Did the Prince of Wales intervene on behalf of the child abuser Bishop Peter Ball?

Yesterday, 31st December 2015, the Crown Prosecution Service published a number of letters sent by public figures in support of Bishop Peter Ball who was convicted of multiple child abuse offences in October 2015.

The letters published by the CPS can be found online here:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03538/bishop_3538543a.pdf

At the time of writing this post the letters cannot be found (at least by me) on the Crown Prosecution Service web site.

Missing from the letters available on the Daily Telegraph web site is any letter from a member of the Royal Family, despite the supposed existence of such a letter being mentioned in Court proceedings.

A spokesman on behalf of the Prince of Wales stated, "The Prince of Wales made no intervention in the judicial process on behalf of Peter Ball.".

See Bishop and a REAL VIP sex abuse scandal: How 'Royal', ex-Cabinet ministers and former law chief 'supported' cleric jailed yesterday for crimes against boys   for the source of the preceding quote.

The same article points out that the spokesman "failed to deny there had been a letter in support of Ball".

Having read a number of reports on the matter it is unclear to me whether the alleged letter from a member of the Royal Family was sent in 1992-93 or more recently.

Given that Ball was merely cautioned in 1993 no "judicial process" took place at that time. So the Clarence House spokesman could be telling the truth but, at the same time, deceiving the public.

Similarly, the Prince of Wales could have written a letter in support of Ball more recently which did not affect the "judicial process".

It seems to me to be a hugely important question as to whether the Heir to the Throne acted in support of a paedophile.

It also seems to me to be important to know whether in 2015 the Prince of Wales sought to deceive the public about his possible past support for Peter Ball.

Thank you, Simon Danczuk

This morning I learned that Simon Danczuk had decided to "step back" from his campaigning work on exposing the extent and depravity of child abuse in Britain's political classes due to the personal toll that his work had taken on him.

See, for example,  MP Simon Danczuk to step back from child abuse campaign.

I was sad to hear that news.

I want to put on record my thanks to Mr. Danczuk for his enormous amount of hard work on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Danczuk, that you didn't turn your back on this issue when others, including many of your fellow Members of Parliament, have done so.

Thank you, Mr. Danczuk, that you took the time personally to listen to survivors of child abuse, despite the emotional toll that such listening takes.

Thank you, Mr. Danczuk, that you weren't silent when others were pressurising you to silence your criticisms of people like Leon Brittan.

Thank you, Mr. Danczuk, that you exposed the evils of the conduct of Cyril Smith. For me, your book "Smile for the camera" was a gripping (and horrifying) read.

You are wise to take time to deal with the emotional exhaustion that you're suffering from. It seems to me that it's an inevitable conseequence of seriously facing up to the evil of child abuse.

I don't assume you're a perfect human being but I do want to thank you for your courage and perseverance.

I believe that many others will feel similarly grateful to you.

Take time to recharge your batteries.

Get well soon.

I hope that, having "stepped back", in time you'll be able to "step forward" again and rejoin the fight to establish the truth about VIP child abuse and its cover-up.

Did David Cameron help conceal Janner child abuse allegations in 1995?

In my most recent post, In 1995 did the Home Office suppress or conceal allegations of child abuse relating to Greville Janner?, I raised a number of questions about whether in 1995 the Home Office suppressed child abuse allegations regarding Greville Janner?

In this post I want to highlight this question:

Did David Cameron, then a Special Adviser to Home Secretary Michael Howard, play any part in 1995 in the suppression of child abuse allegations relating to Greville Janner?

It seems to me that some Member of Parliament should raise this matter with Mr. Cameron possibly at Prime Minister's Questions.

Could Mr. Cameron's discomfort about his past actions while at the Home Office go at least some way to explain his disreputable suggestion that the existence of a VIP padeophile ring was attributable to "conspiracy theorists"?

In 1995 did the Home Office suppress or conceal allegations of child abuse relating to Greville Janner?

The quantity of information relating to child abuse allegations can feel overwhelming at times.

In this post I want to explore some possibly important information which I hadn't previously given serious thought to which may place the Home Office at the centre of an alleged cover-up relating to alleged sexual offences by Greville Janner.

I won't address the substance of the allegations regarding Greville Janner. That is a matter for the "trial of facts" should such a process take place, as is currently anticipated.

The press report which is the foundation of this post is here:
Home Office chiefs ignored FOURTH warning on Janner: Officials were told of child sex claims in 1995 report

The facts, as reported by the Daily Mail, are

1. An unnamed MP in 1995 was contacted by letter regarding allegations of child abuse by Greville Janner
2. The MP (whom the article doesn't name) sent a "dossier" to the Home Office in 1995
3. The "dossier" consisted of (or included) 11 pages of "detailed notes"
4. The "dossier" wasn't confined to the Janner allegations but also named other alleged abusers
5. The "dossier" was discovered by the Home Office during a review in 2013
6. The "dossier" was passed to Leicestershire Police in 2013

It isn't explicitly stated in the article but I wonder if the dossier was found by the anonymous HMRC official who conducted a review of Home Office files.

I also wonder if the dossier was the foundation of the investigation by Leicestershire Police which has led us to the position where a "trial of facts" is contemplated.

A key question in my mind is what happened to the dossier in 1995.

Several questions arise including the following:

1. To whom was the dossier sent?
2. Was any reply sent to the MP?
3. Was the dossier seen by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard?
4. Was the dossier seen by Michael Howard's then special adviser, David Cameron (now Prime Minister)?
5. Was the dossier seen by Patrick Rock then special adviser to Michael Howard?
6. Which civil servants saw the dossier?
7. Was the dossier passed to the Police? If so, to which Police force was the dossier passed?
8. If the dossier was not passed to the Police who took the decision that it be withheld from the Police?

It seems to me that something went seriously wrong in 1995.

Was there a cover-up at the Home Office?

Who in the Home Office was responsible for the cover-up, assuming it happened?

It seems to me that the actions and/or failures to act of the Home Office in 1995 are an important issue to be considered by the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Misconduct in public office by Keith Vaz MP and Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions - Report to the Metropolitan Police

Today I have reported to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police what I believe to be serious criminal offences by Keith Vaz MP and Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions.

Those suspected offences relate to concealment of sustained, serious Police misconduct which, in turn, was used to conceal (alleged) child sexual offences.

A key figure in the "corrupt relationship" between the Metropolitan Police Service and the Independent Police Complaints Commission was Deborah Glass, the former Deputy Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The text of my letter to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey follows:

29th June 2015

To:

Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe

Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey

[By email]

Dear Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner,

1. Concealment of (alleged) child sexual offences and Police misconduct
2. Misconduct in public office and/or perversion of the course of justice by Keith Vaz MP
3. Misconduct in public office and/or perversion of the course of justice by Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions
4. Gross misconduct including suspected conspiracy to pervert the course of justice among multiple Metropolitan Police Service officers

I write to report to you as constables suspected misconduct in public office and/or perversion of the course of justice by Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and by Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions.

One effect of the perceived misconduct by Mr. Vaz and Ms. Saunders is to conceal a sustained pattern of misconduct in the Metropolitan Police.

A further effect of Mr. Vaz’s misconduct and that of Ms Saunders is to conceal allegations of child sexual offences.

Brief background

You are each, so I understand, familiar with much of the background so I don’t seek to set out a detailed sequence of events here.

The following account briefly summarises some of the relevant background as I understand it.

In 2007 or thereby alleged child sexual offences against a minor in the Hillingdon area were, so I understand, reported to the Metropolitan Police Service.

I have recently seen counsel’s opinion on the primary evidence which was to the effect that child sexual offences took place.

By a succession of stratagems the Metropolitan Police unlawfully suppressed proper investigation of these allegations and unlawfully concealed associated Police misconduct.

The matter was successively escalated.

In time alleged misconduct by Metropolitan Police Service officers was reported to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Following an allegedly unlawful intervention by the then Deputy Chair of the IPCC, Deborah Glass, a report of suspected perversion of the course of justice by Ms. Glass was made to the Metropolitan Police.

The complaint of suspected perversion of the course of justice by Ms. Glass was recorded as a Crime-Related Incident.

There then existed a “corrupt relationship” between Ms. Glass and the Metropolitan Police Service in that Ms. Glass was investigating the Metropolitan Police while the Metropolitan Police had a duty to investigate Ms. Glass.

Separately from the above I reported to Ms. Glass suspected Police misconduct relating, in part, to Bernard Hogan-Howe.

In June 2014 I wrote to Keith Vaz MP in the context of a Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into the Metropolitan Police Service regarding the “corrupt relationship” that existed between Ms. Glass and the Metropolitan Police Service.

The letter to Mr. Vaz was suppressed by Mr. Vaz and/or the Home Affairs Select Committee.

