Reformatted version of today's transcript -
PDF here. Original and supporting documents
here.
The last day of public hearings for the IICSA Westminster investigation heard closing statements from Richard Scorer, on behalf of seven men who have claimed they were abused by Cyril Smith, and from Counsel for Esther Baker, Harvey Proctor, Tim Hulbert, the Met, the IOPC, the CPS, the Home Office and the Labour Party.
Brian Altman the Counsel to the Inquiry then spoke about leaks of some of the material that had been disclosed to core participants to a journalist (who wasn't named). It had not been discovered who had done this but he suggested it seemed likely it was a core participant. Alexis Jay indicated her unhappiness about it. Proctor's counsel then drew attention to another apparent leak of the contents of an email from Proctor's legal team to Inquiry staff which hadn't been circulated to core participants, reopening the issue of who might have been at fault.
The most interesting of the closing statements IMO was that by Richard Scorer, which challenged some of the claims made on behalf of the Liberal Party by Baroness Brinton, robustly criticised David Steel, questioned the responses made to the Inquiry by some of the witnesses on behalf of institutions and also criticised the role played by conspiracy theorists, in that context mentioning Don Hale. He concluded :
In 2014, when this inquiry was established, rumours of VIP paedophile rings were at their height. Some of the headlines from that period were lurid, sensationalist and highly questionable. Through this inquiry, some of those conspiracy theories have been exposed as the fictions that they always were, but that does not mean there is nothing to see here.
Indeed, what has replaced the more fantastical conspiracy theories during the course of this inquiry is perhaps less salacious for the media, but we say far more concerning. From Cyril Smith to Peter Hayman to Viscount Montagu, these hearings have uncovered real and compelling evidence of men evading justice because of their power and social status. There has been evidence of coverup, of more favourable treatment and of deals being done.
The evidence has demonstrated a real culture of deference to people of public prominence and a failure by political parties to grasp even the basic elements of safeguarding.
As we said at the beginning, political parties and state bodies have failed to treat the welfare and safeguarding of children as even a factor to be considered. Welfare of children has been a distant concern.
Of the other closing statements, that on behalf of Tim Hulbert repeated, at considerable length, his claims about the Home Office funding PIE and attempted to address the lack of any supporting evidence beyond Hulbert's own recollections. Counsel for the Home Office suggested that Hulbert was genuine but mistaken in his claims, drawing attention to the fact that these have now been looked at several times, and that the new information the Inquiry has heard does nothing to support them.
The statement on behalf of Harvey Proctor was in the same confrontational vein as the opening statement made by Geoff Robertson. Sadly Robertson himself wasn't available today, but his junior counsel Mr Wagner did his best to make up for this. At one point he stated that Elm Guest House was "equally fantastical", and that there was no VIP Paedophile network at Westminster. This appeared to provoke what the transcript refers to as an "outburst" from the public gallery. (I was listening to it live but couldn't make out what was being said). Later during the day Wagner asked to clarify that he had meant to say the 'Elm House List' was fantastical.
Of the various statements by the institutional core participants, that for the Met briefly took up the notion of a few "rotten apples" rather than a culture of deference, and then moved swiftly on to address Don Hale's claims that his statements contradicted one another because they hadn't been taken down accurately by the Police.
Counsel for the CPS stressed how very difficult it all was, and illustrated this by demonstrating that it is indeed very difficult to put a favourable gloss on the DPP's decisions not to prosecute Hayman and Montagu.
The Inquiry expects to produce its report on this investigation early next year.
