[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...

Of course if he never goes to trial all of the accusations in the media can stand, and it'll save the CPS a fortune. That's about all the justice you're likely to see. Nobody wants this trail more than the lawyers.

In fact you can make whatever accusations you want as he's offically in no state to remember them.

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.

they are perfectly happy with a European Court (appointed) and Government (elected but where turnout is tiny) passing laws which override our own.

The European Court of Human Rights doesn't pass laws (at all). The European Parliament doesn't pass laws that override UK law; the UK parliament has voted to incorporate those laws into UK law automatically.

I see Jambalaya has abandoned his partisan point.

Goodness me... [url= http://www.totallyjewish.com/living/food/?content_id=7343 ]Lord Janner's faculties seemed quite well as recently as October 2014[/url], when he commented in his capacity as chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust on an award given to Sir Nicholas Winton:

Holocaust Educational Trust Chairman Lord Greville Janner told the Jewish News: I am delighted that Nicholas Winton has been recognised as he deserves to be. Unlike Romania and Denmark, the Czech did not protect the Jewish community against Nazi murder and it is excellent that they are now recognising one of the bravest friends of the Jewish community.

He added: We all wish him a return to good health, to 120.

How odd...

JHJ,

Is justice served by prosecuting a man who doesn't understand what is happening?

Does a man who doesn't know whats happening make comments like those he made in October 2014?

Given how rapidly dementia sufferers can deteriorate, yep I can believe it. Given that Fluff pieces in newspapers are often attributed to people, but not "actually" spoken by them, yes I can.

Deterioration? He must've had some kind of recovery, as the footage showing him being escorted (apparently in a demented state) was taken in July 2014...

[img] [/img]

Given that Fluff pieces in newspapers are often attributed to people, but not "actually" spoken by them, yes I can.

If that is the case, how can we trust any damn thing?...

Might well have been written by a HET Press Officer and nodded through as a statment in his name. He was incumbent chairman, dementia or not.

Who knows? There is a distinctly fishy smell about the whole affair. Doesn't mean that everything is dodgy (in the respect of his medical condition) though.

[i]If that is the case, how can we trust any damn thing?...[/i]

Oh c'mon, by using your judgement and experience?

Imagined conversation:

JN journalist: Can we have a comment about Winton form Lord Jenner?
Jenner's wife/pres-sec/assitant: Well, he's not in any fit state really, but I can read you a prepared statement that we use for this sort of thing?
JN Journalist: Yep, thanks...

Is pretty much how these things go IME.

But that doesn't matter if you're determined to believe that Jenner is acting his dementia to avoid prosecution. If you think that's the case, posting up stories to back up your belief is a bit redundant, innit?

Does anyone else remember the Guinness bloke?

The losers in this are the (alleged) victims, denied their day in Court. And in the future, in that strange society of child-abusers, will others see Janner as having gotten away with it. Will the friends who may have allegedly helped cover up his alleged actions survive unquestioned?

It's not Justice.

Does a man who doesn't know whats happening make comments like those he made in October 2014?

My Dad was lucid, chatty and active in October 2014. Now he can't remember who his family is, is irrational, aggressive (through frustration) and totally mentally lost. So, yes, it is possible.

nickc's comment on how the press work is pretty much my experience. In fact press releases are created with quotes from people that are deemed to be appropriate leader type statements in the circumstances. They may or may not have said them but probably approved the draft written by others.

If you think that's the case, posting up stories to back up your belief

isnt that just evidence based debate?

Kimbers, I think it's been established that JHJ position is that Jenner is faking it.

TBH the DPP missed their chances to prosecute the fell in 97 and 03? and that should be investigated.

[i]The losers in this are the (alleged) victims, denied their day in Court.[/i]

Absolutely, the failure of this is that the DDP misjudged the public reaction. her analysis was mostly spot on, and her advice that the victims should be allowed to speak at the inquest is probably the best they'll get now. The Trail of facts is a waste of time, as the only outcome will be dismissal and discharge.

My Dad was lucid, chatty and active in October 2014. Now he can't remember who his family is, is irrational, aggressive (through frustration) and totally mentally lost. So, yes, it is possible.

Sorry to hear that, the problem arises that if Janner did indeed make the statement in October 2014 (perhaps further investigation into meetings of the Holocaust Educational Trust will shed light on how involved Janner has been in his role as chairman), then the footage from July 2014 raises some very significant questions.

Then again, personally, I would've thought this was a bit of a giveaway...

[img] [/img]

The Trail of facts is a waste of time

Or it could of course provide some insight into the wider network surrounding Janner, not to mention giving survivors of abuse the chance to air their grievances which have been suppressed time and again...