Ian Pace has, since my item of two days ago, drawn our attention to a number of counter-precedents. It seems to me that in all these cases the defendant, though impaired, was in a position to instruct counsel which seems to be the legal test. Greville Janner is said to be in the final stages of dementia, requiring round-the-clock care. His family can also call upon the best legal teams to defend their interests, which clearly was not so in the other cases cited. I imagine the DPP had in mind, in addition to the Serafinowicz precedent, the cost to the public purse of a costly action whose outcome was uncertain when she made her decision.
The pdf of the Kirkwood Inquiry, referred to in the Liberal England blog, turned up some intriguing leads. Frank Beck's predecessor John Moseling had a similar background and, as it turned out, similar predilections. It could be a coincidence, or it could be that there was someone already in place in Leicester in 1970 who was ready to provide employment to paedophiles.
Jonathan Calder has added to his blog recollections of the Beck trial and its implications for Janner by journalists who covered it.
[Later] It appears that Lord Janner has misled the DPP over the severity of his condition: https://www.politicshome.com/home-affairs/articles/story/janner-decision-appalling-says-tessa-munt
If this is so, then my opinions based on information hitherto in the public domain should be taken as subject to revision.
No comments:
Post a Comment