Here she is again, my least favorite woman, and sorry for spoiling your breakfast:
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you - no, no, please take her! - Ms. Alison Saunders, the Mis-Director of Public Pratfalls, sorry, sorry, the Director of Public Prosecutions. She has, er, graced these distinguished columns before - ask 'JK', he'll find the links in an instant - but once again the lady earns her place here by reversing the usual rules of clowning in which the jester is hit in the face with a custard pie by actually throwing herself into the custard pie!
Yesterday her department dropped all prosecutions against Lord Janner who stands accused of regular 'kiddie-fiddling'. Janner was, in his day, a senior Labour party apparatchik who ended up as Lord Janner and despite three investigations into his behavior no charges were ever brought to court. The last investigation looked as though it was going to go before a jury but in stepped, or clumped, our renowned DPP, Ms. Saunders, who called the whole thing off because Janner is, apparently, suffering with Alzheimer's. However, The Mail reports that this poor, sick man managed to claim over £100,000 in expenses after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.
In the following year, up to April 2010, he attended 136 days at the Lords out of a maximum 142 and claimed £10,986 subsistence, £11,625 office costs and £589 mileage.
In the year to April 2011 he turned up 126 days out of 137, and claimed expenses totalling £34,014. In the year to April 2012, Janner attended 143 days out of a maximum of 156. He also managed to claim a hefty £28,800 in expenses.
In the following year, up to April 2013, he turned up 136 days out of 144, and claimed expenses totalling £24,600.
In April, May and June 2013 he attended every one of the 30 days the Lords sat, claiming a total of £6,450 in expenses. In July he was absent just one out of 20 days, claiming £2,850 for the remaining 19.
Crikey! He was more energetic than me and I haven't got Alzheimer's - at least, I don't think I have although I'm a bit forgetful these days , er, where was I? Oh yes, Lord Janner who is now the no doubt grateful recipient of Ms. Saunders' decision that he will face no charges in court on the grounds that he is incapable of understanding the procedures. Fair enough, if true, but The Mail reports a similar legal action:
David Massingham, 77, was deemed not fit to stand trial on historic child abuse allegations because of his mental health but he was charged with 12 offences. He denied molesting two boys more than 30 years ago.
A finding of fact hearing was held before a jury at Teesside Crown Court in February last year. The jury decided Massingham, of Middlesbrough, had committed the acts.
He was not found to be guilty, or not guilty, but a judge ordered he be detained indefinitely in hospital.
Peter Saunders [no relation], of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said the case proved what the authorities could have done over Janner. He said: ‘At the very least for the sake of victim survivors they should get that opportunity, to tell their truth before that kind of trial.’
A procedure exists to deal with criminal suspects thought to have mental illness.
In serious cases where a judge rules a suspect is not fit to stand trial a jury can hear the evidence in the suspect’s absence and decide if the individual committed the crimes.
Lord Janner remains completely innocent and will do so until he dies because Ms. Saunders, in her legal wisdom, will not allow a jury to decide. Of course, it is completely coincidental that her predecessor as DPP when the Janner case would have been under consideration was Mr. Keir Starmer, currently standing for parliament as a Labour party candidate. Whodathunkit?
