The decision not to prosecute Lord Janner - statement from the DPP

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
The evidential test was passed, but it failed the public interest test as Lord Jenner apparently has degenerative dementia that is getting rapidly worse, thus according to the CPS he cannot take part in court proceedings or give any meaningful evidence.

Decision in full -
The decision not to prosecute Lord Janner - statement from the DPP - CPS News Brief

The accusers/survivors want to tell their stories and have been urged to do so via the CSA Inquiry.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
Leicestershire Police are looking at legal avenues to challenge the CPS's decision. I always thought it was it up to the Courts to decide if somebody was fit to stand trial and not the CPS. Of course nothing can happen on the political front, given Parliament is dissolved and the Civil Service is in Purdah. A very convenient time to dump bad news.
 

Sonic67

Banned
He used to protest at people escaping prosecution for war crimes due to ill health.

Jay Raner's twitter feed is worth a read on it right now. Jay investigated it 24 years ago. Apparently the investigation stopped when Keith Vaz spoke up from in the house.

For those not on twitter:

CCtXK6bWEAAg5V4.jpg




Cliff Richard had one allegation? Police, CPS and BBC all publically investigate. Janner had allegations going back for decades.

Anyone remember this?

BBC News | BUSINESS | Guinness Four fail in fight for acquittal

Mr Saunders had his five-year sentence halved on appeal, and was released from prison after only 10 months when a medical report said he was suffering from the irreversible brain disease Alzheimer's.

Mr Saunders was unable to recall three numbers backwards, or to remember the name of the US president, a psychiatrist said.

Since his release, Mr Saunders has worked as a marketing consultant for the likes of Carphone Warehouse, and is said to consider the Alzheimer's diagnosis an error.


Edit:

How's Ernest Saunders these days?
Apologies, was exactly my thoughts.
 

Sonic67

Banned
Note.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20309090

Ex-Labour Luton MP Margaret Moran falsely claimed more than £53,000 in expenses while in office, a jury has ruled. The 57-year-old was tried in her absence at Southwark Crown Court after she was deemed unfit to stand trial. She was accused of 15 counts of false accounting and six of using a false instrument over the claims. The former Luton South MP, who lives in St Denys, Southampton, served in the Commons between 1997 and 2010.

Jurors were unable to return a guilty verdict because of Moran's illness but in a trial of issue, the jury found that she had committed 15 counts of false accounting and six counts of using a false instrument over the claims for parliamentary expenses.
 

Pecker

Distinguished Member
It sickens me, as I'm sure it sickens all of us that anyone should get away with committing any crime, let alone one so abhorrent.

I also think it's clear that there are serious questions to answer about why he wasn't prosecuted when he was more able, and whether any privilege came from being an MP, and whether any parliamentary colleagues helped to cover anything up.

But there's something we need to realise about our democracy. We set up a system which is as fair and just as we can, but it's not going to be perfect, and it means people will slip through the net.

I'm sure none of us would be happy being on trial for something and have the level of proof required being set at below 'beyond a reasonable doubt', despite the fact that we know some guilty people will walk free because we just don't have quite enough proof.

It's right and proper than anyone who is accused of a crime should be able to take the stand at their own trial and defend themselves if they wish to do so, and I doubt anyone would argue with that, or want to be tried not having the opportunity to defend ourselves.

Subsequently, painful though it is, I think this is probably the correct decision.

On its own, it is probably legally correct.

Morally, taken in isolation, it's wrong that he shouldn't have to face trial. But morally, looking at the overall rules of the justice system, it's right that we uphold the principle that the accused are allowed to defend themselves.

In this instance, the morality in allowing every accused the right to self defence outweighs the fairly rare instance of this sort of thing happening.

We really need to accept that, just because someone gets off and it makes us angry, that we shouldn't criticise a justice system which never claims to be able to get it right every time.

Johntheexpat, I too thought immediately of Saunders. My understanding is that, in this case, his illness is completely kosher (pun intended) and quite advanced. I'm not sure we'll be seeing the same sort of Lazarus-type act.

The difference here is that, if he suddenly pops up all sprightly, or appears in a video on the Sun's website inhaling helium, he can still be brought to trial. I'm sure people will, quite rightly, be watching him like a hawk.

