The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Mm11

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Regist10

OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 21.10.20 20:08

Day 7 of Janner hearings at #CSAinquiry in 33 tweets... Leicester county council in the dock. Metaphorically. Its chief: “Complaints were simply not listened to” by senior managers who did not “grip” problem, while council failed to vet “befrienders”.
 
 
Day 7 of Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry: three witnesses from Leicestershire county council... John Sinnott, chief executive, due to begin at 10.30am in open session before going behind closed doors. Then Robert Parker and Brian Waller – each behind closed doors.
 
John Sinnott, chief executive of Leicestershire county council since 1994, is first witness to testify in open (at least, partly) in FIVE days of Janner hearings at ‪#CSAinquiry.
 
John Sinnott accepts that in the past there was no oversight by senior managers at Leicestershire county council’s social services department of complaints of sexual or physical abuse of children in the council’s “care” homes.
 
John Sinnott continues on failure to address complaints of sexual or physical abuse of children in the council’s “care” homes: “Complaints were simply not listened to.” 
 
Senior managers did not “take a grip of a  problem.”
 
John Sinnott says that Leicestershire county council in the past (up to around 1990), so far as he could see from the documentation, allowed adult visitors or “befrienders” to access “care” homes to visit children.
 
John Sinnott says that there was no proper vetting system at Leicestershire county council’s “care” homes to vet these “befrienders”.
 
John Sinnott explains that since 1991 Leicestershire county council has run a system of “independent visitors”, who are vetted and supervised, for each child in its “care” homes. 
 
For example, these visitors should never take a child home – unlike in the past.
 
John Sinnott explains that practices and policies for Leicestershire’s “care” homes have been totally overhauled since 1991.
 
John Sinnott’s evidence in the open, lasting around half-an-hour, is largely taken up with reassuring the public that it is all very different now, before continuing to give evidence about more interesting matters behind closed doors.
 
 
John Sinnott has supplied a 130-page statement to Janner investigation of ‪#CSAinquiry, but we barely dipped into it for the short session of his open testimony before going in camera.
 
This afternoon, Janner hearings of ‪#CSAinquiry due to hear from two more witnesses from Leicestershire county council: Robert Parker and Brian Waller – behind closed doors. 
 
They were “driving forces” behind reforms of county’s children’s homes in wake of Frank Beck case.
 
Returning to John Sinnott’s testimony this morning behind closed doors, Leicestershire county council has already told ‪#CSAinquiry that it DID have knowledge about then Labour MP Greville Janner’s association with a child in one of its “care” homes.
 
Leicestershire county council has already told ‪#CSAinquiry that “a number of LCC employees were concerned about the association [between Greville Janner and a child in one of its homes], and there is evidence that they raised these concerns with senior management.”
 
Leicestershire county council “accepts that it failed to take adequate steps in response to those concerns,” it has told ‪#CSAinquiry.
 
We can be sure that John Sinnott would have confirmed all this, if asked at closed session this am, matters that are already on public record.
 
Robert Parker, according to Leicestershire county council, established the “Children’s Rights Service” at the local authority, one of the first in UK to adopt it, seeking to ensure that the child’s voice is at the centre of children’s services. He is testifying in closed session.
 
Brian Waller, Leicestershire's ex-director of social services, also speaking behind closed doors this pm, said in 1993: “Residential care has been a Cinderella service for more than two decades. It has become a backwater which is used as a last resort when everything else fails.”
 
Brian Waller said in 1995 that cases of alleged child abuse in Islington “demonstrates once again our ambivalence about the protection of children.”
 
Brian Waller is on record as saying: “As a result of the extensive investigations carried out by the police in [Frank Beck] case, we were presented with concerns – falling short of evidence that would justify criminal proceedings – about some 30 [former] members of staff...”
 
 “With the advice of our lawyers and in consultation with the police, I wrote to every social service authority in the country with a list of names to advise them to check their files and to offer to share information that had arisen during the investigation,” Brian Waller, 1995.
 
Brian Waller added: “I can report that a number of other local authorities have taken up the offer of information. I have not been sued by any ex-employees.” 
 
He wrote about this in 1995 and, no doubt, testified about this behind closed doors this afternoon at ‪#CSAinquiry.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of evidence in closed session for Day 7 records that John Sinnott, chief executive of Leicestershire county council since 1994, set out the authority’s knowledge of contact between Greville Janner MP and a complainant of child sexual abuse...
 
But “summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of evidence in closed session does not go on to provide even the slightest detail of Leicestershire county council’s knowledge of contact between Greville Janner MP and a complainant of child sexual abuse. ‪#SecretCSAinquiry
 
John Sinnott said that evidence from the time suggested that Leicestershire’s then director of social services was aware of contact between Greville Janner MP and children, but not that she knew of any allegations of sexual abuse – “summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session.
 
Leicestershire county council did not investigate allegations against Greville Janner MP, John Sinnott said, according to ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session. 
 
Senior officers viewed it as a matter for police, but the authority “certainly” should have investigated, he added.
 
John Sinnott, chief executive of Leicestershire county council, regretted that it did not take steps to investigate Greville Janner MP or to notify other child protection agencies, says ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of his testimony behind closed doors this afternoon.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 7 says that an unnamed former senior manager at Leicestershire county council – but who was identified in published timetable as Robert Parker – said that taking any action against Greville Janner would have been “controversial”.
 
Robert Parker: there would have been “more caution” about reporting a person of prominence, according to ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session. 
 
He recalled a colleague’s comment that Greville Janner had “very powerful solicitors and he would not hesitate to employ them…”
 
Robert Parker accepted that this comment suggested that officials were hesitant about making a complaint against a person such as Greville Janner “as opposed to the man next door”, according to ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of his testimony behind closed doors.
 
Robert Parker: a group of ex-residents of Leicestershire children’s homes approached County Hall in 1993 with a journalist from Leicester Mercury to raise concerns about their time in care and Greville Janner MP.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 7 of Janner hearings: an unnamed former Leicestershire director of social services – but who was identified in published timetable as Brian Waller – said that he took over from a predecessor a “dysfunctional” department.
 
Brian Waller said that he set up a special division called, Children’s Services, appointing an officer to head it, according to ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of evidence behind closed doors. 
 
He also introduced, from 1994, a complaints procedure for children who wanted to complain.
 
Brian Waller: if there had been a complaints policy for years before 1994, “children would have been listened to, there would have been action taken and we would have gone to the police,” according to ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session. 
 
Linked here: ‪https://iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/22898/view/open-summary-closed-session-tuesday-20-october-2020.pdf…
 
Note: John Sinnott’s statement is long, but not quite as long as I stated in a tweet on his testimony in open session this morning. 
 
I heard counsel refer to a “130-page statement”, but the transcript shows that she said that it was only 113 pages.
 
https://twitter.com/DebbeeHutchins1
Replying to 
@MarkWatts_1
Gosling & D'Arcy tell us, Waller was Director 1988-97 succeeded Brian Rice.Waller was in charge when the Beck affair came to light & had been acting director of Cambridgeshire SS & worked on the Rikki Neave case a 9yr old little boy on the "at risk" register who was murdered.
 
 
OPEN summary of CLOSED session 20 October 2020
 
Witness 1


Following his evidence in OPEN session, the witness also provided evidence in CLOSED session. The reason for this was as stated by the Chair in her ruling dated the 5 March 20201. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness provided a summary of Leicestershire County Council (LCC)’s corporate knowledge of contact between Lord Janner and a complainant of historical child sexual abuse. 
The witness gave evidence concerning Lord Janner’s alleged access to children in LCC children’s homes through informal arrangements that were in existence at the time. He acknowledged that the operation of these schemes varied from home to home and that whilst some required references, others employed a trial period. The witness confirmed that there were no criminal records checks at that time and suggested that any kind of vetting procedure or policy would not have made any difference in the case of Lord Janner, given the likelihood that such checks would not have resulted in any issues being raised. 
He said that evidence from the time indicated that the Director of Social Services had been aware of the contact between Lord Janner and children from the home, but that nothing suggested that she was aware of any allegations of sexual abuse. 
When asked, the witness confirmed that he had not found any documentation suggesting that there were visits by other dignitaries to LCC children’s homes, similar to those alleged to have been undertaken by Lord Janner. 
The witness agreed that whilst an investigation had been conducted into allegations of child sexual abuse against a member of LCC’s staff, no such investigation had been carried out in respect of the allegations concerning Lord Janner. He said that he understood that this was because the officer was an employee of LCC and “...it was the view of senior officers at the time that any investigation was a matter for the police”. He stated that LCC “certainly” should have investigated the allegations against Lord Janner and that the failure to do so “...reflected a very different culture at the time in the way the council was run”. He added 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17767/view/2020.03.05-notice-determination-following-prelimina ry-hearing-20-february-2020.pdf 
that LCC regretted not taking steps to investigate Lord Janner or to notify other child protection authorities which may have had contact with Lord Janner about the complaints. 
The witness confirmed that he had seen no evidence to indicate that if the police decided to take no further action against a member of staff, that LCC went on to conduct its own investigation and to consider whether the staff member posed a risk to children. He also acknowledged that there had been a failure to invoke disciplinary measures and to suspend staff against whom allegations of abuse had been made, stating that it was “...symptomatic of the culture at the time, which was a reluctance to confront difficult issues”. 


Witness 2
 
The Inquiry also heard evidence from a former senior manager of the LCC. For the same reasons, his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness described the general response to allegations of child sexual abuse during the 1970s and early 1980s, acknowleding that children were simply not believed. He reflected that it was “...very, very difficult for people who were not involved at the time to understand what the level of ignorance was...not only in the local authority, but even amongst the police and other agencies”. 
Referring to the allegations against Lord Janner, he stated that taking any action would have been “...controversial...it would have been difficult to manage. That is not a reason for it not happening”. 
He suggested that there would have been “more caution” about reporting a person of prominence and that he recalled a comment being made between LCC officers that Lord Janner had “...very powerful solicitors and he would not hesitate to employ them”. The witness acknowledged that this comment might suggest that people were hesitant about making a complaint against a person such as Lord Janner, “...as opposed to the man next door”. 
The witness said that he would have hoped that there would have been, and believes that there should have been clear guidance in place, concerning visitors to children’s homes, but that his extensive enquiries had not uncovered any such guidance. He said that when he joined LCC in 1974, he was not aware of there being any formal ‘social aunt / uncle’ scheme in Leicestershire, but that it was possible that one might have existed. He said that he could not recall any other example of an MP visiting a children’s home during his career. 
The witness also gave evidence that in 1993 a group of ex-residents from LCC children’s homes approached County Hall with a journalist from the Leicester Mercury, indicating that 
they wished to raise concerns about their time in residential care and to make statements concerning Lord Janner. He referred to a record of an interview he had with one ex-resident. The ex-resident had not personally raised any concerns about Lord Janner, but had said that there was a further individual who wished to come and talk to someone about Lord Janner, but was feeling extremely nervous about doing so. The witness stated that he did not believe anyone subsequently came forward to speak to him. 
Reflecting on the period, the witness identified a number of shortcomings that he said meant that abuse had not been identified or dealt with properly at the time, including: the lack of a complaints procedure; the lack of effective training of staff; a lack of effective supervision and management of the children’s homes; a lack of a culture in which staff and children could report concerns; and a lack of training in a range of areas.
 
Witness 3
 
The Inquiry also heard evidence from a former Director of Social Services of the LCC. For the same reasons, his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness explained that when he became the Director of Social Services, he took over a “dysfunctional” department from a former Director who had no experience of child care. He stated that following his appointment he had set up a special division called ‘Children’s Services’ and appointed an officer to head the division. 
He said that at the time, there was no complaints procedure for when children wanted to complain. He said that from 1994 onwards, a complaints procedure was introduced and it was headed by a different assistant Director, outside of the operations branch, which “had the benefit of being somewhat independent”. 
He accepted that the lack of a complaints policy contributed to the failure by LCC to detect allegations of abuse in the 1970s and 1980s and said that if there had been such a policy, “...children would have been listened to, there would have been action taken and we would have gone to the police”. 


https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/22898/view/open-summary-closed-session-tuesday-20-october-2020.pdf


https://twitter.com/MarkWatts_1/status/1318446350602743815
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 21.10.20 22:02

Mark Watts' twitter reporting Day 8
 
Day 8 of Janner hearings at #CSAinquiry in 39 tweets… One officer on probe in 2000 into allegations of child sexual abuse against Lord Janner: “We investigated them as fully as we could.” And a colleague denies that they were put in “a bottom drawer”.
 
Day 8 of Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry: three officers who worked on ‘Operation Magnolia’, Leicestershire Police’s investigation into Lord Janner between 2000 and 2002... James Wynne, Kevin Yates, Richard Keenan. Each witness partly in open – and partly in closed – session.
 
Junior counsel to #CSAinquiry says that Kevin Yates has been taken ill is unfit to give evidence today. He will be rescheduled for next Wednesday. We are hearing from James Wynne, initially in open session.
 
James Wynne was a detective sergeant during ‘Operation Magnolia’, which ran from 2000 to 2002, investigating allegations of physical and sexual abuse of children at two Leicestershire children’s homes, including allegations against Lord Janner.
 
Jacqueline Carey, junior counsel to #CSAinquiry, is questioning James Wynne. She notes that the SIO for Operation Magnolia, Det Supt Thomas, has died, and so inquiry will not be hearing evidence from him. 
 
Wynne confirms that he was “enquiry team supervisor” on operation.
 
James Wynne, who is now retired, says that it was a “constant struggle” for the SIO on Operation Magnolia to maintain the resources high enough to keep the investigation going, with officers being taken away for urgent priorities.
 
Jacqueline Carey asks whether the resources for Operation Magnolia were too low. 
 
James Wynne responds, carefully and slowly: “On reflection, it probably was.”
 
James Wynne confirms that Operation Magnolia was initially to investigate allegations of abuse at two children’s homes, The Holt and Ratcliffe Road, between 1986 and 1987. 
 
He says that the timeframe was subsequently widened to 1980-1900.
 
James Wynne says that any allegation that came into the operation that was outside the set parameters of the investigation had to be reported up to the SIO or deputy SIO for one of them to decide what to do with it.
 
Jacqueline Carey asks James Wynne to “just deal with the generalities” of Operation Magnolia before the hearing will go into closed session. 
 
He confirms that two ex-residents of the homes made allegations of child sexual abuse against Lord Janner as well as staff.
 
James Wynne says that he only recalled that one ex-resident of a children’s home had made allegations of sexual abuse against Lord Janner, but he became aware of the other one during the course of the IOPC investigation.
 
James Wynne confirms that he took the allegations from one of the complainants, and that the allegations against Lord Janner were put into a separate one from those against staff of the children’s home. There was no set policy to do that, he adds.
 
James Wynne confirms that police did not  arrest or interview Lord Janner in relation to the allegations against him. 
 
He says that the decision to take no action was made “in conjunction with the CPS”.
 
James Wynne: the investigation was “never at a stage” where it would have been “appropriate” to interview Lord Janner because other necessary enquiries had not been carried out.
 
Asked why further enquiries were not carried out, James Wynne, who had interviewed one of the complainants, tells #CSAinquiry: “The witness’s allegations were largely discounted because of credibility.”
 
In relation to care staff or Lord Janner? “Both, in my view.”
 
James Wynne does not accept the proposition that police did not tell the CPS about any of the allegations against Lord Janner in Operation Magnolia. 
 
Did police investigate the allegations against Lord Janner properly? “We investigated them as fully as we could,” he says.
 
Hearing adjourns for a break, but it seems likely that when it resumes it will go quickly into closed session.
 
The hearing appears to have gone into closed session, having dealt only with “the generalities” of Operation Magnolia with James Wynne. 
 
We are due to hear from Richard Keenan, who was a DI and deputy SIO on Operation Magnolia later today – but only partly in open session.
 
Today’s hearing may have adjourned for lunch. If it did, it did so behind closed doors. 
 
The hearing is due to resume this afternoon, partly in open session, partly in closed session. 
 
Whether it resumes initially in open session is anyone’s guess. #SecretCSAinquiry
 
As this hearing continues behind closed doors, it is known that not only did police not refer allegations in Operation Magnolia, in 2000-2002, against Lord Janner to the CPS, but it also decided that no further action should be taken re any staff of the two children’s homes.
 
Statement from Richard Keenan, deputy SIO on Operation Magnolia, read to #CSAinquiry.
 
He says that his duties on the investigation was a “steep learning curve” for him, and that he was stretched because of a lack of resources for the nature of the operation.
 
Addressing the question as to why police did not refer allegations against Lord Janner to the CPS, Richard Keenan said: “I was not involved in the discussion surrounding this decision.”
 
Richard Keenan cannot recall that allegations against Lord Janner came into Operation Magnolia, but he does not reject a suggestion by a former colleague, Kevin Yates, that he was told about them. 
 
He denied saying that such allegations were to be confined to “a bottom drawer”.
 
Richard Keenan was “dumb-founded” that CPS decided to press no charges against any of the suspects in Operation Magnolia, according to his statement read out in open session to Janner hearing of #CSAinquiry.
 
Richard Keenan says in statement that while specific instances of alleged physical or sexual abuse at the children’s homes investigated were not corroborated, there was a “consistent picture of potential offending”.
 
Referring to a meeting between police and CPS, Richard Keenan says in statement: “I cannot remember whether Greville Janner was mentioned as a potential suspect.”
 
CPS took the view that the allegations were undermined by the fact that they were not made during the investigation into Frank Beck or subsequent Kirkwood inquiry, says Richard Keenan. 
 
However, he rejected that view because such disclosures can indeed take a life-time.
 
Feed for Janner hearing of #CSAinquiry suddently cut. 
 
Not clear why since junior counsel was simply reading a statement by Richard Keenan, meaning that inquiry lawyers had the opportunity to vet it before reading in open session.
 
We were expecting that some of Richard Keenan’s statement was to be read in closed session. However, there was no explanation for the sudden cut in feed. 
 
Farce at #SecretCSAinquiry continues.
 
Following the cutting off of the feed of the Janner hearing at #CSAinquiry today, Richard Keenan went on to say that the abuse of children uncovered by Operation Magnolia “became a source of potential embarrassment to a number of public bodies, not least the CPS itself.”
 
Operation Magnolia uncovered abuse that was “a seamless continuation of the abuse initiated by Frank Beck”, and possibly should have been exposed by previous investigation, said Richard Keenan, according to transcript of hearing in open session but cut off from streaming feed.
 
Richard Keenan said that several junior officers/managers had risen to senior posts at various agenices. 
 
“There was potential personal and organisational embarrassment if it had emerged that opportunities to prevent a further eight to ten years of child abuse had been missed.”
 
Richard Keenan said in statement read out to #CSAinquiry: “It was my impression that the CPS decision not to prosecute any of the suspects [in Operation Magnolia] was a relief to a number of individuals and to the organisations as a whole.”
 
Richard Keenan: “I do not feel that there was any organised or systematic conspiracy to protect Greville Janner. 
 
“I did, however, sense a hesitancy to proceed against such a high-profile individual solely on the evidence we had to hand during Operation Magnolia.”
 
“Summary” by #CSAinquiry of evidence in closed session for Day 8 says that James Wynne confirmed interviewing two witnesses in Operation Magnolia who alleged that Lord Janner had sexually abused them as boys.
 
James Wynne suggested that the SIO should have created a policy on whether Lord Janner was to be investigated or arrested and should have informed the assistant chief constable (operations), according to “summary” by #CSAinquiry of closed session.
 
James Wynne said that he did not disagree with the outcome of the investigation and did not think that there should have been further enquiries into the allegations against Lord Janner, according to #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session.
 
“Summary” by #CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 8 says that an unnamed former Leicestershire DC – but who was identified in published timetable as Nigel Baraclough – said that the SIO told a briefing that Operation Magnolia would not be investigating Lord Janner.
 
Nigel Baraclough said that Operation Magnolia was a low priority investigation allocated to an inexperienced SIO and deputy SIO and was poorly staffed, adding that it needed a bigger team when the investigation grew, according to #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session.
 
Nigel Baraclough: Operation Magnolia did not enable a proper police investigation into abuse allegations against Lord Janner, as recorded by to #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session. 
 
Linked summary: ‪https://iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/22908/view/21-10-2020-open-summary-closed-session-final.pdf…
 
NB James Wynne did not confirm, as my slip of the keyboard suggested in an earlier tweet, that Operation Magnolia was widened in scope to cover allegations from 1986-1987 to 1980-1900, but in fact to 1980-1990.
 
OPEN summary of CLOSED session 21 October 2020 
Witness 1
Following his evidence in OPEN session, the witness also provided evidence in CLOSED session. The reason for this was as stated by the Chair in her ruling dated the 5 March 20201. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness stated that on 8 March 2000 he interviewed JA-A19 in respect of his allegations against staff at a children’s home. He said that at the conclusion of those interviews, JA-A19 stated that he also wanted to speak to police about Lord Janner. Police therefore made arrangements to conduct further interviews with JA-A19 which took place on the 20 March 2000 and contained JA-19’s allegations about Lord Janner He said that he didn’t conduct any research into Lord Janner prior to that interview as he “didn’t deem it necessary”. The witness said that the content of this interview was transcribed and discussed with the Senior Investigating Officer. 
The witness recalled writing up a handwritten statement (referred to as S4C) based on this interview, but did not recall going back to JA-A19 to get him to sign it. He stated that he was “fairly confident that a decision was made not to sign that until we had completed the enquiry relating to the details of it”. He stated that the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) or Deputy SIO would have made that decision. He said that he had kept the SIO ‘in the loop’ at the weekly or fortnightly briefings, with everyone present. 
He said that in late 2001 he had wanted JA-A19 to sign the statement, but by that stage JA-A19 was not returning calls and that was why he was “quite confident” that statement S4C was never signed. 
The witness referred to further statements from JA-A19, identified as S4A and S4B. He surmised that these statements, although taken after March 2000, had been typed into the HOLMES system first, hence the attribution of reference S4C to the statement concerning Lord Janner. He confirmed that statement S4B had been signed on the 5 January 2001 and said that he was unable to say when, after that date, statement S4C had been typed up, although it was added to the HOLMES database on the 8 November 2001. He disputed that statement S4C had been taken on the 10 April 2000 - as had been suggested to him in his IOPC interviews conducted in July 2017 - pointing out that that wouldn’t have been possible, because it referred to activity that was completed after that date by another officer. 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17767/view/2020.03.05-notice-determination-following-prelimina ry-hearing-20-february-2020.pdf 
The witness said that the unsigned handwritten statement S4C was stored in his desk drawer during the 18-month period after it was taken until it was filed on HOLMES. 
The witness confirmed that Lord Janner was entered as a nominal on HOLMES during Operation Magnolia, although he could not say when. He said that the SIO should then have created a policy entry setting out whether Lord Janner was to be investigated or arrested and suggested that the SIO should also have informed the Assistant Chief Constable (Operations), although he was unable to say whether he did so. 
Describing the interview with JA-A19 on the 20 March, the witness said that JA-A19 had been vague in comparison with the interview on the 8 March. He stated that the police “...had to claw at everything. Any little detail we tried to get and he would just become vague...and having said something...then distancing himself from what he’d just said”. 
In relation to the interview on 20 March, the witness said that JA-A19 had not been “...able to furnish [the police] with the sort of detail that [he] would have expected” and as a result he felt “sceptical” about the allegations. He said that it had been his intention to revisit these issues with JA-A19, stating that he “...didn’t think [JA-A19] told us everything that he should have done or could have done on the first visit”. When asked, he confirmed that he had never seen JA-A19 again. 
The witness acknowledged thinking that it was a possibility that JA-A19 was lying, but said that despite this scepticism he did not dismiss JA-A19’s allegations and did not seek to influence any of the other officers or the investigation. 
The witness denied comments made by another officer (in a witness statement produced in 2018), that officers in Operation Magnolia had made comments about complainants, such as ‘he’s just a piss head’ and ‘he’s in prison so must be a scumbag’. The witness pointed out that the same officer had also stated that the officers involved in Operation Magnolia were not biased. 
The witness also gave evidence about a further complaint against Lord Janner, made by a complainant, JA-A6. He said that he had prepared a witness statement detailing JA-A6’s allegations, but like JA-A19, JA-A6 was considered to fall outside of the parameters of Operation Magnolia. He said that as a result, potential actions including an interview with Lord Janner, were ‘pended’. He explained this meant that the actions were queued pending an instruction from the SIO or Deputy SIO as to whether the action should be completed or not. The witness stated that at the time he thought it was the right decision not to interview Lord Janner. 
The witness confirmed that he had also interviewed a complainant, JA-A25, but said that he did not recall him making any allegations against Lord Janner and was not aware that he may have wanted to do so. 
Addressing more generally the issue of complainant credibility, the witness acknowledged that the fact that a person had been spoken to previously by the police and had not made an allegation of abuse “counted against them”. He said this was “the way we operated in those days”. 
He confirmed that he did not disagree with the outcome of the investigation and said that even if the police had not confronted JA-A19 about the discrepancies in his evidence, this would have happened in court had the case been taken that far. He said that he did not think there should have been further enquiries into the allegations against Lord Janner and that his feelings on that had been “....reinforced”, having had sight of certain social services records during the hearing. 
Witness 2 
The Inquiry also received read evidence from a former Detective Constable for Leicestershire Police. For the same reasons, his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness gave a summary of his career. He was appointed to Operation Magnolia in February 2000. He explained that he had been tasked with interviewing a complainant, JA-A25, who was in prison at the time. 
He stated that on 22 February 2000 he carried out an introductory visit with JA-A25 and conducted tape recorded interviews on 7, 10, 13, 16 and 21 March 2000. During those interviews, JA-A25 made allegations of physical and sexual abuse by staff members in the children’s homes. None of these interviews contained allegations against Lord Janner. 
The witness’ evidence was that as a result of those interviews he produced a 35 page written statement which JA-A25 signed on 10 April 2000. He said that he did not recollect JA-A25 ever mentioning any allegations relating to Lord Janner. He stated that had he done so he would have made a note of the fact in his rough book and pocket notebook and mentioned it in either his statement, a report or the results of the relevant actions. 
The witness stated that at some point during Operation Magnolia he was in a briefing and Lord Janner was mentioned. He said that the SIO informed those present that the police were going to maintain focus on the set parameters and that they would not be investigating Lord Janner. He confirmed that this decision was stipulated within the same briefing in which Lord Janner’s name had been raised. He added that the decision was followed by an 
instruction from the SIO that if any information was forthcoming then it was to be submitted into the HOLMES system and it would be assessed accordingly. 
The witness said that he was not aware of any evidence that indicated that the allegations against Lord Janner were individually assessed. He acknowledged that he was unable to state whether there was a separate sensitive policy document created by the SIO for such an occurrence, or if there was any form of assessment conducted, as the documents recovered were incomplete. 
The witness also commented on a number of other topics. He stated: 

  1. Operation Magnolia was a low priority investigation allocated to the least experienced SIO, Deputy SIO and was poorly staffed. The enquiry was classed as a Category C investigation which is the lowest of the three gradings for a major investigation. He said that the SIO was inexperienced and the DI was an Acting DI who had never worked on a HOLMES led Major enquiry before. He stated that he could understand that the team was small in the initial stages but that it had required further staffing when the investigation grew. His evidence was that he did not feel that the enquiry was given the commitment it deserved from the senior management perspective, in particular by the Chief Superintendent and above. He referred to abstractions to other investigations, but said that he could recall that officers were returned to Operation Magnolia at the earliest opportunity and that in the long term, he did not feel that abstractions inordinately affected the effectiveness of the enquiry. 
  2. In relation to the suggestion that derogatory comments were made about complainants, he stated that he certainly did not feel that way towards the victims and witnesses and did not recall ever hearing anybody else refer to the witnesses as 'druggies' or being 'undeserving of our attention'. He said that he believed that everybody on the investigation worked tirelessly for two years to uncover evidence from hundreds of witnesses and searching thousands of files and were committed to the task. 
  3. That it was a difficult question, as to whether there was a desire amongst senior officers for the allegations against Lord Janner to go away. He added that it was also impossible for him to answer. He acknowledged that this opinion had been expressed by another officer, the DI, who was in a position of authority and privy to information that he, as a DC, would not be aware of. The witness stated that the police were told to carry out an enquiry and that any information about Lord Janner was to be submitted into the investigation and it would be assessed. He stated that what happened to the information after that submission was for the senior managers to decide i.e. the Deputy SIO, the SIO and the ACC (O). 

4.  The SIO required any information about Lord Janner to be submitted into the investigation separately for assessment. He said that he personally would have expected it to have been discussed with other more experienced SIOs and brought to the attention of senior officers of at least Assistant Chief Constable Rank. He said that he was not in a position to say whether any discussions occurred between the SIO and his seniors but that it appeared to him that ‘somebody somewhere’ made a decision that the information would not be developed. 
5. In his opinion, Operation Magnolia did not enable adequate or proper police investigation into allegations of child abuse concerning Lord Janner. He pointed out that information was produced to the enquiry, which it appeared, was not acted upon. He expressed the opinion that witnesses in Operation Magnolia were not considered reliable by the CPS, who did not authorise any charges of sexual assault against any member of staff at Ratcliffe Road or the Holt children’s homes. He stated that it was his opinion that the two year investigation had failed to secure a conviction because of the approach of the CPS, which looked more at the unreliability of the witnesses rather than the strength of the evidence. He pointed out that information had been available and that it was for the senior police officers in post, not the CPS, to decide whether an investigation into Lord Janner should have been commenced and yet nothing had materialised. 
6. That he did not know what discussions were held and who would have been present, but that he did not believe that the SIO would have sat on the information relating to Lord Janner without discussing it at a higher level with the senior officer overseeing the investigation, i.e. the Assistant Chief Constable (Operations). 
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/22908/view/open-summary-closed-session-tuesday-21-october-2020.pdf
 
https://twitter.com/MarkWatts_1/status/1318857573290942464
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 25.10.20 18:40

Mark Watts’ twitter report Day 9
 
Day 9 of Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry behind closed doors ALL DAY again: Three witnesses, all officers who worked on ‘Operation Dauntless’ in 2006, Leicestershire Police’s third investigation into Lord Janner… David Swift-Rollinson, Kevin Barrs, Christopher Thomas.
 
Day 9 of Janner hearings at #CSAinquiry in 56 tweets... Whole team on Operation Dauntless wanted to go and arrest Lord Janner over allegations of child sexual abuse, or at least to interview him under caution. Everyone that is, except the boss.
 
I will start my coverage of this behind-closed door hearing that started at 10.15am shortly.
 
Meanwhile, I can reveal that a statement from Tony Blair is due to be read to Janner hearing BEHIND CLOSED DOORS next Tuesday.
 
See you next Tuesday.
Tony Blair, as prime minister, ennobled Greville Janner in 1997.
 
But ‪#CSAinquiry is not calling him to answer questions at the Janner hearing. 
 
It has, however, ordered Blair to prepare a statement, which will be read in closed session next Tuesday.
 
Returning to today’s Janner hearing and in a late addition to the timetable, a statement is being read out in closed session by Matt Baggott, chief constable of Leicestershire Police from 2002 to 2009, which spans the time of Operation Dauntless.
 
Janner hearing of ‪#CSAinquiry behind closed doors goes on to hear from David Swift-Rollinson, a detective sergeant on Operation Dauntless in 2006, and Kevin Barrs, a detective inspector and the deputy SIO on the probe, which investigated three people, including Lord Janner.
 
David Swift-Rollinson and Kevin Barrs are testifying behind closed doors at ‪#CSAinquiry.
 
However, I AM able to tell you what they have to say about Operation Dauntless because it is already in PUBLIC domain as a result of IOPC investigation into police probes into Lord Janner.
 
David Swift-Rollinson and Kevin Barrs uncovered a statement from ‘Operation Magnolia’ years before from someone who alleged Lord Janner had sexually abused him as a boy, but it had not been passed on to the CPS.
 
David Swift-Rollinson and Kevin Barrs told IOPC of their “frustration” at decision making on Operation Dauntless by SIO, Christopher Thomas. 
 
For example, Barrs “expressed his concern” that Lord Janner was not being interviewed, even if by agreement and not following arrest.
 
Kevin Barrs also “expressed concern” about a policy document by SIO that Lord Janner would not be arrested or interviewed before a response from the CPS on prosecution issues. 
 
It suggested that there was no corroboration despite the statements uncovered from Operation Magnolia.
 
Kevin Barrs told IOPC that he challenged the content of the file with the SIO on Operation Dauntless, Christopher Thomas, but he was simply told “no” in response to his questions. 
 
Thomas is due to testify behind closed doors this afternoon.
 
David Swift-Rollinson told IOPC that he also “tried to voice his concerns” about strategic decisions by Thomas, but was over-ruled by him. 
 
And Swift-Rollinson said that he had made his feelings on decision making known in a meeting but “had been put in his place.”
 
David Swift-Rollinson “expressed his displeasure” to Kevin Barrs following the outcome of Operation Dauntless, according to IOPC report, because he believed that more work could have been done. 
 
CPS decided in 2007 that there was insufficient evidence to charge Janner or anyone.
 
Janner hearing at ‪#CSAinquiry in closed session may have adjourned for lunch. 
 
This afternoon, Kevin Barrs is due to complete his testimony before the senior investigating officer for Operation Dauntless, Christopher Thomas, has a chance to have his say. Behind closed doors.
 
Christopher Thomas, SIO of Operation Dauntless in 2006 to 2007, is testifying in closed session. 
 
However, I AM able to tell you what he has to say about the operation because it is already in the PUBLIC domain, partly because of IOPC report on police probes into Lord Janner.
 
While I will continue to cover the closed ‪#CSAinquiry hearings in London on institutional responses to Greville Janner this afternoon, it is worth noting that Ghislaine Maxwell has just been completely unsealed in New York – or at least her deposition re Jeffrey Epstein has been.
 
In a previous submission to ‪#CSAinquiry Janner inv, Christopher Thomas, a retired detective superintendent, said that he had conducted “a thorough and effective investigation” and “maintained the high professional standards in Operation Dauntless as he did throughout his career.”
 
Christopher Thomas, as SIO or senior investigating officer, did not arrange for Lord Janner to be arrested or interviewed, or order a search of his home. 
 
Thomas has already told ‪#CSAinquiry that he decided this in “good faith” and not because of Janner’s prominence.
 
Christopher Thomas sent an advice file to CPS in 2007 to say that Operation Dauntless had “conducted a full investigation” into allegations against Lord Janner.
 
Even though his team had not questioned the Labour peer.
 
In a covering note on CPS file, Christopher Thomas said that interviewing Lord Janner would not assist the investigation as it was likely that he would respond “no comment” to questions put to him. 
 
Note, Lord Janner was accused of “serious sexual assaults”, including rape.
 
Christopher Thomas added in his note to the CPS: “Due to the passage of time it is unlikely that investigation would uncover any additional fresh evidence.” 
 
He gave more insight into his thinking in a decision log that he wrote in 2007…
 
Det Supt Thomas noted: “Based on the nature of the allegations, JANNER’s approach when previously I/V’d by police… his public profile and absence of strong corroborative evidence it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that any evidence supporting the allegations will be gained thro’ interview.”
 
Christopher Thomas added in his decision log of 2007: “It is highly unlikely that arrest/search would uncover forensic or other supporting evidence concerning this allegation.” 
 
All this came to light as a result of IOPC investigation into past police probes into Lord Janner.
 
I tweeted in April that Christopher Thomas had successfully applied to become a core participant in the Janner investigation of ‪#CSAinquiry, saying in his application that the IOPC had wrongly criticised his conduct.
 
Christopher Thomas opposed a proposal by counsel to ‪#CSAinquiry to cancel Janner investigation. 
 
Thomas said that criticisms of him by IOPC were “incorrect and misguided and arise out of a deply flawed investigation.” 
 
He is hoping that the inquiry will vindicate him.
 
Christopher Thomas’s lawyer, Austin Welch, told opening day of Janner hearing of ‪#CSAinquiry: “Whatever the merits of the differing views as to the conduct of the investigation… his decisions were based on his professional judgment as a senior detective without fear or favour.”
 
 “For Christopher Thomas, the key question was not who the subject of the potential arrest and search was, or their position in society, but whether the arrest and search was justified and whether it was likely to provide any positive result,” his barrister told ‪#CSAinquiry.
 
Christopher Thomas also warned ‪#CSAinquiry, in his opening submissions through his barrister, against assessing his decisions with the benefit of hindsight, which “can cause the panel’s judgment and assessment to become skewed.”
 
Christopher Thomas in opening submissions via his barrister told ‪#CSAinquiry that he “stands by his actions and decisions made during Operation Dauntless.” 
 
He sought to carry out “a thorough and fair investigation”, seeking advice and guidance throughout.
 
Day 9 of Janner hearing behind closed doors of ‪#CSAinquiry is due to finish at 4pm after another day of trying to hide what is already in public domain, as this thread reveals.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 9 says that Matt Baggott, Leicestershire Police’s former chief constable, thought that Operation Intern from before his time in post should have led to “lines of enquiry” being pursued re Greville Janner, then Labour MP.
 
Operation *Magnolia* not Intern. 
 
So many police investigations into Janner over the years, easy to mix them up.
 
Matt Baggott said re Operation Dauntless, during his time as Leicestershire chief constable, that the IOPC believed that allegations against Lord Janner were not properly investigated: “If true, this is not acceptable.” ‪#CSAinquirysummary of his statement read in closed session.
 
“Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 9 says that an unnamed former Leicestershire DS – but who was identified in published timetable as David Swift-Rollinson – said that Operation Dauntless had a small team, with all officers working on other major criminal cases.
 
David Swift-Rollinson, later deputy SIO for Leicestershire Police’s most recent probe into Lord Janner, explained that Operation Dauntless had three suspects, but it discovered that two had died, says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. Janner was the only living suspect.
 
Records of previous allegations against Lord Janner were a “complete mess”, ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session records David Swift-Rollinson as saying. 
 
He did not have time to review all the files because of his commitments to other investigations.
 
David Swift-Rollinson said that material that he would have expected to have found were not there “as if, quite simply, the job hadn’t been done properly,” according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of his testimony behind closed doors.
 
David Swift-Rollinson called two officers from Operation Magnolia to ask why Lord Janner had not been interviewed, and whether allegations against him were referred to CPS, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session...
 
One of these officers from Operation Magnolia told David Swift-Rollinson, he said: “This one will keep coming back to haunt me for the rest of my service,” as recorded in ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session.
 
David Swift-Rollinson prepared a report for the file to go to the CPS and, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session, he accepted that it did not include references to certain witnesses who had mentioned Lord Janner in previous investigations. 
 
He could not recall why.
 
David Swift-Rollinson suggested that the failure to mention certain witnesses in report for CPS was because of instructions from SIO, says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. 
 
Also, he said, the file would have “doubled in size” and “perhaps lost some perspective”.
 
David Swift-Rollinson included in the file for the CPS statements from Operation Magnolia re Lord Janner, says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. 
 
He wrote in his covering report that Leicestershire Police had failed to investigate Lord Janner properly previously.
 
Lord Janner should have been arrested, said David Swift-Rollinson – ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. 
 
It was “incredible that an individual such as Lord Janner should be treated any differently by not interviewing him, not arresting and searching” his properties.
 
David Swift-Rollinson confirmed that he had said in a meeting with his DI and the SIO that if the accused had been a “man on the street” he would have been arrested, had his home searched and been interviewed, says ‪#CSAinquirysummary of closed session.
 
David Swift-Rollinson said that expressing such strong views towards a senior officer was “unorthodox” – ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. 
 
He “pushed and pushed and pushed and tried as hard as [he] could” to force senior officers to make “the right decision”.
 
David Swift-Rollinson drafted a letter in the SIO’s name to invite Lord Janner to attend a voluntary interview, says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. 
 
He and his DI hoped that it could be used “to influence the SIO”. 
 
But the letter was never sent.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 9 says that an unnamed former Leicestershire DI – but who was identified in published timetable as Kevin Barrs – said that as deputy SIO on Operation Dauntless he challenged the SIO that the police could investigate more.
 
Kevin Barrs said that he wanted to arrest Lord Janner on the basis of allegations from Operation Magnolia as well as those that came into Operation Dauntless, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session.
 
When Kevin Barrs and his DS [David Swift-Rollinson, later DCI] were told that it was unlikely they would be able to arrest Janner, they discussed inviting him to a voluntary interview, says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. He told the DS to draft a letter on behalf of SIO.
 
Kevin Barrs e-mailed the draft letter to his SIO, says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. It was to invite Lord Janner to a voluntary interview.
 
After “a number of weeks”, he received from the SIO “a very curt e-mail back, which was, ‘No.’”
 
The whole team shared his view re Lord Janner, except the SIO, ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session records Kevin Barrs as saying. 
 
He added that he should have gone to a more senior officer with his concerns.
 
Kevin Barrs said of Lord Janner: “He was afforded the benefit of the doubt. If we’d continued with those investigations, I could have removed that benefit of doubt.” As recorded in ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 9 says that the unnamed SIO on Operation Dauntless – but who is known to be Christopher Thomas – said that he would have listened to other team members’ views, but the decisions were his.
 
Christopher Thomas was “less certain” than his DS [David Swift-Rollinson] that uncovered statements from Operation Magnolia had not been provided previously to the CPS because his team had not reviewed all the material, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session.
 
The purpose of Operation Dauntless was not to “toothcomb the previous investigations,” Christopher Thomas, a detective superintendent at the time of the investigation, told the hearing, as recorded in ‪#CSAinquiry summary of his testimony in closed session..
 
Christopher Thomas said that his view was that they had to “pause” the investigation to seek a legal perspective from the CPS, says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. He did not recall the DI [his deputy, Kevin Barrs] saying that further investigations should be carried out.
 
Christopher Thomas did not recall telling the DI not to carry out any further investigations, says ‪#CSAinquirysummary of closed session (linked). 
 
He did not complete his evidence, so is due to return. Janner hearings are running a bit behind schedule.
 
‪https://iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/22924/view/open-summary-closed-session-thursday-22-october-2020.pdf…
 
 
 
OPEN summary of CLOSED session 22 October 2020 
Witness 1
The Inquiry received read evidence of a former Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police. For the reasons given by the Chair in her ruling dated the 5 March 2020,1 his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness was appointed Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police in October 2002 and held that post until August 2009. He was therefore the Chief Constable at the time of Operation Dauntless (2006-2008) 
The witness confirmed that he had a vague recollection of being informed, as a courtesy, of the provision to the CPS of a police file on historic child sexual abuse allegations made against Lord Janner. He did not recall any formal briefing on this matter, or the outcome of the investigation. He said that he did not think that such an investigation would have required extensive resourcing or close attention by the Chief Constable. He stated: 
“I would have expected early contact with the CPS who would assist in assessing the evidence in support of any necessary and proportionate investigation. I do believe in such early CPS contact in complex matters, and any allegations involving historic sexual abuse that had previously been investigated would fit into that category. To seek CPS advice would be both sensible and appropriate.”
The witness was shown the statement known as ‘S4C’, which JA-A19 provided to Operation Magnolia when alleging that he had been abused by Lord Janner. The witness said that he had not seen the statement before. He said the following in the context of being asked about Operation Magnolia: 
“From my knowledge of HOLMES and such investigations and having read the statement I can confirm that in a ‘live’ investigation I would have expected that the statement would have led to the identification of ‘nominals’ and lines of enquiry. I cannot offer an opinion as to why this was apparently not done.” 
The witness said that he had been informed that officers working for Operation Dauntless in 2006/2007 recovered the statement and submitted it to the CPS. He said the following: 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17767/view/2020.03.05-notice-determination-following-prelimina ry-hearing-20-february-2020.pdf 
“I believe that this was sensible and assume that the officers were seeking advice as to the potential for this evidence to corroborate the 2006 allegation. 
However I understand that it is the IOPC’s belief that the allegations within [S4C] were not investigated nor were the named alleged offender (Lord Janner) or allegedly sexually abused children sought for interview. If true, this is not acceptable. Leicestershire Police had an ongoing responsibility to consider the allegation and to interview the named children. I would say this responsibility was primarily in 2000 during Operation Magnolia but did still exist in 2006/7.”
The witness went on to speculate that further investigative steps may not have been taken in 2006/2007 because the focus of that investigation was on the principal allegation, namely that made by JA-A8. However, he stressed that this was “only speculation” on his part. 
Witness 2 
The Inquiry heard evidence from a former Detective Chief Inspector of Leicestershire Police. For the same reasons, his evidence was also given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness gave a summary of his career. At the time of Operation Dauntless (2006-2008), he was a Detective Sergeant (DS) within the Major Crime department, at Loughborough Police station. He later went on to become the Deputy Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) of Operation Enamel (2013-2016). 
The witness explained that Operation Dauntless concerned allegations made by a complainant, JA-A8, against three individuals, one of whom was Lord Janner. He said that the other individuals, Frank Beck and JA-F1, were dead, although JA-F1’s identity had initially been unclear to the investigation team and his death was only discovered part-way through Operation Dauntless in December 2006. He said that, until that stage, the investigation had therefore not only been into Lord Janner but also into JA-F1. 
The witness said that he first heard about Operation Dauntless on 27 June 2006 when his Detective Inspector (DI) spoke to him about it. The DI was the Deputy SIO of the Operation. He said that the SIO was a Detective Superintendent (DSupt). He said Operation Dauntless had a small investigation team, which worked well together and that everyone had other major crime investigations they were involved in at the same time. 
He said that he believed the investigation was allocated to the major crime division “...purely because of who the suspected individual was, ie, Lord Janner”. He confirmed that this did 
not strike him as unusual. He stated that a number of the police team who worked on Operation Dauntless had significant experience of investigating child protection and child sexual abuse cases. He stated that although he did not have that experience, he was brought onto the team due to his training as a strategic interview adviser, who could develop and formulate a strategy for obtaining the best evidence from JA-A8. 
The witness said that the strategic decisions in the Operation were taken by the SIO and Deputy SIO and that when he joined, the SIO had already set the terms of reference for the Operation. He stated that a number of decisions had also already been made. He said that he did not see the SIO’s policy book at the time, which was not unusual, but officers would be verbally briefed about the contents of any policy decision. He recalled such a briefing with regards to the decision to re-interview JA-A8. 
The witness explained that the DI had informed him that the investigation was “sensitive” and needed to be carried out “discreetly”. He said this was because the individual involved was a current member of the House of Lords. He said this decision was not unusual and was in fact, “...normal, proper and professional”. He added that conducting the investigation discreetly “...meant that all and sundry were not told about it, as otherwise that gives rise to salacious gossip and rumour about this individual, which is unfair”. 
The witness described the investigative tasks that had been allocated to him during the Operation. He said these had included reviewing the complaint made by JA-A8 and all associated evidential material, which included any earlier complaints made by JA-A8 about other individuals. He stated that an analyst prepared a timeline of relevant events, that JA-A8’s social services records were accessed and reviewed and that JA-A8’s former social worker was also contacted and interviewed. 
The witness also gave evidence that the investigation team had carried out a review of previous allegations that had been made against Lord Janner. He described some of the difficulties of doing so, including the disorganisation of previous records which he said were a “complete mess”, and the fact that he did not have time to review everything that existed, as a result of his commitments in other investigations. 
The witness explained that he prepared the advice file that was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in April 2007. He said that his covering report summarised the matters investigated in Operation Dauntless and was written in a “fair and balanced” way, as he had been taught to do during his training. He accepted that his report had not included references to certain witnesses who had mentioned Lord Janner during previous investigations. He further accepted that, as a result, these witnesses’ evidence had not been considered further by Operation Dauntless. He said he was unable to recall why this was and suggested that it may have been because of the instructions from the SIO to focus on the complaint of JA-A8 and then, at the same time, to review the previous allegations. He 
added that he thought that the advice file would have “...doubled in size and perhaps lost some perspective if those other allegations were included”. 
The witness said that in December 2006, a number of references to Lord Janner were discovered in the files relating to Operation Magnolia. He said that these included JA-A6’s witness statement which alleged that Lord Janner had touched JA-A6’s naked buttocks and JA-A19’s statement in which JA-A19 alleged that Lord Janner had anal sex with him. The witness explained the steps that he took to investigate these matters further, acknowledging that it was “difficult”, as not all the information was available and “...certain things [he] would have expected to have discovered were not discoverable as if, quite simply, the job hadn’t been done properly” 
He explained that he contacted two former officers from Operation Magnolia. He asked them what Operation Magnolia had centred upon, the reasons why Lord Janner had not been interviewed, whether Lord Janner had formed any part of the advice file to the CPS and, if so, what the result of that advice was. The witness referred to comments made by one of those officers that “...this one will keep coming back to haunt me for the rest of my service”. He said that whilst he could not say what the officer had meant by the comment, he took the implication to be that “...because it surrounded Lord Janner, who was a high-profile individual, that he feared that the statement not being dealt with properly would come back to haunt him”. 
The witness explained that as a result of his contact with these officers, he had identified that the statements concerning Lord Janner were never pursued by Leicestershire Police during Operation Magnolia or drawn to the attention of the CPS. He said that he understood from what those officers had said in emails to him, that the decision not to further investigate the statement of JA-A19 was taken by the SIO in Operation Magnolia, in conjunction with the Acting Assistant Chief Constable. 
The witness gave evidence about the content of the advice file that he had prepared for the CPS. He explained that this had included the statement of JA-A19, which he described as the “unrevealed” statement as it had not been provided to the CPS during Operation Magnolia. It also enclosed other statements from Operation Magnolia, including the one from JA-A6. The witness confirmed that his covering report to the CPS identified certain inconsistencies in JA-A8’s account and had questioned whether those should be considered and advice obtained from a forensic psychologist. He said that a forensic psychologist’s advice was not obtained. He did not know the reasons why. The witness also confirmed that the advice file had referred to medical evidence which did not support the complainant’s account. 
The witness acknowledged that his conclusion in the covering report that Leicestershire police failed to investigate an allegation of child sexual abuse against Lord Janner was a “significant conclusion”, as was his conclusion that Lord Janner had not been spoken to 
about the allegation and that the CPS had not been provided with those statements. He said that he thought that it was “...wholly wrong that such serious allegations should be made and then not be investigated and ... to receive two emails of other serving officers who say it was not proceeded with because it fell out of the remit of the enquiry felt wrong for me as a serving officer.
The officer stated that he had reported these concerns to his DI and his DI had reported these to the DSupt. He said that it was “inconceivable” that such a conversation would not have taken place and in any event, these issues were included in the covering report to the advice file that was passed on by the DI to the DSupt, the SIO of the Operation. The witness also recalled attending a meeting with the DSupt, at which both he and the DI had referred to what had been discovered from Operation Magnolia and had made it clear that they considered it to be “important information”. 
The witness confirmed that he was not asked to conduct further enquiries in relation to JA-A19, such as to try and trace and reinterview him 
The witness said that the SIO decided not to arrest Lord Janner or to search his properties. The witness stated that he thought Lord Janner should have been arrested as it would have allowed for further exploratory work to be carried out by Leicestershire Police. He said that he also thought that “someone who is accused, and accused of serious allegations, in their life should be allowed to account for them. They should be allowed to provide answers to questions and reasonable explanations, and, if necessary, assert their innocenceHe added that he and the investigation team all felt it was “...incredible that an individual such as Lord Janner should be treated any differently by not interviewing him, not arresting and searching” his properties. He stated that the fact that Lord Janner “...was not allowed the opportunity to dispel those allegations or provide a reasonable account is staggering, bewildering and disappointing”. 
The witness confirmed a view that he had expressed during a meeting with his DI and the SIO, that if the accused had been a “man on the street” then the police would have arrested him, searched his home and interviewed him. He added that it was “unorthodox” for an officer of his rank to express such strong views towards a senior officer, but he felt he had “...a duty as a police officer to do [his] job correctly and to try and influence the SIO to gather evidence to either confirm or refute the allegations, to recover evidence, to look at important safeguarding implications...and a whole host of reasons that are obvious to this enquiry” 
The witness said that he didn’t think there was anything more he could have done to ensure that Lord Janner was arrested and his home searched “without disobeying lawful orders”. He stated that he had “...pushed and pushed and pushed and tried as hard as [he] could to influence and cajole these people into making what [he] thought was the right decision” 
The witness explained that on 2 January 2007 he drafted a letter in the SIO’s name inviting Lord Janner to attend a voluntary interview. He stated that he discussed the drafting of this letter with his DI and that they had come to the viewpoint that the letter could be used to try “to influence the SIO”, whose decision it was whether Lord Janner should be interviewed. The witness confirmed that the letter was never sent. 
The witness said that, in a final attempt to influence the prosecuting authorities he asked the CPS for advice on whether any charges should be brought against Lord Janner and raised the possibility of further investigations being carried out, including the interview of Lord Janner, 
He explained that the CPS had taken a considerable period of time to provide advice and said that he was “very, very disappointed” with the outcome. He stated that he had voiced his disappointment to his DI and to the rest of the team 
Witness 3 
The Inquiry heard evidence from a former Detective Inspector of Leicestershire Police. For the same reasons, his evidence was also given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness gave a summary of his career. At the time of Operation Dauntless (2006-2008), he was a Detective Inspector within the Major Crime unit and was appointed as the Deputy SIO of the investigation. He said that a Deputy SIO’s role is exactly the same role as the SIO but on a day-to-day basis, to ensure that the SIO’s instructions and strategy are carried out. 
The witness confirmed that before Operation Dauntless began he was already aware of previous allegations of sexual abuse having been made against Lord Janner. He said that he had informed the SIO of these when he was appointed and had asked whether a review of the previous investigations could be included within Operation Dauntless.
The witness said that he sought to influence the SIO’s decision in respect of the advice file, stating that he challenged it, as he felt there was more that the police could do to investigate. 

The witness said that he had wanted to arrest Lord Janner after the discovery of the unrevealed statement, as there were reasonable grounds to suspect him, not only in relation to JA-A8’s allegations, but also the previous allegations that had been made. The witness 
confirmed that his DS had shared his desire to arrest Lord Janner and had made it clear “repeatedly”.
The witness said that after he and his DS were told that it was unlikely that they would be able to arrest Lord Janner, they discussed an alternative, which was to invite Lord Janner to a voluntary interview. He said that he had instructed the DS to write a letter on behalf of the DSupt, that he had done so and this had been forwarded to the DSupt. He said that after a “number of weeks” he got a “very curt email back, which was “No” ” 
The witness said that he felt the decision to seek advice from the CPS when the DSupt did was “premature”, because, “...most...main lines of enquiry had not been completed”. He acknowledged that an SIO can choose when to seek advice, so he would not criticise the DSupt for that, but his criticism was that they “...hadn't provided the Crown Prosecution Service with a full and thorough investigation”. 
In relation to the statement of JA-A19 in Operation Magnolia, the witness said that he had recovered the hardcopies of these statements in a secure area, at Market Harborough Police Station. He stated that he had handed them to the DS the following day and that is what had led to the discovery that the statement did not appear to have been investigated, that Lord Janner had not been interviewed and that the statement had not been passed to the CPS. 
The witness said that he had also spoken to officers from Operation Magnolia face-to-face and “...they were both very uncomfortable. They felt that more could have been done at the time”. 
The witness said that he was also told specifically by the SIO not to make any further enquiries in respect of JA-A19, until advice from the CPS had been received. 
The witness said that when the advice from the CPS was received in December 2007, he felt “very disappointed”, particularly bearing in mind a previous conversation he said that he had had with the advising lawyer. During that conversation, he said that he had asked the lawyer: “at the very least...please will you support us with our view that we should continue with those enquiries?” He said that the CPS officer’s response was: “It is not my job to tell the police how to conduct an investigation”. He stated that the whole team shared his view, except for the SIO. He added that his DS had come to see him about challenging the advice and that he had challenged the SIO about it, on more than one occasion. He said he had asked the SIO whether the Gold Group reviewed the advice file and were happy with it and the SIO had said that they were. 
The witness commented that the decision not to interview Lord Janner, to seek early advice from the CPS and to not investigate JA-A19’s allegations further were all failures of Operation Dauntless. He said that in respect of each issue, his view had differed from that 
of the SIO and that he had informed him of those differences of opinion. He added that there was a Detective Chief Superintendent that he could have gone to, but said that he didn’t as he’d been given the impression by the SIO that the Gold Group was involved and that ultimately the ACC was signing off and agreeing with the DSupt’s decisions. 
Reflecting on the Operation, he said that he should have gone with his instinct and gone to a more senior officer. 
When asked, the witness accepted that “children involved with Social Services naturally attract more notes in files than children who are not”. He said that had they conducted a full and thorough investigation they would have taken this into account when considering witnesses’ credibility 
Finally, the witness said that he didn’t think that Lord Janner was treated in the same way as a person in a similar position would have been. He commented: “He was afforded the benefit of the doubt. If we’d have continued with those investigations, I could have removed that benefit of doubt” 
Witness 4 
The Inquiry heard evidence from a former Detective Superintendent of Leicestershire Police. For the same reasons, his evidence was also given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness gave a summary of his career. At the time of Operation Dauntless (2006-2008), he was a Detective Superintendent within the Major Crime unit and was appointed as the SIO of the investigation by the Gold Group set up for Operation Dauntless. 
The witness explained the purpose of a ‘Gold Group’, which is set up to provide strategic oversight to an investigation, particularly if it is sensitive or there are reputational issues. He stated that it was not a surprise that a Gold Group was set up in a case involving a member of the House of Lords. 
He said that at the time of this enquiry, the Gold Group oversight was not that intrusive. He confirmed that following the initial Gold Group meeting, he was not aware of any further meeting having taken place. The witness said that he reported back to the Head of Crime, who he would have seen on an almost daily basis on an informal basis. 
The witness refuted the suggestion that he had misled the DI that the Gold Group continued its oversight throughout Operation Dauntless. 
The witness explained the function of his policy log, which he used to help him work through decisions. He explained how each entry included a space to set out the reasons for making a decision. 
He said that the fact that JA-A8 was seeking compensation did not influence the way in which the investigation was carried out. 
The witness said that he thought the investigation team was sufficiently resourced initially and acknowledged that his policy decision stated that he would revisit the issue, if he felt it was necessary after an initial scoping exercise. 
The witness said he did not recall being informed of Operation Magnolia towards the start of the investigation, as the DI had suggested. The witness said that the focus was on JA-A8’s allegation, as he was the victim and so the police were focussed on finding evidence to support his allegation. He said that he was instructed to do this by the Head of Crime, because not to do that would have brought in the historic investigations. 
The witness said that he would have listened to other team members’ views, but ultimately the decisions were his. He said that he wouldn’t necessarily have had to seek approval from the Head of Crime, if he wanted to investigate a different angle, but that if there were resource implications a conversation with the Head of Crime would have taken place. He stated that he would have felt comfortable having such conversations with his superior officer. 
The witness said that he did not put in place regular updates with the Deputy SIO, but would have expected the Deputy SIO to get in contact with him if there was something significant to discuss. 
The witness said that he did not recall being contacted about statements from Operation Magnolia, but did not dispute that it happened or that he gave the direction to print them. He felt that he may have directed this action, as the statements could have been supportive of JA-A8’s allegations. 
The witness was asked about the conclusions concerning Operation Magnolia that had been set out by the DS in his covering report to the CPS. The witness responded that he had read the advice file, but did not consider that those conclusions could be stated, as only some of the materials from Operation Magnolia had been found. He explained that, in his opinion, they did not know exactly what had happened.
The witness said that he was therefore “less certain” than the DS that the statements from JA-A19 had not been provided to the CPS. He said that the reason for this opinion was because the police had not reviewed all the material. He said the purpose of Operation Dauntless was not to “...toothcomb the previous investigations” to find all the decisions and all the material. 
The witness said that he did not take any further steps in relation to JA-A19’s allegations and waited to see whether the CPS would advise that further enquiries should be conducted. He said that it was his view that they should “pause” the investigation and seek a legal perspective, from the CPS. 
The witness said he did not recall the DI saying that further investigations should be carried out. He also said that he had no recollection of telling the DI not to carry out any further investigations, but did not think he would have done so. 
[The evidence of this witness concluded part-heard and he will return to complete his evidence in a further CLOSED session] 
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 25.10.20 19:14

Mark Watts twitter report Day 10
 
Day 10 of Janner hearings at #CSAinquiry in 26 tweets… Police file told CPS that arresting Lord Janner and a search of his properties “could be likely to yield evidence”. But the advice from the CPS was always the same: No further action.
 
Day 10 of Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry behind closed doors ALL DAY yet again: Another retired officer from Leicestershire Police, Alistair Helm. On ‘Operation Dauntless’. And Roger Rock, senior prosecutor at CPS. On why it did not prosecute.
 
Alistair Helm, as a detective chief superintendent, was in the ‘gold group’ that launched Operation Dauntless in 2006. 
 
He is testifying behind closed doors at ‪#CSAinquiry, but the publicly available evidence suggests that the gold group had minimal insight over the operation.
 
Freemasonry is known to have been rife at Leicestershire Police (and the county council).
 
However, Alistair Helm is unlikely to have been a mason because he was ordained mid-career. He retired from Leicestershire Police in 2008 and went on to be a priest in the Yorkshire Dales.
 
Roger Rock is a key witness in Janner hearings of ‪#CSAinquiry and, of course, is being heard behind closed doors. 
 
As a senior prosecutor at the CPS, he had a role in the Frank Beck case AND the two subsequent police operations re Lord Janner.
 
Roger Rock was the “reviewing lawyer” in Frank Beck case. He was the “CPS liaison” for Operation Magnolia. He again was the point of contact for Operation Dauntless. 
 
Roger Rock was due to be called this am, and was scheduled to continue giving evidence after lunch adjournment.
 
There has been a change of heart at ‪#CSAinquiry, and Roger Rock is going to give SOME evidence in the open some time later this afternoon. 
 
For now, he is due to be testifying in closed session.
 
On Operation Magnolia, Roger Rock advised that there was insufficient evidence to convict any of the suspects in Operation Magnolia, as revealed in IOPC report on past Leicestershire Police probes into Greville, later Lord, Janner.
 
Rock marked the files: “No further action.”
 
On Operation Dauntless, David Swift-Rollinson (from whom we heard – well, behind closed doors – yesterday) prepared an advice file for Roger Rock, by then special casework lawyer for Leicestershire at the CPS
 
He wrote a telling note in his “rough book”…
 
David Swift-Rollinson’s note: “I felt that if any person had been involved, not GJ, a member of the House of Lords we would have probably arrested, searched for historical diaries and seized computers, etc.” 
 
This made him a “little uncomfortable”.
 
David Swift-Rollinson wrote in CPS file that arresting Lord Janner would have enabled a search of his properties which “could be likely to yield evidence” because “some entrenched paedophiles do keep trophies of previous offences committed such as diaries and photographs.”
 
David Swift-Rollinson sought CPS advice not only on what charges, if any, should be brought against Lord Janner, but also on whether any further investigative work should be directed towards him. 
 
The officer hand-delivered the file to Roger Rock at the CPS in April 2007.
 
In December 2007, Roger Rock advised police that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction of Lord Janner, because of “difficulties” over credibility of one accuser and “inconsistencies and contradictions” in another.
 
Roger Rock also advised police that there were no other reasonable lines of enquiry. 
 
He said that there was no value in interviewing Lord Janner because of the expectation that he would give a “no comment” interview as he had done before.
 
After hours of hearing from Roger Rock behing closed doors, ‪#CSAinquiry hearing went into open session for a single question to be put to him, which took under three minutes. And most of that was the question.
 
Counsel to ‪#CSAinquiry, Brian Altman, tells Roger Rock that James Wynne, an officer on ‘Operation Magnolia’, did not accept that allegations about Lord Janner were not raised at a police-CPS meeting attended by Rock in November 2001.
 
Roger Rock is clear that he “was not informed” of the allegations about Lord Janner at this meeting in November 2001. “Had I been informed, I would have immediately ended the meeting and referred the matter to the chief prosecutor.”
 
Roger Rock explained that allegations against a high-profile figure, such as Lord Janner, had to be referred to the chief prosecutor. 
 
With that, today’s almost entirely closed hearing concluded.
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 10 says that unnamed former Leicestershire detective chief superintendent – but who was identified in published timetable as Alistair Helm – said that an SIO could have made a decision not to arrest someone like Lord Janner...
 
By contrast, Alistair Helm, who as head of the specialist crime department was on gold group that set strategic direction for Operation Dauntless, said that he would have expected the assistant chief constable to be consulted on a decision to arrest someone like Lord Janner.
 
Alistair Helm transferred, to become head of professional standards, seven months after the investigation started. 
 
He described the SIO of Operation Dauntless, Christopher Thomas, as a “highly skilled investigating officer”, according to ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 10 says that unnamed former senior CPS lawyer – but who was identified in published timetable as Roger Rock – said that no allegation in Operation Magnolia re Lord Janner was brought to his attention at the time.
 
Roger Rock said that when he received the advice file from police re Operation Dauntless, including allegations against Lord Janner, he realised that he needed to refer to it CPS headquarters, according to the ‪#CSAinquiry“summary” of his testimony behind closed doors.
 
Roger Rock confirmed that he received the Operation Dauntless file in April 2007, but had not sent it to HQ until August, which he accepted was “too long”, says ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session. The delay was partly because he needed to read it first, which he did in July.
 
Roger Rock said that after he sent the file to HQ, it was returned some weeks later with an instruction to review it himself – ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session. 
 
He then advised police that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.
 
Roger Rock: my advice was not “written in anticipation of a detailed forensic examination many years later, and, for that reason, it’s not as comprehensive as otherwise it perhaps should have been,” according to the ‪#CSAinquiry“summary” closed session.
 
Roger Rock: I was “applying the processes that were relevant in 2007. They did change in 2013, and anyone looking at the case now would approach it in a totally different way,” says ‪#CSAinquiry “summary” of his testimony in closed session.
 
Linked here: ‪https://iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/22930/view/open-summary-closed-session-friday-23-october-2020.pdf…
 
https://twitter.com/MarkWatts_1/status/1319533514241511424
 
OPEN summary of CLOSED session 23 October 2020
 
Witness 1


The Inquiry heard evidence from a former Detective Chief Superintendent of Leicestershire Police. For the reasons given by the Chair in her ruling dated the 5 March 2020,1 his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness gave a summary of his career. He explained that he was appointed as the Head of the Specialist Crime Department in 2003. He said that he was in this position at the start of Operation Dauntless (May 2006) but left in December 2006, whilst the operation was ongoing, to take up a new post as Head of Professional Standards. Whilst in post as Head of the Specialist Crime Department, he confirmed that he was the line-manager of the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) for Operation Dauntless. He said that references to the “Head of Crime” were to the role of the Head of the Specialist Crime Department, as the name changed at some stage. 
The witness gave evidence concerning a ‘Gold Group’ meeting for Operation Dauntless on the 10 May 2006. He said that the meeting would have been chaired by an Assistant Chief Constable (ACC), who was the most senior officer in attendance. The witness said that at the time of the Gold Group meeting he was not aware of previous allegations of child sexual abuse having been made against Lord Janner. 
The witness confirmed that the purpose of a Gold Group was to set the strategic direction for an operation and that the group could be reconvened if there was to be a significant deviation or to make a major decision. He confirmed that he had no recollection of there being a second Gold Group meeting for Operation Dauntless, though he had left his post by the time the decision was taken in January 2007 not to arrest Lord Janner. 
The witness said that he would have expected the ACC to be consulted if a decision was being made to arrest someone like Lord Janner, who was a member of the House of Lords. He stated that if the decision was made not to arrest a suspect, this could be dealt with by the SIO on his own initiative and it was not a requirement to consult a senior officer. He added that if the SIO had wanted to speak to a senior officer, the ACC would have been available.
 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17767/view/2020.03.05-notice-determination-following-prelimina ry-hearing-20-february-2020.pdf 


The witness said that if a further allegation emerged against a suspect such as Lord Janner, the SIO would not have needed to consult a senior officer. He clarified that if there was a concern that the allegations had not been previously pursued by Leicestershire Police however, that would “most definitely” have needed to be discussed with a senior officer, as it was a “wider issue...with far more ramifications for the organisation”. The witness said that during his time as Head of Crime, no concerns were raised with him that there had been an allegation that was not pursued by Leicestershire Police. He agreed that if those concerns only emerged following the discovery of statements on 23 and 24 December 2006, then he may no longer have been in post as Head of Crime. 
The witness said that the Gold Group had appointed the SIO to Operation Dauntless and that he considered him to be a “...highly skilled investigating officer”. The witness said that when an SIO is appointed to an operation, they lead the investigation and make all of the decisions. He added that if a senior officer decides that a decision is wrong, if they are informed of it, they can of course change that approach. He confirmed that, in essence, the SIO was therefore in charge of all decisions until or unless he consults with a more senior colleague. 
The witness said that he was confident that the SIO for Operation Dauntless never discussed the question of arresting Lord Janner with him, but he agreed that by the time the decision not to arrest was taken - January 2007 - he was no longer the SIO’s line manager or Head of Crime. 
The witness said that he had no recollection of receiving briefings about Operation Dauntless, but thought that it was very possible that he was given such briefings. 
The witness stated that at no time was he put under any pressure in relation to any matter relating to Lord Janner and so far as he was aware, no pressure was put on anyone else involved in the investigation.
 
