Greville Janner’s view on a 1997 case of Nazi War Criminal with dementia

[See also this case from 2001 where Janner called for the extradition of a Nazi war criminal with dementia]

The Guardian (London)
August 13, 1997
Duncan Campbell, ‘Alleged Nazi War Criminal dies at 86’

THE first man to be brought to court under modern war crimes legislation has died in hospital.

Szymon Serafinowicz died in hospital last Thursday, aged 86, his solicitor, Ted Dancey, said yesterday. He had been ill since April.

In January, an Old Bailey jury decided that Serafinowicz was unfit to stand trial on three counts of murders said to have taken place in Belorussia – now Belarus – when it was under Nazi occupation in 1941 and 1942.

Mr Dancey said yesterday that his client’s condition had deteriorated after the death in April of his younger son.

Serafinowicz moved to Britain after the war, settled in Surrey with his Polish -born wife, who died in 1993, and worked as a carpenter. He was arrested in 1993 under the 1991 War Crimes Act.

He was charged originally with four murders in the villages of Kryniczne and Dolmatowszczyzna and the town of Mir between November 1941 and March 1942 when he had been first police chief and then police district commander working with the Nazis. One case was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service before trial.

Witnesses against him were due to fly from South Africa, Israel, the United States and Siberia. Serafinowicz denied the offences.

His lawyers argued at the Old Bailey that he was suffering from senile dementia, which made it impossible for him to understand fully the trial process. The jury heard from defence and prosecution psychiatrists about his ability to follow the case.

Serafinowicz, who appeared to be frail, was allowed to move out of the dock and sit with his lawyers. The jury decided unanimously he was not fit to plead and the case was dropped.

His prosecution raised the issue of whether similar cases should be brought after such a length of time. Four more cases are pending after investigations identified 369 people – 112 of them deceased – as being suspected war criminals who moved to Britain after the war.

David Cesarani, of the all-party parliamentary war crimes group, said yesterday: “Justice has caught up with him very late in the day. The fact that there was no verdict in this case leaves open the question of whether he was guilty or innocent. If this case had been pursued with energy and efficiency at an early stage he may have been acquitted and lived without a shadow over him or been convicted and spent a time in prison.”

Former Labour MP Lord Greville Janner, vice-president of the World Jewish Congress and chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said he was disappointed that Serafinowicz had not been brought to trial sooner.

A 1940s war crimes investigator himself, Lord Janner said: “There was an abundance of evidence alleging individual and mass murders against him. I am sorry that he was not tried while he was fit enough to stand. War criminals have managed to evade prosecution under our system of justice for decades. There were absolutely no reasons why he should have escaped charges for ever.

“The CPS had a huge file of powerful evidence against him. He was accused of individual involvement in more than 3,000 murders.

“His defence was that he saved a few lives. But all Nazi killers saved families. It was like an insurance policy.

“Serafinowicz was typical. There were thousands of killers involved in carrying out the Holocaust – and not just Germans. The allegations accuse him of being a typical Nazi killer on a massive scale. I’m very sorry that more have not come to court.”

One of the principal witnesses against Serafinowicz, Oswald Rufeisen, a Jew who posed as a Pole to save his own his life and secure interpreting work with Serafinowicz, said he felt no bitterness towards him. “About the dead, say nothing but good. About his judgment, he has his own judge, I cannot judge him.”


6 Comments on “Greville Janner’s view on a 1997 case of Nazi War Criminal with dementia”

    • artmanjosephgrech says:

      The statement has been reported that Lord Janner no longer poses a threat because of his condition and this aspects needs to be clarified. Far rom making male victims impotent the regression aspects of this dreadful disease can have the opposite consequence. In the last decade I visited a relative daily for at least an hour sometime spending longer during a three year period in specialist private establishment for sufferers.

      In one instance which cause everyone some humour a gentleman would be found entering the lounge with his member erect and expose inviting ladies to join and where on more than one occasion a particular lady advised that if he did not put it away she would cut it off. Eventually the staff found a way of sealing him in his underpants although this led to a different management problem.

      However a gentleman was also found to have entered a room and got into bed with a lady and was in effect escaping her.

      Those familiar with the disease know that it is progressive and that many suffers can also become aggressive physically assaulting relatives, staff and visitors. I thought the staff were amazing and grossly underpaid but they could not provide one to one supervision 24/7. Hopefully, for the sake of his family and friends Lord Janner has the means for this to be provided.

      Alas victims of the crime of physical and sexual assault whether children or adults usually do not have the funds or access to support 24/7 x 365

      I remain puzzled by the timing of the statement when Parliament was in recess and on the day when the media was preoccupied with the GE debate

      It was clearly an orchestrated event given the statement by the police and reference to Justice Goddard having been informed/consulted and those who had assisted the police and their representatives written to and the prepared statement from the family.

      The DPP made it clear the decision was a balanced one and her own but this begs question did she consult and or were representations made to her. I assume the Judicial committee of the Privy Council was involved and does the decision prevent Lord Janner from attending the House of Lords and making the same kind of statement he made to the Commons when he said there was no evidence against him and which the DPP has no contradicted saying there was evidence to prosecuted and it was wrong it did not happen. Will the appropriate disciplinary committee of the Commons investigate this aspect and if not why not? Presumably these are also areas which Justice Goddard could also take up and also a special report about after all that can be done is exhausted but during his lifetime?

  1. […] Greville Janner’s view on a 1997 case of Nazi War Criminal with dementia (16/4/15) […]

  2. […] as an obstacle to prosecuting Nazi war criminals with dementia, as witnessed by his statements here and here). Starmer defended his successor Saunders’ decision, saying that ‘we should […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s