Share, , Google Plus, Pinterest,



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.


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.

Members of the Finucane family

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.

Kincora Boys’ Home

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.

Piccadilly Circus

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 the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq War in 2009 (not a statutory inquiry) and had been initially refused entry as it was not a public inquiry. I had to remonstrate with officials to be admitted.  

Back in 2019, once through the inevitable airport security in Pocock Street, I entered a small area at that point full of lawyers and journalists. I did not detect a member of the public (fair point – this was a Tuesday morning in September). There is a media centre which relays live feed which can be viewed (albeit with a three minute delay).

In the hearing room the public ‘gallery’ is side-onto proceedings. The public sit behind the witness box. The space for the public contrasted with the space for the law being probably an eighth or less. The panel of three ‘judges’ (they are not since the Fall of Goddard, the Kiwi judge who flew back home, real judges) therefore can only be seen in oblique profile.

My head count took in at least 35 lawyers, including at least eight Queen’s Counsel (the equivalent to Senior Counsel in Ireland). These were just the lawyers in the room. At this hearing I worked out that three legal teams represented complainants (the abused). One legal team (including two QCs) represented ‘the accused’ (Greville Janner). The other teams represented ‘the institutions’: Leicestershire Constabulary, Leicester Local Authority, the Home Office, the Department of Education, the CPS, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and the Labour Party – and the inquiry itself (Counsel to Inquiry or CTI).

‘We’ were advised that two counsellors were available to provide individual support. I noticed that a number of journalists had secured an A4 diagram of the layout of ‘the court’ and the names of barristers and solicitors. This is important for witnesses (so they can identity who is asking the questions) and the public given the numbers of dramatic personae in play. I approached an usher. She approached a solicitor to the inquiry who wanted to know who I was (why?), why I wanted this piece of paper (why?) (“we do not usually want people to know” and “we have no spare copies”. . I was led into vestibule outside the court where I furtively took a snap with a mobile phone.

As previously noted, this was listed as a Case Management Hearing.

A statutory inquiry in England is meant to be inquisitorial not adversarial. This means it is a fact-finding investigation and not an investigation leading to attribution of criminal or civil liability. It should not be a contest to undermine or discredit witnesses. I assumed the majority of witnesses in this strand or module of the inquiry would be victims (the abused) – known as the complainants.

This inquiry is about the failings of institutions, not the crimes of individuals. The late Greville Janner is not an institution but this module is the only investigation being undertaken by the IICSA which is in his name. He is therefore being ‘framed’ as the accused by the abused and ipso facto his memory and his family relations are on trial.

This appearance was denied in the opening remarks of Counsel to the Inquiry (CTI):

“Second is the notion that the investigation proceeds on an assumption of guilt or violates the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.  These points are factually incorrect and legally misconceived.  The presumption of innocence applies in criminal proceedings where the prosecution has to prove that an individual is guilty before a court imposes a criminal sanction.  This is not a court.  This is no criminal prosecution.  These are not adversarial proceedings but inquisitorial. They do not set out to answer the question whether or not Lord Janner was guilty of offences involving child sexual abuse.  They seek to examine whether institutions responded properly to  allegations that were made about him. These are different questions, approached through different procedures”. (Transcript 14 – 15: 17 – 25 and 1 – 7)

The message CTI advanced to the panel of un-judges was clear: this module could not proceed and must be delayed by at least another ten months to October 2020 if it were to proceed at all.  

This bleak proclamation was made because a file prepared by the English Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) had been sent to the English Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) regarding the conduct of a police officer from the Leicestershire Constabulary in the investigation into allegations against Greville Janner (Operation Nori). A decision to prosecute would, CTI argued, conflict with the process of this module of this inquiry.

Further, there had to -date been no disclosure of any material to the Core Participants (CPs) in this module for reasons of on-going parallel or satellite  proceedings. The amount of disclosure was in the range of 355,000 documents.

As another Counsel commented later in this hearing: “The importance of disclosure will show whether ‘we are on the right track or not’.  Disclosure, and full disclosure, at the earliest opportunity, will maximise fairness to all concerned” (67; 10 – 14).

CTI concluded:

“We are conscious that this means a further wait and  further uncertainty for those affected by this investigation.  As I have said, we are mindful that many  involved will find this difficult and distressing.  We  deeply regret that.  We have done all that we reasonably would to allow this hearing to consider the outstanding questions that must be answered in order for this  investigation to proceed”.