Witness 2
 
The Inquiry also heard evidence from a former Principal Crown Prosecutor and Special Casework Lawyer of the CPS. For the same reasons, his evidence was also given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness provided a summary of his career with the CPS. 
The witness gave evidence of his involvement with previous Leicestershire police investigations into allegations concerning Lord Janner, including Operation Magnolia and Operation Dauntless. 
In relation to Operation Magnolia, the witness confirmed that he was the reviewing lawyer for that Operation but that no allegations concerning Lord Janner had been brought to his attention. Specifically, the witness said that he was unaware of the witness statement of JA-A19, known as statement ‘S4C’, and JA-A6, known as ‘S101A’, until they were brought to his attention some years later, during Operation Dauntless. He said that if the statements had been brought to his attention, the file “....would have taken a totally different course...the guidelines...would have required me to refer allegations against Greville Janner via the Chief Crown Prosecutor to CPS Headquarters”. The witness confirmed that he was not told of allegations against Lord Janner, even as an aside: “it simply never happened”.. 
The witness confirmed that he could not think of any sensible reason why the statements had not been drawn to his attention during Operation Magnolia. 
The witness accepted that there was a suspicion in Operation Magnolia that some of the allegations may have been prompted by the compensation payments which Leicestershire County Council’s insurers had made to other victims following Frank Beck’s conviction. He said the suspicion had “...probably been a bit of mine and a bit of the police’s”. 
The witness acknowledged having concerns that some of the complainants in Operation Magnolia had previously made statements in other police operations into child sexual abuse and had not mentioned the abuse that was being alleged in Operation Magnolia. 
The witness confirmed that he had advised that no charges should be brought in Operation Magnolia. He pointed out that some of the suspects were deceased and many of the alleged offences were time-barred. 
The witness said that he had provided advice to the police towards the start of Operation Magnolia. He confirmed that his advice was that although the complainants might have criminal records, significant drugs and alcohol issues and associated mental health conditions, he would look at the picture of the conduct of the staff at the two children’s homes taken as a whole and these factors would not necessarily constitute an obstacle to an eventual prosecution. The witness stated that did not accept, however, that he had subsequently “deconstructed” the evidence on a “...person by person, allegation by allegation basis”, as had been suggested by the Deputy SIO in his statement to the Inquiry. 
He said that he had analysed the evidence and that “ ...the only way cases of this nature can be prosecuted is by prosecuting individuals for specific offences and, therefore, each allegation has to be looked at on the evidence and in relation to a particular suspect”. He 
added that until he had read the statement of the Deputy SIO, disclosed during this Inquiry, no-one had ever taken issue with his charging decision in Operation Magnolia. 
The witness acknowledged that his advice in September 2002 had the effect of bringing Operation Magnolia to an end. 
The witness confirmed that at the time of Operation Dauntless (2006-2008) he was a Special Casework Lawyer at Leicestershire CPS. He confirmed that Operation Dauntless concerned allegations by JA-A8 against Lord Janner and others and also included consideration of previous allegations made against Lord Janner, including those made by JA-A19 and JA-A6. 
The witness said that he had a heavy caseload at the time. He stated that when he read the advice file from the police, he realised that the file needed to be referred to CPS Headquarters. Having received the file on 23 April 2007, he acknowledged that he had not sent it to Headquarters until August. He said that part of the reason for the delay was that he felt he needed to read it first. He said that due to a pressure of work and court attendance, he read the file in July. He acknowledged that the delay was “too long” and agreed that in cases involving sexual crime, in some instances going back years, every day was a day lost, in terms of recollection, memory, and perhaps a desire to cooperate. Asked whether he could have referred the file to someone else to read, he said, “...there was no-one else to refer it to”. 
The witness explained that having transferred the file to headquarters, it was returned some weeks later with an instruction to review it himself. He confirmed that he was not put under any pressure by Headquarters to reach any particular conclusion and that he certainly wasn’t influenced by their view. 
The witness said that when he was informed about the unrevealed statements from Operation Magnolia he was “surprised” and said that he had “...assumed that the police had presumably dealt with it on their own without seeking advice on it”. He said it was “certainly a surprise” that the police had not mentioned the allegations in the meetings that had taken place at the time. He said that he had not asked the police to make any enquiries about why the statement had not been provided five years earlier and that he didn’t know why he hadn’t done so, stating that he had “...just proceeded to review the file”. 
The witness acknowledged that his advice commented on issues concerning JA-A8’s credibility, including the fact that JA-A8 had not made previous allegations concerning Lord Janner, despite having made statements about the same period of his life in previous investigations. 
The witness confirmed his advice in Operation Dauntless: that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction. He explained that a draft of this 
advice had been shared with the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Leicestershire and said that, although she had not read the entire advice file, she had received a “lengthy briefing” from him about the file. Despite her knowledge of the case being based upon what he had told her, the witness said that the Chief Crown Prosecutor had reached an “independent view”. 
The witness said that it was within his remit to advise the police to take further investigative steps which could have included recommending the re-interview of previous complainants or the instruction of a forensic psychologist. He accepted there was no reference to such recommendations in his advice, but said that he had spoken to the SIO on the telephone to discuss further lines of enquiry and that SIO’s view had been that “...there were no further lines of enquiry to follow”. He said that he could not remember whether he discussed instructing a forensic psychologist with the SIO. He said that these conversations had taken place before he had provided his advice, but couldn’t say exactly when. 
The witness accepted that JA-A6’s allegations against Lord Janner, which had been referred to within the advice file from the police, were not referred to in his advice. He said that he did not think he saw JA-A6’s statement at the time and that if he didn’t, he had relied on what the police had said about it in their report. The witness therefore confirmed that he had concluded that JA-A6 “...couldn’t be relied upon...” based upon the comment in the police report that JA-A6 had “...severe mental health problems and must be discounted as a witness”.
The witness said that his advice was not “...written in anticipation of a detailed forensic examination many years later, and, for that reason, it’s not as comprehensive as otherwise it perhaps should have been”. 
The witness said that he did not recall discussing further lines of enquiry with the Deputy SIO of Operation Dauntless. He said that if they did discuss this, his response would have been to the effect that the Deputy SIO should have been talking to the SIO about that. 
The witness was asked whether his advice reflected the views he had formed concerning the complainants’ previous complaints. He said if that were the case it would only be subconsciously, “...because [he] certainly wasn’t doing it deliberately”. He said that he thought his advice was “sufficient” but was ”probably not as comprehensive as it could have been”. He added that there were “...certainly things [he had] considered that aren’t explicitly in there”. 
The witness said that he had judged that there would be no utility in interviewing Lord Janner and that the SIO had agreed with him. When asked if he had discussed the question of arresting Lord Janner, he said that he could also not recall having any discussions with the SIO or anyone else about this topic. 
Reflecting on Operation Dauntless, the witness said: “I think I can accept that the advice isn’t written as thoroughly as it should have been. I accept that there was a delay in dealing with it... all I can say really in answer to that, is that the two lawyers I discussed the case with during 2007...didn’t raise those points and they took the view that...there was not a prospect of conviction.” 
The witness said that he didn’t change his approach to assessing the file due to the social background of the complainants. 
The witness explained that if the police wanted to challenge a decision not to prosecute, there was a procedure set out in the Director’s Guidance on Charging that would escalate the decision to a more senior officer. He said that such a challenge would normally be made by the SIO, but in this case the SIO had agreed with his decision. 
The witness accepted that at the time that he was considering Operation Dauntless, matters such as the fact that children in care may have more notes written about them than other children, and other issues around making further enquiries to corroborate the offence rather than the credibility of the offender, were not in the forefront of his mind. He said that he was “...applying the processes that were relevant in 2007. They did change in 2013, and anyone looking at the case now would approach it in a totally different way”. 
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 28.10.20 19:49


Mark Watts’ twitter reports Day 11:
 
Day 11 of Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry behind closed doors ALL DAY again: 

Michael Creedon.

Former chief constable of Derbyshire Police.

Effectively led probe into Frank Beck in 1991.

Says that he was ORDERED not to arrest Janner.

Testifying in SECRET.

#SecretCSAinquiry

Christopher Thomas, SIO of Operation Dauntless (2006-7) is being slotted in to complete his evidence in closed session before Michael Creedon is called. 

Thomas testified on Day 9, but did not finish then. But I tweeted what he has to say on Day 9: 

Michael Creedon is testifying behind closed doors at #CSAinquiry

However, I AM able to tell you what he has to say because it is already in PUBLIC domain, again demonstrating the farce of hearing all of his evidence – and indeed, much of all witnesses’ evidence – in secret.

Back in February, Michael Creedon opposed a claim by counsel to #CSAinquirythat Janner hearings could not be held in public and so should be cancelled. 

Creedon submitted through his barrister that the hearings must go ahead – and in public.

Michael Creedon’s barrister, Christopher Daw, told #CSAinquiry in February: “The only way to satisfy the public interest… to allay any concerns the public may have and to ensure that the full truth is brought to light is to have a full public hearing.”
Michael Creedon, who retired as Derbyshire’s chief constable in 2017, was a detective sergeant when, as his barrister told #CSAinquiry on Day 1 of Janner hearings, he “effectively led” much of the “ground-breaking investigation” that resulted in Frank Beck’s conviction in 1991.
Michael Creedon is ON RECORD as saying that during his investigation into Frank Beck “credible evidence” surfaced against Greville Janner, then a Labour MP, that warranted further investigation. 

But, he said, he was ordered NOT to arrest Janner or search his home or offices.

Michael Creedon, speaking about order to limit investigation into Greville Janner, said: “The decision was clear, he will be interviewed by appointment and there won’t be a search of his home, his constituency office or his office in the Commons.”
Michael Creedon said that a superintendent conveyed the order to him not to arrest Greville Janner or search his home or offices. 

But he believes that it came from chief officers. “It was a decision made by people more senior than me,” he said.

Worth noting that whistleblowers – especially police whistleblowers – are routinely smeared, traduced and have their careers wrecked. 

But it was a bit trickier to pull these usual stunts in this case given that Michael Creedon had risen to rank of chief constable.

Police are known to have interviewed Greville Janner as part of the probe into Frank Beck. 

Accompanied by his notorious solicitor, Sir David Napley, Janner gave a “no comment” interview. 

Naply also represented, eg, paedophile spy Sir Peter Hayman: 

Michael Creedon on Greville Janner in Frank Beck probe: “I look at this now, as a chief constable, as a senior investigating officer, in the light of many inquiries before and since. And one of the lines of enquiry could have been to search the house.”
Michael Creedon on Greville Janner in 1991: “The allegations were very serious, there was enough evidence to put a file before the CPS, and as investigating officers our job was to search out as much evidence as possible to prove or disprove the offence.”
Michael Creedon on being ordered to limit his enquiries re Greville Janner in 1991: “My interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would be that under the circumstances it would have been justified to search the house and offices.”
Michael Creedon, retired chief constable, may well be saying all this dynamite stuff behind closed doors today about how Greville Janner ESCAPED proper police action in 1991 because he is already ON RECORD as saying it. 

More after lunch adjournment. 

Michael Creedon’s barrister, Christopher Daw, told #CSAinquiry in opening submissions on Day 1 of Janner hearings that his client “had no involvement” in allegations against Greville, later Lord Janner, in either of two later investigations, Operations Magnolia and Dauntless.
Michael Creedon’s lawyer told #CSAinquiry: “Mr Creedon is confident that the inquiry will exercise considerably more judgment and skill when assessing such evidence than has been applied in the past, sadly, by Leicester Constabulary and the Independent Office for Police Conduct.”
Michael Creedon’s barrister to Janner hearing of #CSAinquiry: “He is scheduled to provide evidence for more than a day… Some of the answers he provides will not be to everyone's liking. He will be critical and damning of the actions of some individuals and certain institutions.”
Michael Creedon’s barrister submitted that, “throughout his involvement in the various police investigations into Lord Janner”, his client “conducted himself in accordance with the highest professional standards.”
Michael Creedon told IOPC that he had no involvement in initial phases of Operation Magnolia, apart from advising the investigation team to look at material gathered previously, including in investigation into Frank Beck. By then, Creedon was a detective superintendent.
Michael Creedon told IOPC that he was temporary assistant chief constable from April 2001 to January 2002 but had “minimal involvement” in Operation Magnolia. 

The IOPC said that “the limited evidence that is available suggests and indicates a greater involvement.”

Michael Creedon was given a briefing on allegations against 22 suspects, IOPC concluded. But the briefing made no mention of Lord Janner. 

He said that he had left the force before actions re Janner in Operation Magnolia were concluded.

Michael Creedon to IOPC: he would have expected any info re Janner during Operation Magnolia to have been past to a senior level, and would have expected it to be mentioned in a handover from predeccessor. 

This did not happen, and he thinks that his predecessor was never told.

Indeed, all four assistant chief constables at Leicestershire Police during Operation Magnolia denied to the IOPC that they knew about allegations or references to Lord Janner at the time.
Michael Creedon told IOPC that he was not aware of any allegation made against Lord Janner during Operation Magnolia until Operation Enamel in 2012. “There’s not a shred of evidence that I knew anything about Janner.”
Michael Creedon told IOPC that police actions re Lord Janner were closed wrongly in Operation Magnolia. 

He said: “It is a failing that no investigative activity was carried out in relation to the allegations.”

And Michael Creedon told IOPC that he was Derbyshire’s chief constable at time of Operation Dauntless, and did not discuss it with Leicestershire officers at the time. 

The dynamite evidence of Michael Creedon that #CSAinquiry is trying to brush back under the carpet.

“Summary” by #CSAinquiry of evidence in closed session for Day 11 says that unnamed former Leicestershire detective chief superintendent – but who has already been publicly identified as Christopher Thomas, SIO of Operation Dauntless in 2006-07 – admitted to a crucial error...
Christopher Thomas admitted that he logged in a policy document in Operation Dauntless that there was an absence of corroborative evidence and that this was “perhaps a little bit inaccurate”.

So records “summary” by #CSAinquiry of his testimony behind closed doors this morning.

Christopher Thomas, despite logging that there was no corroboration, accepted today that there were “the other two potential victims”, says #CSAinquiry“summary”.

He “felt the surrounding circumstances may lend corroboration,” but he “was going to seek a legal view on that.”

Christopher Thomas stood by the decision not to arrest Lord Janner, and said that this had not been “about him being Lord Janner”, says #CSAinquiry“summary” of closed session. 

But he was “pretty frustrated” with the CPS decision not to charge Janner.

Christopher Thomas said that he was never pressured about how to investigate Lord Janner, says #CSAinquiry “summary” of his testimony behind closed doors. 

He “tried to do the best job” that he could and to “act in good faith”.

“Summary” by #CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 11 says that an unnamed retired chief constable – but who has already been publicly identified as Michael Creedon – said that police in the past did not have “any focus whatsoever” on investigations into child sexual abuse...
Michael Creedon gave a revealing insight into police culture in the past in secret at Janner hearing. 

Child sexual abuse, was not seen as “real” crime because it “didn’t tick the target boxes,” according to #CSAinquiry “summary” of his testimony behind closed doors.

Michael Creedon: When proposals were made to give training and detective status to those investigating cases re child protection, there was a “kickback” by detectives and Leicestershire Police did not support the changes – #CSAinquiry “summary”. 

This kickback was “horrific”.

Michael Creedon said that, “by and large”, children were not believed, says #CSAinquiry “summary” of his testimony behind closed doors. 

The “tragedy that haunted” him was that police took children back to ‘care’ homes where they were being abused.

Michael Creedon described a common practice in which police would “close down” investigations once they had enough complainants to prosecute, without examining other complainants who may have come forwards, says #CSAinquiry“summary” of closed session.
Michael Creedon, according to #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session, did not think that the police approach was different in the investigation on which he worked [in 1991] as a result of allegations having been made against a person of prominence.
Michael Creedon, talking about the difficulties faced by the probe into Frank Beck and Greville Janner, said that the officer in charge of a children’s home “burnt” some records when it came under investigation, according to #CSAinquiry “summary”.
Michael Creedon said that he was told not to arrest Greville Janner, or search his home, and that this instruction came “from above”, according to #CSAinquiry“summary”. 

“It’s very rare for a police force to receive allegations of sexual offending by a sitting MP,” he added.

Michael Creedon was “disappointed” by decision not to arrest Greville Janner, says #CSAinquiry “summary” of his testimony in closed session. 

“He thought it was the right thing to do,” he said. There was a “justifiable case for arrest.”

Michael Creedon, said #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session (linked below), did not view decision against arresting Greville Janner as special favours for a high-profile person. 

He did not finish today. Is due back tomorrow. 

Behind closed doors. 

iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/…

 
OPEN summary of CLOSED session 26 October 2020 
Witness 1 (continued from 22 October 2020) 
On the 22 October 2020, the Inquiry heard evidence from a former Detective Superintendent of Leicestershire Police in CLOSED session. The witness returned to conclude his evidence today. As previously and for the same reasons1, his evidence was given in CLOSED session.The following is a summary of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness confirmed that on the first day of Operation Dauntless, he decided that a holding media statement should be prepared given the notoriety of the alleged suspect (Lord Janner) and the possibility that JA-A8 may notify media agencies. The witness confirmed that the police’s position was that they would not approach the media and said that in fact no police statement was issued to the media during Operation Dauntless. 
The witness was also asked about the evidence of the Detective Inspector to Operation Dauntless, who had said that he had suggested a witness ‘trawl’ of those witnesses listed on police databases that were connected to children’s homes. The witness said that he had no recollection of such a suggestion having been made to him. 
The witness said that he could not recall being told that Leicestershire Police may not have investigated a previous additional allegation of child sexual abuse. The witness said that he would not want to speculate whether he had raised this with senior officers, as he could not recall events from 13 years ago. 
In relation to the decision not to arrest Lord Janner, the witness referred to a policy document (policy decision 13) which he said captured “...an outline of [his] thinking”. The witness said that he was never put under any pressure not to arrest Lord Janner. He stated that he had “absolutely” informed senior officers and that there would have been no reason not to speak to them about it. 
The witness said that the issue of corroboration was a “...key issue because the CPS charging standards...were realistic prospect of conviction and quite often that did make it kind of difficult - more difficult to get over that threshold in historical sexual offences, so corroboration supported the case”. The witness acknowledged his policy decision 6, in which he had highlighted an absence of corroborative evidence. He said that on reflection 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17767/view/2020.03.05-notice-determination-following-prelimina ry-hearing-20-february-2020.pdf 
that was “...perhaps a little bit inaccurate” as there were “...the other two potential victims” in respect of whom he, “...felt the surrounding circumstances may lend corroboration, but [he] was going to seek a legal view on that”. 
The witness said that he felt that a search of Lord Janner’s property was “...highly unlikely” to result in any corroborative evidence and that due to the passage of time, there was “...very little opportunity” for “...forensic or other supporting evidence”. 
Recognising that at the time of Operation Dauntless a jury could be invited to draw adverse inferences from a failure to answer questions in interview, the witness said that this was not a factor that he considered greatly, when deciding whether to interview Lord Janner. The witness said that he could also not recall having any discussions with the reviewing lawyer from the CPS concerning this issue. 
The witness was asked to comment on the suggestion that had the suspect not been a member of the House of Lords, he would have been arrested and his properties searched. The witness responded that it was “...not about him being Lord Janner”; the issue, in his mind, was the likelihood of a line of enquiry producing any evidence. 
The witness refuted the suggestion that it was unorthodox for a Detective Sergeant to challenge a Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) and said that, on other major enquiries, lower ranking officers had “...raised issues” and that he believed he was “...willing to listen” to such concerns. 
He said that he stood by the decision not to arrest Lord Janner as it was his view that the police were highly unlikely to take the case forwards. The witness said that he could recall discussions about inviting Lord Janner to a voluntary interview and that a draft letter had been prepared. He acknowledged that others had different views about the decision but that he had “reasoned [the decision] out”. 
The witness said that he had no concerns about the CPS reviewing lawyer who was asked to review the advice file. He said that a period of 8 months to receive a response from the CPS lawyer was, however, “...unusual”. 
The witness said that he was “...pretty frustrated” by the conclusion reached by the reviewing lawyer to not bring charges against Lord Janner. He said that he “...wasn’t completely in accord” with the reviewing lawyer’s view. The witness was asked whether he expressed any frustration about the decision to the reviewing lawyer but said that he could not recall meeting him to discuss it. 
The witness accepted that there were mechanisms to challenge the CPS’ advice, but said that no challenge was made in this case and that no one in the investigation team had suggested that it should be challenged. The witness said that a junior officer could have 
taken the decision to challenge it, but he did not think that would have been appropriate in this case, with a SIO involved. 
The witness said that he was never placed under any pressure about the way in which Lord Janner was investigated. He said that he was “...really clear” about the reasons for the decisions he made. He added that he “...tried to do the best job that [he] could and [to] act in good faith”. 
Witness 2 
The Inquiry also heard evidence from a retired Chief Constable. For the same reasons, his evidence was also given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness provided evidence of his involvement in a Leicestershire Police investigation into historical allegations concerning Lord Janner. The witness provided a summary of his career and explained that during the investigation in question he was a serving Detective Sergeant. He stated that, “unusually”, he reported directly to the Chief Superintendent and through him to the Assistant Chief Constable, and that he also regularly briefed the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and leading counsel. He said that as well as working on the investigation, he was also overseeing the other tasks that a Detective Sergeant would do, including being engaged on other major force investigations. 
The witness said that in earlier investigations the police’s approach to allegations of child sexual abuse was different to the current approach. He said the culture, at divisional level, was to get as many cases detected as possible and there was not “...any focus whatsoever” on child sexual abuse investigations. He said it wasn’t seen as ‘real’ crime as it “...didn’t tick the target boxes”. The witness said that when proposals were made to give investigative training and detective status to those investigating child protection cases, there had been a “kickback” by detective officers and the changes weren’t supported by the force. He described this ‘kickback’ as “horrific”.
The witness said that “...by and large” children were not believed and the “...tragedy that haunted” him was that police officers had taken children back to children’s homes where they were being abused. He described a culture in which the police would also “...close down” investigations once they had sufficient complainants to bring a prosecution, without examining other complainants that may have come forwards. 
The witness described the role of corroboration in an investigation at the time. He said that it presented “...huge challenges” in historical sexual offence cases, as there needed to be corroboration of the allegations made by the victims. 
He described the approach to complainant interviews and said that the approach to those interviews was “...caring and professional” but “...by no means as you would do things [today]”. He said that, “...one of the things that has stayed with [him] and haunts [him]” was “...going to see [complainants] and reawakening the worst demons in their life”. 
Reflecting on the investigation, the witness said that he did not consider that the approach of the police was different as a result of the allegations having been made against a person of prominence. He pointed out however that legislation, improved professional practice, inter-agency working and greater public awareness had all “changed hugely” over the years. 
The witness said that throughout the investigation he had encountered difficulties in securing access to social services records, both those kept at individual children’s homes and held centrally by Leicestershire Social Services. He said that some records had even been “burnt” by an Officer-in-Charge of a children’s home when it came under investigation. 
The witness said that he was told not to arrest and not to search Lord Janner’s home and confirmed that this instruction had come “...from above”. The witness said that “it’s very rare for a police force to receive allegations of sexual offending by a sitting MP. This was being made aware to a detective superintendent and detective superintendent. My view was always that they were overseeing managing this investigation” 
The witness said that he was “...disappointed...” by the decision not to arrest Lord Janner “...as he thought it was the right thing to do”. He clarified that he thought there was a “...justifiable case for arrest...” but accepted that it was an “...operational decision [such as he’d] made many times for people [who]...haven’t agreed with [them] always and it is part and parcel of being a senior officer”. He confirmed that he didn’t view it as special favours for a high profile individual. 
[The evidence of this witness concluded part-heard and he will return to complete his evidence in a further CLOSED session] 
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 28.10.20 20:22

Mark Watts
 
Day 12 of Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry:
 
Statement from Tony Blair – to explain why he made Greville Janner a Lord – due to be read. In closed session. 
 