As a result of that failure to investigate, corruption in the Metropolitan Police and the concealment of child sexual offences by the Metropolitan Police were further concealed by Mr. Vaz and/or the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The effect of the perceived misconduct by Mr. Vaz was to conceal what I believe to have been a pattern of criminal misconduct both in the Metropolitan Police Service and in the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The effect of perceived misconduct by Mr. Vaz was to conceal (alleged) chld sexual offences.

Further, I wrote to Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, informing her of the “corrupt relationship” that existed between Deborah Glass and the Metropolitan Police Service.

In response I received a letter from the CPS telling me that they were to ignore the matter.

It seems to me that Mr. Vaz and Ms. Saunders each seriously breached public trust, in their respective roles as Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee and as Director of Public Prosecutions.

I believe that the failures in the conduct of Mr. Vaz and Ms. Saunders may fairly be characterised as either “misconduct in public office” and/or “perversion of the course of justice”.

Jurisdiction

Since I believe the misconduct by Mr. Vaz and Ms. Saunders took place in London, jurisdiction regarding the suspected offences would normally lie with the Metropolitan Police Service.

However, very serious conflicts of interest preclude investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service, at least in my opinion.

Conflicts of interest

It seems to me that there are serious conflicts of interest which apply to these suspected crimes by Mr. Vaz and Ms. Saunders.

First, there are organisational conflicts of interest.

The Metropolitan Police Service is subject to supervision by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The Metropolitan Police Service submits the results of its investigations to Ms. Saunders’ organisation with a view to possible prosecutions.

These organisational conflicts of interest preclude genuinely independent investigation by the Metropolitan Police of these serious allegations.

There are also personal conflicts of interest in that I believe that each of you, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, were party to the concealment of Police misconduct and the (alleged) child sexual offencs which that Police misconduct sought to conceal.

For example, I wrote to Sir Bernard on 17^th September 2014 regarding some elements of this complex cover-up.

Deputy Commissioner Mackey replied in a letter dated 24^th September 2014, in a letter in which, in my opinion, he sought to mislead me with respect to the “Corrupt relationship” that existed between the IPCC and the Metropolitan Police.

Taking both the organisational and personal conflicts of interest into account it seems to me that it is impossible for the Metropolitan Police credibly to investigate the suspected crimes by Mr. Vaz and Ms. Saunders.

Given the involvement of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in what seems to me to be a broader conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, any credible investigation must be carried out by a UK Police force outside England and Wales.

In my mind credible candidate organisations to carry out a criminal investigation are Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Other offences

I believe there is evidence of further offences by Mr. Vaz and Ms. Saunders.

I believe I can evidence at least one further count of misconduct in public office by Mr. Vaz.

I believe I can evidence a further count of misconduct in public office by Ms. Saunders.

In addition, at least one further member of the Home Affairs Select Committee may be party to the concealment of this matter. Despite a written request to the secretariat of the Home Affairs Select Committee the identity of that person is presently being concealed.

Making a statement

I am willing to make a formal statement on these matters to a Police force which is independent of the conflicts of interest enumerated  as described earlier.

Supporting documentation

I have a considerable body of supporting documents which I am willing to make available to a suitably independent investigating authority.

I believe that Mr. Michael Doherty would also be able to assist an independent Police investigation of this matter with respect to relevant documentation.

Distribution

This letter is a public document.

A copy is to be placed on my UK Child Abuse Inquiry blog here:

http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/misconduct-in-public-office-by-keith.html

I intend to send a copy of this letter to the Child Abuse Inquiry since I believe the perceived misconduct by Metropolitan Police Service officers, including yourselves, falls within the Terms of Reference of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

I am copying this letter to Mr. Michael Doherty so that he may consider whether he wishes to assist an independent Police investigation into these serious matters.

Actions requested of you

I request that you promptly acknowledge receipt of this letter. Hard copy preferred.

I ask that you each give careful consideration to the suspected crimes reported to you and that you also carefully consider the organisational and personal conflicts of interest which apply.

Once you have decided which external Police force is to investigate these serious suspected criminal offences I would be grateful if you would inform me in writing.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Cc

Child Abuse Inquiry

Mr. Michael Doherty

The timeline of (alleged) child abuse by Greville Janner. Is there a further story to be told?

According to comments made by Simon Danczuk MP in a recent House of Commons Debate, the first allegation of child abuse by Lord (Greville) Janner dates back to 1969.