In the un-court this revelation appeared to have come as no surprise to anyone present: all the CPs had already made written submissions on the proposed postponement. For example: “The Labour Party filed brief written submissions acknowledging or recognising the need for the directions sought by counsel to the inquiry, and I have nothing further to add to those submissions”.

In the un-court this revelation appeared to have come as no surprise to anyone present: all the CPs had already made written submissions on the proposed postponement.

These written submissions are not available to public. I might have saved myself a journey. All the institutions (this is an inquiry into institutional failure – including failure to prevent individuals from abusing their positions of power to abuse the vulnerable – the accusing complainants) concurred with the postponement proposed by CTI to the Chair of the Panel.

Public investigations into events which have caused, or are capable of causing public concern, or where there is public concern that particular events may have occurred (the language of section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005), can give rise to moments of drama, even in an inquisitorial forum which is not a court of trial.

The son of Greville Janner, himself a QC, took the proposed postponement by the scruff of its neck and demanded the investigation into the allegations against his late father stop. His father was now the victim, his reputation (and that of his family) was on trial. He used the words “kangaroo” (40:21) and “Kafkaesque” (43:6), “gravy-train lawyers” (42:14), “Auschwitz” (49:2), and “but this strand actually is a gift to the Jew haters and anti-Semites” (41: 22 – 23) and “We saw it with the collapse of the civil claims against him, and then the estate.  We saw it with the false allegations of the fantasist Carl Beech –  “Nick” — who accused my late father of raping him in the Carlton Club, and here we have a number of ‘Nicks'”. (40: 15 -19).

Is ‘A’ a ‘Nick’? – Janner Jnr would no doubt think so – “Now, another false complainant recently jumped on the infamous – this is quite an easy one to jump on: Dolphin Square – Dolphin Square rumours to allege that he was raped there”. (47: 21 – 25).

Janner Jnr vented in defence of his father. He was allowed to continue at length without interruption presenting substantive submissions well beyond the scope of this purpose of this hearing. These were submissions to the outside world made to discredit the accusers/the abused and to claim institutional infallibility on behalf of his late father, the accused alleged abuser.

Counsel for other members of the Janner family was less inflammatory and less rhetorical with indignation (and therefore more deadly) and deployed his enviable forensic skills to make this process one of palpable Nonsense on Stilts. Counsel  systematically sought to destroy the arguments of CTI and that this nonsense should stop because:

“Transparency is especially important, given how long the investigation has lasted and the impact it has had on all the Janner family.  It constitutes an agonising interference with their private and family lives, it harms the name they share with their father, and it compounds the grief that they are going through as a result of his death and his treatment as he was dying, grief which they cannot begin to complete until this process has ended”. (51: 17 – 25).

He concluded that:

“Finally, may I mention human cost?  That may be  pleaded by others, but I focus here on this family. During its lifetime, IICSA has rightly made statements about its concern to protect the dignity of vulnerable witnesses that have made complaints.  It has said much less about the predicament of the accused, especially where there is a credible prospect that they have been wrongly accused”. (60: 6 – 13)


 “This is not a competition between indignities, but it is also right to emphasise that it is not a situation where human rights flow one way. Within the institutional setting of IICSA itself, the accused and their families are at risk of being treated as the other.  The mere event of an accusation against oneself or a person one loves is a trauma in itself” (61: 3 – 9).

The cessation of this non-adversarial non-court (Kangaroo or otherwise) would enable the family of the accused abuser closure on their grief.

In response to the family of Janner, a counsel for a number of complainants (the abused accusers), sought to recalibrate what had gone before. He recognised that  “filial piety is a virtue universally recognised, but so, too, in a legal forum, is objective engagement with the facts” (62: 11 – 14). He reminded the panel that a report by a High Court Judge had commented that in 1991 and 2002 and 2007  Janner should have faced prosecution for indecent assault and buggery. Whether he was guilty or not we do not know and cannot speculate – this is not an inquisitorial process, it is not a court of fact. The witnesses (the abused/accused) cannot be cross-examined and can ‘hide’ by virtue of an anonymity order (being ‘Nick’) and the accused abuser cannot speak-back save as a mute Other.

