[Closed] Janner to be prosecuted

Didn't have much choice after our much-maligned press found out about him attending Parliament after doctors had signed him off as too gravely ill to stand trial.

I'm sure i heard that someone in the Scottish legal system threatening to prosecute him anyway?

If so I guess the DPP thought they'd better do something about it or look even more foolish.

No doubt he'll be let off.

Alison Saunder's roles in Jill Dando, McCann and Daniel Morgan cases alongside Police Officer Hamish Campbell should not be forgotten...

Is he being prosecuted though? They're talking about a trial of facts as he's probably too far gone (dementia) to give evidence.

He can't be that far gone. I believe that he is still attending the House of Lords. Surely he can't have it both ways.

Happy the decision has been overturned, Alison Saunders has to go.

[url= http://www.****/news/article-3132930/Lord-Janner-secret-visits-Lords-declared-unfit-police-questions-child-abuse-allegations.html ]All very fishy[/url]

[img] [/img]

The most annoying thing about this is how prosecuting him is being questioned because he might not be able to fully understand the proceedings. Presumably, those that he allegedly abused were not able to fully understand that, either?

Rachel

It's all a bit guiness isn't it.

Already posted this in the Rotherham thread, but whilst it's topical, this is essential reading:

[url= http://exaronews.com/articles/5598/police-seized-abuse-evidence-to-protect-lord-janner-ex-officer ]Police Seized abuse evidence to protect Lord Janner[/url]

Presumably, those that he allegedly abused were not able to fully understand that, either?

Very well put Rachel. And if we can try people in absentia (actually do we do that here?) why can't we apply the same logic here.

And if we can try people in absentia (actually do we do that here?) why can't we apply the same logic here.

because justice holds itself to higher levels of integrity than a paedophile?

I'm almost prepared to bet a month's salary that Janner will never face trial. It'll either be delayed until he snuffs it, when it'll become an inquiry with the conclusions "the signs were there all along, but were ignored" a la Cyril Smith, or else the personal details of the witnesses and alleged victims will be "accidentally" released into the public domain.

This has happened before.

because justice holds itself to higher levels of integrity than a paedophile?

I think you make an important point and one that I agree with. I'm just not sure that the statement counters my point, which is, if we can try people in absentia (and to clarify, I'm not sure that we do indeed do that so please correct me if that's not the case) then how is that different to the defendent being present but unable to follow the case?

Sadly I think PJM is right, jhj might get a ribbing on here but the duplicity/incompetence displayed by the government and the law at all levels does seem to protect child abusers
Leon Briton next and how come Cliff has escaped justice ?

how is that different to the defendent being present but unable to follow the case?

Defendants cannot be barred from being able to defend themselves including examining witnesses, but there is nothing to say that their presence is required to do this. They cannot be stopped from going to court and the trial cannot go ahead in their absence if they wish to be present, but their presence is not necessarily required if they don’t want to attend. The Human Rights Committee has even stated that trials in absentia may be allowed, if there is adequate and timely notice of the trial and there is a request for the attendance of the defendant.

http://justiceinconflict.org/2012/04/16/defendants-on-the-run-whats-a-court-to-do/

Its remarkable how those accused of Child Abuse or War crimes are suddenly too infirm to sit trial.

They are all very quick to play on their age and the illusion that just because they are old they are a nice person, age doesn't wash away their sins just acts as a smokescreen to obscure a vile individuals true persona.

Hopefully a trial will resolve the matter of any abuse but I fear it may not.

jambalaya - Member
Hopefully a trial will resolve the matter of any abuse but I fear it may not.

yep now that hes shown himself to be a lying git by claiming he was to unfit to stand trial yet still popping into the lords to claim his expenses, whatever the verdict his duplicitous nature has been exposed, shame

If he's guilty then I hope he is found to be so.

From what I've read he wasn't actually sitting/voting in the Lords but you could imagine someone with dementia/alzheimers going along like they used to. It may well be that medically he was indeed unfit to stand trail.

is sitting in the Lords a good measure of mental capability? I was under the impression it's half full of the inbred and/or senile

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/25/keith-vaz-helped-kill-90s-probe-greville-janner-claims-why-is-vaz-silent-now

Mmmm, wonder why?

[i]It's all a bit guiness [sic] isn't it.[/i]

3 stage investigation, speak to jenner to get history and measure of ability Him, take same from family members. Scan using MIR looking for brian activity in specific regions. Possible to fake the first two, last one pretty much impossible to say.

Isn't this how the system is supposed to work? decision made, with opportunity to appeal, appeal raised, and original decision overturned.

Person makes educated informed decision, other person viewing same facts has different opinion shock.

In 6 months time trial will collapse or he will be deemed unfit, and there won't be a queue of journos demanding DPP is given opportunity to say "I told you so".

VRR scheme new and getting embedded, got one going for judicial review as defence arguing it's unlawful.

Isn't this how the system is supposed to work?