See
Crown Prosecution Service
for the Hansard record of the recent Westminster Hall debate. Mr. Danczuk's comments begin at Column 213WH (scroll down in the Hansard record).

More precisely, the first evidenced allegation dates back to 1969.

That strikes me as odd.

Greville Janner was born in 1928.

It strikes me as odd, and inherently unlikely, that an alleged paedophile will commit his first offence at age 40 or 41.

It seems to me that there may be a further story to be told about the (alleged) child abuse by Greville Janner.

During the Second World War Greville Janner was evacuated to Canada.

According to the Wikipedia article about Lord Janner, Greville Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone,
Janner attended Bishop's College School, Lennoxville, Quebec.

Currently, there is a class action in a Quebec court relating to alleged child abuse at Bishop's College School in the 1950s and 1960s.

See
Alumni of Lennoxville private school reach out to alleged abuse victims
for a media report of the class action.

An obvious question is whether the alleged child abuse at Bishop's College School began in the 1940s when Greville Janner was a pupil there.

I am not aware of any direct evidence that it did, but it seems to me to be a question worthy of further careful thought and investigation.

At age 18 (in or around 1946) Janner went to Germany.

Post-war Germany was a chaotic place where many Germans were in desperate need and many were starving.

Could it be that Janner exploited the appalling conditions in Germany to carry out abuse in a setting where a representative of the British occupying power would be, in effect, "untouchable"?

I admit that is a speculative question.

Could it be that abusing German boys provided a means for Janner to exact some form of warped revenge against Germans?

Again, a speculative question. But Janner, it seems to me, had means, motive and opportunity.

And what of Janner's period at Cambridge University from around 1948 to 1952?

Is it credible that Janner first committed child abuse at age 40 or 41?

If, like me, you view that scenario as inherently unlikely perhaps you will agree that questions need to be asked about Greville Janner's conduct before 1969.

Concerns regarding Greville Janner and Keith Vaz MP - Report to the Metropolitan Police

There is huge public concern regarding the alleged multiple instances of child abuse carried out by Lord Greville Janner.

There is also much concern about how that alleged child abuse came to be covered up.

For many of those who have been told about Lord Janner's "dementia" something doesn't add up.

Below is a letter sent today to Assistant Commissioner Helen King of the Metropolitan Police Service trying, as best as I reasonably can, to identify the facts that suggest that "something doesn't add up" about the story about Lord Janner's dementia.

In 1991 Keith Vaz, presently Chair of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, tried to change the Law to conceal allegations of child abuse.

In my letter to Assistant Commissioner King I ask her to consider whether Mr. Vaz's actions (or failures to act) in the 1980s and in 1991 may constitute the common law offence of misconduct in public office, as set out in the Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines for that offence.

Here is the text of my letter to Assistant Commissioner King:

22^nd  June 2015

To:

Assistant Commissioner Helen King,

Metropolitan Police Service

[By email]

Dear Assistant Commissioner King,

1. Possible theft / fraud by Lord Janner of Braunstone
2. Possible conspiracy re the foregoing
3. Possible conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
4. Possible misconduct in public office by Keith Vaz MP and others
5. Possible concealment of child abuse by Keith Vaz MP
6. Possible conspiracy to defraud H.M. Revenue & Customs

I write to report to you as a constable suspected criminal offences with respect to reported actions by Lord Janner of Braunstone and/or by others some of whose identity I do not presently know.

Given the possibility that one or more criminal offences may have been committed I report these suspected offences to you for careful consideration and investigation.

As you will readily appreciate matters relating to Lord Janner, given that they relate directly or indirectly to multiple instances of alleged serious child abuse and/or the cover-up of such alleged child abuse, are of considerable public interest and concern.

The matters I raise with you are potentially of great seriousness, including the possibility of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice with respect to allegations of serious child abuse by Lord Janner.

These matters are of great complexity and/or subtlety since proper investigation of these matters may, of necessity, involve very careful consideration by counsel and medical expert witnesses with respect to whether or not any criminal offence has been committed.

The reported facts raise in my mind the suspicion that one or more criminal offences may have been committed as described in this letter.

The contrary possibility exists in that some or all of the actions which I consider might constitute criminal offences are, when fully investigated, fairly attributable to some unfortunate coincidence or some other set of circumstances whose characteristic(s) are not of a criminal nature.