Counsel noted the purpose of this investigation:

“What is the value of a public hearing at the end of an investigation where, as we have heard, hundreds of thousands of documents have been created and no doubt tens of thousands of hours of legal professionals’ work and investigative professionals’ work has been devoted to the matter?  Well, perhaps the question answers itself.  But we say there is inherent value in the public scrutiny of these matters.  I think it was Bentham who said that sunlight was a great disinfectant”. (65: 1 – 9)

Where does this leave ‘A’? He becomes, to the family of Greville Janner (QC., Labour MP, Member of the House of Lords), “who was a leader of the Jewish community, a devoted public servant, husband, father and grandfather, but never an institution. He founded institutions, Madam chair. He founded the Holocaust Educational Trust; he founded the Jewish Commonwealth Council, and he was the lay leader, and we are so proud of this, of the Jewish community in this country”, (41: 13:20)) a ‘Nick’.

‘Nick’ with his back turned

‘A’ is silenced even before he speaks. He is the corrupt and venal accuser claiming/complaining of abuse (rape, buggery, indecent assault) – he has a criminal record, he has mental issue ‘issues’, he was ‘in care’. He did not complain at the time. He has not spoken before because he was silenced by the likes of the institutions Janner was a part of – the Court, his Church, his Westminster (including the environs of Dolphin Square). He is also the other (61: 8), and Irish.

But unlike the accused abuser ‘A’ cannot belong to or be admitted to the institutions which seek to protect one of their own, inside or outside, other or non-other, the accused abuser. He also seeks closure through what he sees as his moment of addressing truth to justice in order to salve and suture his trauma.

20 February 2020

On 20 February this year there was a further preliminary hearing at Pocock Street of “IICSA Inquiry-Lord Janner Preliminary Hearing”. I did not attend – I should have “Janner” as a Google-alert.

Professor Jay, the Chair of the IICSA

The Chair of the IICSA, opened proceedings by indicating that in part they would examine including “whether or not it should be discontinued”. (1:21). The Chair continued:

“As I did at the third preliminary hearing, I wish, from the outset, to remind everyone that I expect those appearing before the inquiry, and in particular those   who have been granted core participant status, to conduct themselves appropriately.  As ever, there are the strongest of emotions on all sides in this    investigation, and there exist diametrically opposed but deeply-held views”. (2: 15 – 22)

She reminded the participants that a Restriction Notice under Section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 remains in place – this restricts public access to the inquiry.

The substance of the discussion at this juncture was the right to anonymity of a complainant (the abused) and the use of closed measures – how far could this process be taken to adduce evidence for consideration by the inquiry which would be heard behind closed doors and redacted when disclosure to all Core Participants is a key point in making informed decision and judgments and enabling effective participation?

CTI noted:

“Shorn of legalese, the Janner family’s argument is that the investigation should not continue as it would cause them a good deal of distress.  We agree that their views as core participants should be considered, and considered carefully.  However, so, too, should the views of other core participants, including the  complainant core participants”. (25: 7 – 13)

Process and rights – legitimate expectation and rights – will now determine whether the Janner module will continue. CTI addressed the issue of discontinuance of the module, which the Janner family advocate:

“We say that discontinuation is a course that is open to you in law. Turning, then, to what the effect of discontinuance would be.  In short, there are two elements to it: one forensic and one human. The forensic element is that the central issues in this investigation wouldn’t be examined by this inquiry”.(35: 20 – 23)

“The human element to the decision to discontinue is clear.  It will have a devastating effect on many of the complainant core participants. They have engaged with this inquiry over a number of years and, as we have  said, they have a legitimate and substantial interest in the investigation continuing. The submissions made on behalf of the complainant core participants starkly demonstrate the effect discontinuation will have on them”. (37: 2 – 10)

“In conclusion on discontinuing the investigation, we submit that this is a course that is open to you in law. Before deciding on it, though, you must consider what will be lost — both the forensic loss to your inquiry as a whole and the real and substantial impact that it will have on complainant core participants.   Ultimately, you must choose which is the lesser of two evils: substantially closed hearings or discontinuance”. (37: 17 – 25)

Daniel Janner QC

Counsel for the family of Greville Janner opened by urging discontinuance, arguing concerning the invidious and unpalatable position of the Panel:

“It is the combination of those central allegations and the legislation which now causes your counsel to find themselves in what they describe as an “unpalatable” position.  What may be most unpalatable for everyone is that the problem has always existed in this strand”. (49: 6 – 11)

He continued:

“What your counsel have effectively conceded, five years in, for matters beyond your control, is that the continuation of this strand will not fairly resolve an irreconcilable conflict.  In fact, and this is our respectful submission, it will make it worse”. (50: 4 – 8)

