Support NeoGAF

[Moosichu]

I know this one is quite old. But I searched and found nothing and it really is worth speaking about. I would like to state that maybe in this case this is the right thing to do. But it is more evidence of something more widespread.


http://www.*****************/news/article-3045318/Lord-Janner-child-abuse-scandal-Theresa-turns-heat-DPP-botched-case.html (Daily Mail)

Theresa May became the first Cabinet Minister to question the DPP’s judgment in ruling that the 86-year-old should not be prosecuted on the grounds that his dementia is now too advanced for him to have a fair trial.
The Home Secretary told the BBC: ‘I was very concerned when I heard about this decision. I have been very clear in everything I have said so far about the child sexual abuse issue… I expect to see justice done.’

There have been a number of recent court cases in which defendants with dementia have been jailed, and Lord Janner himself has previously called for Nazi war criminals to be put on trial regardless of their age or frailty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11547111/Former-head-of-CPS-Lord-Janner-should-face-court-over-child-abuse-allegations.html

Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), has said a court hearing should take place to establish whether Lord Janner of Braunstone is fit to stand trial on child abuse charges.
He criticised the decision of the current head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Alison Saunders, to not to proceed with charges on the grounds of the former Labour MP’s ill health, saying the case could have been tested in the “full public glare of a courtroom”.
Lord Janner, 86, who is said to be suffering from severe dementia, was investigated three times between 1991 and 2007 over allegations he abused vulnerable young boys at children’s homes in his constituency of Leicester West.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/19/establishment-stopped-me-exposing-greville-janner-25-years-ago?CMP=share_btn_tw

A little over 24 years ago, as a young freelance journalist on the Independent on Sunday, I telephoned the Leicester office of Raymonds News Agency and arranged for a reporter to cover an imminent pre-trial hearing at the city’s magistrates court. It was the sort of mundane hearing that would not normally trouble the media. A few days before, in a Leicester pub, I had met a solicitor’s clerk, to whom I had been introduced by a source on a previous story. The clerk told me that at the hearing a former children’s home manager called Frank Beck, who stood charged of sexually abusing the children in his care, would claim the man responsible for the offences was actually Leicester West’s long-standing MP, Greville, now Lord, Janner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32340975

In 1991 ... The politician was accused of grooming and abusing a boy aged between 13 and 15, but the CPS did not pursue the case.
He was investigated again in 2002 and 2006 when fresh allegations surfaced, but no action was taken.

...


The Labour Party has suspended the peer, whose family say he is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5544/lord-janner-met-probes-ex-mp-over-vip-paedophile-network

Nick said: "They cannot stand trial because he cannot defend himself and he will not understand what is happening. It is sad that the same level of protection was not afforded to the boys abused by him.

As children, we could not defend ourselves and did not undestand what was happening. It did not stop us from being abused."

...


Nick also claimed that Brittan and another former Conservative MP sexually assaulted him at the same property.

There's really not much more I can add except in the run-up the election, be very aware of who you are voting for. As much as you will have very good MP's in both parties, you also have very, very, very bad ones. I really don't think the kind of person who abuses or protects people who abuse orphans really have the countries best interests at heart. Although this list isn't the be all, end all, (there are definetely some people in Labour with something to hide), it's a good place to start.

Furthermore, remember this the next time the government introduces to increase security powers saying people who have 'nothing to hide' shouldn't worry. Because they definitely do.


UPDATE:

A bump and a bit of an update:

Lord Janner was still quite active in voting in the House of Lords, only stopping just before his house was raided by the police.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5558/lord-janner-voted-203-times-in-parliament-despite-dementia

78 MPs want the CPS to review the case:

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5551/new-parliament-dpp-has-it-wrong-on-lord-janner-say-78-mps

And not all experts who assessed the case agreed on all the findings.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5546/lord-janner-dpp-faces-fresh-doubts-about-medical-evidence

Supposedly only one of the medical experts was asked if Lord Janner could be 'putting it on' whereas the other ones weren't asked to answer that question at all.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

should not be prosecuted on the grounds that his dementia is now too advanced for him to have a fair trial.

Hard one to judge. I've seen people with severe dementia (vascular, not if that's what this guy is suffering from) and you'd have an extremely hard time getting them to understand what is going on around them, let alone they are up on charges for abusing children.

I feel the victims should probably sue his estate.

