Unfitness to plead

[Big Les Wade]

The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on unfitness to
plead in criminal cases.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/

Perhaps prompted by the de Freitas and Janner cases.


--
Les

[Richard McKenzie]

Lord Janner, who had dementia but was able to attend
the House of lords.

I recall there were criticisms of Rupert Murdoch's mental state
during the phone hack enquiry yet he was able to marry Jerry Hall.

Or Ernest Saunders who made a full recovery from Alzheimer's after
being released from prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders

Perhaps they should overhaul the medical examination process too.

Or take a leaf out of the Work Capability Assessment test
where if you fail to turn up you lose (perhaps court cases
could use this as an admission of guilt) or if you do turn up it
goes against you too as it demonstrates that you can make appointments.
(in the case of court we could view this as evidence of their
fitness to plea.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_Capability_Assessment#Credibility_of_the_.27fit_for_work.27_test

Its true that justice is open to all, like the Savoy.

[GB]

On 14/01/2016 16:33, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 January 2016 09:53:07 UTC, Big Les Wade wrote:
>> The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on unfitness to
>> plead in criminal cases.
>>
>> http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/
>>
>> Perhaps prompted by the de Freitas and Janner cases.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Les
>
> Lord Janner, who had dementia but was able to attend
> the House of lords.

I think that Janner proved his unfitness to plead by dying. They had to
wheel him into court only a month before his death in order to satisfy
the judge and/or the baying press. His ability to attend the HOL a
couple of years earlier is beside the point.

You can say lots of things about Janner, but the accusation that he was
feigning his dementia is clearly false.

[Richard McKenzie]

While suffering from dementia he was able to vote
over 200 times.

He was also able to attend and claim for attendance
over 600 times claiming over £100,000

[The Todal]

The Law Commission plainly isn't recommending that those who claim to
have dementia be treated with more scepticism and disbelief. They seem
to be suggesting that the court should nevertheless have the power to
investigate the complainant's allegations and to do justice to victims.
Also that the rights of young people who are unrepresented or cannot
understand the legal process, should be adequately protected.

[GB]

On 14/01/2016 17:06, The Todal wrote:

> The Law Commission plainly isn't recommending that those who claim to
> have dementia be treated with more scepticism and disbelief. They seem
> to be suggesting that the court should nevertheless have the power to
> investigate the complainant's allegations and to do justice to victims.
> Also that the rights of young people who are unrepresented or cannot
> understand the legal process, should be adequately protected.
>

Quite a lot of jurisdictions allow trials in absentia. However, that's
rather different from trying somebody who is present (so, can presumably
be punished in some way) but is utterly unable to mount a defence.

In Janner's case, there was going to be a trial of the facts, but that's
now been shelved. I don't see why, though.

[JNugent]

On 14/01/2016 16:33, Richard McKenzie wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 January 2016 09:53:07 UTC, Big Les Wade wrote:

>> The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on unfitness to
>> plead in criminal cases.

>> http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/
>
>> Perhaps prompted by the de Freitas and Janner cases.

"de Freitas"?

> Lord Janner, who had dementia but was able to attend
> the House of lords.

Quite.

> I recall there were criticisms of Rupert Murdoch's mental state
> during the phone hack enquiry yet he was able to marry Jerry Hall.

What?

He was not on trial. He entered no "plea", because there was no "plea"
to enter.

So where on Earth is that coming from?

Murdoch is clearly at least as sharp in mind as anyone who posts here,
for a start. Any "criticism" of his mental state clearly comes from
mental pygmies who can't cope with the idea of a free press. There are a
lot of them about.

> Or Ernest Saunders who made a full recovery from Alzheimer's after
> being released from prison.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders

That was the celebrated early case, of course. It seems that Saunders
happened upon a really good defence ploy which - then, at least - had
not been over-used.

> Perhaps they should overhaul the medical examination process too.

Probably.

> Or take a leaf out of the Work Capability Assessment test
> where if you fail to turn up you lose (perhaps court cases
> could use this as an admission of guilt) or if you do turn up it
> goes against you too as it demonstrates that you can make appointments.
> (in the case of court we could view this as evidence of their
> fitness to plea.)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_Capability_Assessment#Credibility_of_the_.27fit_for_work.27_test

> Its true that justice is open to all, like the Savoy.

Rid yourself of the effects of envy.

It's bad for the soul.

[The Todal]

I thought there was still some ongoing argument, possibly to take place
before a judge, about whether a trial of the facts can take place.

I don't think a person with dementia or a person who has died is utterly
unable to mount a defence. The lawyers instructed on his behalf can put
the Crown to proof, by cross examining the prosecution witnesses and
seeking any inconsistencies in their arguments. They would certainly be
hampered by the absence of instructions from the accused, but they could
mount a defence.

