Open Session IICSA Inquiry-Lord Janner Preliminary Hearing 20 February 2020 1 Thursday, 20 February 2020 1 preliminary hearing will take place in two parts. The 2 (10.30 am) 2 first part will be an open hearing on largely the same 3 (In open session) 3 terms as the three previous preliminary hearings we have 4 Welcome and opening remarks by THE CHAIR 4 had. The only difference is that the open hearing has 5 THE CHAIR: Good morning, everyone. I am Alexis Jay and 5 no live feed, for reasons that will be explained. The 6 I am the chair of this public inquiry. Sitting with me 6 second part will be a closed hearing, which will proceed 7 are the other panel members of the inquiry: 7 in private. There will be a 15-minute mid-morning break 8 Professor Sir Malcolm Evans, Ivor Frank and 8 between the open hearing and the closed hearing where 9 Drusilla Sharpling. 9 some adjustments will be made. 10 On behalf of the inquiry, I welcome you all to this, 10 If this hearing has not concluded before 1.00 pm, we 11 the fourth preliminary hearing in the investigation into 11 will take a break for lunch. Directions arising from 12 institutional responses to allegations of child sexual 12 the hearing will be published on the inquiry's website 13 abuse made against the late Lord Janner of 13 shortly after the hearing, as will the hearing 14 Braunstone QC. 14 transcript for the open part. 15 The purpose of this fourth preliminary hearing is to 15 As I did at the third preliminary hearing, I wish, 16 hear an update from counsel to the inquiry on an issue 16 from the outset, to remind everyone that I expect those 17 that has arisen in the investigation which impacts on 17 appearing before the inquiry, and in particular those 18 its future, and to hear submissions from counsel to the 18 who have been granted core participant status, to 19 inquiry and from core participants about how the 19 conduct themselves appropriately. As ever, there are 20 investigation should adapt to respond to this, including 20 the strongest of emotions on all sides in this 21 whether or not it should be discontinued. The structure 21 investigation, and there exist diametrically opposed but 22 of the hearing is set out in the hearing agenda. 22 deeply-held views. I trust that all parties and their 23 For reasons which counsel to the inquiry have 23 legal representatives will exercise sensitivity and 24 explained in their written submissions shared with core 24 restraint in advancing their submissions and will treat 25 participants and will now be explained openly, this 25 all participants with respect. Page 1 Page 2 1 I also make clear that the restriction orders that 1 Home Office by Ms Reeves. Michael Creedon by Mr Daw QC 2 I made on 23 March 2018 and 18 September 2019 remain in 2 and Mr Welch. Michael Perry is in person but not in 3 force. Both of these restriction orders are to be found 3 attendance. Mr Christopher Thomas, who has recently 4 on the inquiry website. 4 become a core participant, is represented also by 5 I stress in particular that nothing must be said or 5 Mr Daw QC and Mr Welch. 6 reported publicly about proceedings in today's closed 6 Dr Butler is represented by Mr Hynes QC. The estate 7 hearing that breaches the Sexual Offences (Amendment) 7 of the late Lord Janner of Braunstone QC and Rabbi Laura 8 Act 1992 or the restriction order that I made 8 Janner-Klausner and Marion Janner OBE are represented by 9 in September 2019. Publication for these purposes 9 Mr Friedman QC and Mr Butler. Daniel Janner QC is in 10 includes publication on social media. 10 person, but not in attendance today. Howe & Co and 11 I now invite leading counsel to the inquiry, 11 Affinity Law, on behalf of a number of complainant core 12 Mr Altman QC, to provide us with an update on the 12 participants, are represented by Mr Jacobs. 13 investigation and to make his submissions. Please go 13 Slater & Gordon, on behalf of a number of complainant 14 ahead, Mr Altman. 14 core participants, are represented by Mr Stanage. 15 Submissions by MR ALTMAN 15 Finally, Simpson Millar, on behalf of a number of 16 MR ALTMAN: Thank you, chair. First, let me introduce the 16 complainant core participants, are represented by 17 representatives of the core participants in this 17 Mr Chapman. 