The Victims Confusion Over Lord Janner
June 30, 2015
Here at XEscorts, we have, over the last few years kept up to date with the numerous cases of celebrities and public figures having allegations of historical sex abuse levelled at them. One of the biggest controversies is that of Lord Janner, who faces 22 counts, but earlier this year was told he wasn’t going to face a trial due to having severe dementia.
Well, yesterday the case took a turn, with an independent review committee saying he should face the court.
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Alison Saunders said: “I have always said that in my view this was an extremely difficult and borderline case because of the strong arguments on both sides. I have also always emphasised my concern for the complainants in this case.
“I understood their need to be heard, which is why I contacted Justice Goddard to ensure that they could give evidence as part of the public inquiry. However, the review has concluded that this forum, albeit a public one, cannot substitute for the adjudication of the courts.
“I accept the outcome of the review and will now be bringing this prosecution to allow for that adjudication to happen.”
Now, it has to be said, things are a bit more complicated than has been portrayed in the headlines today. The review by QC David Perry actually agrees that with the decision taken by DPP boss Alsojn Saunders that Janner is seriously ill. They agree he is unfit to plead, and the most likely result of the whole case is an absolute discharge. He stated
“Although there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, it is right to assume that Greville Janner will inevitably be found unfit to plead and therefore not fit to instruct his legal team and not fit to challenge or give evidence in a trial. Therefore the most likely outcome of a “trial of the facts” would be an absolute discharge, which is neither punishment nor conviction.”
The main disagreement is whether it is worth ‘wasting’ tax payers money taking it that far, when the result is pre-ordained. If and when Janner is found unfit, then a trial of the facts will occur, where victims will get the chance to have their day in court, a jury will hear the decide if he done the physical act, yet no decision of guilty or not guilty can be given. That is even if it gets that far; Janner’s legal team are likely to not be that keen (to put it mildly)
A Real Concern
My worry is that the ‘victims’ and their supporters who are so happy today don’t actually understand this point. One suspects at least some expect to see Lord Janner cross examined, asked his name, and then proclaim he is a tomato or something. I’m not mocking those with dementia, far from it. But one of the main tenants of our legal system is the fact that someone is able to defend themselves from the allegations. It will be very difficult for him to have a defence against accusations from 30 years ago, if he would be unable to to tell you if he put his pants on this morning.
There is an even worse possibility though. If we have a ‘trial’ where the ‘victims’ are allowed to make accusations, yet Janner is unable to defend himself, we are at risk of witnessing a pretty vile spectacle. There may be no verdict, but a public beatdown of a senile old man.
Before anyone starts calling me an apologist, just remember we have a presumption of innocence in this country. We don’t do lynch mobs
The Real Motive
Now, I’m going to use my spidey senses and explain my understanding of the decision. There have been horrific allegations of cover up’s which have helped high profile abusers get away with their crimes over the year. Now the original decision, to many, may have looked like they were giving him a helping hand in getting away from justice again. At least with a court procedure, the whole thing will be more transparent.
Still, I can really see tears before bedtime when the case is chucked out, despite ‘evidence’ being put in front of the court. There will be wild accusations of a cover up, which in this instance, will be false.
The sad thing is that Janner was never brought to trial when he was fully functioning. If he was guilty, he should have been doing serious time before he ever became ill with a disease that doesn’t really care about your character and integrity.
The likes of Jimmy Saville and allegedly two other deceased politicians have got away with their crimes by being inconsiderate enough to die before they had their day in court. The moral of these stories, and that of Janner, is that we should never ignore allegations, and various police authorities need to work together to see patterns of abuse.
This would be a damn site more beneficial than attempting to drag an old man with dementia through the courts, and praying for a real trial that will never come.