Lord Greville Janner escapes child abuse charges again.

Lord Greville Janner of Braunstone, QC, will escape charges for the second time over alleged historic child sex crimes, as Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, will announce on Thursday that it is not in the public interest to put him on trial.

Crown Prosecution Service lawyers have spent nine months studying evidence gathered by Leicestershire police’s Operation Enamel and detectives have interviewed more than 20 men who claim they were abused by Lord Janner in their youth.

On Wednesday night police officers visited the alleged victims to inform them of the decision not to proceed to trial, The Times reported.

Leicestershire Police, who have led the latest investigation against the peer, branded the decision extremely worrying and said they are considering taking legal action to overturn it.

Assistant Chief Constable Roger Bannister of Leicestershire Police, who has overseen the investigation named Operation Enamel, said he believed the decision was "the wrong one".

He said: "I am extremely worried about the impact the decision not to prosecute him will have on those people, and more widely I am worried about the message this decision sends out to others, both past and present, who have suffered and are suffering sexual abuse.

"We are exploring what possible legal avenues there may be to challenge this decision and victims themselves have a right to review under a CPS procedure."

Their evidence must be lacking solidity if they're coming to a conclusion like this.

The evidential test: the CPS’s main conclusions in relation to Operation Enamel and the past investigations

12. With that explanation of functions in mind, the CPS has reached the following conclusions in relation to the evidential test, as a result of the investigations and reviews undertaken in this case.

In relation to the allegations investigated in Operation Enamel, the CPS considers that the evidential test was passed on the basis that the evidence is sufficient to have warranted charging and prosecuting Lord Janner in relation to the particular charges listed below; these relate to nine individuals:
14 indecent assaults on a male under 16 between 1969 and 1988
2 indecent assaults between 1984 and 1988
4 counts of buggery of a male under 16 between 1972 and 1987
2 counts of buggery between 1977 and 1988.



In relation to the other three previous investigations, the CPS also now considers that the evidential test was passed. It follows that the CPS judges that mistakes were made in the decision making at the time by both the Leicestershire police in 2002 and the CPS in 1991 and 2007. Lord Janner should have been prosecuted in relation to those complaints.

What would be the point, the guy has dementia I think that is punishment enough.

Apparently not.

What would be the point, the guy has dementia I think that is punishment enough.

Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, personally overruled senior lawyers to block a prosecution of the Labour peer Lord Janner on child abuse charges.

Lead counsel appointed to the case recommended that Lord Janner of Braunstone, QC, who has advanced dementia, should be charged with 16 sex offences against nine alleged victims spanning three decades from the 1960s. Until last month Leicestershire police, who investigated the case and interviewed 25 alleged victims, believed that the Crown Prosecution Service would press charges.

Where's the 'it was a Tory cover up' brigade.

I wasn't aware he had dementia. In which case he isn't fit to stand trial. He should have been prosecuted earlier.

“There were absolutely no reasons why he should have escaped charges for ever.”

“I don’t care what bloody age they are,”

Labour are the paedophile party.

I guess he's too ill to sue then?

I wonder if it's "Ernest Saunders rides again?"

He should, it's not too late though according to Janner.

Libel doesn't survive to the estate of a dead victim. Therefore even if those representing Janner due to his incapacity thought they had a cast iron case, they wouldn't sue because it won't get to trial in his lifetime.

You might care to read Hansard

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1991/dec/03/contempt-of-court

You would have to be a brave policeman, not to bottle this.

I'm not sure why it's been concluded that it's not in the public interest to put him on trial. Of course it is; how else do we take a stand against child sex abuse? Their evidence must be lacking solidity if they're coming to a conclusion like this.