NOT being questioned.
 
Helen Ewen, head of honours secretariat at Cabinet Office, due to be called.
 
As I revealed, all of the many people who accused Greville, later Lord, Janner of child sexual abuse have been frozen out of #CSAinquiry
 
But a cyphered person, “JA-B24” due to be called today. Not sure whether this person is a survivor or a relative.
 
Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry also due to hear today from Gregor McGill, CPS director of legal services. 
 
He will be asked why the late Greville Janner, Labour MP and peer, was not prosecuted despite three criminal investigations into him. Partly in open session, partly closed.
But Tony Blair, and everyone else at Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry will have to wait for Michael Creedon, retired chief constable, to finish his evidence. 
 
Behind closed doors again, but hardly surprising when you consider what he has to say:

(Day 11 of Janner hearings of ‪#CSAinquiry behind closed doors ALL DAY again: 
 
Michael Creedon.
 
Former chief constable of Derbyshire Police.
 
Effectively led probe into Frank Beck in 1991.
 
Says that he was ORDERED not to arrest Janner.
 
Testifying in SECRET.
 
#SecretCSAinquiry
7:58 AM · Oct 26, 2020)
 
Michael Creedon has completed his testimony behind closed doors.
 
Helen Ewen of the Cabinet Office is giving evidence in open session before she too will go in camera.
 
Helen Ewen is confirming basic points about nomination of peerages as set out in a statement by Sir Richard Heaton, retired permanent secretary for Ministry of Justice.
Brian Altman, counsel to #CSAinquiry, says that Helen Ewen is testifying in place of Sir Richard Heaton who cannot attend because he has retired.
Helen Ewen confirms to #CSAinquiry that years before he was ennobled, Greville Janner was nominated for a knighthood. 
 
The Home Office backed this nomination.
 
But, for unknown reasons, it was not pursued and he never became Sir Greville, she confirms.
The nomination for knighthood for Greville Janner cited his services to the Jewish community, Helen Ewen confirms.
Tony Blair nominated Greville Janner for a life peerage in 1997, saying that he had been a “highly respected MP”, and had performed a good deal of services for charity and the Jewish community, Helen Ewen confirms to #CSAinquiry.
That is it for Helen Ewen in open. She is due to give further evidence at #CSAinquiry after lunch, but behind closed doors.
Helen Ewen, honours official at Cabinet Office, is continuing her evidence in closed session this afternoon before a witness statement from Tony Blair is read out at Janner hearing of #CSAinquiry about why he ennobled Greville Janner – also behind closed doors.
 
In 1992, Greville Janner was recommended to be knighted, 5yrs before being nominated for a peerage, #CSAinquiry heard this am.
 
And that was only ONE YEAR after he escaped arrest over allegations of child sexual abuse in Frank Beck case, as we heard yday
 
And NO ONE in Whitehall could produce any document, or any explanation, as to why proposed knighthood for Greville Janner ONE YEAR after he was investigated for child sexual abuse – and despite having been supported by the Home Office – did not proceed, #CSAinquiry heard this am.
“Public” hearings in Janner investigation of #CSAinquiry are mostly behind closed doors. 
 
Inquiry produces short “summaries” of these closed sessions, and absurdly gives job descriptions but no names for witnesses, even though their own timetables identify them.
So I am looking forward to #CSAinquiry summary of today’s hearing in closed session on what an unnamed “former UK prime minister” had to say in his statement on ennobling Greville Janner in 1997.
Tony Blair is known to have nominated Greville Janner to join the House of Lords in 1997 shortly after becoming prime minister. 
 
Blair had written the forward to Janner’s memoirs published only the year before...
In his memoirs, Greville Janner wrote that he after deciding to stand down as an MP he thought that it would be “splendid” to become a Lord.
 
So he consulted his “valued friend”, Peter, later Lord, Mandelson, who told him: “You’ll have to talk to Tony. I’ll ask him.”
On Greville Janner’s wish to join House of Lords, Tony Blair reportedly told him: “I shall do my best to get you there. It’s not just that I’m fond of you, which I am. It’s not just that you’ve helped me a lot, which you have. It’s because you deserve it…”
Tony Blair is said to have added to Greville Janner: “ I can’t give you any guarantees. If we win the election, there should not be a problem.” 
 
Labour won a landslide election in 1997, and Janner was on Blair’s first list of new peers.
Meanwhile, Gregor McGill, director of legal services at CPS, was due to give evidence partly in open session today at #CSAinquiry as to why not one of three police probes into Greville, later Lord, Janner resulted in charges. 
 
But he is being kept behind closed doors this pm.
 
“Summary” by #CSAinquiry of evidence in closed session for Day 12 says that an ex-resident of Beeches children’s home recalled Greville Janner, then a Labour MP, visiting the place several times...
 
Note that inquiry has decided that hearings will hear from no abuse survivors.
Former resident of Beeches children’s home, according to “summary” by #CSAinquiry of testimony in closed session, said that Greville Janner used to take him and other boys in a mini-bus to go swimming at a Holiday Inn.
Former resident of Beeches children’s home said that Greville Janner “seemed to have a thing with boys in pants and swimming trunks. The way he was around boys was inappropriate,” as recorded by #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session.
“Summary” by #CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 12 records that Tony Blair said in his statement that he could “unfortunately recall nothing of the specific events” of his nomination of Greville Janner for the House of Lords. 
 
He said, though, that officials vetted Janner.
Why could Tony Blair recall NOTHING of why he nominated Greville Janner to become a life peer within around two months of his election in 1997? 
 
It was “a period of considerable activity,” and it was 23 years ago, he said, according to #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session.
Why did officials note that the time for scrutiny of Tony Blair’s first list of proposed Lords was “limited”, Tony Blair said: “I recall nothing of the specific events… I am unable to say whether that would definitely have followed here,” #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session.
Tony Blair said that the “usual processes” of vetting were carried out for his nomination of Greville Janner and others on his list of prospective peers, according to #CSAinquiry “summary” of closed session. 
 
Officials had “very full and frank information”.
Tony Blair’s statement was read out in closed session to protect, allegedly, identity of one of Lord Janner’s accusers.
 
#CSAinquiry has not published the statement, only a summary. It is plain as day that the reason for that is nothing to do with protecting any abuse surivivor.
“Summary” by #CSAinquiry of evidence in closed session for Day 12 says that unnamed director of legal services at CPS – but known to be Gregor McGill – suggests that he tried to row back a bit on the agency’s admissions in 2015 over failing to prosecute Lord Janner in the past.
Gregor McGill: “The statement made in 2015 was perhaps looked at through the lens of 2015 decision making,” says #CSAinquiry “summary”.
 
The lawyers who reviewed previous decisions “didn’t turn their mind” to different law and prosecutors’ code at time of previous investigations.
 
I would note that in the Rochdale hearings of #CSAinquiry Gregor McGill sought to row back in a similar way to an official admission that CPS had missed an opportunity to prosecute Cyril Smith. 
 
But the inquiry was not persuaded by him on that occasion.
Gregor McGill did not finish today, and he will be back to give further testimony – again behind closed doors. Even though he was originally slated to give some evidence in the open. #SecretCSAinquiry
 
Summary by #CSAinquiry of today’s closed session: iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/…
 
 OPEN summary of CLOSED session 27 October 2020


Witness 1 (cont) 


On the 26 October 2020, the Inquiry heard evidence from a retired Chief Constable. The witness returned to conclude his evidence today. As previously and for the same reasons1​ ​, his evidence was given in CLOSED session.The following is a summary of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness compared the assistance provided by the CPS pre-charge now with that which the CPS gave in the past. He said that this was not to say that the CPS didn’t assist the police previously, but that they were now “...very much more...hands-on pre-charge​ 
The witness said that the background of witnesses did not affect the way he approached the investigation with which he was involved. He said that witnesses were all “...treated properly, fairly and without, necessarily, recourse to their antecedent background”. 
The witness referred to certain academic papers he had produced, in which he had identified potential barriers to reporting abuse. These included: “...the fact that a child victim does not necessarily understand that they are actually being abused”; the possibility that a “...child might make a decision that the new life in the home is preferable to the old life despite the abuse​ ; the suggestion that “...common to much child abuse is the feeling of guilt and suffering in silence”; the context that “...when a complainant is made, often the perpetrator makes counter-allegations in an attempt to discredit the child”; the possibility that “...children may lose privileges as a result of the abuse, such as pocket money, late nights and the right to weekend trips”; the possibility that “...on occasions, the child may remain silent because they feel they are actually enjoying what is being done to them at the time”; and the suggestion that “...it is not unusual for abused children to remain silent and it is not until the child has been away from the home for many years that they actually have the confidence to relate what they have suffered”. 
Reflecting on the investigation, the witness said that he considered he had acted “...professionally and in good faith throughout​ . He stated that he had “...certainly not” treated Lord Janner any differently because he was an MP and he did not consider that his Detective Inspector had done so either. The witness suggested that there were questions to be asked about resourcing; about who would carry out the investigation; and about issues
 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17767/view/2020.03.05-notice-determination-following-preliminary-hearing-20-february-2020.pdf 


like the continuing of the investigation and the decision on arrest and search, that could be raised in respect of senior officers. 
Asked about whether he was ever placed under any undue influence or improper pressure to act in a particular way, he responded “not at all”. He also said that there was no reticence on his part to investigate, “...none whatsoever”. 
The witness said that no-one ever spoke to him about Lord Janner during Operation Magnolia and he would have been “delighted​ to have taken on such an investigation, in his role as Assistant Chief Constable (ACC). The witness confirmed that he was never shown a copy of the witness statement of JA-A19 known as ‘S4C’, nor was he informed of the statement of JA-A6. 
The witness said “categorically​ that he did not have a conversation with the ACC during Operation Dauntless. He said that he wasn’t the Chief Constable at the time when it was alleged that such a conversation had taken place. The witness also denied having a telephone conversation with one of the officers involved in Operation Dauntless, stating that the officers had got that “completely wrong​ . He added that the SIO for Operation Dauntless had his personal telephone number and if he had wanted advice on the operation, he could have rung him directly. 
The witness said that the weight of the work during the investigation was “staggering...it dominated my life. It did for many years afterwards...to a degree my personal life imploded” 


Witness 2
 
The Inquiry also received read evidence from a complainant witness. For the same reasons, the evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of the evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness prepared a statement dated 5 December 2018. He described his time as a resident of the Beeches Children’s Home in the early 1980s. He said that he became friends with one of the other residents who was involved with Frank Beck and that his friend used to go back to Frank Beck's house on the weekends. He said that other residents also did the same. 
The witness recalled that over 20 years ago, some police officers came into a local pub (the Dover Castle) to find anyone who may have been involved in the Beck investigation. He stated that two male police officers approached him saying they wanted to speak about allegations of abuse by Frank Beck. 
The witness said that he did not go to a police station to give a statement, but he thinks the police did come to one of his previous addresses. He said that the police officers only spoke about Frank Beck. He said “At the time because I was younger, I was not too interested in it, and a bit dismissive of it all”. The witness said that he only ever remembered providing police officers with one statement in the 1990's. That statement is dated in August 1990. 
The witness stated that in 2018 the IOPC informed him that a police officer had stated that he had visited him in February 1991 at a specific address. He said: “I do not know this address and do not believe I ever lived there​ . He also explained that he could not recall any officers visiting him for a second time in February 1991. 
In 2014, the witness provided the police with a witness statement in which he said he recalled Greville Janner visiting the Beeches on a number of occasions and that Lord Janner used to take him and other boys in a mini bus to go swimming at the Holiday Inn. He said he was not sure whether other members of the public were using the pool at the time of these visits. The witness said that he thought Lord Janner “...seemed to have a thing with boys in pants and swimming trunks. The way he was around boys was inappropriate​ .
 
Witness 3
 
The Inquiry also heard evidence from a Cabinet Office employee. For the same reasons, part of her evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of that part of her evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness stated that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee (PHSC) wanted the Prime Minister to have considered or reflected on the following issues before making an appointment: past criminal convictions; financial links to political parties; the suitability of individuals taking up political peerages when they worked for politically-neutral executive organisations; and potential conflicts of interest. 
The witness suggested that whilst a criminal conviction would have been shown on a nominee’s criminal record, “...we are unable to tell from the [documents held by the PHSC] the extent to which the committee considered allegations to be a kind of standard part of its remit of consideration”​ . Asked whether she agreed it looked inconsistent to be affording attention to a 20-year-old shoplifting conviction as potentially impacting on the integrity of the system, whereas, at least superficially, no consideration was being given to allegations of serious sexual offences, the witness said that “...by the standards of what we would apply now, it’s certainly surprising that it’s not there​ [in the documents held by the PHSC]”. 
Describing the system for honours and peerages today, the witness said that a “high bar​ would be set for determining what had happened, before a recommendation would be made. The witness confirmed that the integrity of the system has to be upheld and therefore any successful nomination which could put the honours or peerages system in jeopardy or disrepute, has to take precedence. 
The witness said that there is now a “...much more significant degree of independence within both systems and particularly, for example, within HOLAC, the makeup and nature of that body is very different now, and that obviously informs the approach and arguably the judgments reached as well​ . She added that “...there is, just in general, a much greater public understanding around the role of HOLAC and the Honours Committee and therefore more scrutiny...of any kind of exceptions from that practice” 


Witness 4 (Blair) 


The Inquiry received read evidence from Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Fo​ r the same reasons, his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness stated that he had been asked to assist the Inquiry in respect of the process by which, in 1997, Lord Janner was nominated for and granted a life peerage. He explained that the nomination and grant happened within approximately two months of the Labour Governmentbeingelectedwhichwas“...​aperiodofconsiderableactivity”​ forthenew government. That fact and the intervening 23 years meant that the witness said he “...​unfortunately recall[ed] nothing of the specific events​” relating to Lord Janner and the 31 other individuals nominated on that occasion. He explained that leaders of other political parties also would have advanced their own nominees. 
The witness said that he nominated Lord Janner in his capacity as Leader of the Labour Party. He stated that, in accordance with the established procedure that existed in 1997, the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee (PHSC) were required to advise the Prime Minister in respect of the suitability of all nominees. He explained that the PHSC was required to certify thattheindividualswereconsidered“...‘​fitandproperpersons’”​ torecommendtoHer Majesty the Queen for a peerage and he would expect that the PHSC would consider any allegations made against a nominee as part of the nomination process. The witness stated that the documentation records that “...L​ ord Janner and almost all of the other nominees​” received “...t​ he PHSC’s positive certification”​ . 
The witness was asked to comment on the following paragraph contained in a witness statement provided by the Cabinet Office (Sir Richard Heaton): 
“T​ he outcome of PHSC deliberations was merely advice to the Prime Minister, however, and not an instruction. The final paragraph of the letter ​[dated 29 July 1997] states that the time permitted for their scrutiny had been limited, and that they would have preferred a longer period in which to consider matters. The committee noted that the reputation of the Prime Minister and PHSC might suffer if an impression was given that deliberations were rushed or insubstantial...​” 
The witness agreed that a PHSC letter to the Prime Minister comprised advice and not instruction. He explained that the letter “...c​ onstituted advice of some considerable weight which a Prime Minister was entitled to rely on, and usually did”​ . He stated that the documentation showed that the list of prospective peers was sent to the PHSC on 17 July 1997 and that in the PHSC letter dated 29 July 1997, the PHSC noted that it would have preferred more time. He agreed with the Cabinet Office witness that “....​in principle, the more time that is allowed for such processes the more opportunity there will be for what he characterises as “deeper discussion​”. Notwithstanding, the witness stated: “.​ ..I recall nothing of the specific events [​ and so] ​I am unable to say whether that would definitely have followed here. However I have no reason to believe that the usual processes which are explained in the rest of Sir Richard Heaton’s witness statement did not occur​”.
The witness said that the three week period is stated as being the PHSC’s “...​‘preferred’ period”​ but was not “...​an absolute requirement”​ . He referred to the PHSC itself recognising “...t​ hat this is not always possible”​ . The witness said that “...​whilst the PHSC did note that it would have preferred a longer period, it did not say that the time provided was insufficient in order for it to properly discharge its functions. To the contrary, it refers to having received “very full and frank information” which enabled it to resolve even “cases that may otherwise have proved difficult”.​” The witness commented that the PHSC’s concern appears therefore to have been the “i​mpression​” that might be given. 