18 investigation. The Crown Prosecution Service is 18 Chair, the last preliminary hearing in this 19 represented by Mr Brown QC. The Independent Office for 19 investigation took place on 24 September last. The key 20 Police Conduct is represented by Mr Boyle QC. 20 issue on that occasion was whether the investigation 21 Leicestershire County Council, by Mr Verdan QC and 21 could proceed to public hearings this month in light of 22 Ms King QC. The Chief Constable of Leicestershire is 22 the decision of the Independent Office of Police Conduct 23 today represented by Ms Meredith. 23 to refer one individual to the Crown Prosecution 24 The Labour Party is represented by Ms Grey QC. The 24 Service. You made a determination on 9 October in which 25 Secretary of State for Education by Ms Wilsdon. The 25 you adjourned the proposed public hearings until October Page 3 Page 4 1 (Pages 1 to 4) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London, EC4A 1JS Open Session IICSA Inquiry-Lord Janner Preliminary Hearing 20 February 2020 1 of this year, primarily in order to allow the CPS time 1 someone as a complainant of child abuse. 2 to make a decision on the case that was referred to 2 We have made extensive written submissions on the 3 them. 3 1992 Act, which I am not going to repeat here. None of 4 You also ordered this further preliminary hearing to 4 the core participants has challenged our interpretation 5 hear submissions on a number of matters raised by 5 of the legal provisions of that Act, although some have 6 counsel to the inquiry in our submissions and, in short, 6 questioned how they apply to the facts relevant to this 7 these concerned these matters: first, should the public 7 investigation. I will return to that in due course, but 8 hearings go ahead; second, if they do, what should they 8 for the aid of public understanding, I make the 9 cover; and, third, how should certain procedural 9 following points about the effect of the 1992 Act. 10 questions be resolved? 10 Parliament passed the 1992 Act in order to make it 11 I will return to each of these questions later in 11 easier for complainants of sexual abuse to come forward 12 the course of these submissions. However, since your 12 with allegations. They did this by providing lifelong 13 determination, a further issue has arisen which has 13 anonymity for any such complainant. The 1992 Act has 14 affected the future of this investigation. It is an 14 been amended to ensure that anonymity covers any matter 15 issue that we highlighted in our written and oral 15 that might lead to someone being identified as 16 submissions in September last year. In summary, an 16 a complainant -- not just their name or address, but any 17 individual who has made complaints of child sexual abuse 17 piece of information that could lead members of 18 against Lord Janner has informed us that they wish to 18 the public to identify them: so-called jigsaw 19 assert their full right to anonymity. 19 identification. The courts have interpreted the 1992 20 This decision will have a major impact on how much 20 Act broadly, so that any publication that risks 21 of any hearings in this investigation can take place in 21 compromising anonymity will be a criminal offence unless 22 public. The reason for this is that the Sexual Offences 22 the complainant in question has given written consent to 23 (Amendment) Act 1992, as amended, makes it a criminal 23 it, or unless certain exemptions relating to criminal 24 offence to put into the public domain "any matter" that 24 trials apply. 25 "is likely to lead members of the public to identify" 25 The 1992 Act covers all aspects of the work of Page 5 Page 6 1 the inquiry -- any report or document published by the 1 "In the particular circumstances relating to one 2 inquiry, anything said by lawyers during hearings, any 2 complainant [in this investigation], his/her decision to 3 answers given by witnesses, any tweet or article 3 exercise his/her lawful right to anonymity means that 4 published by journalists covering the hearings. In each 4 extensive redactions will have to be made to evidence 5 and all of those examples, if someone puts into the 5 that is to be placed into the public domain. The 6 public domain any matter that risks compromising the 6 complainant was an individual who was identified as an 7 anonymity of a complainant, they commit a criminal 7 alleged victim of child sexual abuse allegedly committed 8 offence unless they have that complainant's written 8 by Lord Janner. The allegations concerning the 9 consent to the publication of the material.