Janner's Janissaries.
Lord Greville Janner’s loyal family and supporters are fighting a futile battle to preserve his reputation in the face of the disingenuous statements from both the CPS and the Leicestershire Police.
The CPS laid emphasis on the ‘evidential test’:
The evidential test involves an assessment, on the then state of the evidence, by the CPS as to whether that evidence provides a realistic prospect of conviction.
‘Realistic prospect‘. That does not mean the evidence WILL result in a prosecution:
The CPS assessment of any case is thus not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court.
However, in the case of Lord Janner, the CPS then went on to say that having applied the ‘Public Interest test’ – it had concluded that it was NOT in the public interest to pursue the prosecution.
Even the Leicestershire Police appear to have misunderstood the meaning of these words, issuing a statement, apparently ‘at the request’ of a complainant that I find little short of disgraceful:
“This animal is still being protected because [of his status] and isn’t able to stand trial. They say that it’s not in the public interest, but isn’t it in the public interest to know what his victims have gone through at the hands of this man?
“If he was an everyday person with a normal life and job, justice would [have] been served, but as it stands we victims are just being pushed to the ground again and walked over.
The Police then issued their own statement:
“We are exploring what possible legal avenues there may be to challenge this decision and victims themselves have a right to review under a CPS procedure.”
The combination of these various statements has given rise to a great deal of anger – cherry picking ones way through them, it is argued, that a conviction against Lord Janner would be a foregone conclusion – i.e. the allegations are fact – and that it is only the intransigence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and her alleged determination to protect a member of the establishment from prosecution that is preventing the alleged victims from getting ‘justice’.
The phrase ‘public interest’ is one commonly misunderstood. It doesn’t refer to ‘things the public are interested in’. So, the public might be interested, indeed utterly fascinated, by all manner of things, including the gory details of what Lord Janner is alleged to have done. But sating the public’s curiosity is not the function of the judicial system. Nor is it there to provide a public platform for allegations so they can be repeated for the sake of newspaper circulation.
What is in the ‘public interest’ is that we have a judicial system which acts as an impartial referee between allegations and defence. Listens to both sides, and provides a full stop to the argument by ruling in favour of one or tother.
Imagine you had been involved in a car accident; seriously ill, you lie in a coma for some months. When you finally awake, it is to find yourself handcuffed to the bed; shortly afterwards stout men arrive and transport you to Pentonville where you find you are serving a life sentence for murder. Whyfore? Well, whilst you were unconscious, the driver of the other car who had deliberately hit you, went to court and swore blind that you had deliberately caused the accident – he was believed, and in your absence you were sentenced to life imprisonment. You would surely be the first to scream blue murder that this was unfair, and that you hadn’t been able to defend yourself.
That is why it is not ‘in the public interest’ that we establish a precedent for proceeding with a prosecution where one or other party is unable to take part in the proceedings.
There are legal conventions for proceeding with a prosecution where one or other party is unwilling to take part; there are legal conventions for proceeding with a prosecution where someone who is unable, through mental illness, to take part in the proceedings – but who still poses a risk to the general public – to establish the facts for the purpose of incarcerating them in a mental hospital so that they cannot harm anyone else, but that would be inappropriate and unnecessary in this case. We are talking about an 86 year old man here, not a 35 year old fit and healthy individual, perfectly capable of reoffending.
Ken Macdonald QC, stung by criticism that he should have proceeded with a prosecution in 2007 when he was head of the Crown Prosecution Service, has said that the decision whether Lord Janner would stand trial ‘should have been left to a judge’.
It is true that the final decision as to whether someone has the capacity to take part in a trial is ultimately that of the Judge – who will ask to be guided by medical expert opinion. Judges are not Doctors. So we could have had a situation whereby the day of the trial arrived, a muddled Lord Janner was guided through the throngs of flashbulbs, media and anti-abuse campaigners to stand in front of the Judge.
Four expert medical opinions, two appointed by Lord Janner’s legal team, one by the Police and one by the CPS, were all in agreement that Lord Janner has suffered from Alzheimer’s disease since 2009 – it has now, after six years, progressed to the point where he does not have the mental capacity to understand or retain what is said to him, nor does he have the capacity to weigh up such information or communicate an intelligible answer.
No Judge has ever, nor will do so now, hold himself out to have superior ability to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease from the bench – he will bow to medical opinion. Alison Saunders knows that full well – as does Ken Macdonald – What Ms Saunders has done is preempt a ‘show trial’ situation, whereby an elderly and unwell man is led through a howling mob merely in order for a Judge to agree, as she has done, that the medical opinion is that he should not be there.
That is not to have zero sympathy with the howling mob. They are outraged on behalf of the alleged victims that a man ‘could have been’ prosecuted in 2007 and wasn’t. They will get answers to their questions; the CPS have appointed the Right Hon Mr Justice Henriques, a man so highly qualified for this task that one wonders why he was not suggested as a possible chair for the statutory inquiry into child sexual abuse, to investigate the circumstances of the previous non-prosecutions.
My real sympathy is reserved, not for those ‘outraged on behalf of’, but for those who believe themselves to have been abused. The present state of affairs seems iniquitous. They are landed with an alleged abuser who is neither dead – in which case they could sell their stories to the media and publish without fear of defamation charges, nor do they have an alleged abuser who is able to be hauled into court – at least, not the sort of court they had imagined.
However, there is another solution. It has been said:
[The] ruling means nine alleged victims will never have the chance to have their claims tested in court.
Why not have a ‘finding of fact hearing’ held within the auspices of the Court of Protection with the Official Solicitor acting on behalf of Lord Janner? He has been judged to not have mental capacity, therefore he is entitled to the protection of that court. This would mean that the alleged victims do have the chance to have their claims tested in court.
What it wouldn’t mean is that the rest of the prurient public were party to the proceedings. Under the new Court of Protection Rules, it is up to the Judge how much he reveals of cases he hears, and although transparency is to be preferred, it is not a necessity. Journalists can be admitted to the hearing, but bound not to repeat anything they may hear. The Administration of Justice Act 1960 causes any attempt to publish, even by word of mouth, what has occurred during such hearings, as contempt of court.
In such a ‘finding of fact’ hearing the powers of the court are ‘restricted to measures designed to treat, rehabilitate and support while, in the most serious cases, providing protection for the public’ – in Lord Janner’s case, none of these measures would be appropriate, he is not a danger to anyone but himself. It would inevitably result in an absolute discharge.
The medical evidence establishes both that there is no current risk of re-offending identified and that there is no likelihood of the defendant recovering from his medical condition (and thus that there is no future risk of reoffending either).
It would, however, give the alleged victims the opportunity to have their day in court, and thus the justice they crave – without leaving a vulnerable mentally incapacitated individual in the position of having his reputation publicly trashed without redress.
I would be in favour of similar court hearings – in front of lay observers such as journalists and a jury, bound by confidentiality – hearing all cases of sexual abuse. The victims deserve justice – but justice doesn’t have to involve the rest of us poring over the gory details, nor careers being built on publicising the details of what identifiable marks were on the man’s penis…
We already bind Juries to confidentiality as to what goes on in the jury room, without anybody claiming that this is ‘secret justice’. Lord Janner’s case, and the question of mental incapacity, has made me realise that it wouldn’t be impossible to set up courts along the lines of the Court of Protection that would be fairer to both parties in sexual abuse cases, and where the defendant did have capacity, that he be punished accordingly.
The Media and the charities would absolutely hate the idea of course – but this isn’t about them is it? It’s about the victims and the defendants.
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 20, 2015 at 8:03 am -
One -well this Dwarf anyways-wonders if the Janner family might not sue? Some of the things said about their aged, dribbling, Patriarch must surely have been libelous and, unlike Savile, he is still alive…in body if not mind.
I find the whole thing very worrying..
- Graham King
April 20, 2015 at 8:29 am -
Presumably Lord Janner’s mental state precludes his giving proper evidence to vindicate his reputation, just at it prevents his participation in a criminal trial. If he is incapable of defending a criminal charge, he would be unlikely to be capable of sustaining a libel claim
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 20, 2015 at 8:58 am -
Lord Janner’s mental state precludes his giving proper evidence
This was indeed what I was asking, Unlike others here I have no legal training and am unclear whether a libel action could be brought by proxy/3rd party. Does Janner need to be of sound mind and body to refute the claim he is an “animal”?
- The Blocked Dwarf
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 11:30 am -
It’s a real worry the way in which many including the media have thrown caution to the wind and just assumed Janner is guilty of something, knowing he is incapable of suing.
I also find it disturbing that those who offered Janner support in the past are being attacked in the media as somehow enabling the man to escape justice. Lines have been crossed yet still the great legal establishment stays mute as the howling mob rules.- binao
April 20, 2015 at 1:08 pm -
I don’t mind offering an opinion based on a total absence of knowledge of law.
I thought justice in criminal matters was about determining guilt or innocence, and if appropriate imposing a sanction within certain guidelines. This is not the same thing as responding to an alleged victim’s desire for ‘closure’, compensation, or revenge. I don’t see how this second bit can happen without the criminal or some equivalent proceedings being concluded.
Even so, it’s one thing for some officials to have opted not to proceed with prosecution, presumably with valid reason; it’s entirely another for those closer to or with first hand knowledge of the alleged offences to have done nothing. There either was criminal behaviour or there wasn’t- if there was and people with direct knowledge of it have are only coming out of the woodwork now, they are the ones to hold to account, surely?
- binao
- Graham King
- Jonathan King
April 20, 2015 at 9:38 am -
Spot on and utterly brilliant. Of course the problem is – if the Janner family sue, the media (even Private Eye) will crucify them. Why? Because “it’s a great story”.
- Eric
April 20, 2015 at 10:27 am -
Nobody’s interested in the details, merely the prurient story. Mr King knows this as well as anyone, ditto Rolf Harris.
It is impossible to look at either intelligently without a sense of disquiet, unfortunately we currently have a situation of “burn the paedos, they’re all guilty”.
I doubt the claims against Janner are any better. The ‘prospect of a conviction’ is improved by the Yewtree witch-hunt.
- Eric
- Anon
April 20, 2015 at 9:39 am -
Libelous and Savile, two words so far apart………… A BBC “comedy” last night had a teacher shouting through a Gym changing room door “hurry up boys” – said boys shouted back “eff off Savile you perv!”
- Anon
April 20, 2015 at 9:41 am -
Sorry, this part of my comment was missed off………..
To Janner’s family fighting for his reputation, good luck! The analogy of the coma Anna is very poignant and one I’ve used myself.
A name being synonymous with anything bad, and trying to change it, ignore it or just get used to it, is a situation I wouldn’t wish on anyone.
- John Galt
April 20, 2015 at 9:52 am -
Age or poor health cannot absolve anyone of appalling crimes.
Lord Janner on John Demjanjuk – who was tried and convictedSurely, what is sauce for the goose, should be sauce for the gander?
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 20, 2015 at 10:32 am -
Age or poor health cannot absolve anyone of appalling crimes.
Very true but in this case, as I understand it, the ‘anyone’, the ‘person’, is no longer with us and barring miracles verging on those of Christ, will not return. Anna’s analogy of the coma is very apt. Habeaus his decrepit body they may but Janner The Man is long gone, dwelling among the ‘undead’, legally a zombie.
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 11:34 am -
And this has been one of the most ludicrous and insidious claims made.
Janner had no control over the prosecution of an old alleged Nazi. He was voicing an opinion yet demands are mad that he should be brought to trial because of an opinion.
I truly do despair. Looking at Britain from abroad the place looks fucked to me. The incremental chipping away at justice is frightening.
- The Blocked Dwarf
- right_writes
April 20, 2015 at 10:36 am -
A good idea, but in this particular case, might there not be another reason why it is deemed important that a judge does not get a chance to examine and publish inconvenient details?
- GildasTheMonk
April 20, 2015 at 10:53 am -
Quite right Boss. Can I be clear about something which many in the press and particularly on the BBC seem to fail to understand. Greville Janner IS innocent. That is quite clear. How do I know that? Because he has been convicted of nothing in a court of law. And unless and until a personm stands convicted he or she IS innocent. There are mere charges, or in this case, allegations.
I have very little confidence in any of these allegations or their provenance. We/the CPS seem to have moved from a position of wilful non interest in any case of alleged abuse (particularly albeit in a another context in Rochdale, Oldham, Oxford and the like) to one when a presumption of guilt applies, provided you have the Majik Equation, a care home, a number of complaints. a public figure and a long time ago.
However, there is grave reason to be concerned about police methods in cases lime this: trawling for evidence from people who ARE unreliable, and do have reason to seek the inevitable “compensation”. Personally, I didn’t like anything much Janner stood for. That doesn’t mean I won’t defend his right to justice. A Witch Hunt indeed.- Moor Larkin
April 20, 2015 at 11:15 am -
* Can I be clear about something which many in the press and particularly on the BBC seem to fail to understand. Greville Janner IS innocent. That is quite clear. How do I know that? Because he has been convicted of nothing in a court of law. And unless and until a personm stands convicted he or she IS innocent. *
Not so. Jimmy Savile has been deemed guilty and this is why his estate of £3M is being denuded by the legal authorities. Therefore THE LAW is saying that the press and the BBC are correct and you are wrong. Once the victim must be believed then in the absence of defence (in this case on grounds of senility) then the necessary consequence is that the person is guilty. This is how the law works.
- Engineer
April 20, 2015 at 11:22 am -
Question from one who genuinely doesn’t know – is there any proper legal mechanism (note – proper; not just the Court of Public or Media Opinion) to test the Savile allegations? There has been quite a lot of evidence gathering and publication of reports about those allegations – can a ruling be made in some way?
- Eric
April 21, 2015 at 8:11 pm -
Not allowed. That’s what the problem with the inquiry is.
They want a Waterhouse style inquiry where no challenging, no question, no evaluation, no testing is allowed – they want to be able to get up there, say anything they like and then have it ‘authenticated’ without question => compensation.
- Eric
- Engineer
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 11:45 am -
Fuck the BBC.
David Israel published a pathetic tale on BBC4’s website with a headline along the lines “did the establishment collude to cover for Lord Janner”. When I protested he mocked me as ‘what’s got your knickers in a twist ?”.
But his story was just the basics reported by many outlets with not a single word or fact about any cover-up (which in itself implies guilt).
So it was his “when did you stop beating your wife” moment and seemed surprised that anyone should pull him up on it.
- Moor Larkin
- the moon is a balloon
April 20, 2015 at 11:03 am -
One wonders – might this be dementia of the Ernest Saunders variety?
- Engineer
April 20, 2015 at 11:12 am -
Unlikely. It seems Janner was diagnosed with Altzhiemer’s in 2009, long before the current round of allegations surfaced. I’m not at all sure that it’s possible to fool four doctors into accepting almost complete mental incapacity.
- Mudplugger
April 20, 2015 at 11:33 am -
Fortunately, Lord Janner’s apparently severe illness from 2009, affecting his cognitive ability, did not prevent him from attending the House of Lords, voting on laws which affect us all and claiming his attendance expenses for another 4 years. Unfunny thing, Altzheimer’s.
- Mudplugger
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 11:49 am -
An allegation that basically infers 4 independent doctors colluded to falsify a medical report.
If anyone actually says that si the case I do hope one of them sues for libel.- stephen lewis
April 20, 2015 at 7:31 pm -
I’m not casting aspersions but we had at least 2 doctors bungle the post mortem of the fella that was pushed by a police officer during a demonstration.
Assuming Doctors are all sincere and honest is a dangerous game.
- stephen lewis
- Engineer
- Engineer
April 20, 2015 at 11:17 am -
A slight aside – a comment was made in Saturday’s Telegraph about the Janner case, and the remarkable silence about it of various politicians such as Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk. The cynical might wonder whether that would have been the case had Janner been a Conservative politician.
The CPS wouldn’t allow a person’s political allegiance to influence it’s decision making. Would it?
- Mudplugger
April 20, 2015 at 12:10 pm -
Neither would it be influenced by high rank in any religious grouping or membership of the freemasons, or both. Would it ?
- Mudplugger
- Geronimo
April 20, 2015 at 11:27 am -
The problem with the Janner case is that it appears as if the Establishmen waits until members of the its class are safely dead or incapacitated before naming them. The Hoi Polloi however, are fair game, especially if they are celebrities. The whole thing stinks very badly indeed. Take part in a small riot in Clapham Junction and within twenty fours hours you are locked away for four years. Please! How stupid do you think we are?
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 11:51 am -
But that is not the case with Janner is it?
He was named in court and the media years ago.- Geronimo
April 20, 2015 at 12:05 pm -
Named. Yes. But rather ‘sotto voce’ wouldn’t you say? And charged? I think not!
- Cloudberry
April 20, 2015 at 3:04 pm -
Why would victims of crime need a name in order to report the crime? If someone burgled your home, you wouldn’t wait until you heard rumours about someone being a burglar to go to police.
- Cloudberry
- Poptart
April 21, 2015 at 11:33 am -
…..actually, he was named and discussed at length in the pubs of Leicester – where I lived – back in the early seventies.
My wife, and her sister, had many contacts on the St Mathew’s Estate where it was said he spent much of his time – along with other establishment members.
BTW, ‘St Mathew’s Estate’ is not a Country Seat.
- Moor Larkin
April 21, 2015 at 11:58 am -
Any idea how much he was paying? Hard to imagine some rich fops wandering round rough estates rogering “the children” without said residents kicking their fucking heads in at some point, especially back in the lawless seventies, when the coppers would have been only too happy to join in.
- Poptart
April 21, 2015 at 6:22 pm -
Dunno what he was paying, if anything. We can try to ask Sabine (not her real name); she is one of the working girls ‘currently servicing’ a ‘currently serving’ Westminster household name. I don’t think he ‘wanders’ around the estate though. How do I know this? My sister in law was a working girl who still keeps in touch with her mates.
Of course, everybody in Leicester voicing their views since 1973 or so could just be making it all up. No idea why they would though.
- Moor Larkin
April 21, 2015 at 7:41 pm -
If a known MP was employing rough trade prostitutes off the estates in 1973, I’m not surprised everyone was talking about it.
If a paedophile MP was abusing children on the estates, I’d have anticipated they would have left the pub, caught the bloke, cut his nuts off and hung him on the school railings. But then, I’m not from Leicester circa 1973; maybe folk are different there to where I grew up… in 1973.- Poptart
April 21, 2015 at 8:52 pm -
Perhaps you are from Rotherham? – they only managed 16 years of ignoring what was going on.
As for these perverts using council estates; did not Thorpe get away (for years) with his nocturnal visits to South London social housing?
His nuts remained remarkably intact.
- Poptart
April 21, 2015 at 8:58 pm -
Edit, sorry – meant Cyril Smith, not Thorpe.
- Poptart
- Poptart
- Moor Larkin
- Poptart
- Moor Larkin
- Geronimo
- eric hardcastle
- Joe Public
April 20, 2015 at 11:38 am -
Once again, our landlady lucidly explains the facts which the salacious-story-seeking-and-selling MSM somehow skip.
- Duncan Disorderly
April 20, 2015 at 11:39 am -
Here is an interesting article about the Beck case on the Richard Webster website:
http://www.richardwebster.net/crusadeorwitchhunt.htmlAnother messy case. There is no mention of Janner in the piece.
- Mrs Grimble
April 21, 2015 at 10:22 am -
Beck’s accusation against Janner is detailed here: https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/full-set-of-reports-from-the-1991-frank-beck-trial-2/
Long story short: Beck, on trial in 1991 for multiple charges of abuse, tried to make himself look good by giving an example of how he stopped a young rent boy from further abuse, at the hands of a “Greville Janner”; the “Paul” mentioned in the article is probably Paul Bastin. In 1998, Bastin received a large amount of compo from being abused by Beck; he claimed that the abuse had turned him into a child rapist and child murderer.
- Mrs Grimble
- Ms Mildred
April 20, 2015 at 11:45 am -
I think it seems a good solution to use C of P Anna to sort out these matters, where a person is losing or has lost mental capacity. It is cruel, inhuman and uncivilised to do this any other way. Some persons are demonstrating how this country is deteriorating in its attitudes and beliefs about fellow citizens, who may have served us well ,and are now being fingered to be disgraced and verbally lynched and vilified without proof. This accused is alive and ill with a terrible disease and is torn apart in the MSM….prior to an election. One wonders why?
- Alexander Baron
April 20, 2015 at 12:17 pm -
The idea of a trial of fact occurred to me too; there was a case awhile back where a bloke attacked someone with a sword or something where they did this.
I have to say that although I don’t believe most of the Janner allegations, unlike those against Leon Brittan which are totally fabricated, there does appear to be evidence here that he got too “close” to one boy. I also spoke to a Libertarian many years ago who said Janner came on to him once. For what it is worth.
- suffolkgirl
April 20, 2015 at 12:19 pm -
Voice of reason here, but sadly unlikely ever to be heeded – see the execrable piece by Jay Rayner in yesterday’s Observer.
Though I do learn from the Exaro website that a Panorama production team would like to make a programme testing the Westminster paedo ring allegations and are being lent on from a great height to stop, Exaro being all in favour of that, natch- AdrianS
April 20, 2015 at 5:56 pm -
They would be silly to do that and may get in legal trouble themselves , as if the matter has previously be tried by TV the defence in the real court would claim unfair trial
- suffolkgirl
April 20, 2015 at 8:26 pm -
Not necessarily – you could do a perfectly responsible programme on the history of these allegations without wandering into sub judice territory. Nothing is actually sub judice at the moment anyway, and several of the alleged perps are dead, and never will be tried. Why do you think Exaro itself gets away with the things it prints?
It is really astonishing that our public broadcaster has to self censor itself in this way, and cannot, for example, look at the genesis of the Leon Britten story. The one and only reason is the political fall out from the Savile story: it cannot now be seen to do anything but rubber stamp every sex abuse claim, no matter how far fetched.
- suffolkgirl
- AdrianS
- Penseivat
April 20, 2015 at 12:40 pm -
It would be interesting to know if Janner was assessed separately by the relevant medics (presumably none of whom also assessed Saunders) and whether their conclusions were independent of the others findings. They would presumably have been the most prominent in their field, know each other well, and possibly members of the same club (or Lodge), so some form of collusion is possible, is it not? And who would there be to challenge their findings without committing professional suicide?
- Moor Larkin
April 20, 2015 at 12:52 pm -
Daniel, his son, is a barrister and QC. He seems to have made a better fist of things than Stuart Hall’s legal adviser. I imagine having pals at the bar is as important as it is here in the Snug, when push come to shove.
- Mudplugger
April 20, 2015 at 4:10 pm -
It is reported that the son, Daniel, barrister and QC, operated from the same source chambers as one Alison Saunders, now DPP – what a conveniently small world.
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 5:56 pm -
Totally irrelevant. And the sleazy tabloids promoting that claptrap know it.
Barristers know judges and visa versa. Prosecutors known defence counsel. It’s a small world the legal fraternity.
- eric hardcastle
- Mudplugger
- suffolkgirl
April 20, 2015 at 1:16 pm -
I think you are clutching at straws, quite frankly. And the idea that top medics never disagree is just not so. Anyway the current establishment would have given a big prize to anyone who would agree to dragging Jenner into court,look at Teresa May.
- Penseivat
April 20, 2015 at 1:20 pm -
Whatever the outcome, it strengthens the theory that there is little connection between law and justice.
- Penseivat
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 5:53 pm -
Notice this sort of claptrap sneaking into the Raccoon Arms in an insidious manner to imply gentle questioning.
If you are going to make serious allegations then you should have the courage to give your real name.
- Moor Larkin
- Dave
April 20, 2015 at 2:30 pm -
I’m surprised that Anna has dismissed the fact that Janner was judged well enough to attend the Lords and claim his daily appearance money, yet isn’t well enough to stand trial.
Whatever the actual facts are, whatever the correct legal position, it seems that having powerful friends CAN keep you out of jail.
