This is Britain- Lord Janner won't face court

[loraward]

Seems as though Lord MacDonald shares my lack of understanding of UK law.

 

You should drop him a line, Smithy.

 

Which part of that supports your lack of understanding?

 

Quote the line in which he says that Jenner is fit to be tried.

[Anna B]

If there was sufficient evidence, and in order to substantiate that evidence, an inquiry would have to take place. In order for the "evidence" to be questioned Jenner would have to be part of that inquiry in order to defend himself, as well as the 'victims'. If not, and the inquiry went ahead without his involvement then he is by default in abstentia. An inquiry could quite rightly be perceived as a trial.

 

Not so:

 

"Judges launch 'fitness to plead' process if defence lawyers claim their client will be unable to follow court proceedings, and must rely on the evidence of two or more doctors. A jury must then decide if the defendant did the act they are accused of - but not whether thay are guilty of any crime.

Such a 'trial of the facts' could be held for Janner."

(according to yesterday's DM newapaper)

 

But the CPS ruled this out, insisting he should not be charged, meaning the case would not come to court at all.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Anna B

[harvey19]

More distasteful than the sexual abuse of children?

 

Happy now?

 

If money is to be the indicator of guilty or not guilty why bother with the court system at all ?

It would mean a guilty person could avoid their crimes becoming public or an innocent person being blackmailed and paying to avoid the "No smoke without fire" scenario.

[Anna B]

Amazing isn't it that the man is judged by many on here to be guilty of crimes he has been accused of but denied.

A person is innocent until a court of law judges him/her to be guilty.

That court will hear evidence and statements from the accuser/s and defendant upon which a jury will reach a verdict.

In this case the man accused has been judged by the relevant authority, after taking expert advice, to be unfit to stand trial.

The real question to be asked is was there sufficient evidence to bring this case to court years ago and if so why wasn't that done.

Corruption, corruption, corruption. in very very high places. That's why.

 

That's what this thread is really about, and saying over and over again.

 

And nothing is being done about it

[Longcol]

Not so:

 

"Judges launch 'fitness to plead' process if defence lawyers claim their client will be unable to follow court proceedings, and must rely on the evidence of two or more doctors. A jury must then decide if the defendant did the act they are accused of - but not whether thay are guilty of any crime.

Such a 'trial of the facts' could be held for Janner."

(according to yesterday's DM newapaper)

 

But the CPS ruled this out, insisting he should not be charged, meaning the case would not come to court at all.

 

I think the Mail got the wrong end of the stick there.

 

As far as I can tell a "trial of facts" is a proposal that has been out for consultation and a report is due anytime now. I think also it would require legislation.

 

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/news/2749.htm

 

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/unfitness-to-plead.htm

[evil woman]

Well that's another one getting away with it again then.I am off to the bookies to have a bet that not one politician will ever be brought to justice.

 

Weren't there 4 or 5 Labour MPs banged up for fraud in this parliamentary session alone? Although I do beieve one escaped justice by being unfit to stand trial.

[lil-minx92]

Saville, Leon Briton, Cyril Smith and now this guy... the truth/allegations about establishment figures seem to come to light when they're dead, gravely ill or to ill to face charge. As we speak right now they'll be countless others the police and media know all about but we'll only hear of it when its too late.

 

Very true. The cover up and protection of those involved continues. Of course, the investigations also plod along but never actually conclude and as time goes by, and more of the old boys pop their cloggs or become mentally incapable of standing trial (and potentially ratting on their old boy paedo associates) the chances of anybody getting exposed whilst still alive become slimmer.

The investigation process going on at the moment is designed for damage limitation not bringing people to justice.

[Anna B]

I think the Mail got the wrong end of the stick there.

 

As far as I can tell a "trial of facts" is a proposal that has been out for consultation and a report is due anytime now. I think also it would require legislation.

 

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/news/2749.htm

 

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/unfitness-to-plead.htm

 

Well according to today's DM, another 77 yr old man, David Massingham, was deemed not fit to stand trial on historic child abuse allegations becausw of his mental health, but he was charged with 12 offences. He denied molesting 2 boys more than 30 years ago.

 

'A 'finding of fact' hearing was held before a jury at Teeside Crown Court in February 2014: They decided he had commited the acts. He was not found guilty or not guilty, but a judge ordered he be detained indefinately in hospital.

 

Peter Saunders, of the National Association for people abused in childhood, said the case proved what the authorities could have done in Janner's case. He said;' At the very least for the sake of the victim survivors thay should get that opportunity, to tell their truth before that kind of trial.'

 

A procedure exists to deal with criminal suspects thought to have a mental illness. in serious cases where the judge rules a suspect is not fit to stand trial, a jury can hear the evidence in the suspect's absence and decide if the individual committed the crimes.'

 

Whitewash through and through. IMO the cover up is just as important as the

offences. Didn't Cameron say something about transparency, and bringing these people to justice? Either the message didn't get through to the CPS, Cameron's word isn't worth a light, or all this comes from someone with even more clout than the Prime Minister.

[redfox]

A trial of the facts for an individual who is deemed unfit to plead and stand trial in the normal way is hardly a novel procedure. It may be worth looking up what the sentence options are for such people if the jury find they committed the act alleged.

 

The fact he is not fit is not the end of it - there have been many trials for those who killed and were at the time of the trial unfit - if they were found to have done the act they are invariably made the subject of a hospital order with restriction - they don't get out !

[harvey19]

A trial of the facts for an individual who is deemed unfit to plead and stand trial in the normal way is hardly a novel procedure. It may be worth looking up what the sentence options are for such people if the jury find they committed the act alleged.

 

The fact he is not fit is not the end of it - there have been many trials for those who killed and were at the time of the trial unfit - if they were found to have done the act they are invariably made the subject of a hospital order with restriction - they don't get out !

 

How does this work when the defendant denied all charges when he was fit and the police/CPS decided not to prosecute.

If further accusations are made when the defendant is not in a fit state to reply to the allegations what is the situation ?