How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?

[Duncan2]

Hard to imagine how they can have this particular trial of facts without opening the mother of all cans of worms as the Rt Hon Member for Bassetlaw suggests in the Guardian's piece.

 

[Wilf]

Wonder if he's been well enough to put his assets in his wife's name?

 

[existentialist]

From what I can tell, the main reason for a trial of facts is where a defendant is deemed to be unfit to plead.

Given a combination of Janner's age, possible infirmity, and the likelihood that there might well be people in The Establishment (perhaps friends of the sort of person who decides someone is unable to plead while he continues to take an active role in the House of Lords) who'd rather nothing happened...given all that, would the trial of facts still proceed if Janner were to find himself being recommended to his Maker?

Because, as I understand it, with ordinary trials, the death of the defendant is the end of the process.

 

[brogdale]

 

[Lurdan]

The CPS public statement on Janner :
Greville Janner to be prosecuted for child sexual offences

The review concluded that it was in the public interest to bring proceedings before the court.

In reaching that conclusion, the review agreed that 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 case is first listed at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 7 August 2015.

(...)

The CPS has also received a draft of Sir Richard Henriques' report which the DPP commissioned on the handling and decision making in relation to previous allegations made against Greville Janner in 1991, 2002 and 2007. It is now being finalised, but it is clear that it will confirm the DPP's view that the CPS decisions in 1991 and 2007 were wrong as well as concluding that the handling of the case previously by both police and prosecutors was unsatisfactory.

Likely to be a good deal of legal commentary being offered about this. From one such piece by Joshua Rozenberg in the Guardian

It will be interesting to see whether the courts allow the case to proceed as far as a trial of the facts. Janner’s lawyers are likely to argue that this would be an abuse of process. And the courts may stop the case if it concludes that the former MP is unfit to plead. Whatever happens, it is highly unlikely that Janner will ever be seen in court – not even at the hearing currently listed for 7 August.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes - brief summary of how this stands from the BBC's Legal Correspondent:

A judge will now decide if Lord Janner is fit to take part in trial. If he is, he will. If not he will face a 'trial of the facts'. Under this process there is no finding of guilt and no conviction. Only outcomes are hospital or supervision order or absolute discharge

 

[Lurdan]

Yes - brief summary of how this stands from the BBC's Legal Correspondent:

A judge will now decide if Lord Janner is fit to take part in trial. If he is, he will. If not he will face a 'trial of the facts'. Under this process there is no finding of guilt and no conviction. Only outcomes are hospital or supervision order or absolute discharge

Actually I think that is from the news story rather than the short piece by the legal affairs correspondent

Analysis By Clive Coleman, legal affairs correspondent

There are only three possible outcomes from a trial of the facts. They are a hospital order, a supervision order or an absolute discharge. The jury can only make a finding that the defendant did the particular physical act. There cannot be a verdict of guilty.

Such a trial recently took place in the case of the former Luton South MP Margaret Moran, who was accused of falsely claiming more than £53,000 in parliamentary expenses. She was given a two-year supervision order.

In Lord Janner's case, the process would involve the alleged victims giving evidence.

A trial of the facts would most likely be strenuously opposed by Lord Janner's legal team, who would argue it was an abuse of the court process to subject him to any sort of trial where there had been so much adverse pre-trial publicity.

 

[butchersapron]

That was two twitter posts by him ran together - thought they summed it up quite nicely for those who may think from the headlines that we just proceed to normal criminal trial. I certainly did before reading further.

 

[Lurdan]

Not very impressed with a lot of the media reporting of this, given that the possibility of a trial of the facts has been discussed for some time. The assumption that the victims will, rather than may, get an opportunity to give evidence is rather foolish given that there will undoubtedly be a legal challenge to that happening.

Interesting article here about the technical aspects of fitness to plead hearings and of what a trial of the facts entails.

It is no longer for a jury to decide whether the defendant is fit to enter a plea; that determination is solely for the judge (...)

I've seen the opposite being suggested this morning, presumably as a result of confusing the issue of whether a defendant is fit to plead with whether a defendant was insane at the time an offense was committed.

Funding

From the point at which a defendant is declared unfit, legal aid funding is withdrawn. This is important to know, and is sometimes overlooked by the parties and indeed the court, with the result that a defence team may continue to work without the prospect of being paid.

In place of a legal aid funded defence, an advocate is appointed by the court and paid out of central funds. The court must consider who is the best person to put the case for the defence. This person might be the person who had up until the fitness hearing been representing the defendant; but it is not necessarily so, and the court must make this consideration afresh.

So the State picks up the full costs of a trial of the facts. No doubt it would be deeply cynical to suggest this played any part in the original CPS decision.

Role of the Court Appointed Advocate

In a trial of fact, the role of a court appointed advocate is different from that of defence counsel. The advocate does not act on behalf of the defendant and may not put forward a positive defence. The extent of the brief is to test the evidence only in such a way as appears available on the papers: R v Antoine [2001] 1 AC 340 HL. If there is no evidence to support a specific defence, this may mean that the advocate is required to professionally forget any instructions as to that defence which were given by the defendant in his previous role as defence counsel.

 

[Wilf]

It may well be that his legal team manage to stop the process going ahead. However, if it does go ahead and he is found to have 'undertaken the acts', I wonder how much that provides ammunition for the victims seeking damages? Even if he isn't fit to plead or instruct counsel now, the abuse would have taken place at a point when he was compos mentis.

 

[elbows]

Not very impressed with a lot of the media reporting of this, given that the possibility of a trial of the facts has been discussed for some time.

I'm not catching your drift. DPP Saunders didnt want a trial of facts, as demonstrated not just by her decision but by her words on Newsnight in April. Her decision is now overturned, and thats newsworthy and quite different to what looked like happening until this news started to leak at the end of last week.

She added: "Dementia itself isn't a bar to either a trial or a trial of the facts, but you have to look at... the need to have a trial of facts for the public protection."

In Lord Janner's case, Ms Saunders said she decided there was "no ongoing risk to the public" - based on the opinions of four medical experts.

(from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32435396 )

So she was basically saying that there would only be the need for a trial of facts if he still posed a risk of offending.

 

[existentialist]

I'm not catching your drift. DPP Saunders didnt want a trial of facts, as demonstrated not just by her decision but by her words on Newsnight in April. Her decision is now overturned, and thats newsworthy and quite different to what looked like happening until this news started to leak at the end of last week.


(from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32435396 )

So she was basically saying that there would only be the need for a trial of facts if he still posed a risk of offending.

It astonishes me that the pinnacle of the legal establishment STILL doesn't seem capable of recognising the needs of the (alleged) victims in these situations.

It's surely nothing to do with whether he is capable of buggering children today, but whether or not he has already done so?

 

[Lurdan]

I'm not catching your drift. DPP Saunders didnt want a trial of facts, as demonstrated not just by her decision but by her words on Newsnight in April. Her decision is now overturned, and thats newsworthy and quite different to what looked like happening until this news started to leak at the end of last week.


(from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32435396 )

So she was basically saying that there would only be the need for a trial of facts if he still posed a risk of offending.

Don't disagree with that at all - my dissatisfaction was with the assumption that there will be a trial of the facts. There may be one but that is a decision for the Court not the CPS and legal arguments will be made against it taking place.

 

[Wilf]

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but if you wanted to construct a process where a member of the establishment was finally subjected to a kind of process, but in a way that never put them at risk of prison and meant they would never spill the beans about other high profile offenders, it would be this.

 

[elbows]

Don't disagree with that at all - my dissatisfaction was with the assumption that there will be a trial of the facts. There may be one but that is a decision for the Court not the CPS and legal arguments will be made against it taking place.

Ah right. Personally I kind of like that assumption being splashed around the news, because it creates additional pressure to ensure it actually happens.

 

[Wilf]

Well, there WILL be a trial of facts - unless there is a successful challenge from his lawyers. The process has begun.

 

[elbows]

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but if you wanted to construct a process where a member of the establishment was finally subjected to a kind of process, but in a way that never put them at risk of prison and meant they would never spill the beans about other high profile offenders, it would be this.

I think the 'spill the beans' stuff is seriously over-rated in some sections of the public imagination (for lack of a better term).

I wouldnt say its never a factor, but there are a lot of stories of abuse where this isnt much of a factor. Plus ranks are closed for all sorts of other reasons.

Just look at all the stuff people imagined might be the case with Max Clifford & information. Didnt save his neck.

 

[Wilf]

I think the 'spill the beans' stuff is seriously over-rated in some sections of the public imagination (for lack of a better term).

I wouldnt say its never a factor, but there are a lot of stories of abuse where this isnt much of a factor. Plus ranks are closed for all sorts of other reasons.

Just look at all the stuff people imagined might be the case with Max Clifford & information. Didnt save his neck.

Yeah, I don't see it conspiracy terms, but this is an interesting case for the police to appeal the original decision and pick up on public anger. Whilst there's the Frank Beck link it's a relatively safe case to put in front of this limited form of trial. We don't know what victims will say if they ever end up in court, but the whole process is likely to focus on Janner alone I'd have thought.

 

[Lurdan]

Ah right. Personally I kind of like that assumption being splashed around the news, because it creates additional pressure to ensure it actually happens.

Take the point but the existence of public pressure, based on what will be argued has been prejudicial coverage, will also presumably form part of defence arguments that a trial of the facts would be unfair

I imagine the less cautious Daily Mail articles will be cited in that context.

 

[MAD-T-REX]

Well, there WILL be a trial of facts - unless there is a successful challenge from his lawyers. The process has begun.

The judge could decide off his own bat that a trial of the facts is unnecessary. He is not obliged to order such a hearing after finding that the defendant is unfit to stand trial.

I hope the victims' solicitors are controlling their expectations. There is still a strong possibility that they will not have the opportunity to give evidence.

Yeah, I don't see it conspiracy terms, but this is an interesting case for the police to appeal the original decision and pick up on public anger.

The huge amount of noise generated by the police, Exaro et al has actually made no difference. The victims had a right to this review from the outset and exercised it.

 

[teqniq]

Nice input from people who seem to be far more clued up on the legal stuff, stuff that I was hitherto unacquainted with. Thanks.

 

[Quartz]

Just look at all the stuff people imagined might be the case with Max Clifford & information. Didnt save his neck.

He got a prison sentence, but isn't he serving it at a pretty cushy prison?

 

[Quartz]

Wonder if he's been well enough to put his assets in his wife's name?

As someone with dementia, he'll likely come under the Office of the Public Guardian and his appointed guardians are expressly forbidden from benefiting. At least that was the case when I was a guardian for my late aunt.

 

[teqniq]

I think I read someplace that he's legally passed the management of his affairs to to his children.

 

[brogdale]

What's this then?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

What's this then?

I've seen that punted about on the facebooks and wondered the same thing.

This link may be FB only, perhaps 60 mins have a version up on their own page but I have to head out for a while.

 

[elbows]

I haven't done any proper digging yet or even the most basic fact checking. But I'm afraid despite my respect for the investigative side of Exaro, I wouldn't rule out hyperbole at this stage.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

It's hard to glean much from the trailer.

For those that can't see, one of the main things (seems new, at least to me) is the account of a chauffeur for the Australian embassy. There's also a plod on camera talking about being instructed from high up to drop investigation (we already know of this sort of thing, but I dont know the specifics laid out in this doc. Could be new, or more detail on old, or neither)

We also get Zac Goldsmith saying the genie is out of the bottle. Yeah, it was out of the fucking bottle when Tom Watson made his speech the better part of 3 years ago, but they've done a damn good job of keeping it as close to screwed back on as possible. The child-fuck facilitating cunts.

 

[unrepentant85]

What is the legal aspect? Can Australian media name and shame without fear of being done for libel?

 

[Wilf]

From the tone of it and the lack of a single focus I'd guess a lot of background and very few (living) names named.