 

[Hasney]

Hard one to judge. I've seen people with severe dementia (vascular, not if that's what this guy is suffering from) and you'd have an extremely hard time getting them to understand what is going on around them, let alone they are up on charges for abusing children.

I feel the victims should probably sue his estate.

Yeah, I agree. There's no point throwing the book at someone who won't have any concept of just what is going on. Sue the estate AND if guilty, hopefully get an investigation done as to what fell down during the original investigations.

Fuck that secrets act too.

 

[Moosichu]

Hard one to judge. I've seen people with severe dementia (vascular, not if that's what this guy is suffering from) and you'd have an extremely hard time getting them to understand what is going on around them, let alone they are up on charges for abusing children.

I feel the victims should probably sue his estate.

There are other options. From the Telegraph article:

He added that rather than asking the public to accept the DPP’s decision to allow Lord Janner to go free, it would have been “wise” to hold a public court hearing now to establish what had gone wrong in the case, and test Lord Janner’s decision to stand trial.

There are also other options. Furthermore, there was enough evidence to charge him in 2002 and 2004 and nothing was done. I think it can't be stressed enough that there is a much wider cover-up and this is just a part of what is being unearthed.

Furthermore, don't forget what kind of extremes a Psychopath that abuses children so horrifically and even murders chlidren for pleasure will go to protect their reputation. Their is an extremely dark side to British politic, and the current system of waiting for people to be too ill or dead to be charged is really not the solution to this.

 

[Empty]

meh. i have a lot of anger over the child sex abuse stuff, but the principle that you should be able to be fit for your own trial is way way more important than imprisoning an 86 year old with dementia. what a miniscule bit of justice that is.

 

[samn]

If he has severe dementia what's the point in a trial. These are the rules, they're applied to everyone, and they cannot be ignored because it makes for a bad headline. It doesn't matter what Janner's opinion on such things was in the past, why even bring that up, it's a completely moronic point.

 

[sooperkool]

My 83 year old grandmother has dementia and i can't even talk to her about what we just ate for lunch. There is no point to a trial.

 

[Moosichu]

Yeah, I agree with you. I just don't know what would be the best situation. Because the victims do need some kind of resolution to all this.

 

[Script Kiddies LLC]

My 83 year old grandmother has dementia and i can't even talk to her about what we just ate for lunch. There is no point to a trial.

Yeah. Even if they did do a trial, it would be a hollow victory at best, and a loss for our rule of law.

 

[Gleethor]

Dementia is kind of like hell anyway.

 

[Dan1984uk]

My 83 year old grandmother has dementia and i can't even talk to her about what we just ate for lunch. There is no point to a trial.

This my grandmother also has dementia she forgets things within seconds so no point in a trial.

 

[Slayven]

They don't have to try him but what happen should be documented and the victims heard.

 

[hohoXD123]

Not that shocking. If his dementia is advanced to the point of not being able to stand trial then it's hard to imagine it being in the public interest to pursue this. The real issue here isn't the case being dismissed now because of his condition, it's the case being dismissed in the past when he was healthy especially considering how these aren't just minor offences we're talking about. As is always the case, there's a review looking into this but I can't say I have much hope for the right people being prosecuted and the system changing to prevent this happening in the future

 

[Cereal KiIIer]

Time for some street justice then.

 

[Jenov]

I think a trial should go forward, regardless of the offenders health status. Any actual sentencing would need to be adjusted in light of his status, but at least recognizing his wrong doings, having it down as record, in history, and having a conviction against him can help his victims move forward with lawsuits against him, create some closure, and help get leverage against his estate.

 

[Moosichu]

Not that shocking. If his dementia is advanced to the point of not being able to stand trial then it's hard to imagine it being in the public interest to pursue this. The real issue here isn't the case being dismissed now because of his condition, it's the case being dismissed in the past when he was healthy especially considering how these aren't just minor offences we're talking about. As is always the case, there's a review looking into this but I can't say I have much hope for the right people being prosecuted and the system changing to prevent this happening in the future

What about a trial by evidence? Would that be an alternative solution or not? There was some kind of trial in this story.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-raped-paedophile-dad-warn-5546341

 

[birthday-suit]

I think a trial should go forward, regardless of the offenders health status. Any actual sentencing would need to be adjusted in light of his status, but at least recognizing his wrong doings, having it down as record, in history, and having a conviction against him can help his victims move forward with lawsuits against him, create some closure, and help get leverage against his estate.

nah. you can't try someone with severe dementia. you can barely get them to do shit.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Eh. I support the policy of not prosecuting people who are not fit to stand trial.

Ok with this, though not happy about the situation.

 

[PJV3]

All of the politicians involved are dead or demented, we can't investigate the wider issue because the files have conveniently disappeared.

A real shit buttie.

 

[hohoXD123]

What about a trial by evidence? Would that be an alternative solution or not? There was some kind of trial in this story.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-raped-paedophile-dad-warn-5546341

May have misread it but it sounds like that story is very similar to the Janner case. Case dismissed initially when the person was healthy then a later trial dismissed because of dementia. I mean, even if you allowed a trial to go forward where the evidence left little room for interpretation, what would it achieve? The person who committed the crime is no longer a danger to society, they would have had no idea that they committed the crime in the first place nor be able to fully grasp the consequences of their actions. At that point it's more about revenge for the victims, and it's fine if you want that, but it's not justice.

 

[s_mirage]

I think a trial should go forward, regardless of the offenders health status. Any actual sentencing would need to be adjusted in light of his status, but at least recognizing his wrong doings, having it down as record, in history, and having a conviction against him can help his victims move forward with lawsuits against him, create some closure, and help get leverage against his estate.

And how does the accused mount a defence if he's incapable of even properly appreciating his surroundings? A fair trial would be impossible.

The only just thing to do would be to hold an inquiry into whether the justice system could have acted earlier and why it didn't if that was the case.

 

[Moosichu]

May have misread it but it sounds like that story is very similar to the Janner case. Case dismissed initially when the person was healthy then a later trial dismissed because of dementia. I mean, even if you allowed a trial to go forward where the evidence left little room for interpretation, what would it achieve? The person who committed the crime is no longer a danger to society, they would have had no idea that they committed the crime in the first place nor be able to fully grasp the consequences of their actions. At that point it's more about revenge for the victims, and it's fine if you want that, but it's not justice.

That is true. I guess some acknowledgment that it happened is what most of the victims want at least. It's just worrying that this man could have been taken to court since 1991 when there was no reason not to back then. Also there are still plenty of people around who were involved in this (directly and indirectly) and evidence in any kind of trial could shine the spotlight on them. I guess there is always the inquiry but nothing seems to have happened with it so far.

And how does the accused mount a defence if he's incapable of even properly appreciating his surroundings? A fair trial would be impossible.

The only just thing to do would be to hold an inquiry into whether the justice system could have acted earlier and why it didn't if that was the case.

That should happen. But it isn't (yet).

 

[mclem]

I think I'm fine with this decision, but upset that we got to this decision; the right answer to a question we should never have had to ask in the first place.

Certainly I think the victims deserve some investigation into how we got here, though.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

My 83 year old grandmother has dementia and i can't even talk to her about what we just ate for lunch. There is no point to a trial.

Same with mine. She doesn't even seem to remember who I even am. So I can see where they're coming from. Would be a huge waste of public money.

 

[hohoXD123]

That is true. I guess some acknowledgment that it happened is what most of the victims want at least. It's just worrying that this man could have been taken to court since 1991 when there was no reason not to back then. Also there are still plenty of people around who were involved in this (directly and indirectly) and evidence in any kind of trial could shine the spotlight on them. I guess there is always the inquiry but nothing seems to have happened with it so far.

Would the inquiry have access to any less information than a trial when it comes to prosecuting other individuals who may have been involved? If he was healthy then it may have been possible to get him to reveal the names of others involved but that's not the case. It is very worrying, but I don't think this is just a problem with British politics, we've had high profile individuals from other groups/organisations such as the BBC or the Catholic Church being implicated in child sex abuse, seems like a much wider problem of public organisations wanting to maintain their reputation by protecting their own regardless of the costs.

 

[Moosichu]

A bump and a bit of an update:

Lord Janner was still quite active in voting in the House of Lords, only stopping just before his house was raided by the police.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5558/lord-janner-voted-203-times-in-parliament-despite-dementia

78 MPs want the CPS to review the case:

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5551/new-parliament-dpp-has-it-wrong-on-lord-janner-say-78-mps

And not all experts who assessed the case agreed on all the findings.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5546/lord-janner-dpp-faces-fresh-doubts-about-medical-evidence

Supposedly only one of the medical experts was asked if Lord Janner could be 'putting it on' whereas the other ones weren't asked to answer that question at all.