A independent inquiry has found that the CPS could have brought Lord Janner to justice three times, but failed to do so. The damning findings also lay into the “inadequate” police investigation. The report found:

• The decision not to charge Lord Janner in 1991 was wrong and there was enough evidence against him to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for offences of indecent assault and buggery. In addition, the police investigation was inadequate and no charging decision should have been taken by the CPS until the police had undertaken further enquiries.

• In 2002, allegations against Lord Janner were not supplied by the police to the CPS and accordingly no prosecution was possible. This merits investigation by the IPCC.

• There was sufficient evidence to prosecute Lord Janner in 2007 for indecent assault and buggery. He should have been arrested and interviewed and his home searched.

So, who was responsible for him getting away with it?

The BBC reports he died peacefully today after a long illness…

Greville Janner failed to turn up to court today despite the orders of the judge, his legal team instead arguing that he should be allowed to appear by video link. Fair to say Emma Arbuthnot, the Deputy Senior District Judge, was less than impressed with Janner’s lawyer Paul Ozin:

“Even if I have to have him arrested I will have it resolved today. I am warning you… stop messing around.”

He must appear in person by 2pm…

Via @JoshHalliday, @tomsymonds

“The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Alison Saunders will now bring criminal proceedings against Greville Janner for child sex offences.

This follows a review of the case under the recently introduced CPS Victims’ Right to Review scheme, which allows victims to have their cases looked at again, no matter who in the CPS made the original decision not to prosecute.

In the past year the scheme has meant that more than 200 prosecutions have been brought that would not have been brought otherwise.

In April this year the DPP decided that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, meaning that, in her view, if there could be a full criminal trial a jury would be likely to convict Lord Janner. However, the DPP considered that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. This was because there was undisputed medical evidence that Greville Janner was not fit to stand trial which meant there could not be a full criminal trial and he could not therefore be found guilty of any offence and because he was not a danger to the public. It was also in light of the fact that the DPP sought assurances that the complainants would have the opportunity to give their account to the public inquiry led by Justice Goddard which has been set up to look at cases which may have been mis-handled in the past.

Without the compelling medical evidence the DPP has made clear that she would have brought a prosecution.

In May, six of the complainants in this case requested a formal Right to Review, and at the DPP’s request, David Perry QC was instructed to provide advice to inform the CPS review of the decision.

The review concluded that it was in the public interest to bring proceedings before the court.

In reaching that conclusion, the review agreed that although there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, it is right to assume that Greville Janner will inevitably be found unfit to plead and therefore not fit to instruct his legal team and not fit to challenge or give evidence in a trial. Therefore the most likely outcome of a “trial of the facts” would be an absolute discharge, which is neither punishment nor conviction.”

It’s going to be a long day for Alison Saunders.

Campaigning MP Simon Danczuk has used parliamentary privilege to reveal the dark allegations against Lord Janner, including that he abused young boys in parliament:

Simon Danczuk: The shocking thing is that the CPS admits that the witnesses are not unreliable. It admits that Janner should face prosecution, but refuses to bring a case. I know the police are furious about this, and rightly so. Anyone who has heard the accusations would be similarly outraged. I have met Leicestershire police and discussed the allegations in some detail: children being violated, raped and tortured, some in the very building in which we now sit. The official charges are: 14 indecent assaults on a male under 16 between 1969 and 1988; two indecent assaults between ’84 and ’88; four counts of buggery of a male under 16 between ’72 and ’87; and two counts of buggery between 1977 and 1988. My office has spoken to a number of the alleged victims and heard their stories. I cannot overstate the effect that this abuse has had on their lives.

To sum up, I want to make the following points about the case. If Lord Janner really is too ill to face prosecution, why cannot the courts establish this with a fitness-to-plead process? This would clear up doubts that still linger. For example, why was he still visiting Parliament on official visits after he was declared unfit to face justice? Why is he able to contribute to the law-making process in the House of Lords, but unable to face the law himself? If it is found that he is genuinely too ill to stand trial, why not conduct a trial of the facts? This would allow the victims to tell their stories and gain some sense of justice. The DPP has said that a trial of the facts would not be in the public interest. Personally, I fail to see how the knowledge that a peer of the realm is a serial child abuser is not in the public interest.

Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): Order. I caution the hon. Gentleman about alleging anything against Lord Janner and making assertions about his guilt or innocence.

Simon Danczuk: The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that Lord Janner will not offend again. But the failure to prosecute Lord Janner offends every principle of justice. He may not abuse again, but the legacy of the abuse continues. His victims need the truth and they need to be heard.

No justice.