| Topic: | Re:Janner again | |
| Posted by: | Thomas Barry | |
| Date/Time: | 25/04/15 11:24:00 |
| "so the DPP Alison Saunders worked in the same Chambers as this individual......well well" I'd hold off on that if I were you, Pete: https://twitter.com/crowley_q/status/591891099851063297 'Janner and Saunders NEVER associated with 1 Garden Court Family Law Chambers. Misleading news today.' Janner worked as a barrister *at that address* from 1954, Saunders (who's from a completely different generation and over 30 years younger) was a pupil there in 1983 (by which time Janner was a politician, although he didn't leave until 1986). Since then an entirely new practice started there specialising in family law, and where neither Janner nor Saunders ever worked. There isn't really much to this other than the law world being quite a small place where if you dig hard enough you can find an allegation of cosiness. Making it stand up is much more difficult and I've not actually seen anyone whose legal expertise I respect (i.e. Joshua Rozenberg) arguing that the case should have proceeded (the previous chances to prosecute the CPS missed are much more concerning). Rozenberg's article: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/22/critics-of-lord-janner-decision-misunderstand-justice-system?CMP=share_btn_tw 'According to the CPS summary of the doctors’ findings, Janner’s “evidence could not be relied upon in court and he could not have any meaningful engagement with the court process”. If that is correct, any judge would stop the case as an abuse of process' If he is indeed suffering from dementia, and there's no reason to believe he isn't, there's no point prosecuting him anyway because the judge will rule him unfit to stand trial. Also this basic fact of the UK criminal justice system, which practically none of the lay commentators seem to know: '[T]he primary purpose of a criminal trial is not to “deliver justice” to alleged victims. It is not to “find out what happened”. That’s the role of a public inquiry. The purpose of a criminal trial is to test the evidence against a named defendant. If the defendant is dead, abroad or suffering from dementia, there can be no trial.' There should, I hope, be no objection to spending public money on a public inquiry into the whole damned business. Spending it preparing a trial against someone who can't stand trial, however, would deliver no justice for anyone and be a total waste of time and money. Janner's history: http://www.le.ac.uk/ebulletin-archive/ebulletin/news/2000-2009/2008/06/npfolder.2008-07-07.7204208003/nparticle.2008-07-07.4108155125/index.html Saunders' history: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/people/alison-saunders/72095.fullarticle [that last also contains something people might want distractions from - the CPS, which was not well run anyway, has suffered serious budget cuts which make it even less likely to start being well run] |
| Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
| Janner again | 25/04/15 10:40:00 | Pete Mayes |
| Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 10:54:00 | Viv Griffiths |
| Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 11:04:00 | Pete Mayes |
| Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 11:24:00 | Thomas Barry |
| Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 11:36:00 | Pete Mayes |
| Re:Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 11:42:00 | Timothy Reid |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 11:49:00 | Pete Mayes |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 12:36:00 | John Connelly |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 12:48:00 | Pete Mayes |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 14:20:00 | Pete Mayes |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 14:36:00 | Brian Coyle |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 16:25:00 | Pete Mayes |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Janner again | 25/04/15 20:14:00 | John Martin |