Witness 5 


The Inquiry heard evidence from an officer of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). For the same reasons, his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of the evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness provided a summary of his career and explained that since 1 January 2016 he has held the position of Director of Legal Services at the CPS with responsibility for driving up the standards of casework quality and casework decision making across the service. He explained that his previous experience included working as a child abuse specialist prosecutor. 
The witness provided an overview of the CPS, its responsibilities, and the roles of the Attorney General (AG) and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). 
He said that if the CPS receive a file of evidence from the police, they will decide whether to bring a prosecution applying the Full Code test. He stated that if there are reasonable lines of enquiry, the CPS can provide an action plan to the police, setting out those reasonable lines of enquiry and what evidence the police should consider obtaining. The witness said that the operational decision making is with the police, but that good practice would be “to send a chaser to find out what the situation is on those cases​ 
The witness said that he would not advise the police on whether a suspect should be arrested. He explained that this was a “...matter for the police because the decision on arrest is a matter for the individual constable...it is both an objective and subjective test. The constable has to ask themselves, first of all objectively, “is it necessary to arrest?”. They then have to ask themselves specifically the subjective question, “in the circumstances which I’m facing now, is it necessary for me to arrest?​ ”. 
The witness referred to the Guidelines on Prosecuting Cases of Child Sexual Abuse issued by the DPP on the 17 October 2013 (2013 Guidance). He said that the introduction of updated guidance was in part connected with the Jimmy Saville allegations and that the then DPP, Keir Starmer QC, was instrumental in trying to change the way the CPS approached these cases. The witness explained what was meant by the ‘merits-based approach’, which is “...to look at the case as a whole free from what we call myths and stereotypes. So you make a decision based on the merits of the case that is put in front of you, not based on any bias or pre-judged determination of how people might act in particular circumstances”. 
The witness also reviewed Annex C of the 2013 Guidance that lists ‘Myths and Stereotypes’ about child sexual abuse. He said these were “...a reminder to prosecutors to not think in rigid tramlines​ and acknowledged that there “...are many reasons why people may not give you all the material at the first available opportunity”. 
The witness referred to advice from counsel and the decisions made by the CPS in 2013-2015, concerning the prosecution of Lord Janner. The witness also confirmed the bases upon which a decision not to prosecute could be challenged, as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The witness said that when the DPP made her decision in 2015, she did not have the access to all the material that the Inquiry has now had. He clarified that he meant that IICSA has “...had a lot more information and a lot more time to look at some of those matters than the DPP had when she looked at it”. He added that he thought that the “...decision and the statement made in 2015 was perhaps looked at through the lens of 2015 decision making”. He suggested that the lawyers reviewing decisions in 2015 “...didn’t turn their mind​ to the fact that the law and Code were different at the time of the previous investigations.
 
[The evidence of this witness concluded part-heard and he will return to complete his evidence in a further CLOSED session] 
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 29.10.20 13:15

Mark Watts' twitter feed report continues. Day 13:


Day 13 of Janner hearings at #CSAinquiry in 33 tweets… The police officer who spotted Greville Janner in a children’s home with a boy. The hotel worker who saw Greville Janner in bed with a boy. I wonder why these hearings are behind closed doors.
 
Day 13 of Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry behind closed doors again: Kevin Yates, of Leicestershire Police’s ‘Operation Magnolia’, who was too ill to testify last Weds. Matt Hewson, of ‘Operation Enamel’, due back. And four witnesses from Labour party.
 
Gregor McGill, director of legal services at CPS, who began his testimony yesterday (linked below), has been slotted into finish before Kevin Yates is called. All happening behind closed doors.
 
Kevin Yates, who is testifying today at Janner hearings of #CSAinquiry behind closed doors, joined Operation Magnolia as a detective inspector in 2001. We heard from two of his colleagues on Day 8, when he was due to testify before he reported in ill
 
Kevin Yates may be testifying behind closed doors at ‪#CSAinquiry, but what he told the IOPC about Operation Magnolia is a matter of public record. 
 
He was aware, he told IOPC, that allegations against Greville Janner, then a Labour MP, were kept OUTSIDE the operation.
 
I will just mention that we have just had a whole minute of today’s Janenr hearing at ‪#CSAinquiry in open session...
 
Brian Altman, counsel to ‪#CSAinquiry, reported that a government lawyer had contacted the inquiry to mention a crucial omission from the testimony of Helen Ewen from the Cabinet Office yesterday…
 
(Quote Tweet
@MarkWatts_1
 · Oct 27
Day 12 of Janner hearings of ‪#CSAinquiry:
 
Statement from Tony Blair – to explain why he made Greville Janner a Lord – due to be read. In closed session. 
 
NOT being questioned.
 
Helen Ewen, head of honours secretariat at Cabinet Office, due to be called.)
 
Helen Ewen meant to confirm that the Security Service, aka MI5, was among the departments and agencies consulted about whether they had any concerns about the nomination of Greville Janner to the House of Lords. 
 
MI5 said that it had no adverse comments to make about Janner.
 
Returning to Kevin Yates and Operation Magnolia. 
 
Speaking about the claims against Greville Janner, Kevin Yates told IOPC that there was “no desire or possibility of going to interview him about these allegations.”
 
Matt Hewson gave further testimony today. 
 
I revealed key points from his statement to ‪#CSAinquiry before the Janner hearings began
 
Matt Hewson may have confirmed to ‪#CSAinquiry some interesting points about ‘Operation Enamel’, the investigation into Lord Janner launched in 2012, including its review of past actions, that you may well not know and are buried in IOPC report...
 
First, one detective constable recalled that a typed A4 notice was put up on a CID station notice board in 1974/75 “clearly displaying an intelligence item that officers both uniform and CID were not to gather intelligence or stop check vehicles in relation to Greville Janner.”
 
Second, a detective sergeant recalled returning a child absconder to Beeches children’s home and saw Greville Janner MP sitting in a chair with a young boy on the arm of the chair. 
 
He nodded towards them. Janner held on to the boy’s shoulders and steered him out to back garden.
 
Speaking about spotting Greville Janner in a children’s home, this detective sergeant said: “Seeing this rang alarm bells with me because I could not understand why a member of Parliament was at a children’s home.” 
 
He put in a report, he said.
 
But he “heard nothing.”
 
This detective sergeant, shocked by spotting Greville Janner, then a Labour MP, with a boy at a children’s home, summed up the crucial issue for ‪#CSAinquiry:
 
“Because Janner had influence and was a member of Parliament, he was protected and could not be touched.”
 
And third, Operation Enamel searched Lord Janner’s home in 2013 and seized 84 items, several of which were of significance. 
 
These included some notes from the Frank Beck investigation and other items “indicative of possible sexual relationships” with boys.
 
“Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 13 says that unnamed CPS director of legal services – but known to be Gregor McGill – returned to witness box and said that CPS stood by its view that it made mistakes re Operation Dauntless, in which Lord Janner was not charged.
 
On why Lord Janner was not prosecuted before 2015, Gregor McGill said that he was “satisfied that we have learnt from what went wrong in this case and put appropriate systems in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again,” according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of closed session for Day 13 says that an unnamed detective inspector on Operation Magnolia in 2001 – but identified in published timetable as Kevin Yates – said that the SIO wanted to keep the investigation focussed on allegations at a children’s home.
 
Kevin Yates, who later became deputy SIO on Operation Magnolia, thought that the SIO (senior investigating officer) wanted to keep closely to its terms of reference “simply to avoid a much larger investigation,” according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session.
 
Kevin Yates said that Greville Janner’s name arose in several statements and actions in Operation Magnolia.
 
These were marked as “pending”, he said, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session, “meaning they were awaiting a decision by the SIO.”
 
Kevin Yates said that his predecessor as deputy SIO told him of the allegation about Greville Janner, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session. 
 
He was told that the SIO was dealing with it and awaiting a decision, so he thought that it was an issue for chief officers.
 
Kevin Yates could specifically recall being told that the allegation against Greville Janner was in the SIO’s “bottom drawer”, says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of his testimony today in closed session.
 
Kevin Yates “got the impression… that [Janner claim] was perhaps being put to one side, or certainly being held back until any decisions could be made about it,” says ‪#CSAinquiry summary. 
 
It was “fair to say that [it] wasn’t a line of enquiry that was being pursued actively.”
 
Was statement being put to one side because Greville Janner was a local MP? 
 
Kevin Yates: “It would be easy to surmise that,” says ‪#CSAinquiry summary. 
 
“I don’t have any particular reason to think that, but it is obviously quite easy to draw that conclusion.”
 
Kevin Yates said that it was “fair comment”,  says ‪#CSAinquiry summary of his testimony today, to suggest that nothing was really done about Greville Janner at all during his time on Operation Magnolia.
 
There was a “lack of desire” among senior officers, said Kevin Yates, to pursue allegations against Greville Janner, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of his testimony behind closed doors. 
 
He said that “it would be difficult to defend a decision not to” pursue the allegations.
 
It was “hard not to be suspicious” that the allegations against Greville, later Lord, Janner had been “brushed under the carpet,” Kevin Yates said, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session.
 
Kevin Yates on lack of action on Janner: “The fact there is no policy decision, no record of discussions with chief officers, and.. the delay in the particular statement being moved through the system, it is hard to give any other explanation.” As recorded by ‪#CSAinquiry summary.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry of evidence in closed session for Day 13 says that the unnamed SIO of Operation Enamel – but identified in the published timetable as Matt Hewson – explained how it had carried out enquiries not completed during earlier investigations into Lord Janner.
 
A hotel worker came forward to Leicestershire Police in the wake of the DPP’s decision in April 2005 not to charge Lord Janner to say that she had seen him in bed with a teenage boy, Matt Hewson said, according to ‪#CSAinquirysummary of his testimony in closed session.
 
 “Summary” by ‪#CSAinquiry closed session for Day 13 says that unnamed journalist and two people from Labour party in Leicestershire – but identified in published timetable as Mark D’Arcy, James Roberts and Peter Coleman respectively – also provided evidence.
 
The evidence of Mark D’Arcy, James Roberts and Peter Coleman concerned attempts to bring allegations about Lord Janner to the attention of people within the national and regional Labour party, according to ‪#CSAinquiry summary of closed session.
 
A statement from Mark D’Arcy was read out, while James Roberts and Peter Coleman were called to testify. But #CSAinquiry summary says: “It is not possible to provide an OPEN summary of their evidence.”


Here it is: https://iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/22967/view/open-summary-closed-session-wednesday-28-october-2020.pdf
 
OPEN summary of CLOSED session 28 October 2020
 
Witness 1 (continued from 27 October 2020)
 
On the 27 October 2020, the Inquiry heard evidence from a former officer of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in CLOSED session. The witness returned to conclude his evidence today. As previously and for the same reasons1, his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness acknowledged that a suspect should be able to rely on a decision made by the CPS and that this included a decision not to prosecute. He confirmed that a decision could however be overturned if the decision was wrong. The witness expressed his view that there is a real danger in reassessing decisions made some time ago in light of current practice. He said that if prosecutors have applied the law and the Code in force at the time it is very difficult to say the decision is wrong. 
The witness accepted that the section of the Code for Crown Prosecutors dealing with overturning earlier decisions does not make it clear which version of the Code should be applied. The witness nevertheless expressed the opinion that if a prosecutor was looking at a case that occurred “...some time ago, you have to look at the evidence that was available at the time when the decision was made, the law that was in place at the time, and of course the code that was in place”. 
The witness confirmed that when counsel is instructed to advise on a prosecution, they are instructed to advise on whether the evidential test is met, the public interest test being “...a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service”.
The witness said that in respect of Operation Magnolia, the decision to take ‘no further action’ was not one taken by the CPS. He clarified that in reviewing the Operation Magnolia decision, it was therefore simply a matter of applying the evidential and public interest tests.
With regards to Operation Dauntless, the witness acknowledged that the reviewing lawyer in 2015 had found that the prosecutor in 2007 had given ‘disproportionate weight to matters that adversely affected the credibility of the complainant as well as to the delay in reporting the complaint’. The witness added that the rules on corroboration had changed and that, following changes to the law in 2003, there was the possibility for cross-admissibility for multiple allegations that should have been taken into account.
 

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17767/view/2020.03.05-notice-determination-following-prelimina ry-hearing-20-february-2020.pdf 


The witness confirmed that the CPS stood by the view that mistakes were made in relation to the decision-making in 2007. 
The witness gave evidence about the Victims Right to Review. He explained that it was “...a procedure whereby, if a qualifying prosecution decision has been made and a decision not to prosecute would be such a decision, the CPS has committed to having that decision relooked at by an independent prosecutor, a prosecutor who has taken no previous involvement in the case”. He added that “...the difficulty in this case was, of course, that the DPP had been involved in the decision making, so there was no-one more senior than the DPP in the organisation”. The witness confirmed that an independent review had nevertheless been carried out, informed by advice from leading counsel. 
The witness said that if the CPS had been informed of the allegations, the decision in respect of Operation Magnolia should have been made by the Central Casework Division in accordance with the guidance concerning allegations made against a high-profile person. The witness said that in respect of Operation Dauntless in 2007, the guidance at that time was that the decision should have been taken by the Special Crime Division at CPS Headquarters. 
The witness explained that the current guidance also provides for such cases to be dealt with by the Special Crime Division. He added that the current guidance also suggests that once a case is accepted by CPS Headquarters, it should be kept by CPS Headquarters and be prosecuted by CPS Headquarters. The witness also confirmed that a case such as that involving Lord Janner would now be considered a ‘sensitive case list’ case. 
The witness explained that the CPS had recently introduced a five-year strategy, ‘RASSO 2025’, which was “...an attempt to bridge the gap between the amount of allegations of rape that are made by complainants and the number of cases that ultimately are referred to the CPS and the decision is made to either prosecute or to not prosecute”. 
The witness was asked about the arrangements that were in place to communicate to complainants the decision not to prosecute Lord Janner in 2015. The witness explained that he was not involved, but that he understood the police would have been responsible for communicating that decision to interested parties. The witness said that there was “always scope” for the CPS to consider meeting with a complainant face-to-face to explain a decision not to prosecute, although “...at the moment [the CPS is] not resourced to do that in these cases”. 
When asked whether there was anything that could be done to prevent the things that went wrong in this case arising again in the future, the witness said that he was “...satisfied that we have learnt from what went wrong in this case and put appropriate systems in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again”.


