The Round-Up: Janner’s death – an end to an unseemly CPS affair?

21 December 2015 by

Greville Janner, CommentLaura Profumo peruses the latest human rights happenings.

In the News:

Lord Janner died on Saturday, aged 87, after a long battle with dementia.  The former labour peer was due to face a “trial of the facts” in April, after being accused of a string of child sex abuse offences. The special hearing, for suspects unfit to defend themselves in a normal criminal trial, takes place before a jury, yet there is no formal verdict, nor sentencing procedure. It is speculated that, if the trial had continued when Janner was alive, he would have been given a discharge, if not altogether acquitted.  It now looks unlikely that the trial will proceed. “I can’t think of any way in which the Crown Prosecution Service could even reinstate the case. It dies with the unfit defendant”, writes academic Ronnie Mackay. It’s a dim prognosis for Janner’s alleged victims, who still hope to have their day in court, after many abortive attempts to bring their claims against Janner before he fell ill. Their hopes are now confined to the forthcoming civil proceedings against Janner’s estate, and the Goddard inquiry. Yet former DPP, Ken Macdonald, has held that the decision whether to proceed with the trial is “quite finely balanced” and, despite his personal preference, there stands a credible case for it taking place. As there’s no question of a penal sanction in a trial of the facts, the presence of the defendant is not strictly required. In light of this, Lord Macdonald has suggested “the argument for continuing is that [Janner] was not going to play any part in these proceedings in any event”.

Yet the case for abandoning the trial remains compelling.  The culmination of such proceedings involves the court giving some form of disposal – be it a hospital order, supervision order, or discharge. None of these options, of course, are now possible. The inability to formally conclude the trial may compromise “the whole purpose and legal justification” for the process, Macdonald cautioned.  The CPS has yet to confirm how it intends to proceed, but the prevailing presumption is that the criminal proceedings will now be halted. If the proceedings do continue, they would be “ground-breaking”, Macdonald averred, “probably….in an unfortunate way”. The prospect of determining the acts of a person no longer alive is certainly an uneasy one, which risks becoming a ghoulish posthumous spectacle.  Even if the trial of the facts does not continue, the coda to the CPS debacle will be considerable.  Questions still need to be answered, such as how Janner eluded prosecution for some 20 years, and the final, tortuous attempt to bring Janner to trial – culminating in Saunder’s eleventh hour volte-face last April.

In Other News..

  • Only 18 of the new specialist protection orders designed to safeguard young girls at risk of FGM have been issued in the three months since their introduction. The news has prompted calls from the head of the new National FGM Centre for teachers and social workers to be “braver” when identifying vulnerable girls and alerting the authorities. The few orders starkly contrast with the estimates of the scale of FGM; according to a 2011 report, it is suggested 63,000 girls were at risk of FGM, AND 170,000 women aged over 15 living in England and Wales had undergone it. The new government initiatives allow concerned third parties, such as social workers, to apply for girls to be made subject to special protection orders issued by family courts. Statutory guidance is expected next year, to help agencies make fuller use of the new orders.

 

  • Phone-hacking victims have called on the CPS to review its decision not to take further action against Murdoch’s News UK, and various individual Mirror Group journalists. Lady Justice Arden revealed the news at the end of her judgment dismissing an appeal by the publisher of the Daily and Sunday mirror against the level of damages awarded to the victims in civil cases brought against the publisher.  The high court received a letter from the CPS, announcing they had been notified by Hacked Off that victims of Operation Golding are seeking to have the CPS decision reviewed, already lodging a formal request.

 

  • An interesting twist on the R v Dudley and Stephens cannibalism conundrum. José Salvador Alvarenga, the sailor who survived at sea for than a year after being cast adrift, is now being sued for $1m by the family of his fellow deceased sailor, Ezequiel Córdoba, who claim the older sailor turned cannibal to survive. The question posed, Homa Khaleeli writes, is whether eating another’s flesh in such extreme circumstances is against the law? Whilst there is no necessity defence for murder, there is no separate offence for cannibalism – instead, would-be cannibals face possible charges of outraging public decency or preventing a lawful burial. In 1988, performance artist Rick Gibson claimed to be the first cannibal in British history to legally eat human meat in public, consuming human tonsils on the street. Food for thought, perhaps, this festive period.

 

In the Courts:

 

Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v Portugal

The death of a patient following post-operation negligence was held to be a violation of ECHR Article 2 (right to life). The case concerned the death of the applicant’s husband, following nasal polyps surgery, and subsequent post-operative procedures. The Court found that the mere fact the patient had undergone an operation which presented a risk of infectious meningitis should have warranted more stringent compliance with the medical protocol on post-operative supervision. ECtHR observed that the lack of coordination between the ENT department and emergency unit revealed a deficiency in the public hospital service, depriving the patient of the possibility of accessing the requisite emergency care. The Portuguese legal system was also to held to have fallen short: the three internal proceedings failed to prove prompt, or satisfactorily address the possible causative link between the various illnesses suffered by the patient in the days following his operation. ECtHR also, finally, held that the patient should have been clearly informed of the possible risks incurred prior to the operation.

Raihani v Belgium (judgment only available in French)

The application of unclear rules on the time-limit for appealing against a decision given by default was held to be a violation of ECHR Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court). The case concerned the a former prisoner’s appeal against his maintenance contribution to his child, which was declared inadmissible as being out of time. The Court identified two grounds on which the fixing of the starting point of the appeal time-limit lacked clarity. Firstly, the determination of the relevant event for the calculation of the time-limit depended on an assessment which could, and did, give rise to divergent results. Secondly, on the date finally taken as the starting point, the applicant would not necessarily have known that there was a judgment against which he could appeal. In declaring the appeal admissible, the national courts had not respected the reasonable nexus of proportionality between the aim pursued, and means used. It was duly found that Mr Raihani had not had a practical and effective right of access to a court, and there was an attendant Article 6 violation.

 

Events

ICLQ Annual Lecture 2016

22nd March 2016: 17:30-19:30.. Allen & Overy, Bishops Square, London, E1 6AD.

The annual lecture will be given by Professor Sandra Fredman, of Oxford University, on the subject “Foreign Fads or Fashions? The Role of Comparativism in Human Right Law”, based on her article published in the ICLQ in July 2015. Book your tickets here 

 

Finally, a very merry christmas to all UKHRB readers.

 

3 comments


  1. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  2. As a child the sermons said “crime does not pay”. As a grown-up, the message has changed somewhat into “yes it does if you have enough power behind you”. Who cares about the victims? No one and certainly not justice.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: