The arrogance of Daniel Janner over the future of the Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry
On May 3 a final decision was made by Alexis Jay, the chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse not to hold a preliminary hearing into whether there should be inquiry into Lord Janner and Leicestershire institutions of allegations of child sexual abuse.
His son and his two sisters who had already had a meeting to press the case for such a preliminary hearing were understandably unhappy. They believe their father is innocent and just the subject of an historic witch hunt and no one needs to look into it.
And it is now clear that at some suitable date there will such an inquiry so long as it does not prejudice any other investigations still under way..
Daniel Janner decided to write an article for The Times denouncing the decision and protesting again that his father was " wholly innocent of any wrong doing " despite up to 33 people coming award and alleging they were victims of such acts.
Thus far a perfectly understandable stance from a close relative. But then he went so far to demand that the entire inquiry should be closed down and the chair was an incompetent. He also produced one sided evidence to justify his case.
As he said: " Professor Jay is not competent to chair the inquiry because she is not a lawyer and unqualified to make difficult complex quasi legal decisions. She is simply out of her depth."
And on the inquiry itself : "It veers between a bloated expensive irrelevance and a vindictive witch -hunt which will be condemned by history".
To back his case up he quoted the former judge Sir Richard Henriques in his defence : " prominent people..are more vulnerable to false complaints than others...They are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers, and those with mental health problems."
However he doesn't quote what Sir Richard said about his father's case: " In my opinion there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in 2007, and Janner should have been arrested and interviewed and his home searched.He should have been charged with offences of indecent assault and buggery."
So Times readers would not have known that the very judge warning of prominent people being accused of false complaints decided in his father's case that he should be prosecuted.
My main complaint about Daniel Janner is his arrogance. Just because the inquiry chair has decided not to do what he and his family alone wanted and not investigate his father - he decides the inquiry is a sham and the chair incompetent.
It is also extremely arrogant to say that only lawyers have the intelligence to chair inquiries. On that basis the Hillsborough inquiry would never have happened - and no one denies that has been a success.
A chair will anyway be guided by counsel and I notice the counsel to the inquiry was of the same opinion.
The inquiry is not perfect and has had serious troubles and run into serious problems with survivor groups - but the idea that the whole process should be stopped because one man doesn't like it is ridiculous. It would deny investigations and recommendations far beyond the Janner case.
I certainly will be keeping a critical look at what the inquiry does - but I am afraid abandoning it just because it won't do what the son of VIP tells it is no go territory.