In this case he was assessed by four doctors two from the defence and two from the CPS. MRI scans cannot detect dementia per se though they can show the general shrinking associated with dementia rather than lack of use in some areas as you suggest

Any links to whether he was MRI scanned?
My info was Radio 4 CPS person being interviewed today - the MRI info was not from them to be clear

Trial of the facts?!Not sure what that means in reality if the accused can't participate in proceedings i.e. by giving instructions to his defence - are the facts simply going to be untested allegations put forward by the victim industry and the press on behalf their clients. If he, Janner, did what was alleged the he is a truly vile individual however I'd sooner see him walk than go down the road of this farce. Presumably we can have a 'trial the facts' with people in pvs or even why not dead people.

If Saville can be deemed guilty after his death (and hence unable to defend himself) what difference does Janners mental state make?

if he truelly has dementia then he wont face a trial as he is unfit to defend himself. It will be upto the trial judge to make that decision. if it is severe then it should show on an MRI.

Well druid, cos he ain't dead, it might be possible to sentence him, therefore it all gets a bit messy.

Only 'if' he is found guilty. If he's innocent he has nothing to worry about. Right? 😉

Did Saville face a trial of the facts? A politician announcing that he did it and making a political statement is not the same thing as a full trial and being able to participate in those proceedings by instructing your defence.

If Saville can be deemed guilty after his death (and hence unable to defend himself) what difference does Janners mental state make?

#fullGodwin

😆

I think I am correct in saying in Jimmy Saville case there was no trial, not even one of these trial of fact which I'd never heard of till this case. As I understand it there can be a trial of facts even if Janner was in a coma.

I can only guess Vaz has gone silent as Janner was a Labour peer and questions will be asked of why a Labour government didn't pursue/investigate him.

I can only guess Vaz has gone silent as Janner was a Labour peer ....

Yeah right 😆

Janner was first accused child sex abuse in 1991, we had another 6 years of Tory governments after that.

questions will be asked of why a Labour government didn't pursue/investigate him.

I don't know whether this is true or their are arguments against but it seems a "trial of the facts" cannot find anyone guilty or innocent as unless the defendent can instruct a legal team and mount a defense there cannot be a conviction ? This quote is attributed to Alison Saunders.

[i]“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.”[/i]

Is there a big difference in the way the CPS/Procurators Fiscal have prosecuted sexual abuse of children offences under Labour governments compared to Tory or SNP governments?

Certainly not in regards to VIP offenders, which is a big part of the reason why the Janner case is so fishy...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Not forgetting the whole MI5/Special Branch angle:

[img] [/img]

He's certainly not the only one... it's very easy to get caught up in the whole Labour/Conservative bias, but the truth is, all flavours of government have been complicit in the cover up.

TBH I don't see any conflict between being unfit to answer police questions, but still turning up in the house of lords, there's probably a whole bunch of them wandering around the House not sure where they are or what this voting lark's all about, or what their names are.

Northwind point taken. As an aside I think its interesting people are against the House of Lords many (most ?) of whom are appointed by our elected governments having a say on legislation but they are perfectly happy with a European Court (appointed) and Government (elected but where turnout is tiny) passing laws which override our own.

Jive, you've got to love a headline eh "secret" visits, he went to the Lords and failed to post it on facebook/twitter ? As I said people with dementia will often go to places they used to frequent, my ex wife's mother would be found at the school gates 60 years after her last children where in school. Assuming he still has a driving licence he could drive himself to the Lords or up and down the motorway.

Craig Murray has a very sad comment over on his blog.

Ironically enough I thing the DPP has made the right decision in this case. All parties have agreed that the medical experts (four of them) unanimous conclusion that he has severe and worsening dementia. As such he cannot stand trial. There are no if's or buts about this. If any judge allowed it to go to trial, the decision would be appealed and overturned.

Everyone is also agreed that he is no risk to anyone, he will not be repeating and of the alleged offences (Note that they are only alleged offences at the moment because he has not been allowed to challenge them).

We are then left with a difficult situation. We cannot try him and as such the allegations cannot be aired, since this would be slander because the allegations are not proved.

We end up with a Trial of the Facts. This is a legal device which is to allow people who have no mental capacity to be 'tried' and taken into care to protect themselves or others from their actions. But we won't be putting Janner into care because he is not a danger to others. As such he will end up with a discharge, which does not carry a conviction with it.

Therefore the whole act is not about prosecuting Janner, but about the alleged victims (alleged because until a trial they cannot be challenged) being able to 'speak out' and have their time in a court. From the DPPs point of view it is a waste of money. Cases are only sent to court where there is a greater than 50% chance of success of conviction. Before this case starts we know that there is no chance of success of conviction.

You can argue that the DPP got the 'public mood' wrong in deciding not to send the case to trial, but is that not the point of the DPP, to remove that emotion and deal with the facts.

I would have much preferred that he had been sent to trail 10 years ago but successive governments of different colours have ignored it and buried it.

As I said people with dementia will often go to places they used to frequent, my ex wife's mother would be found at the school gates 60 years after her last children where in school

Did she sign many cheques?
[url= http://www.****/news/article-3064947/Lord-Janner-director-firm-THREE-WEEKS-ago-emerges-damning-dossier-alleges-police-chief-allowed-peer-molest-young-boys.html ]
Perhaps she was running a company too?[/url]

In isolation, these facts would raise questions, but when there is a clear precedent of his escaping justice time and again, we have to wonder why...