Witness 2
 
The Inquiry also heard evidence from a retired Detective Inspector from Leicestershire Police. For the same reasons, his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness gave a summary of his career. He explained that he joined Operation Magnolia in May 2001, by which point the Operation had been ongoing for 14-15 months. He said that he was invited to join the investigation by his Superintendent. He explained that, at that time, he had no previous experience of dealing with historic child abuse investigations. 
The witness stated that he was an Acting Detective Inspector (A/DI) appointed as the HOLMES2 office manager. He explained that this involved overseeing the administrative side of the investigation, including “...staffing, resources and the paperwork-flow through the processes”. The witness stated that he had been on a two-week training course on the HOLMES system prior to joining the Operation. He said that he later became the Deputy Senior Investigating Officer (SIO), as the previous A/DI who had fulfilled that role had been moved to other duties. 
The witness referred to the SIO’s policy book for Operation Magnolia, which he confirmed he had access to during the investigation. He stated that from reading certain policy decisions and from comments made by the SIO, he formed the impression that there was a desire to prevent ‘mission creep’ and to retain focus on the terms of reference. He explained that the terms of reference for the investigation were “...fairly specific in terms of allegation at a certain children’s home in a certain time period” and that he recalled the SIO being “...clear on a number of occasions that he wouldn’t wish to take the enquiry outside those parameters”. The witness said he didn’t know why the SIO had wanted to keep closely to the terms of reference, but that he thought it “...was simply to avoid a much larger investigation”. 
The witness said that if a disclosure was made that fell outside of the terms of reference, this would be entered into HOLMES and then ‘pended’, meaning that it would be “...put to one side, for a decision to be made normally by the SIO”. He confirmed that he would then sit down with the SIO to discuss the ‘pended’ actions. He said these meetings occurred at varying frequencies, sometimes weekly and sometimes he “wouldn’t see him for two or three weeks”. 
Home Office Large Major Enquiry System 
The witness said that Lord Janner’s name arose in a number of statements and subsequent actions in Operation Magnolia. The witness said the queues of actions on the HOLMES system were “very lengthy” and that he believed there were “...more than a thousand documents requiring review and filing”. The witness said that during the course of reviewing these, he noted Lord Janner’s name against various actions, but that those were marked as “...‘pending’, meaning they were awaiting a decision by the SIO”. 
The witness said that he couldn’t recall when he first became aware of Lord Janner’s name being mentioned in relation to Operation Magnolia. 
The witness said that he could not recall seeing a handwritten copy of JA-A19’s statement. He said that if the handwritten statement had been signed, it would have been typed and then passed to the HOLMES reader. The witness confirmed that HOLMES would record who had typed the statement, who reviewed it and raised any actions. 
The witness said that he did recall a stage, in 2001, when he was informed that JA-A19 was not co-operating. He said that he had no direct involvement in that. The witness said that he did not recall the Detective Sergeant expressing scepticism about JA-A19’s allegation nor did he recall the Detective Sergeant saying that he thought there was a possibility that JA-A19 was lying. 
The witness was referred to the typed statement of JA-A19 known as statement ‘S4C’, in which JA-A19 had made allegations against Lord Janner. He said that he had been informed that statement S4C may have been taken on 10 April 2000.. He pointed out that this pre-dated his involvement with Operation Magnolia by over a year. The witness was asked about the apparent delay between the statement being taken on 10 April 2000 and the statement being entered on HOLMES on 8 November 2001. The witness accepted he may have entered the statement on Holmes on 8 November 2001 although he had no recollection of doing so now. He said the apparent delay would possibly have rung alarm bells. He said that had he identified this delay at the time, he would have firstly registered it on the system and secondly, would have asked “...probably the officer who submitted it...”What’s going on here?””. He said: “Equally,... if I was aware that this had been sitting with the [SIO] then probably I wouldn’t have thought it was necessary or appropriate to question the actions of a senior officer.” Asked why he might have thought it was inappropriate, he said: “Well, I think, largely, because of my inexperience and, dare I say, naivety of at the time, having just moved into a completely new field of work and a new structure...[and he would have expected] that officers much more experienced and senior to me would have know what they are doing”. 
The witness accepted that an 18 month delay in inputting a statement onto HOLMES would be “exceptional”. 
The witness said that he was not told to put allegations relating to Greville Janner to one-side, but that he was told that matters which fell outside the parameters were to be “‘pended’ and passed to the SIO to consider, and amongst those were allegations relating to Greville Janner.” 
The witness described a conversation with the Deputy SIO during which he had been informed of the allegation concerning Lord Janner. The witness said that he was informed “that the [SIO] was dealing with it awaiting a decision, which [he] would interpret as being a conversation with chief officers.” The witness said that he could specifically recall being told that the allegation against Lord Janner was in the SIO’s “bottom drawer” and that he had “...got the impression...that it was perhaps being put to one side, or certainly being held back until any decisions could be made about it”. He added that he thought it was “...fair to say that [it] wasn’t a line of enquiry that was being pursued actively”. Asked whether he had formed the impression that the statement was being put to one side because of the prominence and the fact that Lord Janner was a local MP, the witness responded: “It would be easy to surmise that. I wasn’t aware of any particular conversation about it, other than that chat with [the Deputy SIO]. I don’t have any particular reason to think that, but it is obviously quite easy to draw that conclusion”. 
The witness said that it was a “fair comment” to suggest that nothing was really done in relation to Lord Janner when he was involved in Operation Magnolia at all. 
Asked about the allegations concerning JA-A6, the witness accepted that actions on HOLMES were allocated to him and he thought “...what would have happened with these, along with other actions, is that they’ve been left in the pending or waiting queue for a long, long time, and then, towards the end of the investigation, certainly following meetings with the CPS and decisions that were made, those actions would still have been there waiting and should have been discussed with the SIO”. He clarified that when these actions were “allocated” to him, his role was to move the actions “through the various queues and the filing process” and not to undertake the enquiries himself, which would have been for one of the detectives on the DS’s team. 
The witness added that he thought the actions “...were closed on the basis that [the SIO] had given the instruction that there be no follow-up, no further follow-ups, into those actions”. He accepted that he was “...probably guilty of using a similar result on quite a number of actions because it had reached the stage where it was an administrative process to close those off, as the decision had perhaps long been made that those particular lines of enquiry into Greville Janner were not going to be followed”. The witness said that there would not have been any difficulty in marking the actions as having been closed off because “the SIO...has told me not to pursue this allegation” and said that he could not explain why he had not done that in this case. 
The witness said that on 28 November 2001, he and other officers attended a meeting with the CPS. The witness said that in advance of the meeting, he and the HOLMES team prepared schedules of allegations which sought to establish any corroborative information and to take into account any negative or potentially discrediting information. He said that he was able to recall that any allegations against Lord Janner did not form part of the meeting The witness said that there “may have been” a positive instruction not to discuss Lord Janner. Asked about the police’s approach to the allegations, the witness said that the Lord Janner allegations were “...not actively, and not to [his] knowledge” being buried. 
The witness accepted that JA-A6 and JA-A19 had both been discussed during the meeting with the CPS but said that he could not recall anyone mentioning the allegations concerning Lord Janner. He accepted it would be “quite a big thing” and that if it had been raised, he would have expected the CPS lawyer to question it and ask “Well, where's the evidence, where's the statement?””. The witness said that the records of the meeting with the CPS suggested that the CPS were not told about JA-A19’s statement S4C or JA-A6’s statement S101A. Referred to a decision that was made that JA-A19 and JA-A6 were unreliable, the witness accepted that that decision appeared to have been made without reference to their complaints against Lord Janner. 
Reflecting on the operation, the witness said that he had now formed the opinion that there was a “lack of desire” on the part of senior officers to pursue the allegations against Lord Janner. He said that another reason for this may have been the fact that there were a number of changes amongst the chief officers team during that period, which may have affected who was responsible for making those decisions. 
Asked whether he thought the allegations of JA-A19 and JA-A6 should have been pursued, the witness said “it would be difficult to defend a decision not to”. 
The witness was asked about a comment he made to an officer from Operation Dauntless in 2007 that Operation Magnolia would “keep coming back to haunt [him]”. He responded that it was a “fairly flippant” comment which he had made having been “...contacted repeatedly in the...years between the end of Operation Magnolia and [2007]”. The witness said that he didn’t know whether the SIO had discussed it with a senior officer, but stated that he did know this had always been the SIO’s intention. The witness acknowledged that he had told the IOPC that he would have been “astonished” if the SIO had not mentioned it to senior officers, as it was “fairly routine” to discuss things with the Deputy Chief Constable in other cases with which he had since been involved. 
The witness said that based on what he had seen and heard over the last few years, it was “...hard not to be suspicious” that the allegations against Lord Janner had been “...brushed under the carpet”. He said that the factors that led him to this conclusion were “....largely based on [his] subsequent knowledge” and that “...at the time... [he] was inexperienced and perhaps not well equipped to question things anyway”. He explained that “...the fact there is 
no policy decision, no record of discussions with chief officers, and of course now the delay in the particular statement being moved through the system, it is hard to give any other explanation for that, for those things”. 
The witness was asked whether he recalled hearing derogatory comments being made about witnesses and said that he did not and that he would have challenged anyone if they had done so.
 
Witness 3 


The Inquiry also heard further evidence from a retired Temporary Detective Superintendent from Leicestershire Police, who first gave evidence to the Inquiry on 13 October 2020 . For the same reasons, his evidence was given in CLOSED session. The following is a summary of those parts of his evidence that can be stated in OPEN: 
The witness explained that he was the SIO of Operation Enamel, the investigation into allegations of child sexual abuse by Lord Janner conducted by Leicestershire Police between late 2012 and early 2016. 
The witness explained that Operation Enamel had carried out enquiries that had not been completed during earlier Leicestershire police investigations into allegations concerning Lord Janner. 
Among those enquiries were efforts that led to the identification of material linking Lord Janner with a complainant. An additional witness also came forwards, following publicity about the DPP’s April 2015 decision not to bring proceedings against Lord Janner, stating that she had worked in a hotel and, on one occasion, had seen Lord Janner in bed with a teenage boy. 
In respect of the allegations of JA-A19, the witness explained that these included: tracing witnesses that JA-A19 said he had made disclosures to at the time; making further enquiries concerning two children who were said to have been taken with JA-A19 to a property at which abuse was alleged to have taken place; visiting that property; tracing the former occupants of that property, who were interviewed under caution and their computers seized and searched; and following up other lines of enquiry in relation to trying to trace a further witness. The witness confirmed that although these additional enquiries were carried out, they “...didn’t yield much evidence that supported” JA-A19’s complaint. 
The witness said that the police also carried out the following additional enquiries in respect of JA-A6’s allegations which included: taking further statements from JA-A6; examining his medical and mental health records; tracing witnesses and making enquiries relating to the 
Moel Llys children’s home. The witness explained that Operation Enamel was unable to find any evidence “whatsoever” to support the contention that JA-A6 had severe mental health problems. The witness stated that Operation Enamel also contacted the couple which ran Moel Llys children’s home, as well as 19 ex-residents and 5 members of staff. The witness said that none of these witnesses could confirm having seen Lord Janner at the home, or that children were taken from the home to go swimming. The witness said that this evidence was “quite stark” and that he made a decision not to progress the investigation into JA-A6’s allegations further, at that point. The witness clarified that Operation Enamel did however continue to seek evidence or information that may have supported or corroborated JA-A6’s account. In summary, the witness confirmed that it was therefore an “interim decision” not to progress the case to pre-charge advice from the CPS. 
The witness said that additional enquiries concerning JA-A8’s allegations were also carried out, including: taking additional statements from JA-A8; making further medical enquiries and identifying and contacting other witnesses to whom JA-A8 claimed to have made disclosures. The witness said that he could not recall why it was decided not to conduct an ‘Achieving Best Evidence’ (ABE) interview, although he did recall that a number of witnesses did not want to be videoed for interviews. In relation to the medical evidence, the witness explained that Operation Enamel re-visited the medical experts and asked them to confirm what they had said previously. The witness explained that further witnesses were also traced and spoken to 
A file was sent to the CPS, which included the allegations in respect of JA-A19 and JA-A8 to determine whether or not charges should be brought.
 
Witnesses 4, 5 and 6
 
The Inquiry received read evidence from a journalist and heard oral evidence from two other witnesses who were involved with the local Labour party in Leicestershire. Their evidence concerned attempts to bring allegations concerning Lord Janner to the attention of individuals within the national and regional Labour Party. For the reasons given previously, their evidence was given in CLOSED session. It is not possible to provide an OPEN summary of their evidence. 
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 29.10.20 13:23

Day off for the hearing today, so chance to read again and take it all in.
 
Mark Watts’ continues:
 
A day off for Janner hearings of ‪#CSAinquiry.
 
Instead, extra & final hearing day on child sexual exploitation by organised networks – for core participants’ closing statements.
 
Meanwhile, shocking evidence in Janner hearing behind closed doors yesterday:
 
(Quote Tweet
Day 13 of Janner hearings at ‪#CSAinquiry in 33 tweets…
 
The police officer who spotted Greville Janner in a children’s home with a boy. 
 
The hotel worker who saw Greville Janner in bed with a boy.
 
I wonder why these hearings are behind closed doors. 
 
‪https://twitter.com/MarkWatts_1/status/1321360553260969985…)
 
@MarkWatts_1
Chris Jacobs, for Jon Wedger + Maggie Oliver, & Caoilfhionn Gallagher, for Centre for Women’s Justice, rip into Gregor McGill, CPS director of legal services, at ‪#CSAinquiry for what they see as continued victim-blaming re “Amber” who was put on a criminal indictment in Rochdale.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

OPERATION FERBRIDGE:  Timebomb at Elms Guest House - Page 6 Empty Re: OPERATION FERBRIDGE: Timebomb at Elms Guest House

Post by Doug D on 31.10.20 12:10

Mark Watts Day 14:
 
Day 14 of Janner hearings at #CSAinquiry in 37 tweets…


“You should call this what it is: a cover-up.” 


Closing submissions to Alexis Jay and #CSAinquiry by core participants’ lawyers.
 
 
Day 14 of Janner hearings of ‪#CSAinquiry:
 
Closing statements on behalf of core participants in final day of hearings.
 
Some of it in open, some behind closed doors.
 
Catch up on astonishing disclosures from my thread on Day 13:
 
(· Oct 28
Day 13 of Janner hearings at ‪#CSAinquiry in 33 tweets…
 
The police officer who spotted Greville Janner in a children’s home with a boy. 
 
The hotel worker who saw Greville Janner in bed with a boy.
 
I wonder why these hearings are behind closed doors. 
 
‪https://twitter.com/MarkWatts_1/status/1321360553260969985)
 
Finally, statement of Matt Hewson, SIO of ‘Operation Enamel’, has finally been adduced.
 
I revealed the key points from it before Janner hearings began:
 
(· Oct 11
Det Supt Matt Hewson, SIO for ‘Operation Enamel’, which investigated Lord Janner from 2012, is due to give evidence at Janner hearings of ‪#CSAinquiry on Tuesday. 
 
He is only witness due to testify in the open next week, but he will give some evidence behind closed doors. 1/17)
 
Nick Stanage, representing 13 complainant core participants, in closing submissions talks of how the allegations against Greville, later Lord Janner, amounted to an “institutional tucking of the forelock well into the 21st Century. 
 
It was “foolish” and “disgraceful”, he said.
 
The investigations into Greville Janner were “oddly incurious”, Nick Stanage tells #CSAinquiry.
 
At both police and CPS, he adds: “The failings were not minor, they were inexcusable.”
 
Police failed to arrest Greville, later Lord, Janner or even interview him in second and third investigations into him, says Nick Stanage. 
 
There was, he tells ‪#CSAinquiry, “no good reason or explanation for that decision.”
 
Nick Stanage to ‪#CSAinquiry: “The deference shown to Lord Janner offered him a series of timid and incomplete investigations.” 
 
“This was objectionable in principle, but also damaging in practice.”
 
Right through to 2015, says Nick Stanage, “delay and insouciance prevailed” at the highest levels at the CPS towards the evidence against Lord Janner.
 
Nick Stanage to ‪#CSAinquiry: Lord Janner was a case of “justice denied”.
 
William Chapman, representing another 13 complainant core participants, says that ‪#CSAinquiry noted the culture of deference shown to prominent people in the Westminster investigation. 
 
“We doubt that the culture has changed that much,” he says
 
On the failure to pursue allegations against Greville Janner in statements by witnesses in early investigations, William Chapman tells ‪#CSAinquiry: “Their evidence was deliberately suppressed.”
 
“You should call this what it is: a cover-up.”
 
Even by the third police investigation into Lord Janner, says William Chapman, decision-making at the CPS was woeful, even “perfunctory”.
 
Lord Janner enjoyed “preferential treatment”, says William Chapman at ‪#CSAinquiry.
 
“There was no attempt to deal with Janner as with any other member of the public.”
 
William Chapman at ‪#CSAinquiry tells ‪#CSAinquiry that Greville Janner MP would stand up in Parliament to call for more money for Leicestershire Police. The chief constable at the time could hardly have been impartial. 
 
“Janner got away with never having to face the evidence.”
 
David Enright, representing one complainant core participant, tells ‪#CSAinquiry that Greville Janner “enjoyed the halo effect of high office”. 
 
The inquiry will have to decide, he says, whether it was conspiracy. But there is no doubt that institutions did “pull their punches”.
 
David Enright tells ‪#CSAinquiry that his client sees the failure to pursue Greville Janner repeatedly showed examples of “disadvantaged child bias”.
 
Chris Jacobs, representing six complainant core participants, tells ‪#CSAinquiry that the case of Greville Janner was a “perfect storm of failure by police, CPS and social services that blighted the lives of my clients.” 
 
Janner was “given the benefit of the doubt at every turn.”
 
Chris Jacobs reminds ‪#CSAinquiry how paedophiles such as Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith could exploit their status to sexually abuse disadvantaged children. 
 
He suggested that Lord Janner fell into the same category.
 
Edward Brown, representing CPS, says that there is no scope for ‪#CSAinquiry to say that any individually there acted “improperly”. 
 
He points to what he calls the ultimate “successful prosecution” of Lord Janner. [This can only be a reference to the prosecution in 2015].
 
Edward Brown suggests to ‪#CSAinquiry that admissions made by CPS in a public statement in 2015 over the failure to prosecute Lord Janner were made without having the “full picture”.
 
Edward Brown tells ‪#CSAinquiry of the overhaul of practices re sexual cases at CPS, saying: “The CPS of today is a very different place.”
 
Alex Verdan, representing Leicestershire county council, admits to ‪#CSAinquiry that staff failed to listen to children, leading to more abuse.
 
”They were typical of the time, but they were commonplace at Leicesterhire.”
 
Leicestershire county council is “unrecognisable” today after a programme of reforms, says Alex Verdan. 
 
He asks ‪#CSAinquiry to make no finding re the “burning” of records at one children’s home, saying that it was not supported by the evidence.
 
Samantha Leek, representing Leicestershire Police, tells ‪#CSAinquiry how it, unlike previous investigations or reviews, is the first opportunity to see the picture of the “gradual accumulation” of allegations against Greville Janner.
 
Samantha Leek tells ‪#CSAinquiry that it is “regrettable” that Lord Janner was never prosecuted.
 
Leicestershire Police, as a result of Operation Enamel, became concerned about how previous investigations into Greville Janner had been pursued, says Samantha Leek. Hence the referrals to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC).
 
Leicestershire Police recognises that the failure to pursue allegations against Greville Janner “may have prolonged or added to the suffering of complainants,” Samantha Leek tells ‪#CSAinquiry. The force is sorry about that.
 
Eleanor Grey, representing Labour party, says that her client is “struck” by the hurt caused to complaiants and Lord Janner’s family by the failure to have had a proper adjudication on the allegations against him.
 
Eleanor Grey tells ‪#CSAinquiry: “The Labour party did not have any particular policies on how to report or tackle allegations of CSA.” 
 
The previlaing response was that it was for the police. 
 
The party has since overhauled its policies and practices, she says.
 
Eleanor Grey to ‪#CSAinquiry: “The absence of charges would not now necessarily bring the matter to a close.”
 
The policy now is that the Labour party would investigate allegations in such a case.
 
Danny Friedman, representing Lord Janner’s daughter, Laura Janner-Klausner, suggests to ‪#CSAinquiry that “vulnerable people that may have been abused may have many years later transposed their pain and need for compensation on to Janner.”
 
Danny Friedman tells ‪#CSAinquiry that later decision-makers were in error to claim that previous decisions not to pursue Greville Janner were wrong.
 
Danny Friedman to ‪#CSAinquiry: Janner should, indeed, have been interviewed when he had capacity to answer questions, and the fact that he was not was not his fault.
 
 “Based on the available evidence at the time,” Danny Friedman tells ‪#CSAinquiry “honest professionals” concluded that there was no basis for prosecuting Janner.
 
He warns that inquiry will “exacerbate myths” about him.
 
Chris Daw, representing Mick Creedon, tells ‪#CSAinquiry: “You may find that a number of institutions let down victims of abuse.” 
 
He would agree, and indeed he had battled in his career to tackle child sexual abuse.
 
Austin Welch, representing Christopher Thomas, SIO of ‘Operation Dauntless’, stresses to ‪#CSAinquiry that his client was not a lawyer and he was entitled to rely on advice given by CPS. He was not seeking to end or limit the investigation.
 
And that is it for the open hearings in Janner investigation of ‪#CSAinquiry.
 
Lawyers for core participants will make further closing submissions behind closed doors after the lunch adjournment. 
 
Nothing said about when report may be published.
 
Following my last tweet, Alexis Jay has just popped into open session briefly to say that ‪#CSAinquiry will publish Janner report by the Autumn of next year. 
 
She formally closed the Janner hearings.
 
………………………….
 

:heavy_check_mark:@InquiryCSA
 
That brings our three-week #JannerResponses hearing to a close. We will publish a transcript of today's Open session proceedings later.
There will be no Closed session summary today as we did not hear any evidence, only closing submissions.



........................
 
Seventy one page summary of the days proceedings can be found here if you can be bothered to read it:
 
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/23001/view/public-hearing-transcript-friday-30-october-2020.pdf
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3314
Activity : 4769
Likes received : 1201
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum