Lord Janner: DPP under pressure over 'perverse' decision not to charge peer
|
Version 0 of 1. The director of public prosecutions is under renewed pressure after one of Lord Janner’s alleged victims called for her to quit over her “perverse” decision not to put the peer on trial. Hamish Baillie, 47, who was one of the nine people lined up to give evidence against Janner over child sex abuse allegations, said the decision not to prosecute the Labour politician “beggars belief”. Waiving his right to anonymity, the father-of-three told the Daily Mail he was molested by Janner during a game of hide-and-seek in a park, when he was a 15-year-old resident of a children’s home in Leicestershire. He said: “I don’t think anybody other than the victims and the police involved in the Operation Enamel inquiry understand how perverted a man Lord Janner is. He has blighted my life ... How can they [the CPS] publicise the fact that there was enough evidence to charge, yet then say it is not in the public interest to pursue it?” Baillie, of Hinckley, Leicestershire, told the paper Alison Saunders should step down over her decision. “As far as I’m concerned, her actions are barely any less perverse than the abuse inflicted upon me as a teenager,” he said. “She should initiate an inquiry into her own conduct and then step down because Alison Saunders certainly hasn’t been doing her job properly.” Saunders announced last week that Janner, 86, was not fit to stand trial because he has severe Alzheimer’s disease. In a highly unusual move, the DPP said there was sufficient evidence to charge the peer with 22 offences against nine alleged victims between the 1960s and 1980 – but it was not in the public interest to prosecute because of Janner’s ill health. Simon Danczuk, the Labour candidate for Rochdale who in the last parliament campaigned on behalf of child abuse survivors, said he was extremely disappointed at the CPS’s decision and that he would encourage Janner’s alleged victims to seek civil redress. “The justice system has to come up with a way in which the alleged victims in this case can have their evidence presented in court in public,” he told the Guardian. “Whether it’s through civil action or whether the CPS has second thoughts, there has to be a solution because this is highly unsatisfactory. “I don’t believe that the victims in this case, the wider survivor community, or the public at large will be satisfied that a lord appears to have got off scot-free from what are extremely violent and serious allegations of child sexual abuse. The survivor community are disgusted and angry at the decision, it’s wholly unacceptable. This will not be the end of it.” Some of his alleged victims are understood to be looking into launching compensation claims against Janner and Leicestershire county council, which ran a children’s care home where some of the alleged abuse took place. It also emerged on Monday that Saunders sought advice on Janner from a CPS barrister who recently worked in the same chambers as the Labour politician’s son. Neil Moore QC, Saunders’ principal legal adviser, was based at 23 Essex Street chambers with Daniel Janner QC until late last year. A CPS spokesman said: “It is the DPP’s job to make these extremely difficult decisions, and that is what the DPP has done. As the ultimate decision-maker, the DPP receives advice from internal and external lawyers but the decision is based, ultimately, on her own assessment of the relevant law and circumstances of the case.” The spokesman said Moore had acted properly at all times and there should be no questions over his integrity. Theresa May’s office was made aware of concerns about the case last week in a letter from Sir Clive Loader, the police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire. The attorney general’s office (AGO) also received a copy of the letter, an AGO spokeswoman confirmed. She said: “The decision to prosecute or not is a decision for the independent director of public prosecutions. Janner’s family have said he is “entirely innocent of any wrongdoing”. In a statement they described the peer as “a man of great integrity and high repute with a long and unblemished record of public service”. |