This is Britain- Lord Janner won't face court

[redfox]

If he is not fit now there is still a decision to be made as to whether or not they continue with the prosecution and seek a trial of the facts.

 

I do not know why they decided not to prosecute some time ago but the climate has changed a great deal in the past 10 years or so - and it may have gone too far for some -

 

Any decision by the CPS not to prosecute can be 'appealed' by the alleged victim and it is possible to challenge that decision in the courts.

[harvey19]

ATrial of the Facts must surely include facts from the accuser and defendant.

I appreciate where there is certain forensic evidence the probability of guilt is high but when it is simply accusations and denials especially when the defendant has denied all offences is now unable to defend himself because of health issues about events many years ago I fail to see the validity of any trial.

[charmer]

Is a vote for Labour a vote for peadohiles? If UKIP can be condemned for the actions of it's members, Labour can too.

[redfox]

A trial of the facts does not include any evidence from the Defendant - it can't because any determination that they are unfit precludes any sort of active participation in the trial -if the Defendant is unfit to plead and unfit to stand trial if you are acting for the defence you will not have any instructions from the Defendant so challenging evidence is not part of your role. All you can do is remind the jury of the importance of the burden and the standard of proof.

 

How do you try an accused who is mentally ill and is found to be unfit ? You can't simply ignore any allegations made against them hence the process of a trial of the facts - if they have killed what do you do

[charmer]

This is the 3rd time the cps has decided not to prosecute. The cps say he should have been prosecuted before.

[harvey19]

A trial of the facts does not include any evidence from the Defendant - it can't because any determination that they are unfit precludes any sort of active participation in the trial -if the Defendant is unfit to plead and unfit to stand trial if you are acting for the defence you will not have any instructions from the Defendant so challenging evidence is not part of your role. All you can do is remind the jury of the importance of the burden and the standard of proof.

 

How do you try an accused who is mentally ill and is found to be unfit ? You can't simply ignore any allegations made against them hence the process of a trial of the facts - if they have killed what do you do

 

Thank you for the explanation.

I appreciate in the case of a killing where there is a body such things can be valid but in cases such as this, unless there is forensic evidence, how can it be proved that an offence/s took place ?

It seems to be a dangerous scenario especially when financial compensation is involved.

I do not refer specifically to the Lord Jenner affair but the situation in general.

[Guest sibon]

Thank you for the explanation.

I appreciate in the case of a killing where there is a body such things can be valid but in cases such as this, unless there is forensic evidence, how can it be proved that an offence/s took place ?

It seems to be a dangerous scenario especially when financial compensation is involved.

I do not refer specifically to the Lord Jenner affair but the situation in general.

 

They are important questions, harvey. We won't know what the evidence is without a court case. That's why we need one of some kind.

[tinfoilhat]

They are important questions, harvey. We won't know what the evidence is without a court case. That's why we need one of some kind.

 

An enquiry definitely. A trial would be pointless, in so much getting someone who has been diagnosed with dementia for 5 years to sit in a court room and expecting him to grasp what's happening. If we can tweek the legal system to make a trial happen without him - who knows? But what happens if he is found guilty? What happens if he has a rare moment of clarity (my dad had them very very rarely but he did occasionally) and can say "hold on I was at xyz on that date and abc can verify it" but that clarity could be gone in a matter of hours and maybe never return.

 

But these are crimes he should have been in court for decades ago. That is bigger issue.

[loraward]

An enquiry definitely. A trial would be pointless, in so much getting someone who has been diagnosed with dementia for 5 years to sit in a court room and expecting him to grasp what's happening. If we can tweek the legal system to make a trial happen without him - who knows? But what happens if he is found guilty? What happens if he has a rare moment of clarity (my dad had them very very rarely but he did occasionally) and can say "hold on I was at xyz on that date and abc can verify it" but that clarity could be gone in a matter of hours and maybe never return.

 

But these are crimes he should have been in court for decades ago. That is bigger issue.

 

In a world of finite resources the millions it will cost would be better spent on front line public services rather than an inquiry.

[liza D]

There are rules which determine if a defendant is fit to stand trial, they probably just followed the rules that apply to everyone.

 

 

“The CPS has concluded that Lord Greville Janner should not be prosecuted because of the severity of his dementia which means he is not fit to take part in any proceedings, there is no treatment for his condition, and there is no current or future risk of offending.”

 

The CPS statement said: “Had the previous decisions been to prosecute, as they should have been, Lord Janner would have had the opportunity to challenge the evidence and defend himself through the trial process, with a jury ultimately deciding on his guilt or innocence some years ago.”

 

 

But they can try a dead man? What has this country become? mini US