Response To Peter Lewis of the CPS

Letter to my MP, John Penrose (Weston super Mare, Con)

Dear John

Peter Lewis’ letter on dementia

I am sorry to say that I do not find Mr Lewis’ letter of 4 November at all satisfactory.

In the first place he refers me to the Code for Prosecutors, while in the letter that you sent to him on 2 October I make reference to that Code, and point our that nowhere in the Code does it say that people with dementia are immune from prosecution for serious crimes. This suggests that Mr Lewis is not giving this correspondence his full attention.

Mr Lewis suggests that Janner’s case is still the subject to decision. However, the information that I have is that the police investigation into Janner was called off because the CPS decided to accept at face value his claim that he was dementing. Mr Lewis has not addressed my central and very valid point that since the Ernest Saunders case, due diligence when faced with a claim of dementia on the part of a suspect must include confirmation of dementia by the best investigations available.

To avoid all possible doubt, please put to Mr Lewis, or preferably to the DPP Alison Saunders, these two questions:
1 Will you henceforth require that in all cases that come before the CPS in which the accused claims to be suffering from dementia, referral is made immediately to appropriate medical experts in order to confirm or refute that diagnosis using the best available technology?
2 Will you apply this procedure to the cases of Janner and Varley?

With regard to the case of Raymond Varley, is Mr Lewis stating that the CPS did not make a recommendation to refuse extradition?
Did the CPS not have sight of a certificate of dementia submitted by Varley?
Is he saying that the certificate of dementia played no part in the CPS’ decision to refuse extradition of Varley to India?
If so, on what grounds was the refusal to extradite made?
The alleged offences by Varley, and his associate Peats who is now in prison, took place in the early 1990s. Is Mr Lewis suggesting that no prosecution would be possible due to the lapse of time?

I am very grateful to you for putting these questions to the CPS.
I am not satisfied with the delay in this correspondence. If it is indeed the case that Janner is dementing, with the passage of time his condition will become worse, and his capacity as a witness will diminish. I have been corresponding with the CPS on this subject since July, and they have been playing a dead bat throughout.
The record of the CPS in relation to child sexual abuse has not been a distinguished one. I am aware of seven instances where they have failed in due diligence in one way or another. They are listed on this page: This is why I requested that the Home Secretary should be brought in to the matter.

Thank you for your help.


Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License