Janner above the Law?

Is this another example of avoiding facing the charges?

Doesn’t sound like it :

“Greville Janner will appear in court in person to face child abuse allegations later on Friday after his lawyers failed in a final attempt to prevent him being forced to attend.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/14/lord-janner-to-appear-in-court-over-child-sex-abuse-charges

it does come accross that way

Doesn’t sound like it :

It doesn’t but it does like he thinks he is.

Lizards, eh?

someone needs to do a FOIA request to see when he last attended the House of Lords and booked in for “expenses”

fair point bigbutbloke

as I said earlier offer him the opportunity to claim it back on expenses and he’d be there in a shot

i wonder how much is his lawyer trying it on/ building a narrative about how ill he is, i suspect theyll wheel him in in one of these next

Maybe, not because of his status as a Lord though, but as a Dementia sufferer – the law isn’t always fair, because it can’t be – but if he truly does has dementia and it’s as advanced as they say it is, he cannot have a fair trial because he’s incapable of defending himself.

Seems the Judge isn’t having it though

Judge: Even if I have him arrested, I will resolve this today

He’ll probably turn up in his pyjamas with gravy on his chin and wonder aloud what’s going on – if Doctors agree with his lawyers, there’s no point even carrying on is there? His trail won’t be fair, his punishment pointless revenge.

Fair play, despite my distrust of the system overall, I’m impressed with the judges stance on this one:

“stop messing about”

I have a thought or two on this, 1/2 of me wants him to be in court like everyone else and the other half to leave him alone if he’s properly got Dementia.
At the moment the first half is winning.

Lord Janner ‘voted 203 times in the House of Lords’… AFTER his dementia diagnosis

A diagnosis of dementia doesn’t necessarily mean he’s unfit for trial…. It’s highly likely given his financial resources that he was diagnosed early and has had access the the latest and best medication to delay the progression…..

The news seems to be full of folks claiming sickness benefits when on a water skiing holiday in Mexico

Given the nature of the accusations and the resources used to avoid facing them seem to demonstrate an active and aware individual

Judge: Even if I have him arrested, I will resolve this today

It’s not often I agree with a judge’s decision, especially if it’s in respect of a politician of any kind.

But I’d like to buy m’lud a pint.

Pointless exercise. He will be declared unfit to stand trial, even the CPS agree that he is incapable of understanding what is going up. It will end up with a trial of the facts, which means that the evidence will need to be evidence and not just peoples opinions. He cannot be be found guilty, all the jury can say is the crimes of which he accused took place. He will be discharged. Total waste of time and money, in this case the DPP got it right in not sending it to trial.

His accusers will be allowed to make their statements in court, but just to get them into the public space. This is probably the only bit that is useful, but this could be done without this whole exercise.

Can this judge be imported to the Chilcot enquiry? Sounds like the right honourable lass could get things shifting along…

After that Sauders chap had such a miraculous recovery, it’s only right that the Judge and his accusers should see him in court.

“Life peer Lord Greville Janner voted 203 times in the House of Lords after being diagnosed with dementia and giving power of attorney to his two children, it has emerged.

Janner, a former MP for Leicester West, handed over power of attorney for decisions involving his health and welfare to his children following a dementia diagnosis in 2009.

But the Labour peer, 86, attended the Lords on 634 days after that and claimed over £100,000 in expenses, investigative website Exaro.com found.“

Lord Janner ‘voted 203 times in the House of Lords’… AFTER his dementia diagnosis

It was reported in lots of other news sources too.

I’ve read a few other pieces on Janner’s House of Lords attendance and particularly in relation to his “court summons”. His condition has almost certainly deteriorated massively since 2009 if my experience of relatives with the condition is anything to go by. Thus very dated research of his Lords attendance is pretty much irrelevant to his court attendance. Janner is facing justice under the UK’s laws. He has been deemed unfit to face a criminal trail as we all understand it so we have the “trial of the facts” at which Janner has attended for just a few minutes and at which there can be no verdict as most of us would understand it.

Jambalaya has it. Really does depend on individual circumstances. One of my parents friends was diagnosed quite early 4-5 years ago and is only now noticeably affected in day to day living.

Our understandable desire to see him face justice clouds our view of every aspect.

Could he be tried in absentia? It’s important these old Nazi war criminals are tried and it’s important these guys are tried to regardless of age. The victims were powerless and now these guys should be tried when the are without “power” too.

Janner? Is he a Plymothian ? If so he’s right regardless !

It is a bit weird that he managed to drive to the house of Lords and sign documents in June 2014, after sudden escalation of symptoms just as the Police got involved:

(bear in mind the 2nd piece was written before the revelations of the 1st piece came to light)

cant see a problem.. its apparently perfectly acceptable to wait until someones been dead 10 years then make all sorts of lurid claims get the police to appeal for more victims and then stand back and let 6 police forces investigate alleged crimes committed by someone dead for 10 years that may have occured 50 years ago but have never been made until now

so it seems perfectly reasnable to make claims now whilst the guy and his family are still about to defend in any form of claim rather than leave it till hes died then wait another ten years just to make sure..

I suppose there might be a fear somewhere that due to his condition, he might start blabbing about all the others who were also allegedly or not, involved.

Difficult – his lawyers say it is unfair as appearing in court will make him suffer. Well if what he did is true then so be it!

If he is completely innocent he could end up having a very unfair trial as cross examination would not not be fair to some one who has dementia.

I guess you have to pick your side at the end of the day…

its apparently perfectly acceptable to wait until someones been dead 10 years then make all sorts of lurid claims

Claims were made while heath was still alive, just not investigated

Well, anyone know what happened?
Did the police go round and get him or what?

There’s something ironic about this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lord-janner-criticised-justice-system-for-excusing-alleged-nazi-war-criminal-who-had-dementia–but-now-hes-in-the-same-position-10183717.html

I’m deeply uncomfortable about a show trial of a man who is no longer capable of understanding what’s happening. But equally I’m deeply uncomfortable about someone escaping justice. It’s not an easy case.

Show trials are trials where evidence is falsified. The victims of childhood sexual abuse have suffered and been ignored for long enough without the need to dismiss their evidence as false.

I haven’t. But putting someone on trial who is incapable of understanding what’s happening in the name of “justice” is a show trial.

Difficult – his lawyers say it is unfair as appearing in court will make him suffer. Well if what he did is true then so be it!

It’s reported that he exclaimed ‘isn’t this wonderful?’ on his arrival into court, so it’s arguable he’s not that distressed by proceedings, even if he hasn’t a clue what’s going on.

He certainly seems to have a robust defence team, so I’m sure he’s in a better position than many defendants, especially as there’s no chance of him actually being properly convicted and punished.

You can put someone on trial who isn’t even present, that doesn’t make it a show trial.

My concern is that it’s often a defence strategy to plead that the defendant is unfit, it’s relatively easy to manipulate the process and public opinion

For example send the defendant in unshaven wearing scruffy old folks clothing in a Toyota…. Rather than in a Bentley and a Saville Row suit …

This man has had access to the best possible and most advanced treatment and I doubt that his condition has progressed at the rate that afflicts normal folks

If he was competent to drive and attend the House of Lords last year then I can’t see how he’s now unfit….

Also none of his alleged victims had the opportunity to say “I’ve got a life limiting condition please don’t abuse me”….

You can put someone on trial who isn’t even present, that doesn’t make it a show trial.

Of course it doesn’t. What makes it a show trial is if the accused isn’t capable of understanding what’s going on.

Well the Telegraph reports he did appear in court for 59 seconds…

Regardless of condition more light needs to be shone on this cess pit, and preferrable in a manner of transparency. Not in a report prepeared by his peers.

Its not a trial tho.

Its a trail of the facts. There’s no defence given and he wont be jailed, if guilty.

My concern is that it’s often a defence strategy to plead that the defendant is unfit, it’s relatively easy to manipulate the process and public opinion

A very large amount of money was spent trying to ensure that he never saw the inside of a court room. Thankfully, the judge saw through that tactic and was decidedly pointed in telling the defence to stop wasting time.

None of us can know if he is fit to stand trial, but someone is doing a good job of instructing his legal team.

He’s not standing trial.

I doubt that his condition has progressed at the rate that afflicts normal folks

If he was competent to drive and attend the House of Lords last year then I can’t see how he’s now unfit….
Being rich doesn’t make you immune to dementia.

Fiddling your expenses last year doesn’t mean you are fit for trial this year.

I understand entirely the point that some victims of sexual abuse would appreciate the opportunity to air their accusations in a formal and public context, like this trial. At the same time, spending prosecutorial time and money on a trial that can’t lead to a conviction means that other offences (for which people could be convicted) won’t be prosecuted.