Speckled Hen Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33310095 "The case has been listed for Westminster Magistrates' Court on 7 August. It was reviewed under the CPS Victims' Right to Review Scheme, which allows people to have their case looked at again no matter who in the CPS took the decision not to prosecute. David Perry QC concluded that it was in the public interest to bring proceedings before a criminal court." "A judge will now decide if Lord Janner is fit to stand trial. If not, he will face what is known as a "trial of the facts", where a court hears evidence from alleged victims and decides only if Lord Janner committed the physical acts of abuse. There will be no finding of guilt or conviction." So, It's likely his 'actions' will go to court but the man himself, maybe not. It seems no one else has bothered reading this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33310095 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 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. I appreciate your example where a death had occurred but in this case there is not, as I understand it, any proof that any offences were committed only accusations. ---------- Post added 29-06-2015 at 15:47 ---------- It seems no one else has bothered reading this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33310095 I had not read this but heard a summary of it on the news. I think this discussion is not primarily about the specific case but the subject of a "Trial of Facts" and its implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyranna Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 If Lord Jenner is suffering from progressive dementia and increasing deteriorating facilities all charges against him should be DROPPED. Proceeding with the 'prosecution'' will be in no-one's interest and will simply represent a gross waste o Public Money which would be far better spent in combating the REAL threat of TERRORISM:rant: which as the shooting in Tunisia shows, is not exactly going away; and the Government is also having to make savings in many areas including policing. All further investigations into 'hIstorical abuse' by people who are now suffering dementia or have died should be likewise closed and the best that can really be done is to compi le reports of what happened, so that we can learn the lessons and also provide counselling/support for the poor souls who were genuinely affected by the 'abuse' once we are sure that they have not just lied and made it all up... In certain other cases of GENUINELY SERIOUS crimes, such as former Nazi concentration camp guards now suffering dementia, they STILL DO NEED TO BE PROSECUTED WITH THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE LAW if proven as guilty, as in those cases they participated in a monstrous genocide, unlike 'child abusers' who in many cases cause no deaths or lasting physical damage to their 'victims' , not to mention that they may have caused mental anguish (But see above, re. counselling). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 If Lord Jenner is suffering from progressive dementia and increasing deteriorating facilities all charges against him should be DROPPED. Proceeding with the 'prosecution'' will be in no-one's interest and will simply represent a gross waste o Public Money which would be far better spent in combating the REAL threat of TERRORISM:rant: which as the shooting in Tunisia shows, is not exactly going away; and the Government is also having to make savings in many areas including policing. All further investigations into 'hIstorical abuse' by people who are now suffering dementia or have died should be likewise closed and the best that can really be done is to compi le reports of what happened, so that we can learn the lessons and also provide counselling/support for the poor souls who were genuinely affected by the 'abuse' once we are sure that they have not just lied and made it all up... In certain other cases of GENUINELY SERIOUS crimes, such as former Nazi concentration camp guards now suffering dementia, they STILL DO NEED TO BE PROSECUTED WITH THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE LAW if proven as guilty, as in those cases they participated in a monstrous genocide, unlike 'child abusers' who in many cases cause no deaths or lasting physical damage to their 'victims' , not to mention that they may have caused mental anguish (But see above, re. counselling). Interesting points of view... On the first point: Cost. Rotherham council are saying that the cost of prosecuting the perpetrators in the sex scandal there will be prohibitive, and they cannot afford it. Should the cases be abandoned and the money go towards 'more useful' purposes? I doubt many will think so. Or maybe people should realise that the law in this country is now so ridiculously expensive even government departments cannot afford it, never mind the common man, and do something about bringing the costs down Second point: I wonder at your interpretation of what is a serious crime. Yes of course where former concentration camp guards have committed heinous crimes they should be prosecuted, even if they were 'just obeying orders,' but I find your somewhat dismissive stance on abuse victims as rather offensive. Not only will they have been damaged by the abuse, (and let's not forget there has been talk of murder also,) but they have also been called liars for much of their lives and not listened to. The psychological effect of that must have been very great and should not be underestimated. We are talking here about a possible ring of paedophiles who have been operating above the law for many years with impunity due to their abuse of rank and power. They may also have participated and colluded in 'cover ups' involving threats, intimidation and criminal behaviour. Yet these same people still see themselves as fit persons to govern our country, make the law, and have jurisdiction over us 'little people.' At the very least this behaviour should be aired in a court of law, for a jury to ascertain the truth. Just as Jimmy Savile's case opened up the whole can of worms, I believe the Janner case will lead to other prosecutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrinkly67 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 [/b] Interesting points of view... On the first point: Cost. Rotherham council are saying that the cost of prosecuting the perpetrators in the sex scandal there will be prohibitive, and they cannot afford it. Should the cases be abandoned and the money go towards 'more useful' purposes? I