Steve W
 

Enki

Banned
Mr Saunders was unable to recall three numbers backwards, or to remember the name of the US president, a psychiatrist said.
Uhh, The Mini Mental State Examination, it can show cognitive impairment, its good barometer on measuring cognitive decline with established diagnosed dementia. However it’s not used to diagnose alone, that’s for sure, a very simple examination, used in conjunction with other tests and not just synonymous with dementia illnesses.

All I can do is look with disgust and disdain at the decision regarding Janner, his sullied reputation will have to be justice, a measure of what victims of paedophiles, are up against.
 

Sonic67

Banned
So have a trial of issue as above. At the moment he is being tried by media. Shouldn't he clear his name? What about his family? Wouldn't they want that? What about anyone who would have "allegedly" covered it up? Should they get away with that? What about the victims? Still there will likely be a private prosecution over it.
 

aVdub

Distinguished Member
Just been reading more on this @ RT and find it totally unacceptable that he has evaded justice yet again!
 

pandemic

Well-known Member
^^ I agree Vaz should have been voted out years back, but he has a massive majority in Leicester East and is almost certainly going to keep his seat. I'm in Leics. South and can't say I've come across "muslim rape gangs" in that area; most Muslims in these parts are from India, the Gujarat. Culturally very different to the likes of those in Rotherham.

Vaz imho is in politics for himself, bit of an attention seeker. I doubt he'd care much for Leics. East, if it didn't give him the many photo ops.
 

krish

Distinguished Member
^^ Evington has been notorious for child prostitution since the early 90s, run by Muslim gangs I'm afraid (I worked at Leic University at the time and recall the news reports and some bad taste humour over the matter)

In recent years, they've been targeting Sikh girls in Leicester, banking on their families' code of silence over such crimes
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
It sickens me, as I'm sure it sickens all of us that anyone should get away with committing any crime, let alone one so abhorrent.
There is apparently worse to come, so far we've only learned about the tip of a very large ice berg. However one would hope that abusers will face prosecution and not evade Justice as Janner has over the years. Sounds similar to how Cyril Smith evaded justice tbh.

I also think it's clear that there are serious questions to answer about why he wasn't prosecuted when he was more able, and whether any privilege came from being an MP, and whether any parliamentary colleagues helped to cover anything up.
It's fairly certain had he not been an MP, then he'd have been in front of the courts a long time ago. As it is a 96 year old was convicted of sex offences not long ago.

But there's something we need to realise about our democracy. We set up a system which is as fair and just as we can, but it's not going to be perfect, and it means people will slip through the net.
Unfortunately it appears quite a few MP's and Lord's have slipped through the net. It's anyone's guess as to how far up the establishment chain this goes. As for our Democracy ? It's damaged, but not beyond repair. Exaro news Editor may well be right that this will be the biggest political scandal we've seen since WWII. May cause a constitutional crisis if things go really pearshaped.

I'm sure none of us would be happy being on trial for something and have the level of proof required being set at below 'beyond a reasonable doubt', despite the fact that we know some guilty people will walk free because we just don't have quite enough proof.
The Evidence passed the CPS test. When it comes to these kinds of cases it's the survivors vs the abusers then a Jury has to decide whose telling the truth. Even if they can't prosecute Janner, they should be looking into who covered his abuse up and where possible prosecute those people.

It's right and proper than anyone who is accused of a crime should be able to take the stand at their own trial and defend themselves if they wish to do so, and I doubt anyone would argue with that, or want to be tried not having the opportunity to defend ourselves.
That principle is not under attack here. Merely the process in which the CPS used to reach it's decision.

Subsequently, painful though it is, I think this is probably the correct decision.
I think it would have been better had the decision process been taken through the courts and not behind the closed doors of the CPS. In any case, I expect the medical examinations and views on Janner will be given to the CSA Inquiry. Though it appears the Police are going to challenge the decision in the courts. As it seems quite odd that Janner's dementia only came to the fore as the Police moved in on him. Before then he'd been active in the Lord's and filled out complex forms for expenses. That's what's raised some people's suspicions.

On its own, it is probably legally correct.
Legally correct, but seriously flawed in how the decision was reached and then disseminated to the public. As I said it would probably have been better had the courts decided on the question of Janner being fit to stand trial rather than the CPS.

Morally, taken in isolation, it's wrong that he shouldn't have to face trial. But morally, looking at the overall rules of the justice system, it's right that we uphold the principle that the accused are allowed to defend themselves.
It would have been a show trial more than anything else. Questions about Janner will remain until the medical reports are released, if ever.

In this instance, the morality in allowing every accused the right to self defence outweighs the fairly rare instance of this sort of thing happening.
Well lets just hope Janner does not make a remarkable recovery as happened before in another case.

We really need to accept that, just because someone gets off and it makes us angry, that we shouldn't criticise a justice system which never claims to be able to get it right every time.
The issue here is the length of time it took the Police to investigate Janner properly, had they done so a decade or so earlier he could have faced trial. That's where my anger is directed - Savile and Cyril Smith could have been prosecuted long before they died, but for whatever reason they were not.

Johntheexpat, I too thought immediately of Saunders. My understanding is that, in this case, his illness is completely kosher (pun intended) and quite advanced. I'm not sure we'll be seeing the same sort of Lazarus-type act.
If he's faking it, he's pretty much condemned himself to a rather solitary final few years of life to avoid a trial and possible prison time.


The difference here is that, if he suddenly pops up all sprightly, or appears in a video on the Sun's website inhaling helium, he can still be brought to trial. I'm sure people will, quite rightly, be watching him like a hawk.

Steve W
Plenty of people will be watching him for signs of a recovery. But if he is indeed suffering from dementia then that's the end of it. Other than chasing those who covered up his abuse in the first place. But that may uncover more abusers and more brickwalls will be thrown up in order to protect the system rather than uphold the values of our Democracy and hard won freedoms.
 

Sonic67

Banned
I saw up close how an establishment closed ranks over the Janner affair | Jay Rayner | Comment is free | The Guardian

"However, in an exceptionally rare move, the CPS went on to detail the exact charges Janner would have faced had he been deemed well enough: the 22 sex offences, alleged to have taken place from 1969 to 1988, involving nine children and young adults then cared for in children’s homes. These ranged from indecent assaults to buggery. What’s more, Saunders admitted Janner should have been charged in 1991 and that there were two further missed opportunities in 2002 and 2007 when the “evidential test was passed”, meaning there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

Saunders has now appointed a high court judge to investigate the failings, though, if he likes, I can tell him now what went wrong and spare him the trouble.

The establishment, in the shape of his fellow MPs, men such as Labour’s Keith Vaz, Tory David Ashby and the then Lib Dem MP now Lord Carlile, closed ranks. Janner was a barrister and MP, a man who campaigned for justice for the victims of the Holocaust. It simply couldn’t be true. That Frank Beck was eventually found guilty of horrendous abuse charges and sent to prison (where he later died of a heart attack) aided them. Clearly Beck had been trying to save his own skin. The possibility that Janner had also been guilty didn’t seem to occur to them."


Lord Janner Called for Nursing Home Resident to be Prosecuted -  Guido Fawkes

"Back in 1999, the BBC reported on the discovery that Konrad Kalejs, an alleged Nazi war criminal, was living in a nursing home in Leicestershire:

“Former Labour MP Lord Janner, chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said he would ask Home Secretary Jack Straw to investigate the allegations against Mr Kalejs. And he said that if there was sufficient evidence, Mr Kalejs should be prosecuted under war crimes legislation. If there was not enough evidence for a prosecution, the government should follow the example of the United States and Canada and deport him, he said. “They only do that if they are sufficiently satisfied that a person is guilty of war crimes. They don’t want him in their country. If that is correct, we don’t want him in our country either,” Lord Janner told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.”

So Janner says you can prosecute of deport elderly wrong ‘uns, but not investigate the claims of his paedophilia because his memory is a bit hazy…"

From The Times yesterday.

original.jpg


To ill to stand trial, wants to carry on as a Lord though.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
It gets a bit murkier -
Just astonishing & insulting that the DPP consulted Neil Moore at 23 Essex St Chambers the same Chambers as #LordJanner son.

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/590038967061508097
Apparently the CPS is refusing to disclose the medical evidence. I could be wrong but I get the feeling we might seem something come unglued here. Once MP's are back in parliament and can use Parliamentary privilege and ask urgent questions. Fairly sly of the CPS to release the decision during the middle of an election campaign, when we have no MP's.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
Echoes of the Mull of Kintyre crash - blatant cover up then a few weasel words years later with very little reporting.
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Home AV, TV, Tech News & Reviews, Plus The Best of July 2020

Trending threads

Latest News

Mulan to premiere on Disney+ on 4th September
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Has Amazon Prime Video dropped Dolby Atmos?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
JBL launches 4349 Studio Monitor
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG Display next generation OLEDs showcased at SID 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom