Nothing New Under the Sun… – The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on July 8, 2015

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

King James Bible Job 11:1 – 20.

There is much disquiet in legal circles at the news that Lord Janner will be subjected to a ‘Trial of the Facts’, whilst he is unable to defend himself. An article by Dan Hodges in The Telegraph was particularly widely read. I was stuck by one particular phrase – ‘We are reaching a point where those accused can’t even try to mount a defence’. Hodges then went on to say that he thought the defence was ‘a fundamental part of the legal process’ – and an ‘inviolate part of the British judicial system’.

He is wrong. We are not ‘reaching a point’, a phrase which suggests forward motion; we are stepping smartly backwards to the medieval world – in this the year of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta – to a point where speaking on oath in his defence was an unheard of privilege for the accused.

A brief 117 years ago, a nanosecond in terms of the British judicial system, the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 was passed, and enshrined the hitherto unthinkable possibility that the accused – formerly thought to be an ‘unreliable witness’ – should be allowed to give sworn evidence in his defence.

Only if a point of law arose, was the accused allowed to have a barrister speak on his behalf – barristers being considered arbiters of law, not of fact. The logic of the early modern criminal trial was to pressure the accused to speak, either to clear himself or to hang himself. His evidence was not given the same value as that of the prosecution witnesses by the simple expedient of not allowing him to take the oath (apparently to forestall the possibility of him going to the hangman’s noose having committed the sin of perjury). Nor, until 1702 were defence witnesses allowed to give evidence on oath in cases of Felony.

Nor is the ‘presumption of innocence’ an ‘ancient tradition’. It wasn’t until 1780 that we saw expressed the notion that ‘every man is to be presumed innocent until til he has been clearly proved to be guilty, the onus of the proof of guilty therefore lies on the accuser, and no man is bound, required, or expected to prove his own innocency’.

Before that it was a case of “if any assumption was made in court about the prisoner himself, it was not that he was innocent until the case against him was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but that if he were innocent he ought to be able to demonstrate it for the jury by the quality and character of his reply to the prosecutor’s evidence.”

It was also believed at that time, that keeping the accused ignorant of the charges to be laid against him until he actually appeared in court, unaided by a lawyer and without the benefit of swearing to tell the truth, actually gave the jury a better chance of evaluating the accused’s evidence. An accused that was unprepared, probably unused to speaking in public, and having been held in primitive custody, probably unwashed and underfed into the bargain.

Much has been made in the media of the idea that a ‘Trial of the Facts’ will settle the matter once and for all. It will not result in a punitive conviction. Since dementia is not susceptible to treatment, there is no question that Lord Janner will be committed to hospital, and an ‘absolute discharge’ will be the only possible result.

Should, as some have suggested, Lord Janner make a speedy recovery from the dementia that has been diagnosed by four different psychiatrists, that ‘absolute discharge’ will stand. The legislation is silent on the subject of whether he could be retried in the future should he make a miraculous recovery. The statutes neither restrict nor reserve the trial of an offender who becomes ‘fit to plead’ after an order is made.

Those who have pleaded plaintively for a return to medieval judicial processes and wish to see a mentally incapacitated man in the dock for offences he is incapable of defending may live to regret their wish coming true.

Lord Janner’s case is listed to come up at Westminster Magistrates Court on August 7th. Hopefully by then, some in the media will have figured out that this means Lord Janner’s case will be heard by a Magistrate, not a Judge.

The clue is in the name. Westminster Magistrates Court.

{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }

Alexander Baron July 8, 2015 at 9:09 am

There is no reason his family can’t dig out evidence to undermine most of these allegations. I think the reason the case was not pursued at the time is because the police figured out it was a total crock. All but the one charge accuser, Paul Winston.

Bandini July 8, 2015 at 12:32 pm: I made a tediously-long post about this yesterday:
https://annaraccoon.com/2015/07/06/discerning-light-and-darkness-in-the-twilight-world/comment-page-1/#comment-119212

The officer responsible for making the decision not to charge him (in 1991) has indeed spoken out: little evidence, insufficient to justify an arrest. But the investigating officer thought that there WAS sufficient evidence. Are we likely to find out who was correct, twenty-four years later? Doubtful.

Reply

ivan July 8, 2015 at 9:45 am

Err… What are these ‘Facts’ and exactly how do we, or anyone else, actually ‘know’ that they are facts and not suppositions and hearsay? Or is this the depths that British justice has fallen to?

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 9:46 am

Isn’t this idea of this “Trial of facts” merely a sop to the kiddy-fiddler obsessives? They will troop into the courtroom to discuss their previously unheard of fantasies of dark sexual perversion. those will all get printed in the papers and so set off another wave of allegations from an ever-growing wave of sexual deviants and irrational pyschotics.

The only facts that will emerge are the further facts to prove the Legal establishment is an ass dragging the rest of us in a cart behind it’s arse, straight into hell. Time to jump off the cart before it’s too late and stop believing that an ass is wise and has anything else on its mind other than the next carrot. In fact, I’m veering to the idea that the kindest thing would be to put a bullet between the eyes of the rabid beast.

JuliaM July 8, 2015 at 12:17 pm

Yup. It’s a sop to them, in the mistaken belief that they’ll have their moment of (in)fame and then sod off to pursue conspiracy theories on the internet.

We all know it won’t work like that.

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 12:45 pm: This sort of legalese noncesense was part and parcel of the “Exposure” TV Show; QC’s and all.

“Of course, Savile is now dead, and cannot put his side of the story in response to any of these allegations. But Williams-Thomas’s case against Savile convinced a QC, Ian Glen, that there is enough evidence for Savile to be arrested if he were still alive. Glen’s contribution made the programme feel even more authoritative.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/keeping-my-own-counsel.html

Reply

eric hardcastle July 9, 2015 at 3:34 am

Presumably the “facts” will be enough to make a claim for compensation and at 50 Grand, an attractive proposition.
No wonder the tabloids are shaking with fury that Janner was able to pass his assets to his children before the hysteria got out of hand and out of claimant’s reach (or their lawyers)

I do love the endless reports though of how Lord Janner was able to attend the House of Lords (in good company perhaps with dementia) and claim his allowance as though that proved he is faking. Clearly these people have never dealt with a dementing relative like my aunt who could appear very normal, complete a day’s shopping and then telephone my mother to say there was a strange man (her husband) in the kitchen who looked like her husband but was an imposter. When he sat down one day in front of the telly and expired peacefully it took us 3 days to realise he was dead. She apparently went on chatting to him the entire time.

Or the day she clambered aboard a bus with a day;s shopping (she never ever got that wrong ?) and was found incoherent at the end of the route claiming she had to “meet someone at the party”. But she never ever got the shopping wrong !

Moor Larkin July 9, 2015 at 7:40 am

* the endless reports though of how Lord Janner was able to attend the House of Lords (in good company perhaps *
The company of Paul Boateng perhaps?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3123403/Labour-peer-Lord-Janner-accused-child-sex-abuse-wrote-Michael-Jackson-congratulating-cleared-molesting-child.html

Hubert Rawlinson July 9, 2015 at 9:30 am

Boateng, Jackson and Janner…. Mad, Bad, really, really Bad and Dangerous to know!!!

Moor Larkin July 9, 2015 at 9:39 am: So bad, they’re wicked dude!

Reply

Grandpa1940 July 8, 2015 at 9:53 am

Ernest Saunders made a miraculous recovery from ‘Alzheimers’ after he had been released from prison on ‘compassion’ grounds; so there is lots of scope for Janner to do likewise.

Seems to me that the least that the CPS and the Courts can do is hear the evidence against him, and if the Magistrate/ Crown court Jury listens and decides, at least the accusations will have been heard, and tested by a Defence team. Janner’s barristers are presumed to be skilful enough, let them, and the world, hear what has been said in private, and then judge whether he is worthy of a full trial or not.

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 10:01 am

Think about how you would defend yourself when accused of crimes between 1964 and 1970 by three or four people whom you are not even allowed to identify, and the cops have found three images in the bowels of your computer, so you’re plainly bang to rights. Then add in that you’re not even fully compos-mentis any longer. Then think about how all your family are feeling. Still feel it’s a “worthy” cause?

Cloudberry July 8, 2015 at 11:05 am: What could be more worthy than a potential blueprint that could be taken to every old folks’ home across the land?

“If we can ta… if we can prosecute or have prosecuted the most untouchable, then everybody is fair game.”
https://audioboom.com/boos/2867220-mark-williams-thomas-on-bbc-radio-5-live-gary-glitter-csa-inquiry#t=4m2s

Reply

Mrs Grimble July 8, 2015 at 11:39 am

“Ernest Saunders made a miraculous recovery from ‘Alzheimers’ after he had been released from prison on ‘compassion’ grounds; so there is lots of scope for Janner to do likewise.”
I debunk this one so often that I ought to have a standard reply to copy & paste.
Of the three experts who assessed Saunders, only one diagnosed him as having Alzheimers. This was a forensic pathologist who merely carried out some standard cognitive and memory tests. Of the other two experts – both proper neurologists – one diagnosed nothing but depression; the other did brain scans, testified that he found some brain shrinkage indicative of degeneration, but refused to give any further opinion. It was the judge who decided that the unqualified expert witness who was being paid by Saunders’ legal team, was correct.

JuliaM July 8, 2015 at 12:18 pm: “I debunk this one so often that I ought to have a standard reply to copy & paste.”

Wouldn’t help. The lie that was half-way around the world before the truth got it’s boots on now has Concorde…

Reply
guthrie July 8, 2015 at 5:13 pm: Thanks, that makes the SAunders case even dodgier than I thought.

Reply

eric hardcastle July 9, 2015 at 3:37 am

The recently deceased Alan Bond did very similar during his bankruptcy hearings which convinced his creditors to accept a penny in the pound and also made a miraculous recovery but I guess, didn’t dare use it when he was finally charged with various financial offenses and sentenced to jail.
For the hysterics of course such isolated cases mean that everyone is faking no matter how many doctors conclude the man has altzheimers.

Ed P July 8, 2015 at 10:08 am

Going a bit more Biblical, “Let those without sin cast the first stone”

All the clamour for retribution seems to come from those with a veneer of morality hiding their own murky deeds.

windsock July 8, 2015 at 10:25 am

Can the magistrate not commit this to Crown Court for a jury hearing?

Anna Raccoon July 8, 2015 at 11:13 am

Yep. But the comments on line were that Janner would be brought in front of a Judge on August 7th, who will apparently miraculously be able to out diagnose four specialist psychiatrists and that will then satisfy the baying mob…

windsock July 8, 2015 at 11:40 am

So would it not make sense for Janner’s defence to take it to Crown Court?

Cynically speaking, the other aspect is does this make any difference these days? All that will be decided is the physical location where Greville Janner lives the rest of his days. He will be 87 on Saturday, so a dispassionate view is that his days are numbered anyway. Even if found guilty, would he be imprisoned? Would compassion to the elderly (whether demented or not) be a factor? If imprisoned, how long would he last with prison medical facilities? Are they even equipped to deal with him?

Like Savile, the post-death feeding frenzy will go postal. Isn’t that really what everyone will be waiting for?

Anna Raccoon July 8, 2015 at 12:26 pm

“All that will be decided is the physical location where Greville Janner lives the rest of his days.:

NO, no, no! There is no question of prison as a result. The procedure allows for enforced hospitalisation – but that is out of the question because you can only be forced into a mental hospital ‘for the purpose of treatment’ and there is no treatment available. There could be a ‘supervision order’ made if he is shown to be a current danger to the public – on the basis of events said to have occurred 30 years ago? Equally out of the question.

Which only leaves the third possible option – an absolute discharge.

Of course the media are entitled to repeat as much of what is said in a court as they wish providing it is faithfully quoted – guaranteed it will be the allegations and ignore the rest….

windsock July 8, 2015 at 12:39 pm: Thank you for expanding on your views.

Reply
eric hardcastle July 9, 2015 at 3:42 am: People ( the mob) also seem ignorant to how altzheimers works. A rapacious disease that is always getting worse and rotting the brain but often, not that noticeable to even those who are close.
In older people it seems to advance at first slowly and then quickens,
In rare case where the young get it, say a 40 year old, it seems to advance rapidly and they do not live very long.

Reply

John Galt July 8, 2015 at 10:47 am

Isn’t this idea of this “Trial of facts” merely a sop to the kiddy-fiddler obsessives?

Possibly, but not exactly new having been originally instituted in the 1880’s on the basis the accused being “unfit to plead”* and up until the passage of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, being found “unfit to plead” led to automatic incarceration in a mental institution.

Since then it has been revised by the various mental health and criminal justice acts to ensure there is no substantial conflict with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting the defendants right to a fair trial.

The likely outcome here is that the prosecution will lay the relevant accusations before the court and (given the nature of these allegations), they will go largely undefended as Janner is unable to provide a defence. As Janner is not an obvious risk to the public, an absolute discharge is pretty much guaranteed.

* – Original provisions of the Trial Of Lunatics Act 1883 amended by Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964; Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991; The Domestic Violence, Crime And Victims Act 2004

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 10:51 am

That’s exactly what I said then.
* those will all get printed in the papers and so set off another wave of allegations from an ever-growing wave of sexual deviants and irrational pyschotics *
I knew I was right. It’s the same strategy adopted by the NHS reports, when publishing completely idiotic “facts” about Jimmy Savile.
Der Process ist Korrupted.

eric hardcastle July 9, 2015 at 3:44 am: Will they produce the 3 bodies of these boys that were murdered, now attributed to Janner on social media?
One question to be asked : why did a Minister of The Crown throttle 3 lads and leave the witness alive to tell the tale?

Reply

John Galt July 8, 2015 at 10:55 am

Ernest Saunders made a miraculous recovery from ‘Alzheimers’ after he had been released from prison on ‘compassion’ grounds; so there is lots of scope for Janner to do likewise.

No, a “trial of facts” is not a barrier to a criminal trial at a later date if the defendant is subsequently found to be fit for trial.

This was primarily aimed at those copping an insanity plea to avoid a capital murder trial (pre-abolition in 1965), but that would also apply here.