doubt many will think so. Or maybe people should realise that the law in this country is now so ridiculously expensive even government departments cannot afford it, never mind the common man, and do something about bringing the costs down Second point: I wonder at your interpretation of what is a serious crime. Yes of course where former concentration camp guards have committed heinous crimes they should be prosecuted, even if they were 'just obeying orders,' but I find your somewhat dismissive stance on abuse victims as rather offensive. Not only will they have been damaged by the abuse, (and let's not forget there has been talk of murder also,) but they have also been called liars for much of their lives and not listened to. The psychological effect of that must have been very great and should not be underestimated. We are talking here about a possible ring of paedophiles who have been operating above the law for many years with impunity due to their abuse of rank and power. They may also have participated and colluded in 'cover ups' involving threats, intimidation and criminal behaviour. Yet these same people still see themselves as fit persons to govern our country, make the law, and have jurisdiction over us 'little people.' At the very least this behaviour should be aired in a court of law, for a jury to ascertain the truth. Just as Jimmy Savile's case opened up the whole can of worms, I believe the Janner case will lead to other prosecutions. Well said and I agree with all the points you make. It is becoming more and more evident, and not only in this case, that people with wealth, rank and power and with "friends" of a similar status, can be protected and seen as above the law. It is important that this case is seen to be dealt with openly, not only for the sake of the accusers, but also for we "little people" who, in similar circumstances, would have no resource for such protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 The man will never go to court as he will be deemed unfit to stand trial I think. The Trial of Facts will only focus on the one individual and as he can not be found guilty and therefore can not be punished by a custodial sentence. How will the trial extend to other people ? ---------- Post added 30-06-2015 at 10:09 ---------- [/b] Interesting points of view... On the first point: Cost. Rotherham council are saying that the cost of prosecuting the perpetrators in the sex scandal there will be prohibitive, and they cannot afford it. Should the cases be abandoned and the money go towards 'more useful' purposes? I doubt many will think so. Or maybe people should realise that the law in this country is now so ridiculously expensive even government departments cannot afford it, never mind the common man, and do something about bringing the costs down . There did not seem to be any problem with finding money or manpower to investigate celebrities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 The jury are tasked with deciding if the acts alleged did in fact occur. The defendant may or may not be present depending on his health - he may have given instructions to his legal team and the witnesses called cross examined - if he hasn't given instructions there is not much to ask if he has t given instructions because he cannot due to being unfit - although there can be a testing of the evidence. If the jury find he has committed the act or acts then it becomes a sentencing exercise - and the disposals available are limited. It may well give the alleged victims an opportunity to have their account aired in public and as such allow them some resolution of matters - it may not - It will at least allow the public to know that these sorts of allegations even after many years and involving someone a little bit famous will be prosecuted. The evidence better be good though juries find it hard enough to convict in your run of the mill sex case - the statistics are shocking - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 It seems that those wanting a trial, of whatever sort, presume a guilty verdict is inevitable. If a not guilty verdict is returned will the accusers accept this philosophically or feel doubly let down ? To me the important question is why wasn't he arrested, charged and put before a court when he was of sound mind and the evidence passed the required threshold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 To me the important question is why wasn't he arrested, charged and put before a court when he was of sound mind and the evidence passed the required threshold. because corrpution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SqueakyPete Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 [/b] Interesting points of view... On the first point: Cost. Rotherham council are saying that the cost of prosecuting the perpetrators in the sex scandal there will be prohibitive, and they cannot afford it. Should the cases be abandoned and the money go towards 'more useful' purposes? I doubt many will think so. Or maybe people should realise that the law in this country is now so ridiculously expensive even government departments cannot afford it, never mind the common man, and do something about bringing the costs down Second point: I wonder at your interpretation of what is a serious crime. Yes of course where former concentration camp guards have committed heinous crimes they should be prosecuted, even if they were 'just obeying orders,' but I find your somewhat dismissive stance on abuse victims as rather offensive. Not only will they have been damaged by the abuse, (and let's not forget there has been talk of murder also,) but they have also been called liars for much of their lives and not listened to. The psychological effect of that must have been very great and should not be underestimated. We are talking here about a possible ring of paedophiles who have been operating above the law for many years with impunity due to their abuse of rank and power. They may also have participated and colluded in 'cover ups' involving threats, intimidation and criminal behaviour. Yet these same people still see themselves as fit persons to govern our country, make the law, and have jurisdiction over us 'little people.' At the very least this behaviour should be aired in a court of law, for a jury to ascertain the truth. Just as Jimmy Savile's case opened up the whole can of worms, I believe the Janner case will lead to other prosecutions. Was he/she being serious? The post only made sense to me when you add a twist of sarcasm:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now