This is Britain- Lord Janner won't face court

[Longcol]

I find the "Trial of Facts" a strange process of law when if the defendant is found guilty he/she can not be punished.

If the defendant was unable through health issues unable to conduct a defence and there was no forensic evidence how can the trial be balanced ?

 

There is no finding of guilt either in a "Trial of Facts" - I'm not really sure what it achieves

[geared]

There is no finding of guilt either in a "Trial of Facts" - I'm not really sure what it achieves

 

If it establishes the crime was committed then does it leave the door open for a civil suit??

 

Technically he doesn't even have to be alive for his victims to sue his estate - perhaps they're waiting for him to pop his cloggs???

[Anna B]

There is no finding of guilt either in a "Trial of Facts" - I'm not really sure what it achieves

 

It gives the victims a voice and allows them to tell what happened to them.

 

That's very important.

[francypants]

It gives the victims a voice and allows them to tell what happened to them.

 

That's very important.

 

 

....... ditto.......

[harvey19]

It gives the victims a voice and allows them to tell what happened to them.

 

That's very important.

 

But surely this isn't what a court of law is for.

I thought a trial necessitates both parties to put forward their case and a jury to decide who was telling the truth. If there is forensic evidence obviously that will influence the decision of the judge.

This is why I suggested publishing the details and allegations and letting a trial for libel consider the facts if the defendant was medically able to defend himself

[Longcol]

If it establishes the crime was committed then does it leave the door open for a civil suit??

 

Technically he doesn't even have to be alive for his victims to sue his estate - perhaps they're waiting for him to pop his cloggs???

 

And this is my concern.

 

I'm hoping that unscrupulous people are not looking at people with Alzheimers as a potential target for lawsuits / claims for damages which they will be ill equipped to defend.

 

My father died two years ago from Alzheimers - over a period of six years or so he went from being very independent to someone with the memory of a goldfish.

[geared]

True, but if the trial of facts establishes that the event did indeed occur then isn't a civil suit acceptable??

 

After all, technically Savillie has never had such a trial, and is also not around to defend himself.

 

but you won't find anyone around willing to stand up and say he did nothing wrong.

[L00b]

But surely this isn't what a court of law is for. I thought a trial necessitates both parties to put forward their case and a jury to decide who was telling the truth.

Depends which Court.

 

E.g. if any of the victims was killed, then the same issue would first be heard in a Coroner's Court, which would consider evidence and hear witnesses and do the same job of 'trying the facts' to determine what happened that resulted in the death, but would not pronounce any judgement about culpability (the verdict would be "Mr X died of stab wounds on date D at location L", not "Mr Z killed Mr X by stabbing him with a knife").

 

As there have been no deaths in this case, the job falls to a 'normal' court rather than the Coroner's.

Edited June 29, 2015 by L00b

[wrinkly67]

And this is my concern.

 

I'm hoping that unscrupulous people are not looking at people with Alzheimers as a potential target for lawsuits / claims for damages which they will be ill equipped to defend.

 

My father died two years ago from Alzheimers - over a period of six years or so he went from being very independent to someone with the memory of a goldfish.

 

It would seem that this is not the case. Allegations against him far precede him being diagnosed, dating back to 1991,2002, 2006. Only the most recent allegations in 2013 appear to coincide with his diagnosis.

[Longcol]

True, but if the trial of facts establishes that the event did indeed occur then isn't a civil suit acceptable??

 

 

I find it difficult to believe a "trial of facts" can really establish anything if it is simply one persons word against another and there is no corroborative evidence from witnesses, forensics etc.

 

The standard of proof in a civil trial is lower than that in a criminal trial as well - hence my previous comments re: concerns about vulnerable people being targetted.

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2015 at 15:13 ----------

 

It would seem that this is not the case. Allegations against him far precede him being diagnosed, dating back to 1991,2002, 2006. Only the most recent allegations in 2013 appear to coincide with his diagnosis.

 

I was commenting about Alzheimers generally and not Janner specifically. Yes, am aware that the alleged offences and decisions not to try him date back a long time.

 

As I've said before - post Savile we are far more predisposed to listen to victims of sexual abuse and take them seriously than was the case previously.