Uncertainty regarding the facts

Currently, it seems to me to be impossible for any member of the public to establish with certainty key facts relating to the suspected criminal offences.

It seems to me that establishing the facts is properly a matter for the Metropolitan Police Service,

Hence my reporting to you these potentially serious suspected crimes.

However, as explained later in this letter, certain aspects of the matters which this letter covers may be properly considered only by a Police force external to England and Wales.

Longstanding “Dementia”

Reports suggest that Lord Janner of Braunstone was diagnosed with dementia in 2009.

It is reported that in April 2014 Lord Janner’s “dementia” was so severe that he could not be interviewed by Leicestershire Police with respect to the widely publicised allegations of multiple instances of serious child abuse by Lord Janner.

One question in the public mind, or in the mind of at least some members of the public, is whether Lord Janner’s “dementia” is a convenient fiction or is an embellishment of the facts with a view to Lord Janner escaping prosecution for the alleged child sexual offences.

Events of 2^nd and 3^rd June 2014

In yesterday’s Mail on Sunday it is reported that on 2^nd and 3^rd June 2014 Lord Janner claimed parking expenses seemingly in the sum of £64.80 on the basis that Lord Janner was on Parliamentary business.

A House of Lords spokesman is reported as saying that Lord Janner confirmed to them that on those dates he had been on Parliamentary business. It is unclear whether the clarification by Lord Janner was verbal or written.

It is further reported that “a representative of Lord Janner” confirmed that he (Lord Janner) had been “doing parliamentary work” on 2^nd and 3^rd June.

If it is genuinely the case that Lord Janner had dementia so severe that he could not be interviewed in April 2014 by the Police, it seems, at a minimum, very strange that he could genuinely have been on Parliamentary business almost two months later.

It seems to me that the way in which the situation is viewed could be clarified to a significant extent by the simple expedient of establishing the facts with respect to these two questions:

1. Did Lord Janner drive himself to the House of Lord on 2^nd June 2014, on 3^rd June 2014, on both or neither?
2. Were Lord Janner’s visits to the House of Lords on 2^nd June 2014 and 3^rd June 2014 genuinely on Parliamentary business or not?

Once those facts have been ascertained, other necessary investigation may follow.

Possible theft/fraud

If, on examination of the facts, it proves to be the case that Lord Janner was not, in fact, on Parliamentary business it seems to me that the sum of £64.80 was obtained by deception.

Once you are in possession of the full facts with respect to the events of 2^nd and 3^rd June 2014 I ask you carefully to consider whether a criminal offence was committed by Lord Janner and/or by some person or persons close to Lord Janner and/or acting on behalf of Lord Janner.

Whether or not a “conspiracy” may have existed would depend on the facts following appropriate investigation.

Possible conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

If it is the case that Lord Janner was on 2^nd June 2014 and/or 3^rd June 2014 able to drive himself across London to the House of Lords it seems to me to raise very serious doubts about the severity of any “dementia” suffered by Lord Janner, at least with respect to the early days of June 2014.

It would be remarkable if Lord Janner’s mental function in June 2014 was such as to allow him to drive across London while, allegedly, being so severely mentally impaired that he was unfit to be interviewed by Police two months earlier.

It raises the possibility that, at least in April 2014, the severity of Lord Janner’s dementia had been exaggerated so as to avoid him being questioned by the Police.

The question of whether or not any such “conspiracy” existed (to exaggerate the severity of Lord Janner’s supposed “dementia”) must depend on carefully establishing the facts, not least with respect to the sequence of events.

Possible misconduct in public office by Keith Vaz MP and others

The cover-up of alleged child abuse by Lord Janner goes back at least as far as 1991.

One element of that cover-up is the behaviour of Mr. Justice Jowitt.

My letter of 17th November 2014 to Chief Constable Simon Cole summarises my concerns regarding suspected perversion of the course of justice by Mr. Justice Jowitt.

See

http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/report-to-police-suspected-perversion.html

for a copy of my letter to Chief Constable Cole.

In 1991 a number of Members of Parliament acted in such a way so as to facilitate the cover-up of or the discrediting of alleged child abuse by Lord Janner.

Among Members of Parliament who made seemingly unsubstantiated statements of support for the then Greville Janner MP in the House of Commons were Keith Vaz MP, Alex Carlile MP and David Ashby MP.

I have looked at the statements made by MPs in the context of the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines with respect to the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

It seems to me that, at least arguably, all of the four criteria with respect to Misconduct in Public Office are satisfied:

1. Is the person concerned holder of a public office? Yes the Guidelines includes Member of Parliament as a public office.
2. Were the actions / failures done as a holder of a public office? Yes, Mr. Vaz and others made statements of support for the then Greville Janner MP in the House of Commons
3. Was the neglect or misconduct wilful? It seems to me that it was. It seems to me to be a nonsense to postulate that Mr. Vaz and others made statements, in effect, exonerating the then Mr. Janner without intending to do so. It seems to me that none of the MPS who made statements supporting the then Greville Janner MP had sufficient knowledge of the facts to support him unequivocally in the way that they did.
4. Is there reasonable explanation or excuse? It seems to me to be doubtful that there is.

I can find no legal precedent for considering statements of Members of Parliament in the context of the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

It occurs to me that, in the absence of precedent, your reflex response might be to reject the proposition.

However I ask you carefully to consider whether the facts justify the charging of Mr. Vaz and others with a count of misconduct in public office. I refer you to the Crown Prosecution Guidance on the matter.

With respect to Mr. Vaz (but not the other named MPs) there is evidence suggestive of a further count of misconduct in public office. At least that is my view.

Mr. Vaz attempted in 1991 to change the Law so as to conceal allegations of child abuse made in open court.

Mr. Vaz is an intelligent man and could not have been unaware that the effect of such concealment of child abuse allegations would be to protect those gulity of such offences (as well as those who might be innocent).

It seems to me that Mr. Vaz’s proposal was a serious breach of public trust.

I would expect a Member of Parliament to seek to expose child abusers.

In 1991 Mr. Vaz sought to protect child abusers by making it a requirement of the Law to conceal allegations of child abuse.

I ask you carefully to consider the facts and, with the benefit of counsel’s opinion. To come to a judgement as to whether papers on Mr. Vaz’s conduct should be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration.

Possible concealment of child abuse by Keith Vaz MP

In the preceding section I have raised the question of possible misconduct in public office in 1991 by Mr. Vaz as if it had no context.

However, there are reasons for potential concern regarding Mr. Vaz’s past which may, following thorough investigation, be indicative of a much more serious pattern of misconduct on the part of Mr. Vaz.

Let me explain.

In the early 1980s Mr. Vaz was employed successively as a solicitor for Richmond Council and as a senior solicitor for Islington Council.

I understand that Mr. Vaz’s responsibilities included child protection.

You will, I imagine, be aware of allegations that children were supplied from a Richmond Council children’s home to the notorious Elm Guest House and that children were trafficked from Islington Council children’s homes to Jersey and other locations to be abused.

I contacted Mr. Vaz in July 2014 and subsequently to ask him to answer questions which naturally arise with respect to his past roles as solicitor for Richmond Council and senior solicitor for Islington Council.

To the best of my knowledge Mr. Vaz has maintained a stony silence on these matters.

One way of summarising some of the areas of concern regarding Mr. Vaz’s conduct is to pose the following two questions:

1. Did Mr. Vaz, while a public servant (in his roles as solicitor for Richmond Council and Islington Council), at any time act in such a way as would have concealed from public knowledge of trafficking of children for those children to be abused?
2. Were the actions or failures to act by Mr. Vaz such as to impede or obstruct in the 1980s allegations of chld abuse with respect to children in homes run by Richmond Council and Islington Council?

I ask you carefully to consider whether the circumstantial evidence regarding Mr. Vaz’s conduct is sufficient to justify and/or require formal investigation by the Police.

If there were failures on the part of Mr. Vaz it seems to me that the question of misconduct in public office arises.

If Mr. Vaz acted in such a way as to impede criminal investigation of alleged child abuse then the question of perversion of the course of justice and/or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice arises.

Jurisdiction would normally lie with the Metropolitan Police Service, given the location of Richmond and islington.

I ask you carefully to consider whether this is properly a matter for investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service or by Operation Hydrant, headed by Chief Constable Simon Bailey or, probably better, investigation by a Police force external to England and Wales (see later in this letter).

Possible conspiracy to defraud H.M. Revenue & Customs

In this section I return to questions which relate to Lord Janner’s “dementia”.

Media reports refer to arrangements having been made after Lord Janner’s diagnosis of “dementia” to, if reports are correct, transfer property or other assets belonging to Lord Janner to other parties.

If Lord Janner was demented the question arises as to whether at the time he signed the relevant document(s) he did so with sufficient mental capacity for any such transfer to be lawful.

The possibility arises, at least in my mind, that there has been a conspiracy to defraud H.M. Revenue and Customs.

As mentioned earlier in this letter clarification of the facts regarding the sequence and nature of reported events is not possible for a concerned member of the public.

I ask you carefully to consider whether such matters are properly a matter for investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service.

If not, I ask you to consider whether you should draw these questions to the attention of an appropriate person in H.M. Revenue and Customs for assessment and possible investigation.

Counsel’s opinion(s)

In seeking any opinion of counsel on these complex matters I ask that you give very careful consideration to the matter of conflicts of interest.

You may already be aware that Lord Janner, Lord Carlile, Mr. Vaz and Lord Janner’s son are all, so I understand, current or past members of the legal profession.

As a result there will be at least the appearance of a relationship with many individuals who could otherwise provide counsel’s opinion to the Metropolitan Police Service on this matter.

Conduct of Keith Vaz MP – Conflicts of interest

You may be aware that Keith Vaz MP has recently been re-elected as Chair of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.

In that role Mr. Vaz has, among many other functions, an oversight role regarding the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Service.

It seems to me that the Metropolitan Police cannot credibly investigate Mr. Vaz given his present supervisory role with respect to the Metropolitan Police.

I ask you to give that matter very careful consideration so as to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest with respect to any action that you take or any decision you reach to take no action.

It seems to me that any Police force in England and Wales, including the National Crime Agency, would similar have a potential conflict of interest.

However, subject to any considerations unknown to me. it seems to me that Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are not under the supervision of Mr. Vaz’s committee.

My present preference would be that the Police Service for Northern Ireland investigates matters relating to Mr. Vaz given that Chief Constable Sir Stephen House of Police Scotland was formerly a senior officer in the Metropolitan Police.

Distribution

This letter is a public document.

A copy of it is on my UK Child Abuse Inquiry blog here:

http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/concerns-regarding-greville-janner-and.html

I am copying the letter to the Child Abuse Inquiry so that the Inquiry may assess whether any or all of the matters raised in this letter fall within the Terms of Reference of the Child Abuse Inquiry and whether any of the matters raised require to be investigated by the Police team headed by Chief Constable Simon Bailey.

I also intend copying this letter to Keith Vaz MP. Should Mr. Vaz have a reasonable explanation with respect to the possible counts of misconduct in public office then, if I understand the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines correctly, any need for the Metropolitan Police Service (or another Police force) to investigate the enumerated counts of suspected misconduct in public office might be avoided.

I am copying this letter to Kathryn Hudson, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, for information.

Actions requested of you

In the first instance I ask that you promptly acknowledge receipt of this letter. (Hard copy preferred)

Following careful consideration of the concerns that I raise in this letter I ask that you do the following:

1. Give careful consideration as to whether any or all of the concerns that I raise with you should be recorded as crimes or crime-related incidents.
2. Investigate the facts of the events of 2^nd and 3^rd June 2014 and, in the light of those facts, consider whether further investigation is required
3. Give careful consideration as to whether any criminal offence may have been committed by Lord Janner or those closely associated with him of the nature described earlier in this letter
4. Give careful consideration to the actions of David Ashby MP, Alex Carlile MP and Keith Vaz MP as to whether their seemingly unevidenced defence of Lord Janner in 1991 may constitute the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office
5. Investigate the actions and/or failures to act of Keith Vaz MP while employed successively by Richmond Council and Islington Council as a solicitor with responsibility for child protection  and/or consider whether that is a matter which should be referred by you to the team headed by Chief Constable Simon Bailey set up by the National Police Chiefs’ Council to assist the Child Abuse Inquiry.
6. Consider whether all matters relating to Keith Vaz MP should, due to the potential appearance of conflicts of interest, be referred for assessment by a Police force external to England and Wales
7. Carefully consider the circumstantial evidence relating to reported transfer of property by Lord Janner and consider whether the Metropolitan Police should investigate and/or whether it is a matter which you have a duty to refer to H.M. Revenue and Customs for assessment and/or investigation

Some aspects of this matter will take any honest Police officer a significant amount of time properly to assess and investigate.

I ask that as progess allows you keep me informed as to any decision you take and the basis for such decision(s).

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Cc

Child Abuse Inquiry

Chief Constable Simon Bailey

Keith Vaz MP

Kathryn Hudson, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards