Anorak | Lord Janner: 203 votes on the law and police PR with dead Jimmy Savile

Lord Janner: 203 votes on the law and police PR with dead Jimmy Savile

by | 12th, May 2015

Lord Greville Janner: a look at reporting on the beleaguered Labour peer.

Daily Mail : “Labour peer Lord Janner attended the House of Lords 634 times and voted 203 times even after his dementia diagnosis”

Alleged paedophile Lord Janner voted 203 times in the House of Lords even after he granted power of attorney to his children because of his dementia….

Unfit to be judged but fit to pass judgement?

The Labour peer also attended Parliament 634 times after his family took control of his financial affairs in April 2009, claiming £104,365 in taxpayer-funded allowances in the process.

Director of Public Prosecutions supremo Alison Saunders says Janner is too unwell to be prosecuted for alleged sex offences.

Lord Janner always denied claims that he was a paedophile and his family say he is innocent of 22 alleged sex attacks.

Innocence must be presumed.

Leicester Mercury : “First Person: Why the DPP decided not to prosecute Greville Janner”

We know why. They told us. They had him tested and found that he’d not understand any trial.

But here’s Dr Tracey Elliott, a Lecturer in Health Care Law, at the School of Law at the University of Leicester.

An accused is not fit to plead if, based on medical evidence, they are unable to plead to the indictment, understand the course of the proceedings, instruct a lawyer, challenge a juror, or understand the evidence in the case.

If an issue in relation to unfitness to plead arises once an accused has been charged, then the procedure to be followed is laid down by the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (as amended).

The Act sets out a two-stage process: first a judge must determine (having considered evidence from at least two medical experts) whether the accused is “under a disability”.

If the judge decides that the accused is unfit to plead, there will be a “trial of the facts”, with a jury merely determining whether they are satisfied that the accused “did the act” with which he is charged.

If the jury decide that the accused did the relevant act, this does not amount to a determination of guilt, and the court’s options are restricted to measures designed to treat, rehabilitate and support the accused and, where necessary, to provide protection for the public.

The DPP says Janner has “no prospect of recovery and no future risk to the public, so that even if the Crown’s case satisfied the jury, the outcome would be the absolute discharge of the accused”.

What nags is the now but what aches is the then. Lord Janner is ill now. But he wasn’t always ill.

The Hinkley Times : “Police watchdog set to investigate officers over Lord Janner abuse allegations”

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has said it will be looking into Leicestershire Police’s handling of complaints made against Lord Greville Janner and others in 1991, 2001, and 2006

Police investigate police.

The IPCC said:

“The Independent Police Complaints Commission is independently investigating Leicestershire Police’s handling of allegations of sexual abuse by Lord Janner and other individuals. The allegations were made in 1991, 2001 and 2006. The IPCC investigation is in its early stages and terms of reference will be set in due course.”

Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.

Do the Police dare to find nothing? This is a PR exercise. It’s about burying the past. They need to find wrongdoing, dig it up and beat it with sticks. Which brings us to

You have already read 1 premium article for free today
Access immediately the premium content with Multipass

Or come back tomorrow

Posted: 12th, May 2015 | In: News, Politicians Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink