The director of public prosecutions has been forced to defend her decision not to prosecute Greville Janner after a senior counsel successfully argued that the peer should be charged with historical child abuse offences.

Alison Saunders said she had “demonstrated her personal commitment to tackling the sexual abuse of children” but did not apologise after she became the first DPP to have a major decision reviewed and overturned.

The independent review, conducted by David Perry QC, concluded that it was in the public interest to bring proceedings before a criminal court.

It means Lord Janner could face a trial of the facts, in which a jury hears the evidence against an individual considered too ill for a full trial. This is expected to cover 22 offences allegedly committed in the 1960s, 70s and 80s by Janner, who now has dementia.

Saunders is facing calls to resign from some MPs and those who claim they were abused by the former Labour MP. They say she did not accept advice from a senior lawyer in April that the Crown Prosecution Service should prosecute Janner and had failed to take the wishes of Janner’s alleged victims into account.

Saunders said in a statement that she had hoped the alleged victims would be able to give evidence as part of the Lowell Goddard public inquiry into historical child abuse claims, which was ordered by the home secretary, Theresa May, in February.

Saunders told the BBC she would not resign, pointing out that it was she who referred the decision to Perry.



“I don’t think this is a decision I should resign over. It is one I took very carefully and with the victims at the heart of that,” she said.

“The review has concluded that this forum [Lowell Goddard], albeit a public one, cannot substitute for the adjudication of the courts. I accept the outcome of the review and will now be bringing this prosecution to allow for that adjudication to happen.”



A statement from the CPS said the case against Janner would begin with a hearing at Westminster magistrates court on 7 August.

It will be the first time that allegations against Janner – which have been the subject of three failed police investigations – will be aired in a courtroom.

The 86-year-old peer’s family strongly denies claims he used his position as an MP to abuse vulnerable young boys at a children’s home.



Saunders said in April that Janner would have been charged with a string of sex offences against children, but it was not in the public interest to do so because he had been diagnosed with dementia and was unfit to enter a plea.

It later emerged that she had rejected the advice of the sex offences expert Eleanor Laws QC, who suggested that he should be charged.

Saunders’ decision was challenged by alleged victims of Janner in the right to review process.

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who first named Cyril Smith as a paedophile in parliament, told the Guardian the DPP should step down. “Alison Saunders has brought the criminal justice system into disrepute. She did not take into account the alleged victims in this case.”

Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion, questioned Saunders’ initial decision. “Serious questions need to be asked about Alison Saunders’ judgment in this case, especially given that the CPS had previously acknowledged that the facts of the case passed its evidential test.”

Liz Dux, the solicitor who represents some of the alleged victims, said: “Our clients have waited long enough for their very serious allegations to be brought before a court. They have felt deeply frustrated by the criminal justice system.”



Janner, the former MP for Leicester West, will face charges related to alleged offences of buggery and indecent assault committed against children between 1963 and 1988. ‎

The youngest alleged victim was an eight-year-old boy at the time. Janner is charged with indecently assaulting him between 1969 and 1970, and of buggery against him between 1963 and 1969. Another alleged victim was nine, while the others ‎were aged between 12 and 16.

Perry, one of the country’s most respected prosecutors, ‎agreed with Saunders that the peer’s ill health meant Janner would be deemed unfit to stand trial and that no action could be taken against him. But they disagreed over whether it was in the public interest to bring charges. Perry said that charging Janner would have a “potential deterrent effect” on future offenders and would allow the alleged victims to tell their stories in court. It is still possible that a judge could throw out the case against Janner if his lawyers successfully argue against a trial of the facts, halting any need for evidence or testimony from his alleged victims.

Lawyers for Janner will be able to contest the evidence before a ruling as to his guilt or otherwise is made. A finding of guilt could be made but a conviction is unlikely because of Janner’s health. ‎