the IICSA was difficult to find. I had to telephone the inquiry: 18 Pocock Street, an anonymous street in Southwark, South London, marked on the day only by a small press presence outside the building. I had gone into Blackfriars Crown Court seeking directions. I can appreciate the need for discretion, given the nature of its work, but for a public inquiry it was as if ‘it’ did not want its location to be known. I recall I had attended the first session of
