|
|
|
Notifications
|
|
|
|
''There is no satisfaction to be taken from the messy and wholly distressing set of proceedings that now surround the elderly Labour peer Lord Janner. Facing 22 charges of historic child sex abuse, there is widespread and public discussion as to his mental state, with his every movement scrutinised, his every recent utterance pored over for evidence of mental capacity''.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/greville-janner-child-sex-abuse-prosecution
Mr Ozin said forcing Janner to court could lead to a "catastrophic reaction" and "a perfect storm" of extreme distress, breaching the peer's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. He added: "It is barbaric, inhuman and uncivilised to expose a very vulnerable person to the experience I have alluded to, particularly when it is wholly unnecessary and serves no logical purpose." Logical purpose, Mmmmmm the pursuit of justice.
He described the decision of Senior District Judge Howard Riddle, chief magistrate at Westminster, to require Janner's attendance as "irrational and perverse" and said it threatened to rob the peer of his dignity. Hmm what about the dignity and rights of the alleged victims.
The judges rejected Janner's application without calling on the Crown Prosecution Service to defend Judge Riddle's decision.
Lady Justice Rafferty, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin, said the peer had been charged with offences which must be tried in the crown court, and for that to happen he had to appear at the magistrates court - if only briefly - so the case could progress.
Read the full article and synopsis http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/national/lord-janner-must-attend-court-over-child-abuse-charges-judges-rule-1-6901215
My opinion
Now it will be decided, if he will appear on court in person, face a jury and have a verdict on trial. of guilty or not guilty. or should a court examine the evidence only where a verdict will not be made. the latter seems rather pointless. the offences were commited prior to his alleged 'becoming unfit to plead'. My opinion! it is another shabby ploy to sweep under the carpet yet another sordid affair committed by a person who had influence and power.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, basically he should be tried 'in absentia' Latin for "in absence," or more fully, in one's absence. Occasionally a criminal trial is conducted without the defendant being present when he/she walks out or escapes after the trial has begun, since the accused has thus waived the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. During the War Crimes trials following World War II, it was employed against Nazis who had committed atrocities and then disappeared, the most famous being Martin Bormann, Hitler's deputy. Several high profile criminals who have committed crimes and escaped abroad have been tried in their abscence'.
The victims need closure, a final judgement, whatever a jury decides, perhaps compensation which technically can only be demanded if a guilty verdict is given. or is it a waste of the courts time and a waste of public money?
What do you think?
