Talk

Advanced search

Janner news

(23 Posts)
knickernicker Tue 23-Jun-15 23:30:34

a naive question as I should know the answer but why are the family having none of it? They all seem to be good people. It bugs me.

AnyoneForTennis Tue 23-Jun-15 23:45:37

Eh ? Who?

Scaredycat3000 Fri 26-Jun-15 21:49:13

I was talking to OH about this. With all the revelations of how our 'great and good' have been behaving and how it has been covered up it would be prudent to behave more like Leon Brittans family did, quietly go off and bury him yes preferably alive and keep a dignified silence. They really are in denial or incredibly arrogant that the CPS isn't pressing charges because of his health rather than lack of evidence. All those alleged victims, this must feel like the knife being twisted over and over again. I can't imagine if Scotland decide to take him to trial and find him guilty they will apologize. If they really believe he is innocent they should be asking the CPS to press charges and him to have his day year in court. He publicly stated alleged Nazi war criminals should be put in the dock regardless of their health so I'm sure he would be quite happy for himself to be treated the same.

Scaredycat3000 Sat 27-Jun-15 13:36:10

Good news, there may well be a trial of facts. At least that will give his alleged victims a day in court, might not be the day they want but it's better than nothing. I still think considering Janners views on sick Nazi criminals being taken to court he should be treated in the same way.

BigChocFrenzy Sun 28-Jun-15 03:56:24

In Janner's case, the victims appealed the DPP's decision and a review overturned the decision. So there will be a Trial of Facts, not an ordinary trial, due to his dementia.

I'm very relieved to read this, because back in April several Mumsnet lawyers kept posting to insist that a Trial of Facts would be legally impossible in his case.

For Anyone and maybe other Mumsnetters too young to remember Janner in his heydey:

He was a very prominent MP for many years, finally retiring to the House of Lords.
There were allegations made against him by young boys while he was an MP, but he received glowing public support from other MPs and no charges were brought.
Earlier this year, he was facing 21 charges of offenses against young boys, but the DPP decided not to proceed, on the grounds of his dementia.
Also, the police announced then that when he was younger, they were ordered not to gather evidence against him.

Now the DPP's decision has apparently been overturned, the victims can hopefully have their cases heard in court.
Best wait for the official announcement this week though, just in case of funny handshakes ....

BigChocFrenzy Sun 28-Jun-15 03:57:25

I believe the Historic Abuse enquiry (into paedophile politicians, judges, police chiefs, top civil servants) is still ongoing.

So some VIPs (Very Important Paedophiles) would be very nervous about any trial.

Pagwatch Mon 29-Jun-15 10:08:09

Just been announced on Radio 5
He is going to face trial.

samG76 Mon 29-Jun-15 10:37:47

Bigchoc - from what I recall, some MNer's were saying that because a trial of the facts would inevitably lead to an absolute discharge, it would be a waste of the court's resources and public money. His family obviously reckon he has a defence - I'm not sure how that works in a trial of facts, but if he doesn't have one I wonder how it will bring comfort for the victims.

Pagwatch Mon 29-Jun-15 11:23:56

But it's not going to be a trial of facts.
He is being prosecuted. The previous decision not to prosecute has been over turned.

Pagwatch Mon 29-Jun-15 11:26:30

here

Gobbolinothewitchscat Mon 29-Jun-15 11:46:38

I think there will need to be a preliminary hearing where a judge will hear expert psychiatric evidence and then decide whether it is to be a "normal" criminal prosecution or a trial of the facts.

I can't see how the QC reviewing would be able to make that decision re: preliminary process.

Wordsaremything Mon 29-Jun-15 11:49:45

Pag, see fourth para from the bottom of the piece you linked to. A judge will now decide whether Janner is fit to stand trial or whether there will be a trial of facts. I suspect his defence will argue abuse of process and that he can't have a fair trial of whatever kind because all the negative publicity has prejudiced it. And media outlets may well have been less careful in what they published, assuming after the dpps decision not to prosecute that a criminal trial would never happen. This won't be resolved quickly or simply.

I suspect the quickest and surest way of getting this unequivocally into the public domain is via the ongoing inquiry into sex abuse - a route which i imagine many of the alleged victims will take .

Gobbolinothewitchscat Mon 29-Jun-15 11:51:12

Agree words - and I can see him dying in the interim whilst the issue is decided unfortunately

I hope the Goddard enquiry hurries up its commencement

redshoeblueshoe Mon 29-Jun-15 11:57:39

George Carmen QC was his barrister in 1991 - and he warned Janner then that there was enough evidence to get him sent down. Carmen's son has recently said his father was shocked it never went to trial. He was also going to the Lords more recently than claimed. Why would anyone think his family would apologise. You only have to look at Bindi Harris - families want to protect their inheritance.

TheQueenOfSheba Mon 29-Jun-15 12:08:49

You only have to look at Bindi Harris - families want to protect their inheritance.

Interesting point, it never occurred to me that there might be a financial reason why families support the accused in these cases.

redshoeblueshoe Mon 29-Jun-15 12:19:47

Yes Queen - Stuart Hall put all his assets in his wife's name just before his trial, and I think I read that Rolf did the same (I might be wrong about Rolf)

Scaredycat3000 Mon 29-Jun-15 23:56:19

Also Cliff Richard has just sold his British home. He now has even less official links with Britain. He is a resident of Barbados. If they did have a warrant for his arrest, if he chose to return to Britain and if he was found guilty he appears to have minimal assets in this country.
My comment on the Janner family apologizing if Janner was found guilty was meant as a if you're going to call people lairs so publicly the right thing to do if they were proved to not be liars would be to apologize publicly.

redshoeblueshoe Tue 30-Jun-15 07:00:40

As a citizen of Barbados he can relax - they have no extradition treaty with us. How lucky for him.

BigChocFrenzy Wed 01-Jul-15 20:29:36

It isn't a waste of public money if a Trial of Facts gives the victims closure. This is why the victims demanded the review and obtained a reversal of the DPP's decision: they want their day in court, so the whole country can hear their allegations and the evidence.
That is the most justice the victims can hope for.

There is precedent for defendants suffering from dementia to have a Trial of Facts over child abuse allegations, no matter how much some lawyers dislike the idea on principle: it is a balance between the Human Rights of the alleged abuser and those of the victims.
Also, the trial would have occurred many years ago but for coverups and interference with the police investigative process. It is outrageous if a defendant can continue to benefit from that

When the alleged abuser was in such a position of power and protected by others of our ruling class, it is in the public interest to show that there is no longer a coverup. The belief that the ruling class can hide their crimes is damaging to the country.

BigChocFrenzy Wed 01-Jul-15 20:30:47

A Trial Of Facts could also make it easier for the victims afterwards to win civil actions against Janner.

Madamecastafiore Wed 01-Jul-15 20:32:26

He was compus mentis (sp?) enough to sign over his financial affairs shortly before the shit hit the fan so should face the full force of the law.

samG76 Fri 03-Jul-15 09:39:38

Bigchoc - I'm not sure if it is the function of the court system to give victims closure (whatever that means). If they want people to tell their stories, why not just publish their statements? This would be much cheaper than giving evidence in court, and if there is no defence it would seem to come to the same thing.

Icimoi Fri 03-Jul-15 17:53:00

But it couldn't be a full trial of the facts, could it, because we can't hear his side of the story. It's not good enough to say that defence counsel can contest the allegations on his behalf, the most wonderful barrister in the world can't contest them properly if he can't ask his client for his version of events. Suppose, for example, that in his right mind Janner could tell the barrister that something couldn't have happened because he was elsewhere and that there are witnesses to that fact. It would potentially be a complete defence to the charge, but the barrister can't use if if he never finds out about it. You can't assume that the witnesses would even know that the specific date is relevant, let alone that they would come forward voluntarily. And if, as the Independent report states, the aim of a trial of the facts is to protect the public, why is that necessary in this case?

Don't get me wrong, I've got massive sympathy with any victim of abuse, and massive revulsion about the possibility of an abuser getting away with his offences. What concerns me is whether this realistically would bring closure for the victims. If any particular charge comes down to the victim's word against Janner's, it may be that the court will take the view that, without Janner's version of what happened and without being able to cross-examine Janner, they can't decide that the facts are proved. If the victim has had to go through the ordeal of giving evidence and being cross-examined, won't that make them feel immeasurably worse? And if the trial finds that Janner did commit the offence, there would probably be endless appeals based on the right to a fair trial, so again realistically there would be no closure.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now