He concluded:

“But it is important to recognise now that the experience of the investigation hanging over the family for five years has been a ghastly invasion of their grief.  Its subject matter hung over them when their father was dying, and some of it hung over them from an earlier date and for highly unusual reasons that we have detailed in writing.  The case is simply not what it seemed to others from today is the suggestion put to you that you discontinue this inquiry due to a procedural issue arising from the anonymity of a single individual.  Chair, my primary point is that there is no legal authority for discontinuation of an investigation within a national public inquiry which has been under way for five years on the basis that closed hearings may be required. What the inquiry is being asked to do is     unprecedented and all the more extraordinary because parliament has specifically legislated for closed public inquiry hearings in this very scenario through section 19 of the Inquiries Act and we have set out the provisions of that section at paragraph 28 of our written submissions. Chair, at the last preliminary hearing, back on 24 September 2019, Mr Altman QC summarised the scope of this investigation by saying, and I quote: “In short, this is an investigation about how institutions responded to allegations of child sexual abuse made against a prominent politician in the 1990s and the first decade of this century. The institutions which will be scrutinised are manifold and wide ranging, including Leicestershire Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Leicestershire County Council, the Labour Party and certain government departments.  The panel will also the outside.  The inquiry came involved too quickly in 2015, without appreciating its true complexities.  Given what you now know, it is undeniable that the strand was misconceived from the start.  The end will inevitably be     treated as controversial by those who cannot be fully  informed of the true reasons behind your judgment, but therein lies the problem.  It is not possible for this inquiry to do justice to this matter.  The reasons have nothing to do with the Janner family and nothing to do with Lord Janner.  They are to do with the nature of  the evidence and the only purpose that you deemed it proper to maintain the strand.  Delay has been agonising for this family and it has not served the public interest. It is time to stop.  Thank you”. (69 – 70: 18 – 25 and 1 – 14).

Brian Altman QC for the IICSA

Counsel for 14 complainants argued that the module must press on, baldly stating that “let it be said that Lord Janner, described this morning as a devoted public servant, died while awaiting trial at the Central Criminal Court on 22 charges of 4 sexual offences against children”. (98: 1 – 4).

He continued:

“The first question that our clients ask is: how did such a prominent person, known to have easy access to children in care, repeatedly, and for decades, escape  prosecution and, therefore, accountability? Another factor that cannot be ignored and that leads me to my second question is this: there were apparent  failures in institutional responses for decades. Those apparent failures deprived our clients and all other complainants of three things: dignity, justice and redress. Those three things are now available only from this inquiry. The second question, therefore, is: if not now, when?”. (98 – 99: 20 – 25 and 1 – 3).

In a ‘Housekeeping’ note at the closing of the open session CTI reported that:

“Additionally, a member of the inquiry’s communications team was contacted by a senior journalist, also yesterday The journalist said that an unidentified person — “I’m not going to tell you who, but you can guess”, is what was said — had spoken to them, saying the investigation was going to be binned tomorrow — in other words, today”. (115: 15 – 21).

The open session concluded in the following way:

“So, chair, unless there are any other matters, I will invite you to rise now briefly, and I mean  briefly, and when you return, we will commence the closed session”. (122 – 123: 24 – 25 and 1 -2)

A note on the Closed Session (‘the gist’) states that “‘most, possibly all’ ​of the investigation hearings would have to be held in private if the Chair concluded that this Investigation should proceed” and “why the application of redactions or the use of ciphers would not adequately protect the identity of the complainant who has claimed anonymity under the 1992 Act”. It continues “any evidence that could be heard in public would likely be fragmentary or incomplete. He submitted that the narrative would be incomprehensible to those who only hear the evidence set out in public”. Counsel for the family of Greville Janner reiterated that the investigation must stop. Counsel for 14 of the complaints stated that they did not have sufficient disclosure to make detailed submissions about what evidence could be heard in public and which should be heard in private. He submitted that it was selective and wrong of other parties to do so”.

For the abused it is becoming clear that it is not a question of ‘When’ but of ‘Whether?’.

5 March 2020

On 5 March 2020 the IICSA published its determination noting that its hearing on 20 February had been partly closed.

At paragraph 18 of the determination, the Chair outlined the three options available to the IICSA in respect to the Janner module:

“The first was to proceed with the Investigation in the knowledge that most, if not all, of the hearings would not be held in public and that most, if not all, of the Investigation report would not be published. The second option was to proceed by identifying issues that could be examined in public and pursuing those. The third option was to discontinue the Investigation”.

At paragraph 25 she concluded on option 1 that:

“ I am left, therefore, in a position where I accept the submissions of Counsel to the Inquiry on the question of what closed hearings and a closed Investigation report would entail. In particular I accept that most, possibly all, of any further Investigation would have to take place in closed form”.

At paragraph 41 she concluded on option 2 that:

“ I have carefully considered all of the written and oral submissions made to me, including those made in closed session. Having done so, it is my decision that the Investigation should continue, using closed proceedings under section 19 of the 2005 Act where necessary”.

Further at paragraph 44 she gave reasons for her decision:

“The main reason for my decision is that there remain, in my view, too many unanswered questions about institutional responses to the allegations made against Lord Janner. Those allegations were extremely serious, and they span a period of decades. For most, and perhaps all, of the complainant core participants, this Investigation represents the last opportunity to get answers to those questions”.


The Chair relied upon the compelling reasoning of one of the Counsel for the complainants (the alleged abused):

“ First, let it be said that Lord Janner, described this morning [by Mr Friedman on behalf of the Janner family] as a devoted public servant, died while awaiting trial at the Central Criminal Court on 22 charges of sexual offences against children. On several previous occasions, he should have been prosecuted. In the view of Sir Richard Henriques, prosecution would have led to a realistic prospect of conviction …[T]he allegations against Lord Janner … were of rape, buggery, indecent assault and gross indecency, dating from around 1955 until August 1988. The first question that our clients ask is: how did such a prominent person, known to have easy access to children in care, repeatedly, and for decades, escape prosecution and, therefore, accountability? Another factor that cannot be ignored and that leads me to my second question is this: there were apparent failures in institutional responses for decades. Those apparent failures deprived our clients and all other complainants of three things: dignity, justice and redress. Those three things are now available only from this inquiry. The second question, therefore, is: if not now, when?”.

Regarding how this module would proceed, the Chair noted:

“ I add this. The submissions made on behalf of the Janner family rested heavily on suggestions that mental health issues, a troubled past, or delayed disclosure make complainants unreliable witnesses. Such views have been prevalent in the past, and this will no doubt be relevant to the work of this Investigation. I found submissions made on behalf of the Janner family on the approach of Operation Enamel to be out-dated and unpersuasive. There has been much recent research on this issue, including work published by this Inquiry (see the report of the IICSA Research Team’s rapid evidence assessment, “The Impact of Child Sexual Abuse” published in July 2017). Being a victim of child sexual abuse is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes in all areas of life, including mental health, substance abuse, offending behaviour, and socio-economic position”.

I remind those reading this Determination that this is not an investigation into Lord Janner’s guilt or innocence. It is not a proxy criminal or civil trial. As the Definition of Scope of the Investigation makes clear, it is an investigation into institutions, and into how they responded to the allegations made against Lord Janner.

On 12 October 2020 the Janner module will commence – with the following intent:

“I remind those reading this Determination that this is not an investigation into Lord Janner’s guilt or innocence. It is not a proxy criminal or civil trial. As the Definition of Scope of the Investigation makes clear, it is an investigation into institutions, and into how they responded to the allegations made against Lord Janner. Among the questions the Investigation will seek to answer are whether those institutions gave Lord Janner preferential treatment, and if so why. Together with the Panel members, I will consider all matters with an open mind, based on the evidence that is adduced in the Investigation. We are not bound by the findings of any previous inquiries or investigations”.


The investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse made against Greville Janner will commence on 12 October 2020.

The complainants (those who accuse Greville Janner of sexual abuse) will be able to maintain anonymity.

Between March and October there will be disclosure of material evidence to all CPs and the preparation of witnesses.

It is unclear whether the Determination to continue with this module can or will be subject to any form of challenge – by way of judicial review, for example – by the family of Greville Janner.

The bulk of the hearing will be in closed form. This means the complete record of those proceedings will not be published. This will also mean any Report of the proceedings will similarly be restricted in what it can comment on and this will circumvent its Conclusion and Recommendations.

CPS Complainants (the alleged abused accusers) and possibly ‘A’ as a witness, will give evidence, if invited, in some form. That will be their WHEN, even if it will be a WHEN in a closed and silent space.