The Janner decision damages everyone concerned

There are so many layers of tawdriness, incompetence and betrayal in the case of Lord Janner, and so much that seems to point to an Establishment cover-up, that, at a time when we’ve become almost inured to cases involving allegations of historic child abuse, this one is capable of tipping us over the edge.

Lord Janner has not been found guilty of sexual crimes, and his family say he is “totally innocent of any wrongdoing”. But the Crown Prosecution Service, a body independent of government, believe there is enough evidence for him to stand trial on 22 serious offences against nine victims – children and young adults – between 1969 and 1998. The final alleged assault occurred a year after Tony Blair elevated this former Labour MP to the House of Lords.

The current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders (pictured), has declared that Lord Janner, an 86-year-old dementia sufferer, is not fit to stand trial, so there will be no chance to test his family’s assertion (how can they be so certain, anyway?), or for Lord Janner’s name to be cleared, or, most importantly, for justice to be done for his alleged victims, or for the public at large.

What are we to make of all this? On face value, it’s a scandal. On further examination, it’s an even bigger scandal. This is not a case where allegations have suddenly surfaced, with accusers coming forward after decades. During the trial of a sex criminal called Frank Beck in 1991, Greville Janner, as he was then, was named by the defendant as being a child abuser. Beck, the director of a children’s home, was sentenced to five life terms, and Janner was interviewed by the police. He reportedly replied “no comment” to all the questions put to him, and that was that.

Janner’s colleagues in the House of Commons came to his support, applauding when he said there wasn’t “a shred of evidence” in the accusations against him. I’d like to know now on what they based this support. A forensic examination of the allegations and any evidence? Or blind support for one of their own? This is a consistent thread throughout this saga.

Lord Janner was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2009, but continued to serve in the Lords until just over a year ago. Which brings us to Saunders’ decision that, despite the case having passed the evidential requirements, it was not in the public’s interest because the defendant was incapable of engaging with the court process. But what about the greater public interest? And why should the CPS alone make this decision, rather than refer it to the judiciary? If justice cannot be done (and who knows whether Lord Janner is fit enough to stand trial?), it must be seen to be acting in the interests of the victims.

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP whose dogged investigations exposed Cyril Smith as a paedophile, is leading the call for this case to be heard. He says the refusal to take Lord Janner to trial is “damaging public confidence”. He vastly understates the case. With every case of alleged sex abuse by a high-profile individual, the public has gone on a journey from incredulity to revulsion. With this one, I cannot be alone in going straight to barely controllable rage.