Daniel Janner QC with his father Lord Janner
Now, this is interesting if true.
The CPS has already confirmed that the Director of Public Prosecutions consulted Neil Moore, a barrister at 23 Essex Street where Daniel Janner worked, over whether to prosecute Lord Janner. Now, according to The Times, Leicestershire Police had concerns and were given an assurance that the CPS were dealing with the Janner case.
Be a little careful as the police have their own case to put forward but the natural inference from this statement would be that Leicestershire Police had raised those concerns with the CPS during appraisal of the Police’s evidence by the CPS and that the CPS had given a specific assurance to the Leicestershire Police regarding this.
The CPS response is carefully qualified. There were no ‘improper’ attempts, the DPP was not ‘unduly’ influenced.
I think some clarification from Leicestershire Police and the CPS is called for on this.
In a separate development, Leicestershire police told The Times that they were concerned about alleged improper attempts by a member of the Bar to influence key legal decisions in their investigation into Lord Janner, 86, and other suspects. A spokesman for the force said: “We are aware of this barrister and had concerns but were assured the CPS were dealing with this matter.”
The CPS said that no improper attempts had been made to influence Mrs Saunders. A spokesman said: “The DPP was not unduly influenced by anyone when making this decision. As head of the CPS — an independent prosecuting authority — the DPP is used to making difficult decisions and will continue to do so independently.
theneedleblog 
Neil Moore should have refused to have given an opinion on the grounds that the perception of a possible conflict of interest might tend to undermine public confidence or cause him professional embarrassment.
We’ll forget that the State conspired to prosecute Dreyfus for a crime he didn’t commit while a different State conspired not to prosecute Janner for crimes that he probably did commit.
Trouble is Sabre, we just have one sides words against another in a climate of renewed anti-Semitism similarly based on the shameful and totally untrue accusation that Jewish people are not loyal to their country. Similar conditions to the time of Dreyfus. In both cases accusations were also based on pure hear say, weren’t they?
Dreyfus was prosecuted in order to cover up for deficiencies in the General Command, It is asserted, that in a climate of anti-Semitism the view was taken that ‘He’s a Jew so he’ll do’, it has been a long standing police practice in this country that ‘He’s overdue so he’ll do’ hence the recording of Police interviews, ESDA tests on police notebooks and statements etc.
In Janner’s case he was named in court, by a witness on oath, in the case of R v Beck as a child abuser, the trial judge attempted to gag the press, the press had to seek a judicial review of the gag order which was overturned.
The prosecuting authorities admit that the evidential test for prosecution SUCCEEDED, they admit that earlier decisions not to prosecute were WRONG. In Janner’s case incompetence by the authorities at the very least (no one buys that) at worst a deliberate cover up.
You may view this as anti-Semitism if you like Becky but in so doing you diminish the value of using the term. They protected him for 20 + years before the dam eventually broke, failing to hold the ensuing torrent back his protectors become anti-semites !
Dreyfus could only have hoped for ‘anti-semites’ of that kind.
Dreyfus wasn’t convicted on hearsay but on false expert evidence at a secret trial. I suspect that you, Becky, are confusing the legal definition of hearsay (the report of another party’s words) with a witnesses own words.
Most trials rely on, to a greater or lesser extent, the words of one party versus another given under oath. Opposing counsel challenge the witnesses, documents and video may be produced to support or rebut the statements, forensic test results may be presented to support or rebut evidential positions. The judge will rule on admissibility of evidence and points of law. It is the job of the Jury and the Jury alone to determine the facts in the light of all the evidence adduced.
Hmmm…do you know what, Gojam: there actually is one, easy way to prove whether Greville Janner is suffering from late stage dementia or not. They could take a brain scan (ECG I think it’s called) and if Lord Janner is in the late stages of dementia the image will show significant areas of damage to the brain.
That still leaves us with the problem of proof with regard to whether he committed these acts of abuse he has been accused of or not. It seems to be either a case of you believe what the accusers say or you believe what Lord Janner’s family say – who protest his innocence. I get a nasty feeling about this: with the strong under-current of anti-Semitism from some unsavoury right wing journalists, commentators and politicians it’s beginning to look like it could turn out to be the early 21st century equivalent of the Dreyfus case.
Supposing more powerful establishment figures are throwing us Janner as the fall guy to cover up much more prominent and powerful political figures and major players? They calculate that with the strong sentiment of anti-Semitism that pervades our current age throwing us a scapegoat who is a Jew will put us off the scent and satiate the anger of the crushed masses. After all, it’s the oldest trick in the book.
Janner=Dreyfus, it was worth a try Becky !
Becky, he would be given an ECG by a cardiologist, I think that you probably meant an EEG.
Sorry, I wasn’t sure what the term for the scan was, Sabre. Some forms of dementia can be heart-related such as vascular dementia, cerebrovascular-related dementia caused by TIAs (mini-strokes or one massive stroke) such as small vessel disease. Any damage to the brain would show up in a brain scan image as proof that Greville Janner had dementia.
Although the bastard is obviously heartless if not befuddled.
BoJo et al venting about the outrageous decision by CPS not to prosecute.
They all knew that he had major questions to answer at least 2 if not 3 decades ago.
They all grunted their hear ! hear ! from all sides of the house when Janner made his ‘personal statement’ to the house following the ‘scurrilous remarks’ made during and subsequent to the Trial of R v Beck.
They will maintain their silence and feign ignorance of the grievous crimes of the rest of their fellows until the day dawns when they will all be ‘amazed and mortified’ that others have finally been found out.
Forget not voting for them and consider stringing the bastards up.
Interesting article on this by legal expert Joshua Rozenberg in The Guardian today, which went up a few hours ago:
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/22/critics-of-lord-janner-decision-misunderstand-justice-system
I guess there’s also the danger that as dementia sufferers are often confused there’s also the possibility that he could mention names of fellow MPs which might implicate them when they were not involved. Guess there’ll be no way of knowing 100 per cent for sure really.
Before the creation of the CPS 30 years ago the DPP would have made the decision on whether to prosecute a case regarding homosexual paedophila, as we have seen with the failures to prosecute Cyril Smith and Peter Hayman. I stopped reading after such a misleading start to the article.
civil actions for damages is one possible route to some sort of justice.
it might still be premature to bury the idea of a trial of fact.
the “establishment” have contempt for the citizens but they also fear them .
I’m thinking that I’m done with conjecture, this is a cover up, in plain view before our very eyes.
The establishment have nothing but contempt for us, we are cattle to them.
6 days ago the cat dragged this in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02p9j8p
uri-geller speaks on Janner sounding all very distant all of a sudden. Geller also reveals his own son works for the CPS or did one hear that wrong?! Read an article on Geller’s website that Janner invited him round for dinner on Easter sunday. It wasn’t dated, nevertheless, this charlatan is not a mere acquaintance. This Edomites are rancid.
oops… these edomites i mean
Regarding the ‘trial of the facts’ option –
Criminal Procedure (insanity and unfitness to plead) Act 1991 – ‘The issue of fitness to plead is normally determined by a jury as soon as it arises. The jury bases its decision on the written or oral evidence of two or more medical practitioners, at least one of whom is approved under Section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (see Chapter 10). If the jury then decides the accused is unfit to plead, the court is required to conduct “a trial of the facts”. The burden of proof is the same as in other criminal procedures, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. If the jury is satisfied on the evidence that the accused did not commit the offence, he must be acquitted. Those found under disability receive one of the disposable options described below (Box 5.3) (Kellam 1992) The 1991 Act and its provisions for discretionary sentencing in insanity and unfitness cases (and trial of facts with unfitness) might lead to an increase in these legal provisions.’ http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PracForenPsych_05.pdf
Is there an historical record of how MPs voted on Acts of Parliament? It would be interesting to know how Janner & Vaz voted on the 1991 Act
at the mo a cross party group of mp’s are requesting a review of the cps decision with a view to prosecution. ref bbc news channel.
Is it not the case that the CPS did not even get an opportunity to examine the case because the DPP took a decision on the matter, therefore the CPS were not involved?
The DPP is virtually head of the CPS and it was she who decided the CPS were not going to prosecute because ‘it is not in the public interest.’
However if there are snuff movies involved then surely it wasn’t Janner working alone, there must have been other participants who wanted to see themselves acting out sadistic crimes, there must have been at least one cameraman, so what possible reason can the DPP have to claim it isn’t in the public interest. The public need to know. Let’s just hope that we don’t get the cowardly Jeremy Wright and the Conservatives or Labour Party back in power – because they’re in a conspiracy of silence over this.
However I understood from Exaro News that the police first accepted Janner’s claim to have alzheimers in May 2014. The police were then, I’m told, sent to get independent medical opinion on whether Janner had Alzheimer’s or not. I now wonder whether it was the police or the CPS who got these second opinions. The stories of who made what decision and who is most upset by the decision seem to be getting a little knotty in places. Everyone is making every effort to cover their own backs – the DPP has virtually convicted Janner in the court of public opinion but is reluctant to send this case to any sort of trial; the police are berating the CPS but have been covering up for years as D S Creedon testified, now a very senior police officer outside Leicestershire; Theresa May is jumping up and down saying it was not a good decision, but her colleague, who can overturn the decision, the Attorney General remains hidden from view and very very silent.
Ever get the feeling that they’re all in it together?
Perhaps the son doesn’t want all the dirty laundry aired.
even more interesting was does unduly mean
The suggestion here is that there was influence exerted alone based on the information presented to her.
My first question is does the statement cover informal as well as formal advice/representation/
My second question is does the statement only cover legal matters. That is did the DPP receive advice representations on the national interest question. Were representations made by MI5 about which she was warned she could not disclose as we know occurred previously in relation to other inquiries and in relation to Janner in particular.
Will the DPP make public information on the four medical experts on their individual specialist expertise in relation to dementia and its progression. Were they asked the specific question on his fitness to plead or on this appalling illness more generally. I am concerned about the issue fo future harm to others and the categorical statement that he is not where anyone with any experience of spending time with those with the disease knows that it has phases with some being more aggressive and physically violent than others, having more sudden outbursts and over prolonged periods.
This includes sexual behaviour where some men become rampant although I do not know if this is part of natural regression or reflects past sexual behaviour
I also believe the CPS needs to be questioned about the timing of all this the why now question. why not before the Parliament was ended or not waiting until the new Parliament and government is formed. The announcement was coordinated with police, family statement, the Goddard inquiry and the media.
The relationship if any between this process and the application to remain a member of the house of Lords without reference to the proceedings and decision is very curious. Was the letter sent before or after Lord Janner was advised there would be no prosecution?
Reblogged this on L8in.
It would be understandable if his son had sought to interfere. What I don’t understand is why they felt compelled to use someone who was at the same chambers, a colleague if not a friend. No one would believe this to be a good idea, especially after police raised concerns.
No, it is not understandable the son or anyone else should interfere or attempt to influence the process. It is wrong, unethical and unprofessional. It could be considered as “perverting or interfering with the course of justice”, which the last time I checked, was an offence.
The whole affair stinks. Greville Janner went after Nazi war criminals who had committed unspeakable horrors, in some cases when they were very elderly and in poor physical and mental health, and got them in court. Applying that reasoning, the allegations against Janner should be put and tested before a court and a Judge and jury, not the DPP, should consider how to proceed with them.
It would be but the latest ‘interference with the course of justice’ that has taken place regards this sordid tale. I am ashamed of our legal system and hold the whole rancid lot in contempt.
They really don’t care how odd it seems and how logical reasoning would make it appear that something untoward was at play.
They’ve got the whole system sewn up. So what if right thinking people are perturbed. Right thinking people are merely a nuisance and can be dealt with by being arrested on some spurious charge by the police with apparently no links to those who want them shut up. Follow this link in the Independent:
Revealed: How gangs used the Freemasons to corrupt police …
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/revealed-how-gangs-used-the-freemasons-to-corrup…
13 Jan 2014 … Operation Tiberius, written in 2002, found underworld syndicates used their contacts in the controversial brotherhood to “recruit corrupted …
Pingback: Janner Police Had Concerns Over CPS Barrister | Alternative News Network
Reblogged this on sdbast.