The Crown Prosecution Service has announced that it will prosecute Lord Janner for child sexual offences.
Earlier this year it was decided there was insufficient evidence to convict the Labour peer if a case went to trial. He was also deemed unfit to stand trial for medical reasons.
Now following a independent review of the case, the CPS concluded it was in the public interest to bring proceedings against him.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...-sex-offences/
Depraved germ
Rightly so!Originally Posted by Dedworth
... advanced age
should not be a barrier to someone being called to account for past misdeeds.
Last edited by Arthur Little; 14th August 2015 at 14:54.
If Janner is proved to be suffering from dementia (as he already has) then he will be unable to instruct a lawyer to defend him, so it will be one sided process of witnesses making allegations which cannot be denied or tested as to the truth.
Thus Janner will be guilty in the eyes of the public, because he will have not have any defence to produce, albeit that the Finding must be ‘not guilty’ on the grounds that he was unable to defend himself.
That is not justice.
So other than, maybe pointing the finger at anyone who might have covered up, a pretty negative process, and yet another waste of public money, which will go into the pockets of the ‘legal profession.’
You're right John but I don't care, he deserves at least to be put through the grill. Age or ill health should not excuse him and the victims want their justice and to see him suffer may be enough
Les, I will be very surprised to see him ever stand in the dock. If he is found to be as ill as the independent medics have said, then I am sure the law will 'protect him'.
And, no court can make a person who refuses to do so, actually appear in court.
In reality, just a waste of money to appease 'the public' and add weight to the arguments of those who will be claiming compensation.
If we were taking about say a penniless former lorry driver instead of a peer of the realm, I think the general 'outrage' would be pretty subdued.
Not a squeak from overweight Noncefinder General Tom Watson who was very vocal concerning dead Tory paedos (along with our own Missing Man Joe Bloggs)
Janner has got to turn up and stand in the dock
Lord Janner will be forced to appear in court to face 22 child sex abuse charges despite his lawyers claiming he is 'unfit'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti..._campaign=1490
Still silence from the Noncefinder General, Keith Vaz & Joe Bloggs
Dedworth as I said, no court can make a person who refuses to do so, actually appear in court.
By that I mean they cannot drag anyone screaming and kicking into court, and if a doctor certifies a person is unfit to attend court at any particular time, again that cannot be over ruled by anyone.
QUOTE by the Magistrate: : 'There is only one issue: is he fit enough to come through that door for less than one minute?'
Well it sounds like the Judge is disregarding what the medics say and it's up to the lawyers :-
Giving evidence for Janner, Dr James Warner, who has 20 years experience working with dementia, told the court: 'There is no doubt in my mind that Lord Janner has dementia and that it is severe.'
He added that Janner's condition was 'beginning to really impact on his day to day life', and that he was 'highly likely to become distressed' in court.
He said the severity of dementia 'would impair to a very significant extent his ability to communicate verbally' and that 'he would not be able to understand that he was in court'.
Dr Warner added that Janner was also showing the early signs of Parkinson's.
But despite this Mr Justice Riddle ruled he was required by law to attend and the court was adjourned to allow lawyers to determine when he might appear.
Well at any rate, hopefully all this publicity will deter some of the other damned pedos from harming our children.
I still say no one can be dragged into court. And the quote I showed, according to the link to the Daily Mail, was by the magistrate. That was if he is fit enough, but if a doctor says he is not, then that cannot be over ruled.
Also, if the defence can prove he is not fit to stand trial then if he were to be convicted maybe in his absence as he refused to appear, which any defendant has a right to do, he would almost certainly be acquitted on appeal.
It will be interesting to see who has the 'biggest guns'.
OK John let's go with the Telegraph :-
Lord Janner is fit to attend court to answer charges of historic sex abuse, chief magistrate Howard Riddle has ruled at Westminster Magistrates Court.
The former Labour peer and MP, 87, who has Alzheimer's, faces a trial over 22 child sex charges in 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
His lawyers claimed he was not fit enough to appear in court over the charges.
However after hearing medical evidence from two psychiatrists as to the extent of his dementia, Mr Riddle said it was his opinion that he should attend court.
After a short adjournment, Lord Janner's lawyers said they had not been able to make arrangements for him to attend at "such short notice" and appealed for an adjournment of seven days.
Mr Riddle adjourned the hearing until Friday August 14.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...mpaign=DM38421
I appreciate where you are coming from, i.e what you think is logical. However, the law works on a difference basis. That the judge uses word like ‘should attend’ does not mean he must or that he can be forcefully made to do so.
The Telegraph says, “Mr Riddle said it was his opinion that he should attend court." He is not qualified to have a medical opinion so that amounted to a wish that he will attend
As I said, if Janner refuses to attend, or his lawyer insists he is too unfit to stand, the only way to get him before a court would be to use force. That is not a legal option for a magistrate.
It may be that Janner will choose to attend but if he does not, as I said, it will be interesting.
Even if/when he is committed to stand trial, it is still a big possibility that the trail judge will rule he is unfit to stand. For a judge to go against medical advice, would create very good grounds for an appeal if he were convicted, and thus it is unlikely.
Thanks John - lets see what happens in 7 days
Can you imagine other people using this excuse and getting away with it
Plenty of people banged up already in our prisons with mental health issues
It may be true, if it is not then the people who have said it is are open to being probably prosecuted and certainly struck off.Can you imagine other people using this excuse and getting away with it
Plenty of people banged up already in our prisons with mental health issues
And that people with mental illness are in prison. If they are not receiving the mental health care appropriate, then that is a disgrace to our so called caring society.
Many newspapers and the BBC are saying he will have to show up in court
This criminal got away with it :-Can you imagine other people using this excuse and getting away with it
Plenty of people banged up already in our prisons with mental health issues
Fraud MP Margaret Moran given supervision order
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...herts-20725315
So lets wait and see
So he did choose to appear (on advice of his legal team) so no need for screaming and kicking.
Mmmhmm ... it would certainly "a peer" so,!
Last edited by Arthur Little; 15th August 2015 at 19:00.
The victims who as youngsters were allegedly buggered, sodomised and raped need to see justice done
Certainly needs to be a warning to others...that there is no escape !
Maybe he will be dead before its all finished
Maybe he will, Steve ...... I shouldn't be surprised.
Hence the "rush" job... before he pegs out.
Lord Janner is unfit to stand trial over allegations of child sexual abuse spanning four decades, a High Court judge has ruled.
Quote. Mr Justice Openshaw told the Old Bailey the 87-year-old peer had "advanced and disabling dementia".
Both prosecution and defence barristers had agreed at a previous hearing that Greville Janner was not well enough to take part in a criminal trial.
As I said all along, in accordance with UK law, Janner would not appear before a court.
Ah well ...
Hence the "rush" job! Pity, as he'll no longer face the consequences of his *actions. Although, chances are, being in the throes of advanced dementia,
... he'd probably forgotten what *those were in any event.
Three chances "missed" to prosecute him
Sometimes you're flush and sometimes you're bust, and when you're up, it's never as good as it seems, and when you're down, you never think you'll be up again. But life goes on.
The beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries, or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman is seen in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart, the place where love resides. True beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It's the passion that she shows to the outside world.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply