By Christopher Stanley Litigation Consultant KRW LAW LLP Belfast. Last year I wrote piece for Village called The Accused and the Accusers: If Not Now, When? There,I offered an analysis of the proceedings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry (IICSA) in relation to its investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse against former British Labour MP Greville Janner (Lord Janner of Braunstone QC). (Braunstone is mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086, giving a population of “two sokemen and four villeins”). Child sexual abuse whether within a public (institutional/official) or private (familial/domestic) setting occurs behind closed doors. Part of the power/violence of the abuser is the assumption of or enforcement of silence upon the abused. The abused is made mute even though their abuse may be known by many who either decide not to intervene or are themselves objects/subjects of abuse. It is ironic therefore that on the 12 October 2020 IICSA commenced its ‘public’ hearings under the title “Institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse involving the late Lord Janner of Braunstone QC”. Public hearings about silenced acts in private spaces from muted voices. These hearings were subject to a Restriction Order under Section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005. Restriction Orders and Notices were controversial additions to the Inquiries Act 2005 as they have the effect of running counter to the principles of transparency and openness in the administration of justice and due process. A Restriction Order denies the public access to the hearing (in whole or in part), it denies the public access to the oral and written evidence (in whole or in part) and it restricts an inquiry from publishing a complete report of Conclusion and Recommendations (in whole or in part). It excludes the public gaze. It can also appear to exclude or silence the victims if an investigation is examining a matter such as systemic institutional abuse where the testimony of the victims is core to testing the allegations. The IICSA accepted the need for anonymity of victims: “As a matter of law in this country, a complainant who makes an allegation of sexual abuse is entitled to lifelong anonymity. The right to anonymity is enshrined in section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. This prevents any matter being published, which includes, for these purposes, references in a speech or in writing, about the complainant which might enable the public to identify them as being someone against whom a sexual offence has been said to have been committed.” Open Session 12 October 2020 page 20 A distinction needs to be made for the sake of clarity. When identifying witnesses there are those witnesses who are the victims of Janner’s alleged sexual abuse. They are identified by the IICSA as the Complainant Core Participants. These witnesses speak through their witness statements and through their legal representatives. They may waive their anonymity. Then there are those witnesses who represent institutions, police officers, prosecutors, politicians. They cannot waive their anonymity but give their oral evidence either in Open or Closed session. Evidence of several witnesses is read into the Record of the Hearings. The ‘institutional witnesses’ are identified by their Name in the Timetable of the Hearings but become Witness 1 in the Open Summary of the Closed Session. For example, Matthew Baggott 26 October 2020 of the IICSA hearing becomes Witness 2 in the Open Summary of the Closed Session of 26 October 2020. I refer you to the Timetable for Week 1 Closed Session (1). There were 17 morning and afternoon sessions timetabled. 13 were Closed Session. The Witnesses being heard were either from members of the police service or from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Timetable for Week 2 commenced hearing evidence from more police officers or prosecutors Closed Session (2).The Timetable for Week 3 Closed Session (3) heard evidence from the police and members of the Labour Party including former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Janner (dead) cannot be a witness save through the venting anger of his family. No victims’ voices are heard save by way of their witness statements and the voices of their legal representatives. Some victims may not want to speak or accept they can be spoken for, but some may want to be heard in their own voice either as themselves or as their ciphered selves. The List of Core Participants identified in the IICSA include 28 ciphered persons in the Janner Investigation. These are victims or as IISCA identifies them the Complainant Core Participants. They are Janner’s Accusers. “6. In summary, I have concluded that, by reason of the allegations they have made, all the complainant core participants have (and, for the avoidance of doubt, continue to have) a significant interest in the matters under investigation.” “10. Messrs Janner and Butler are wrong to say that only three of the complainant core participants had made allegations of abuse against Lord Janner at the time that the Inquiry was established. On the Inquiry’s present understanding of the evidence, 19 of the 33 complainant core participants had made such allegations to the Police by the time that the Inquiry was established in March 2015.” Determination 27 October 2017 But the only ‘live’ voices in these virtual hearings were from the Corridors of Power (Westminster) which Janner stalked, or those institutions charged with investigating the allegations against him (the Labour Party, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and Local Authorities). The Chair of IICSA must have been relieved that there were hearings at given the resistance and protestations of the family of Greville Janner which I examined in my earlier piece. In a spirit of transparency IISCA has published certain documents referenced or relied upon in its investigation. For example, “Charges brought against Lord Janner in 2015” including: “6. INDECENT ASSAULT on a Male Person contrary to section 15 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (multiple incidents – forced JA-A27 to perform oral sex on him) Between 21 November 1972 and 22 December 1975” … Continue reading THE ACCUSED AND THE ACCUSERS: CLOSED SESSION