Anna Raccoon July 8, 2015 at 11:09 am

Whether it is or isn’t a barrier to future prosecution has only ever been tested following a hospital order – not an absolute discharge. The relevant case is R v Birch [1989] 11 Cr App R (S) 202, where the Court of Appeal held that ‘once the offender is admitted to hospital pursuant to a hospital order without restriction on discharge, his position is almost exactly the same as if he were a civil patient. In effect he passes out of the penal system and into the hospital regime. Neither the court nor the Secretary of State has any say in his disposal.’

Whether the law can be sculpted to fit the situation of a future trial following an ‘absolute discharge’ is an unknown factor – and that was my point. This is stepping into uncharted waters – and the outcome may not please everyone.

John Galt July 8, 2015 at 12:16 pm

Fair point, but given a diagnosis of dementia from competent and unbiased physicians I’d doubt that would be disputed.

I do think that having a “trial of facts” which is largely based upon the testimony of victims without any substantial corroborating evidence or testimony from Janner is going to be somewhat one-sided, but I suppose that’s the best that can be achieved under the circumstances.

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 12:18 pm

the … “best” is the worst thing that could possibly happen. The conceit of the law really does appear to have no limits, if this is the case.

John Galt July 8, 2015 at 12:24 pm

Do you think Alison Saunders was right with her original decision not to prosecute then?

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 12:31 pm: I would refer the honourable gentleman to an answer I gave earlier.
https://annaraccoon.com/2015/07/06/discerning-light-and-darkness-in-the-twilight-world/#comment-119027
“As to Janner I tend to agree with the thesis that his dementia is merely a convenient legal excuse, a la the Guinness defence. The playing along with it by the CPS (at first) merely demonstrates that the CPS know that in the legal framework Starmer created, and Saunders has perpetuated to such stunning effect with Rolf and Ray Teret, that Janner would most certainly be found guilty; and whilst the Establishment are happy to see geriatric light entertainers and elderly pop-pickers ceremonially defenestrated, it starts getting a bit twitchy with Lords and Ladies closer to the right parties.”

I think my position is someplace along the continuum that two wrongs don’t always make a right and the ends doesn’t always justify the means, and that people in positions of power in democracies are always more interested in their position than they are in the proper use of their power.

Reply

Anna Raccoon July 8, 2015 at 12:51 pm

I’ve just had my attention drawn to R v H [2003] UKHL 1 – which appears at first sight to support the view that since the ‘trial of facts’ isn’t a conviction and doesn’t amount to a criminal finding, it may not preclude a further criminal trial….hmmn, may not.
What is of more interest right now is that R v H would appear to be arguing with what I understood to be the consensus – that at least an absolute discharge did count as a ‘conviction’….
This one could run and run….

John Galt July 8, 2015 at 1:35 pm

Indeed, that was partly where my initial view came from, but given a “trial of facts” in Janner’s case and all the attendant publicity, do you imagine a future criminal trial would be fair?

Not that I care one way or the other for Janner.

I’ll be interested to hear the views of “The Four Headshrinkers” (as opposed to the DPS’s “Three Monkeys”) about Janner’s alleged dementia.

Anna Raccoon July 8, 2015 at 2:04 pm: “do you imagine a future criminal trial would be fair?”

It would be hopelessly compromised – which is why I think the howling mob have shot themselves in the foot this time. Very similar circumstances to what lay behind the delay in bringing charges in the Stephen Laurence affair.

Reply

GildasTheMonk July 8, 2015 at 12:03 pm

Am I write that “not guilty” is another possible result? I think so. I am afraid that I regard this as a political show trial. There is no question of Janner being put into an institution, as would be the case if an insane young man or woman had killed or such like. So, assuming a “guilty” verdict, there is nowt to be done. But how is Janner or those acting on his behalf) to be able to respond satisfactorily if he cannot understand what is going on? Yes, you can put the prosecution to proof of everything, so to speak, but that does not seem to me to be a wholly fair position. No, it’s plainly not fair. Since there is no public interest (as opposed to interest of some sections of the public, and their now win no fee lawyers) in a prosecution what is the point?
I am no apologist for Janner; I have no idea whether he was a decent human being or not. If I had to guess, I’d probably say not. But this smacks of a Show Trial.
On a point of procedure, my understanding is that if there is a “trial” (as opposed to a formal assessment by the court of his mental capacity) then it would be before a jury.

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 12:11 pm

* I am no apologist for Janner; I have no idea whether he was a decent human being or not. If I had to guess, I’d probably say not. *
I find this sort of thing completely inexplicable.
I am no apologist for Gildas; I have no idea whether he was a decent human being or not. If I had to guess, I’d probably say not.
There, that made me feel better about myself.

Petunia Winegum July 8, 2015 at 3:24 pm: Woah, steady on, old boy! Letting the side down a little, there.

Reply
Henry the Horse July 8, 2015 at 5:25 pm: You are write, Moor.

Reply

The Blocked Dwarf July 8, 2015 at 1:05 pm

Why they don’t just formalise Trial By Twitter, accept “#hearing” onto the Statutebook.com, is beyond me.

Ed:I hear you!

The Blocked Dwarf July 8, 2015 at 1:08 pm: statuTe !

Oh Ed, oh my Ed, Wherefore art thou?

Reply

Mark II July 8, 2015 at 2:21 pm

I can’t help feeling that this fevered pursuit of “historical abuse” is diverting resources from investigating actual current abuse that might be stopped.
I suppose that it suits somebody.

binao July 8, 2015 at 3:06 pm

The things we learn here!
Thank you Anna.
Back to Janner – if indeed he’s so affected by dementia as to be incapable of engaging in the process, I really can’t see what the point is of any kind of examination by lawyers. As Mark II says, a waste of resources; even if the alleged victims are genuine, they’re hardly going to get satisfaction from such a flawed process. I’m presuming law is for justice, not revenge. A good earner for the lawyers though, & some more page filling dross for the tabloids.
Having had a little exposure to sufferers, and having a parent with dementia, I would have thought there would be a substantial file of interventions & actions by various health professionals as the disease progressed. Is it really likely that he’s acting? Equally if the lawyers are attempting to overstate the mental deterioration, it will surely be apparent if this contradicts the medical records?

Peter Whale July 8, 2015 at 3:27 pm

If one of the alleged abused started a civil action for damages against his estate could it end up in court or would the dementia make the case invalid ?

eric hardcastle July 9, 2015 at 3:52 am

he passed all his assets to his children years ago so there will be nothing for them to pursue.

Peter Whale July 9, 2015 at 6:59 am: Thanks for the info Eric . If someone with dementia has committed a crime and still has an estate can the be sued or are they immune from prosecution?

Reply

Mrs Grimble July 8, 2015 at 3:31 pm

The actual charges laid against Janner make for interesting reading.
The charges are all under either Section 12(1) or section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956; they concern indecent assault or buggery with consent. There are 22 of them altogether, relating to nine complainants (not “victims” yet, thank God). Only complainant 9 is involved in just the one charge – the other eight are named in multiple charges. Complainant 9 is also the only one whose age at the time of the offence isn’t given; the others are all either 15, 16 or under 16. So, they were teenage boys who each went back to their abuser several times. They will undoubtedly claim that they were groomed; and maybe they were. But they don’t sound like the helpless young victims that the paedo-obsessives claim they were.
I’m no apologist for Janner either; whether he abused them or not, he should never have got so close to vulnerable teenage boys (who would have been spellbound by the money and lifestyle he showed them) and should have answered the 1991 accusations. For me, he’s much more foolish than evil.

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 3:46 pm

* the 1991 accusations *
It was 1992 when the BBC reported on the Peter Righton pederasts “club”.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/right-on-time.html
Nothing ever happened in the legal process, despite it all being published and public knowledge. It took until last year for John Whittingdale’s half-brother to be imprisoned, notwithstanding Napier -whatsit had a record in this area as long as Chris Denning’s was. All of which is just a long-winded way of asking why Janner and why now, when he is incapable of defending himself, and how come nobody joins the dots to the only intervention of the Prime Minister during savilisation, which was to say that we mustn’t have a gay witch-hunt.

Anna Raccoon July 8, 2015 at 3:49 pm

Maybe they’ve just got fed up seeing all the women lining up to make claims…

Regarding the ‘gay witch hunt’ – it was the liberalisation of homosexuality that has caused the trouble of course – until gay sex was legalised, nobody had to give a thought to ‘age of consent’ since it was all illegal and both parties had as much to lose. Now suddenly, elderly gays have to give a thought to the age of those obliging rent boys.

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 4:04 pm: Some old Gays are of course expendable, viz the hapless David Smith, Savile’s driver who never was. Driven to despair by the Alison Saunders ‘ run London CPS and the media, he hung himself from the landing of the house where he cared for his 95 year-old mother and all the lawyers could say was that he’d cheated his victims of justice.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-strange-death-of-liberal-england.html

Reply

Anna Raccoon July 8, 2015 at 3:46 pm

It’s difficult to reconcile the accounts of the boys that were sent to Frank Beck with the word vulnerable.
Vulnerable implies an ability to be controlled – via grooming quite possibly. Yet, when you read the social work accounts of the time, these were young toughs so hopelessly beyond anyone’s control that Frank Beck was allowed to physically abuse them with some pretty extreme methods that I am not defending – but I still have difficulty reconciling that word ‘vulnerable’.
If, and it is an ‘if’, Janner was a closet homosexual who sought out young males, above or below age, it would take a strange sort of death wish to place your reputation and career in the hands of such people. Wouldn’t be the first time of course, the danger thrills some people, but less believable at first light than had they been timid little boys.
On the other hand, if every ‘rough trade’ rent boy is going to start making accusations against every one of their former clients, we are going to be here for a very, very, long time.

Bandini July 8, 2015 at 5:16 pm: Further flirting with danger by sending letters through the post to the alleged victim:
https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/g1211911.jpg

Reply

Mrs Grimble July 8, 2015 at 3:32 pm

Oh bother – just realised that the second line of that should read ‘buggery WITHOUT consent”.

Serengwalia July 8, 2015 at 4:46 pm: Not to worry; a simple enough mistake to make… so to speak.

Reply

Alex July 8, 2015 at 3:53 pm

Jarndyce v Jarndyce all over again. The only people to benefit from this load of old bollocks are the lawyers.

Henry the Horse July 8, 2015 at 5:17 pm: No, chuck in the media. Case listed for 7 August? Well that is silly season covered.

Reply

Henry the Horse July 8, 2015 at 5:15 pm

Ms Raccoon puts paid columnists to shame again.

The Blocked Dwarf July 8, 2015 at 6:30 pm

Not being particularly well up on the current law (or any law), am I right in assuming that if Lord Janner-sans dementia, at his venerable age, now decided to have anal intercourse with a 16 year old then he would not automatically be committing an offence unless the 16 year old in question was in someway dependant / in his ‘care’ or induced by nefarious means ? If the 16 year old gave his consent freely without coercion or money changing hands?

IF, and I stress that ‘if’ cos I really don’t know the law, that be the case then i am surprised Stonedwail isn’t up in arms , decrying the turingesque persecution of their brother-in-boyish-arms whose only crime was to express his sexuality in the dark homophobic times before society realized that making criminals out of those whose only “crime was love” was a bit unfair.

John Galt July 8, 2015 at 7:01 pm

As far as the UK Stonewall group is concerned, the lessons of the Paedophile Information Exchange and NAMBLA were understood very early on and condemned for what they were – an attempt to camouflage the sexual abuse of children in the language of child sexual liberation.

It didn’t work then and it certainly wouldn’t pass muster now.

What gay teens do in the privacy of a dark corner is one thing and Chickenhawks are another.

Moor Larkin July 8, 2015 at 7:55 pm: The Gay Left were a trifle ambivalent. The “Collective” was coming together on the age of 14 they said back then. It was only the Feminists who were stridently opposed. But what the feminists were strongly opposed to was actual paedophilia; ie. seuxal relations with pre-pubsecents. The individual variance in the onset of that was of course a conundrum beyond any rule-maker.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/left-behind.html
The movement came down against sex with “children” on the basis of the “Power Differential”, but the term “children” was clearly still under some debate. I would guess they ended up settling for 16 smply because that was the age for females.

I cannot speak for Stonewall as I’ve done so research but I’m sure they were campaigning for the lowering of the age of male consent from the very moment male sex was declared leagl at all in 1967. It’s inevitable unfortunately that the progressive decrease in age over the ensuing decades probably created an impression amongst some that this process was intended to continue. I imagine that when the admirable Barbara Hewson made her early suggestion that the age of consent be reduced to 13, she was not taking into account that in the egalitarian 21st Century what was sauce for the goose wuld perforce be also for the gander.

The Gay Left seem to have had a particular antipathy to the traditional family structure and it’s not hard to guess why, given the reactions of their parents and grandparents to their self-discoveries back then.

Reply

Bernard from Bucks July 8, 2015 at 7:49 pm

So, that German pilot, that crashed the plane into the Alps, is innocent of any crime,
because he cannot stand up in court and offer a defense?

Engineer July 8, 2015 at 8:11 pm: Slightly different, as I understand it. The German pilot (and his victims) are all dead. Janner is not dead, but may or may not be of sufficient mental capacity to understand or answer any charges laid against him.

Reply

Engineer July 8, 2015 at 8:35 pm

I’m not sure that this should be a factor or not, but the CPS decision not to charge Janner seemed to rather fly in the face of their previous almost Messianic zeal to prosecute, as publicly as possible, anybody even remotely suspected of historical child sexual abuse. There have been some very high profile prosecutions on the flimsiest of grounds (Dave Lee Travis eventually convicted of groping a grown woman’s breast many years ago, whilst found not guilty of all other charges against him, for example). There have, I gather, been a large number of less well publicised cases against ‘ordinary’ people charged with similar historical allegations, also prosecuted with considerable zeal.

This case was not prosecuted, despite there being charges of a similar nature. This raised a suspicion that the left-leaning political elite was protecting one of its own, on the grounds that a conviction would not fit the ‘high profile establishment figure of the Thatcher years’ meme (even though most of the entertainment world figures didn’t, either). The fact that it has now partially reversed it’s decision suggests that it knows it has been rumbled.

I think there is some very underhand and distasteful politics being played with the historical sexual abuse scandal, which reveals far more about the people playing the politics than it does about Justice in any shape or form. Ultimately, the political play will fail – those who overplay their hand will bring about a public backlash against themselves eventually. The British public don’t like being duped, and they don’t like perversions of natural justice, either.

Junican July 9, 2015 at 12:57 am

I must admit to being somewhat confused. Is the phrase “Trial of Facts” an official phrase? It smacks of an idea that a trial could be held to ‘try’ the gun used in a murder. “The Crown accuse this gun of murder in the first degree”. To say the least, the use of the word ‘trial’ is unnecessary since we have perfectly good words (such as ‘examination’) which would better describe the idea.
Further, it seems to me that there has to be one very important fact which must come first; that is, that an offence was actually committed. In the case of murder, one would assume the presence of a dead body, or at least a missing person. In the case of burglary, one would expect evidence that a place has been broken into and that property is missing. In the case of rape, one would expect evidence that copulation actually took place.

When did English justice put the cart on top of the horse? For example, “Was the accused at the place where the offence was said to have taken place?” Yes. Or should that read, “The accuser said that the offence took place where it is known that the accused was at that time”. My point is that there may well be loads and loads of ‘facts’ which can be true, but without an offence, what do these ‘facts’ matter?

Bandini July 9, 2015 at 11:44 am

I think you make a very good point here regarding the ‘trial of the facts’, Junican, namely, whether or not “an offence was actually committed.”

Establishing the facts around an event which can be proven to have taken place – a murder, in your example – would be one thing. But we seem to be heading towards establishing if a particular individual ‘carried out the act(s)’ without first being certain that ‘the act(s)’ even ever took place. The more I’ve looked into Janner’s case the less confidence I have in the latter.

(An example from the 1991 newspaper article I link to up above: the principle accuser (now, that is, and sole accuser in 1991) seemed confused about what he was alleging, and changed his story in two quite significant ways, firstly the number of visits to Janner’s residence – from 1 to 2 – and secondly the nature of the actual sexual abuse – from no buggery to buggery. That was 24 years ago, but was already relating to events alleged to have taken place more than 15 years previously.
Added to this is the head-scratcher posed by the alleged victim having written to his alleged abuser (Janner) to ask for, er, a letter of reference to help the man in whose care he had grown up (Beck) who himself was being tried – and convicted – for a multitude of physical & sexual assaults against a whole range of people. I have some doubts about the whole case, to be honest, and they seem to be very ‘reasonable’ ones.)

Moor Larkin July 9, 2015 at 12:14 pm

It’s probably a truism that any legal system is a game devised by humans to control other humans. The Courts deem what evidence is permissible and in my lifetime it had been a long-standing grouch in the media that defendants “get off” on “technicalities”. I can recall the arguments over the fact that juries would not be told of the history of a defendant until after they had delivered their verdict, leading to them having feelings of being victims of a con-trick when they discovered that a man they had just judged innocent had a history of sex crime. The news media would howl their derision of a system that so favoured the criminals (defendants) against the victims. Sex crime can often be very different to any other crime in that often what is being argued about is not who did the crime, but whether the crime occurred at all. In order to decide guilt it is usually necessary to listen to stories and then decide which stories are factual and which are not. This applies to cases of ‘Historical Accusations of Crime” with knobs on.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/when-alice-met-malice.html
The explanation for all this is that the police and the CPS are merely doing their job. What seems to have developed in British society is a dislocation from reality in the prosecution of some crimes. Most of the British public seem to believe that the police weigh evidence on both sides before deciding whether to refer a case to the CPS. The CPS is then viewed as an independent arbiter that reviews the evidence on both sides, before independently deciding whether a case carries a reasonable chance of conviction. I daresay that the public believes in this process because that is how it is meant to work. That is the theory. In practice what we seem to have are two bodies that corroborate one another in their one-eyed search for whether or not they think they can prosecute.

The arbiters of British Justice seem to become so decadent that their only intention is to attempt to brainwash a jury with stories rather than convince them, with evidence. It is in this perversion of a British Legal System in which the Duncroft Tale has publicly thrived.

Bandini July 9, 2015 at 1:25 pm

I’m a bit confused as to what can or cannot be revealed in court, Moor. The recent aquittal of the police marksman a case in point:

“Details of Long’s operational history, which included an incident in which he shot two other suspects dead, were not divulged to the jury.
Nor were jurors told the outcome of a judge-led inquiry in 2013 which concluded that the shooting was not legally justified and that Long’s accounts of what he saw in the seconds before opening fire should not be accepted.”

If the above could not be mentioned prior to the jury reaching its verdict I’m not sure why some background information in other cases is permitted. Possibly because there was no actual conviction, I suppose… but if I’d have been a jury-member I might be feeling a little cheated myself right now.

Regarding the CPS & police propping each other up, another eye-opener for me has been the difficulty in having a wrongful conviction overturned (or even challenged). It’s only through reading up on these cases & related matters that I’ve realised how impossible it can be to extract oneself from the jaws of ‘justice’ once its appetite is whetted.

P.S. If ‘Ed’ is around – am I the only one having problems with notifications?

Moor Larkin July 9, 2015 at 3:47 pm: * I’m a bit confused as to what can or cannot be revealed in court, Moor *

Not the whole truth, that’s for sure. More than one of the victims during the Yewtree show trials seems to have been related to the defendants, but this is carefully covered up by the legislation governing Anonymity. In the same way, the ciphering of various victims has ensured the public are unaware of the widely differing testimony of some of the story-teller depending on to whom various victims are talking to. That the legal authorities know exactly who is who merely make their official duplicity all the more grievous.

All of this is done on the premise of “protecting the victims” but when did you ever hear of a victim having to tolerate more than twitter jibes or a web-site telling the truth about them. On the other hand, accused paedo’s have literally been beaten to death in the street and set on fire. The Law is not worth a candle in this area.

Reply

Lucozade July 10, 2015 at 12:47 pm

Bandini,

Re: “Added to this is the head-scratcher posed by the alleged victim having written to his alleged abuser (Janner) to ask for, er, a letter of reference to help the man in whose care he had grown up (Beck) who himself was being tried – and convicted – for a multitude of physical & sexual assaults against a whole range of people”

That’s the bit that had me wondering too.

Firstly the fact Janner’s original accuser was actually a witness in defence of Frank Beck at his trial and actually sought out a reference for him shows that the pair were in communication, so it’s not a case of Frank Beck accused Janner at his trial and then the police sought the victim he had named out and he verified the accusation independently, there seems to be plenty reason to believe they’d discussed the accusation before hand recently (recent to the accusation back in 1991).

Also why would Frank Beck want a reference from a man he was going to reveal to be a sex offender at his trial? That wouldn’t be much of a reference?

Unless, he initially had no intention of revealing Janner as a sex offender at his trail but only did so because he refused or didn’t bother to give him a reference. Two possible theories for this are: 1. blackmail – e.g Frank Beck and Janner’s accuser knew what they knew about him and threatened to reveal it in court if Janner never gave Frank a reference, which he didn’t, or 2. revenge – e.g Janner either refused or never bothered to give the reference he was asked for so together Frank and the man standing up for him decided to cook up a story that he’d sexually abused the latter to get back at him.

Either is plausible, but i’d agree there is reasonable doubt. Because this would have given Janner a bit of a bad name even though he wasn’t arrested at the time, and because he was a wealthy man, there’s the possibility he became an easy target and that subsequent accusations were financially motivated. Although I know nothing about the 2002 and 2006 accusations, so can’t really give an opinion, i’ve no doubt the recent avalanche of accusations are a result of police trawling methods, that we’ve seen so much of lately and have encouraged so many false allegations to be made, even if in some cases they do get some real one too….

Alan Cairns July 9, 2015 at 1:40 am

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

King James Bible Job 11:1 – 20.

Ecclesiastes 1:10 actually.

Alan

Moor Larkin July 9, 2015 at 1:35 pm

The landlady will possibly need no reminding that victim anger at “old and poorly” being an excuse was a Media “Duncroft” meme.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-98bljCYRSVc/Ui5R26OGUsI/AAAAAAAADBI/7eh4Y9qCCAo/s640/image002.jpg

Lucozade July 9, 2015 at 8:26 pm

The Blocked Dwarf,

Re: “Not being particularly well up on the current law (or any law), am I right in assuming that if Lord Janner-sans dementia, at his venerable age, now decided to have anal intercourse with a 16 year old then he would not automatically be committing an offence unless the 16 year old in question was in someway dependant / in his ‘care’ or induced by nefarious means ? If the 16 year old gave his consent freely without coercion or money changing hands?”

That’s right, the age of consent for anal sex was lowered to 16 from 18 in 2000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4256773/Physical-dangers-of-unnatural-sex.html to put it in line with the heterosexual age of consent so it would only be illegal these days if he was in a position of authority e.g stepfather, teacher, college tutor, boss (perhaps?).

The age of consent back in the late 60’s/70’s for anal sex would have been 21 though. I don’t know if people can still get into trouble for doing it with anyone below that age since the law changed or not? But perhaps that’s why some of the charges are ‘buggery without consent’….

Lucozade July 10, 2015 at 8:08 am

Engineer,

Re: “I think there is some very underhand and distasteful politics being played with the historical sexual abuse scandal”

I agree with you, but a decision to prosecute at man who was diagnosed with altzheimer’s 6 years ago, depending on how badly it’s affected him, but you would have thought it could be pretty bad by now if he was diagnosed 6 years ago, would have shocked me whoever he was, as I had always assumed that there had been a law about not prosecuting people who were unfit to stand trial, and just about everyone i’ve met with altzheimer’s wouldn’t have been. The altzheimer’s obstacle seems like a genuine obstacle to me, and would be no matter who he was….