The public perception is that this is an Establishment cover up.- the moon is a balloon
April 20, 2015 at 3:01 pm -
I think that is much merit in considering the idea that we are witnessing a smokescreen. A few odd fishes, old men, and sundry Seventies gropers are being thrown to the wolves. Meanwhile sins alleged to have been perpetrated by some higher up the chain of command go unpunished. It is surely possible not to belittle what happened to the real victims while doubting some of the howls of the compo-seeking horde. Nor is it necessary to have a tinfoil hat to wonder if all of that noise and chatter is a way of stopping us getting to the bottom of, for instance, the “can of worms” mentioned above. “Look, how tireless we are in our pursuit of the demonic paedo. Would we…?”
- Eric
April 20, 2015 at 5:59 pm -
Difficult to differentiate between the real victims and the compo seeking horde. The best way is *no* financial compensation – counselling, support and so on, but no fat cheques. Stop this rubbish overnight.
- Eric
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 6:04 pm -
Polled all 66 million Brits have you?
The basis of your question is pretty crap. It implies firstly that Janner turned up for the money. It seems far more logical that turning up has been a habit. This is similar to those claiming he was voting on laws and therefore must stand trial.
Also shows little understanding of the nature of dementia.
My aunt who suffered from it was capable of going to the local supermarket and shopping as she had her entire life= a habit. But every now and then she forget where she was , who she was.
Once the mind is damaged, as dementia ravishes it, it is difficult to tell how the sufferer will react.
Questioning my aunt once, whilst she was capable of doing this shopping, I found she had no memory of her husband who had died 10 years previously.
- the moon is a balloon
- Chris
April 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm -
Having seen the differing ways the elderly ‘slow down’ and fade away, my personal opinion is all ‘historic crime’ trials of the elderly are inhumane and barbaric. Personally I’m in rude health and only just grazing ‘middle age’ and I find the changes in society alarming – it must be awful to feel that way with the confusion and vulerability of old age. We cannot sell to the elderly over the telephone, but we can put them on trial for (often imaginary) crimes alleged to have been comitted when they younger.
The whole business has been contrived from ‘Savile’ on to dehumanise the elderly – and to paint the signs of old age not as something that should be respected. Take down the dead, imprison the elderly – breaks civilised taboos. Now focus on the blessed ‘establishment’ – but not the establishment of banks and commerce, we focus on dead and dying politicians who, for better or worse, were mainly in that game for their own convictions and not just to line their pockets. Bearing in mind how unlikely it is anybody born in the UK since 1988 will become useful members of society blessed with lateral thought, how long before history has been thoroughly rewritten and those of us not ‘going with the flow’ are also a demonised minority?
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 6:06 pm -
Totally agree.
Whether deliberate or sub-conciously, society is being damaged.
- eric hardcastle
- Tony Collins
April 20, 2015 at 2:49 pm -
On a more general note; I wonder how these ‘historic’ cases can even be considered.
If I had evidence of a crime being committed, but didn’t report it for, say 30 years, then surely I could be held liable for withholding evidence.
My argument of “Well, I was going to” or “I didn’t think I would be believed” would hardly butter any parsnips.
Yet we have legions of similar examples stating just these excuses, apparently avoiding prosecution themselves.- Eric
April 20, 2015 at 5:57 pm -
It does. Both those excuses appear regularly. Or, I reported it and was ignored a la Surrey Police.
I cannot see how you can even have a finding of fact in this case. There are no facts, merely allegations.
- Eric
- Carol42
April 20, 2015 at 3:13 pm -
Heard on the radio that he was able to sign and complete a complex form to extend his leave of absence from HOL just two weeks ago. It is hardly surprising that questions are being asked about his case.
- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 6:08 pm -
Ms Raccon getting a goodly number of new readers gently pushing in the opposite direction.
Fame at last.
- eric hardcastle
- Lady of leisure
April 20, 2015 at 3:44 pm -
There’s a touch of the witchhunt when you use ‘re-offending’, isn’t there?
- Mark II
April 20, 2015 at 4:26 pm -
He certainly should have been charged to give him the opportunity to clear his name or at least for his defence team to argue in open court that he was not fit to stand trial.
It is another case of the CPS overstepping its bounds.- eric hardcastle
April 20, 2015 at 6:11 pm -
You are not fooling me.
The CPS have not overstepped it’s bounds it has acted in accord with them as it has in many other similar cases where the accused was unknown.
- eric hardcastle
- The Vatman Cometh
April 20, 2015 at 6:27 pm -
In amongst all the Twitter blather about the Janner case there are a number of factors which are being ignored or distorted by the usual suspects in their attempts to whip up indignation about the supposed high level-paedophile Establishment cover-up thingy that is supposed to be going on:
– A diagnosis of Alzheimers (as happened to Janner in 2009) does not mean that you become a drooling, incoherent vegetable overnight. As with many illnesses and diseases, the pathological timeline is not immediately defined; some people go downhill very quickly, others have a more gradual deterioration. My understanding is that Janner’s last speech in the House of Lords was in late 2013 – approximately 18 months ago and that the medical experts now say that he requires constant care. The late Terry Pratchett was diagnosed with Alzheimers in 2007 and continued to take part in TV programmes, interviews and personal appearances until mid-2014 when his illness had reached a stage where he could no longer function in those environments any more – seemingly a similar deterioration to that of Lord Janner showing that people with Alzheimers can still function up to a certain stage of their illness.
– The Twitterati seem to be trading cases where people have been tried despite having Alzheimers/dementia; the difference in this case was that Janner couldn’t even be interviewed by Leicestershire Police due to his mental and physical state let alone put on trial. It is not just the case that he would be unable to defend himself at trial – more that he could not give his side of the story to the police in the first place with regard to what were new allegations.
– Leading on from that we have Operation Enamel itself and the previous investigations/enquiries in 1991, 2002 and 2006. In amongst the talk of the 22 charges and welter of victims we have police and CPS falling over themselves to say how they should have charged him previously. However, the 1991 “case” involved the in-court allegation by Frank Beck regarding a single victim; the 2002 “case” involved an allegation by a single victim (possibly even the same one as the 1991 accusation) and the 2006 “case” again involved a single victim; in was only when Leicestershire Police’s Operation Enamel went ahead with a bigger trawling operation than the Icelandic fishing fleet that the plethora of victims with their numerous accusations suddenly appeared (no doubt with the compensation carrot dangled before them) – something that we have seen time and again with other cases.I’m no fan of Lord Janner but he seems to have been hung, drawn and quartered already by the mob who no doubt will now turn on someone else to satiate their desire for mindless revenge and righteous indignation
- Tom O’Carroll
April 20, 2015 at 7:06 pm -
Great analysis, Anna, as usual. However, you say:
[A ‘finding of fact’ hearing would] give the alleged victims the opportunity to have their day in court, and thus the justice they crave]
Do you really think the blood-lust of these slavering mad dogs would be sated by this? Excuse my emotive language, but those who themselves scream abuse so intemperately, calling the accused an “animal”, forfeit their right to verbal forbearance.
Neither the police nor the CPS nor any other part of the judicial system should indulge these people. They may or may not be victims, but with a lynch mob mentality in the air the first task of justice must be to keep calm, stand firm, and insist on proper standards of behaviour by all parties, including alleged victims.
Ben Emmerson QC gave a fine example of this when he stood up to “survivor” Sharon Evans, calling for her removal from the child abuse enquiry panel after she had repeatedly, as he claimed, disclosed confidential material.
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 20, 2015 at 7:49 pm -
One of the things that, to my mind, seems to have changed in the UK these last few years is this all pervading demand for FAIRNESS in all aspects of life. Yet Life itself isn’t, get over it.Yes it is unfair that persons who can’t quite trace their lineage back to the Norman Conquest are treated expensively on OUR NHS , but do you really want to have to show ID and submit to a DNA test before being handed 2 Aspirin by a doctor? Yes it is unfair that Jimmy cheated the hangman and died before being able to be dragged kicking and screaming to Tyburn but do you really want it the other way round? Guilty until proven #GUILTY ?
There will always be that guilty one that ‘got away with it’, because if there wasn’t we’d be hanging innocents. No sane person would want to live under a justice system where the presumption of innocence was trumped by Twitteresque notions of fairness. Janner may have buggered his way through the mass ranks of the Boy Scout jamboree annually for all I know (and to be honest , all I care) but if 4 eminent Physicians say he is unfit to stand trial then surely that’s the end of it? Mayhaps it is UNFAIR on his alligators, that his accusers feel hard done by but ‘tough shit’ (a legal term I believe).
I am constantly reminded of that 90s’ Comic character ‘Kevin’ with his heart wrenching wail of “it’s soooOOO UNFAIR!” at every perceived parental injustice.
- Moor Larkin
April 21, 2015 at 8:56 am -
The mentality you are dealing with is the sort of lawyer whose only comment about a defendant hanging themselvs, was that his Savile-riding client had been denied justice. Alison Saunders was the Prosecutor as it happens and she ceremonially washed her hands and continued to give the baying crowd outside the court what they wanted. It’s more like a Ministry of PR than a Ministry of Justice.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3bJKSbKt7Vs/UnTl4xngEpI/AAAAAAAADTg/ZX-P5Mn-La4/s1600/image002.jpgThat suicide was in the news the same day the story about another ‘paedophile’ being burned to death in the street was featured, as it happens, and it was exactly one year to the day after Jimmy Savile had died.
- Moor Larkin
- Margaret Jervis
April 20, 2015 at 8:00 pm -
The idea of a fact finding hearing might seem attractive, but it would undoubtedly prejudice people who are innocent.
This kind of approach has in fact been promoted for a long time – I remember a report by Lord Utting in 1998 which proposed the same where there was insufficient evidence to prosecute ( i.e nothing to do with capacity).
The point is that in such cases a ‘certificate of abuse’ would stand proxy for a compensation settlement without due process.
The standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt, civil, on the balances of probabilities ( which when it comes to a numbers game is a done deal).
Judicial inquiries go below this to ‘plausibility’ as per the Waterhouse Inquiry into North Wales (though this did not endorse ring theory).
Since there are already longstanding problems in the criminal justice system in ensuring fairness, even on the higher standard of proof, I can not see how a ‘fact finding ‘ tribunal would be an acceptable substitute. And given the subject matter, an active defence by the accused would usually be a prerequisite – otherwise all you have is the kind of posthumous Savile-type rubber stamping.
Really all these complainants should have reported the allegations back in the Beck trawl in 89-91, if they had anything to allege that is, which it seems they didn’t at the time (other than Paul Winston, the Beck witness). 400 statements taken in that investigation.
I would suspect that one of the bugbears between the Leicestershire police and the CPS is precisely the fact that the police in the Beck case were on a ringhunt while the CPS wanted to pare things down so as not to muddy the plausibility of the allegations against Beck.
This is a kind of routine ‘cover-up’ or ‘cropping’ and can lead to spectacular miscarriages of justices as innocents are caught in the net in pursuit of a mythical ring.
As to Lord Janner’s opinions on historical prosecutions, many people hold stern views until they themselves are victims of the same process. However, we do not know what Lord Janner’s opinion might be – were he able to plead he might be more than ready to face his adversaries in court.
However he isn’t and it is right and fair that he should not be charged.
- suffolkgirl
April 20, 2015 at 8:39 pm -
4oo statements taken in 1991! I didn’t know that and it puts a new complexion on matters for me. It’s that sort of factual account which I think our public service broadcaster should be offering, but is afraid to do so.
- Eric
April 20, 2015 at 9:20 pm -
It’s a complete myth that these things were ignored or covered up 30+ years ago. It’s convenient for the scroungers and fantasists to say this ; it gives them a ‘reason’ as to why their memories only recovered when a compo solicitor came in their sights.
- eric hardcastle
April 21, 2015 at 3:49 am -
I recall rich & powerful persons including politicians have been prosecuted for as long as my memory and the claim that we are in a different era where alleged victims can only speak up is complete bullshit.
Anyone making the claim has never dealt with British police who have always been only too happy to pursue a famous name and when it comes to politicians, they are surrounded by enemies ready to pout the knife in.
- Cloudberry
April 21, 2015 at 9:45 am -
“The standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt, civil, on the balances of probabilities (which when it comes to a numbers game is a done deal).”
When it comes to probability and numbers, isn’t it more probable that claims are false if a group of people come forward all at once late in the day to report alleged crimes that can generate compensation? If the first person to come forward is making a false claim then surely anyone saying “me too” is guaranteed to be doing the same. If the first person is making a true claim, there would still be no guarantee that all the others saying “me too” were doing the same.- Moor Larkin
April 21, 2015 at 9:57 am -
This is all a legal scam. The obvious thing for historical allegations would be to pursue them through the Civil System. The level of proof required is so much lower. However, this costs money and the legal firm has to do lots of work. So instead they tell their client to go the cops. Then WE pay for the prosecution. If the defendant is found not guilty the victim has lost nothing – not even their victim status. However, a guilty verdict means the Civil Suit is a given and need not be pursued. Since the criminal system is supposed to be “beyond doubt” then the case will be indefensible in the civil court and the payouts will flow automatically and the legal firm involved will not have had to do a thing. It’s the greatest swindle ever and the law has created it. A public utility truly beyond corrupted. Given that the DPP’s these days retire to private practice, the gaming of the system is even in the legal mob’s hands. Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter.
- Margaret Jervis
April 21, 2015 at 10:34 am -
Interestingly Leics CC contested civil claims in the Beck case after the trial against those who had refused settlement as being insufficient.
They did so on the basis that the abuse hadn’t happened, despite the criminal verdict, producing reams of documents previously withheld from the defence at trial. They lost, but I understand this would have formed a major plank in Beck’s appeal forestalled by his death.- Eric
April 21, 2015 at 8:20 pm -
It was always a concern. Beck admitted the rough-housing stuff but swore to his dying breath he had never sexually abused anyone.
Moor’s description is by far the more common though.
One thing is the concept of perjury is unknown. Not simply making stuff up, but stuff which literally cannot be true (e.g. Anver Sheikh not having actually been employed at the same time of one of his ‘victims’) ; this is remarkably common but nothing ever happens. Probably because the conduit of information is usually Plod.
I am aware of one of these where a ‘victim’ gave a stunningly accurate and detailed support of one claimant’s supposed alleged abuse; there was only one problem with it, he had left three years before the person who was supposed to have been doing the abusing arrived. This is , apparently, acceptable.
- Eric
- Margaret Jervis
- Moor Larkin
- Cloudberry
- eric hardcastle
- Eric
- suffolkgirl
- Dave
April 20, 2015 at 9:15 pm -
The Court of Public Opinion is in session and it’s not looking good for Janner
- Eric
April 20, 2015 at 9:19 pm -
It doesn’t seem to occur to them that it might be the other prosecutions that are at fault.
We do not know the individual cases, but I cannot see how these cases, on which there is little enough defence anyway – can you recall what you were doing 30 years ago (the accusers can’t either) can be prosecuted if the defendant is unable to give evidence.
- eric hardcastle
April 21, 2015 at 3:45 am -
I’m pretty shocked to read that some who could not enter a plea were prosecuted. The difference is of course that Lord Janner had several doctors support his diagnosis and indeed if you are wealthy and powerful you get better treatment under law.
BUT, the big but here is that wealthy and powerful folk get the treatment everyone deserves whereas those at the bottom of the economic heap (probably from middle class downwards) are at the mercy of a rapacious system that can chew them up & spit them out financially broken even when innocent. With legal aid cuts it will get worse.So rather than fight for the notion that everyone gets the proper legal assistance as Greville Janner has it seems The Mob & the media want everyone decimated except of course, their own hacks as seen with the squealing about the cost of proving a load of hackers were actually innocent.
- Eric
- Dai Brainbocs
April 21, 2015 at 9:11 am -
It strikes me as only one step removed from putting dead people on trial, and not a big one at that. I’m sure some in the abuse/compo industry would be happy with that.
- Make It Stop
April 21, 2015 at 5:12 pm -
According to this – http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/challenge-to-cps-decision-on-greville.html
… Janner only had some sort of “Mini Mental State examination” (from four doctors) and brain scans, if performed have not been mentioned by the CPS. The blogger is a retired GP & Green Party Candidate. Wouldn’t Janner’s family have insisted on these “brain scans” as they are fighting for his reputation? I had no idea that Alzheimers could be diagnosed definitively via “brain scans” Maybe the scans were done and didn’t show anything that supported the decision not to prosecute, hence not reported?
The spanners keep flying towards the works from all directions.
- Make It Stop
April 21, 2015 at 5:17 pm -
I have to say that the thought of a trial going ahead when the defendant is seriously disabled by a condition as devastating to the actual self as Alzheimers, makes me nauseous. How can someone be called a defendant, when they are unable to defend themselves?
- Ian R Thorpe
April 23, 2015 at 9:11 pm -
I always find the eagerness of many people on this blog to excuse those accused of sexual abuse on the basis of legal niceties. Let’s not allow the technicalities of law to blind us to the abuse of justice. OK, the tabloids like a juicy scandal but what should concern us is that Jimmy Savile’s sexual misdemaenours were common knowledge in the 1970s and 80s. Nothing was done, police officers have testified to the fact that they were told to drop their investigations. As an amateur broadcaster at Radio Lancashire in that period I asked why no action was taken. I was told by full time BBC employees, “People have tried, very shortly after they are looking for a job. And if it’s someone who can’t easily be sacked (Tony Blackburn was one I believe), their complaints just hit a brick wall.”
It seems to have been similar will Greville Janner. Though his perverse tastes were well known, like other members of the elite against whom there were allegations, there is strong evidence to suggest the establishment closed ranks around him.
Legal niceties are all very well but the real crime that has been uncovered here is the culture of cover up and whitewash. The rich, powerful and famous have always been able to get away with murder (literally in some cases) but its bizarre to see what is supposedly a libertarian blog indulging in forelock tugging attempts to excuse their crimes on the basis that thanks to coverups and conspiracies they have escaped prosecution and are therefore ‘innocent’. Until we are prepared to go after these people and expose them, such crimes will continue to be covered up, and the guilty will be ‘innocent’ in the eyes of the law if not the public.
Changing the subject a little, last time I looked in, the name of rock music mogul Don Arden was being associated with some apartment of (alleged) ill repute to give it a veneer of respectability. I nearly choked on my wine. Don Arden, the nastiest thug in the music business? Being associated with his name would have tainted Mother Teresa (not that she was quite the angel modern myths suggest.)
Well I suppose we should say he was innocent as he was never convicted of the crimes he boasted about committing. Although to those who prize justice above the law there is a big difference between being innocent and having not been convicted. After all Lord Lucan was never convicted was he? Nor was O J Simpson. And a certain pair of politicians, one British, one American, who faked evidence of weapons of Mass Destruction to justify a war yet never faced trial. None was convicted yet all were as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. - Owen
April 26, 2015 at 2:30 pm -
Mocking and denigrating victims and their motives can sometimes be mistaken for “excusing crimes”.
- Jonathan Warner
April 28, 2015 at 10:36 am -
“The phrase ‘public interest’ is one commonly misunderstood. It doesn’t refer to ‘things the public are interested in’. ”
That is a straw man. Please don’t put words into the mouths of your opponents. Most people know what the public interest is – it is what is in the interest of the public, and not what is merely the considered opinion of the small number who form the “establishment,” whether legal or political.
- Moor Larkin
April 29, 2015 at 9:31 am -
What a clever fella… a bit slow on the uptake, but reads the right Blog evidently…
Tuesday 28 April 2015
Falconer also suggested a special hearing – known as a trial of facts – could test the allegations in Janner’s absence.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/28/lord-janner-alleged-victims-formal-review-dpp-decision-not-to-prosecute-child-abuse-claims? - Bob in Stanmore
May 5, 2015 at 3:16 am -
If the independent opinion of the four medics as to the current state of Greville Janner’s mind is correct, then I think it is inevitable that a trial would not proceed were he to be charged. It has been said in a letter to The Times that the DPP did a great service in saving money by taking the decision she has. Unfortunately, the consequence of that is that it has taken away from the Court the opportunity to come to that decision and, in the particular circumstances of the Janner case, allows the thought of there being yet another cover up and protection of the so called great and the good. The charges should have been laid and money should have been spent.
There has been a lot of comment on here about what may be the spurious nature of the claims being made and the fact that they are so long after the event. The sad reality of our society in the past has been that if one did pluck up the courage to make a complaint and was ignored by the police, social services or to whomever the disclosure was made, it is even more difficult to pluck up that courage again especially where the person of whom the complaint is being made is a public figure. Apart from that some of the background to the Janner case is very disturbing. For instance, the policeman alleging that he was stopped by senior staff from arresting Janner and searching his premises is not a time served police constable with a grudge but a Chief Constable.
There is also the unfortunate parallel instance of the chap whose sentence for sexual offences was increased recently by the Court of Appeal from a 2 year suspended sentence to a 5 year real sentence. Apparently, the trial judge had shown leniency in determining the suspended sentence on the basis of the offender’s advancing state of Alzheimer’s disease. Presumably in this case the judge had determined in the first instance that the defendant, as he then was, was sufficiently compos mentis to stand trial but, seeing as he was just an average defendant, I would bet my bottom dollar that he didn’t have the benefit of four medical opinions as to the state of his mind.
The discussions above have already gone over the issues of libel and the potential for the victims to bring civil proceedings for damages. For the latter, the victims might have been able to find some lawyers to bring a “no win, no fee” proceeding but I suspect they would be ruled out under the 3 year Statute of Limitations period for bringing personal injury claims. So we are left with whatever results from the Lowell Goddard inquiry and the various other reviews of what went wrong with the process all those years ago.
Finally, and because they haven’t been quoted in full above, here is what Greville Janner actually said before and after the conviction of John Demjanjuk:
“The trial of John Demjanjuk, a man accused of assisting in the murder of 27,900 people in Poland during 1943, has provoked mixed feelings. “Let the past rest,” some murmur as his frail figure is wheeled into the Munich courtroom. An argument that the passage of time should oblige us to draw a line under crimes of the Holocaust has won some traction, but I consider it a perverse one.”
“The verdict of this trial sends an unequivocal message, namely that the passage of time is no barrier to justice – and that age or poor health cannot absolve anyone of appalling crimes. However, Demjanjuk’s release pending appeal raises the very troubling prospect that he may never serve even the short prison term to which he was sentenced.”
If there really is sufficient evidence for 22 charges to have been brought against Greville Janner were he of sound mind, I am sure he would have been a man of such magnanimous merit standing behind his own principles saying “I want my day in court”. Or would he?
Sadly, we’ll never know.
- Eric
May 5, 2015 at 7:06 am -
“The sad reality of our society in the past has been that if one did pluck up the courage to make a complaint and was ignored by the police, social services”
The reality is that this actually didn’t happen.
This occurs because whenever one of these allegations occurs, nut jobs and compo claimers jump on the bandwagon (primarily the latter) and they have to come up with an excuse for not raising it at the time.
This is skewed by the modern “believe any old cr*p” delusions. It is absolutely true that if someone had (say) thought someone had raped them, but couldn’t remember a single detail that the Police would have not charged them with anything. (The ‘similar fact’ rules also have an impact on this).
Police and SSD didn’t ignore things, but they weren’t desperately ferreting around for anything to throw at people.
I doubt there is “sufficient evidence for 22 charges” ; well it depends. It used to be that such evidence had to be slightly plausible, for example, and now pretty much anything goes.
- Bob in Stanmore
May 5, 2015 at 9:07 am -
One of the key points about the Janner case is that there seems to be more evidence supporting a case for investigation and charges to be brought than “any old cr*p” delusions of those seeking compo. The police at a working level considered there were issues worth pursuing and, from what I have read, there is claimed to be third party evidence from those not involved of strange activity with boys and youths.
As for “Police and SSD didn’t ignore things, but they weren’t desperately ferreting around for anything to throw at people”, the evidence coming out of the Rotherham case indicates that not only was there an ignoring but actually positive efforts to cover up the truth of what was happening.
I will, however, grant that there is a debate to be had around the extent to which society measured by today’s standards should pursue issues in relation to matters which happened 30 or 40 years ago when the accepted standards of the time as to what one could get away with differed. Looking back over the years, it seems to me that we have become less permissive of aberrant conduct.
- Bob in Stanmore
- Eric
{ 131 comments… read them below or add one }