[GB]

Possibly the defence would be hampered beyond what is reasonable. There
might be an alibi that the defence team had no idea about, for example.
If we lose sight of the ideal of fair trials, I think we have lost
vastly more than we gain from a few convictions.

I'm all in favour of a trial in absentia where the alleged perp has
chosen to absent himself, but it's different where the absence is beyond
the accused's control.

BTW, is there anywhere left that a perp can flee to that doesn't have
extradition treaties? Not Ghana by the look of it!

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

My first hand experience with a demented relative tells me that after having reached a certain but not so late stage in the with disease the sufferer would be unlikely to be able to make their own way to the court house unassisted let alone brief and instruct counsel or even know what the case was all about. Questions would be answered with incoherent babble. Histrionics would be a real possibility.

How could justice be dispensed under such conditions? Do you imagine that the arrangements that prevail today under such circumstances did not arise as the result of bitter experience?

[Norman Rowing]

More to the point would be a statute of limitations - say 6 years -
which is adequate for any allegations to be made and which in most
cases would also be within reach of accurate memory.

[Richard McKenzie]

My issue with a statute of limitations is what happens if
you do not know who the attacker is?

Then one day you turn on tv and he is jumping about on
a floating UK in Liverpool docks!

I would think the majority of juries would ask the question
as to why it has taken years, decades etc to come forward.
And taken into account their reason, potential false memory
etc and make a decision.

[Fredxxx]

On 15/01/2016 11:23, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> On Friday, 15 January 2016 11:07:35 UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
>> On 14/01/2016 09:48, Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on unfitness to
>>> plead in criminal cases.
>>>
>>> http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/
>>>
>>> Perhaps prompted by the de Freitas and Janner cases.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> More to the point would be a statute of limitations - say 6 years -
>> which is adequate for any allegations to be made and which in most
>> cases would also be within reach of accurate memory.
>
> My issue with a statute of limitations is what happens if
> you do not know who the attacker is?

That is a good point, and perhaps there should be a difference between
circumstantial evidence and more tangible evidence such as DNA evidence.
Perhaps the latter should be allowed?

> Then one day you turn on tv and he is jumping about on
> a floating UK in Liverpool docks!
>
> I would think the majority of juries would ask the question
> as to why it has taken years, decades etc to come forward.
> And taken into account their reason, potential false memory
> etc and make a decision.

I would like to have seen a complaint made within a sensible timescale.
Otherwise I see no reason why it should be even considered as evidenced
recent case after 50 years.

There is also the issue with cases where the complainant cannot be asked
any question apart from the assault itself. Perhaps that should be
afforded to the Defendant as well?

[Nick]

On 15/01/2016 09:06, GB wrote:

>
> BTW, is there anywhere left that a perp can flee to that doesn't have
> extradition treaties? Not Ghana by the look of it!
>

I think it depends on the crime and the countries. Killing kids isn't
top of the sympathy list. But if you can present the crime accusation as
politically motivated you stand a much better chance.

I would have assumed UK/Ghana ties were pretty good, not a country I
would advise trying to evade extradition in, under almost any circumstances

[pensive hamster]

A BBC report today says a 'former detective, Graeme Peene, told
the BBC that in the late 1970s he reported Beck ... [but] nothing was
done because of a culture in which child abuse was not taken
seriously.'

If they didn't believe a detective back then, who was going to
believe an eleven year old boy who accuses a QC? People
may not come forward if they don't think they will be believed.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528

'... senior figures at the Crown Prosecution Service are now
understood to regard the case against Lord Janner as "overwhelming"
- and the level of abuse alleged as "horrific". ...

'A former detective, Graeme Peene, told the BBC that in the late 1970s
he reported Beck, after seeing him rubbing a boy's groin at The
Beeches children's home. ...

'He claimed his report was sent to divisional headquarters where, he
said, nothing was done because of a culture in which child abuse
was not taken seriously. ...

'The BBC investigation received an account by another detective that
he had reported allegations against Beck, Lord Janner and other
prominent Leicester figures, but his bosses "did not want to touch it". ...'

(although Frank Beck was later convicted)

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:07:35 AM UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
> On 14/01/2016 09:48, Big Les Wade wrote:
> > The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on unfitness to
> > plead in criminal cases.
> >
> > http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/

> More to the point would be a statute of limitations - say 6 years -
> which is adequate for any allegations to be made and which in most
> cases would also be within reach of accurate memory.

The biggest problem being that complex cases sometimes take a long time to solve and even have to await advances in forensic technology before they can be solved.

Often it is one thing to know who is responsible for a particular incident. It's quite another to assemble the evidence that will secure a conviction.

When you have a statute of limitation, you are in fact guaranteeing an offender a pardon if he can keep his head down for the statutory period. You in fact set him a target. I don't want to see the day when villains can openly boast about time expired crimes they have committed as encouragement to others. There is also a possibility that in such a circumstance a victim might feel denied justice and take matters into his own hands and try to reverse circumstances.

There seems no reason to suppose there to be any reason as to why there should be any hurry to bring the perpetrator of a serious crime to justice. The worst case scenario must surely be that he will spend the rest of his life in some anxiety as to whether his sins will one day come to light. Serves him right too.

There need neither be any fear that justice will be compromised through the fallibility of human memory. Juries are aware of such and counsel are more than capable of drawing attention to such failings. In any case, as time goes on, convictions become more reliant upon CCTV, DNA and other forensic more concrete evidence, Eye witness evidence is becoming less important as technology advances.

[Fredxxx]

On 15/01/2016 12:33, mro...@btopenworld.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 11:07:35 AM UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
>> On 14/01/2016 09:48, Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on
>>> unfitness to plead in criminal cases.
>>>
>>> http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/
>
>> More to the point would be a statute of limitations - say 6 years
>> - which is adequate for any allegations to be made and which in
>> most cases would also be within reach of accurate memory.
>
> The biggest problem being that complex cases sometimes take a long
> time to solve and even have to await advances in forensic technology
> before they can be solved.
>
> Often it is one thing to know who is responsible for a particular
> incident. It's quite another to assemble the evidence that will
> secure a conviction.
>
> When you have a statute of limitation, you are in fact guaranteeing
> an offender a pardon if he can keep his head down for the statutory
> period. You in fact set him a target. I don't want to see the day
> when villains can openly boast about time expired crimes they have
> committed as encouragement to others. There is also a possibility
> that in such a circumstance a victim might feel denied justice and
> take matters into his own hands and try to reverse circumstances.

I do feel different kinds of evidence should be treated differently.
Perhaps a confession, or admission, as well as DNA after any time limit
could be one kind of evidence not associated with a SOL? I'm more
concerned with "he said that" "she said this" uncorroborated evidenced.

That would certainly stop any boasting.

[Norman Rowing]

On 15/01/2016 11:23, Richard McKenzie wrote:

> On Friday, 15 January 2016 11:07:35 UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
>> On 14/01/2016 09:48, Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on unfitness to
>>> plead in criminal cases.
>>>
>>> http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/
>>>
>>> Perhaps prompted by the de Freitas and Janner cases.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> More to the point would be a statute of limitations - say 6 years -
>> which is adequate for any allegations to be made and which in most
>> cases would also be within reach of accurate memory.
>
> My issue with a statute of limitations is what happens if
> you do not know who the attacker is?
>

Many would not 'know' Janner or Savile as their attackers. They could
have been told they are. I daresay thought that a SOL could have
provision made for such occasions.

[Norman Rowing]

On 15/01/2016 11:38, Fredxxx wrote:

>>
>> I would think the majority of juries would ask the question
>> as to why it has taken years, decades etc to come forward.
>> And taken into account their reason, potential false memory
>> etc and make a decision.
>
> I would like to have seen a complaint made within a sensible timescale.
> Otherwise I see no reason why it should be even considered as evidenced
> recent case after 50 years.
>

Especially when the complaint was 10 or so at the time. I know I can't
accurately remember that far back.

[MM]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:48:22 +0000, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on unfitness to
>plead in criminal cases.

So that British "justice" can stitch even more people up, I assume.

MM

[Richard McKenzie]

On Friday, 15 January 2016 13:24:04 UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
> On 15/01/2016 11:38, Fredxxx wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I would think the majority of juries would ask the question
> >> as to why it has taken years, decades etc to come forward.
> >> And taken into account their reason, potential false memory
> >> etc and make a decision.
> >
> > I would like to have seen a complaint made within a sensible timescale.
> > Otherwise I see no reason why it should be even considered as evidenced
> > recent case after 50 years.
> >
>
> Especially when the complaint was 10 or so at the time. I know I can't
> accurately remember that far back.

I would assume if you were violently raped you would
and they had a distinctive scar etc.

[Fredxxx]

On 15/01/2016 13:57, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> On Friday, 15 January 2016 13:24:04 UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
>> On 15/01/2016 11:38, Fredxxx wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I would think the majority of juries would ask the question
>>>> as to why it has taken years, decades etc to come forward.
>>>> And taken into account their reason, potential false memory
>>>> etc and make a decision.
>>>
>>> I would like to have seen a complaint made within a sensible timescale.
>>> Otherwise I see no reason why it should be even considered as evidenced
>>> recent case after 50 years.
>>>
>>
>> Especially when the complaint was 10 or so at the time. I know I can't
>> accurately remember that far back.
>
>
> I would assume if you were violently raped you would
> and they had a distinctive scar etc.

I don't think that is in dispute. However I am less swayed where the
touch has been on a knee or up a skirt as in Stuart Hall's case.

I am more concerned that gold-digging shouldn't be allowed. The
complaint should have been made when the assault took place, though my
concern is then where complaints weren't taken seriously.

[Norman Rowing]

On 15/01/2016 14:27, Fredxxx wrote:
> On 15/01/2016 13:57, Richard McKenzie wrote:
>> On Friday, 15 January 2016 13:24:04 UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
>>> On 15/01/2016 11:38, Fredxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would think the majority of juries would ask the question
>>>>> as to why it has taken years, decades etc to come forward.
>>>>> And taken into account their reason, potential false memory
>>>>> etc and make a decision.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to have seen a complaint made within a sensible timescale.
>>>> Otherwise I see no reason why it should be even considered as evidenced
>>>> recent case after 50 years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Especially when the complaint was 10 or so at the time. I know I can't
>>> accurately remember that far back.
>>
>>
>> I would assume if you were violently raped you would
>> and they had a distinctive scar etc.
>
> I don't think that is in dispute. However I am less swayed where the
> touch has been on a knee or up a skirt as in Stuart Hall's case.
>
> I am more concerned that gold-digging shouldn't be allowed.

State compensation was banned some years back in Germany. Allegations
dropped by 80%

[Richard McKenzie]

On Friday, 15 January 2016 15:11:22 UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
> On 15/01/2016 14:27, Fredxxx wrote:
> > On 15/01/2016 13:57, Richard McKenzie wrote:
> >> On Friday, 15 January 2016 13:24:04 UTC, Norman Rowing wrote:
> >>> On 15/01/2016 11:38, Fredxxx wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would think the majority of juries would ask the question
> >>>>> as to why it has taken years, decades etc to come forward.
> >>>>> And taken into account their reason, potential false memory
> >>>>> etc and make a decision.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to have seen a complaint made within a sensible timescale.
> >>>> Otherwise I see no reason why it should be even considered as evidenced
> >>>> recent case after 50 years.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Especially when the complaint was 10 or so at the time. I know I can't
> >>> accurately remember that far back.
> >>
> >>
> >> I would assume if you were violently raped you would
> >> and they had a distinctive scar etc.
> >
> > I don't think that is in dispute. However I am less swayed where the
> > touch has been on a knee or up a skirt as in Stuart Hall's case.
> >
> > I am more concerned that gold-digging shouldn't be allowed.
>
> State compensation was banned some years back in Germany. Allegations
> dropped by 80%
>

So if someone is abused it is preferable that
they accused is wealthy.

I seen an article on Sky news where a man in SAfrica
raped his 6 year old niece because he believed it would
cure him of HIV. He settled out of court £250. He was poor
too.

[The Todal]

Now that the case against Janner has been formally discontinued, we can
assume that the best criminal lawyers in the land do not believe it is
lawful to have a trial of facts against a dead man. If Janner, why not
Jimmy Savile? Or Cyril Smith?

But there have been many trials involving mentally handicapped or insane
defendants who cannot give lucid instructions to their counsel. In the
USA it seems quite commonplace. And the advantage for the incompetent
attorney is that nobody, least of all the client, will find fault with
the presentation of the defence case.

[Big Les Wade]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> posted

>On 14/01/2016 16:33, Richard McKenzie wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 14 January 2016 09:53:07 UTC, Big Les Wade wrote:
>
>>> The Law Commission is recommending reform of the law on unfitness to
>>> plead in criminal cases.
>
>>> http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/unfitness-to-plead/
>>
>>> Perhaps prompted by the de Freitas and Janner cases.
>
>"de Freitas"?

This was a case publicised in 2014, in which a woman called Eleanor de
Freitas had accused a Mr Economou of drugging and raping her. The police
arrested Economou (with all the accompanying falalal), but concluded
that de Freitas' evidence was inconsistent and decided not to proceed.

Economou launched a private prosecution against de Freitas for
attempting to pervert the course of justice. The CPS then took over the
prosecution and proceeded to trial, although de Freitas' solicitors
asked that the prosecution be dropped on the grounds that her poor
mental health made her unfit to stand trial (but not, apparently, unfit
to bring very serious accusations against another person).

On the eve of trial she killed herself. There was then a campaign of
criticism of the CPS from people who purported to believe that everyone
who claims to have a fragile mental state should be excused prosecution,
unless they are male.

It caused a good deal of embarrassment for the DPP, Alison Saunders, who
for once was unable to blame the entire affair on a misogynistic
conspiracy by the entire male sex.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/eleanor_de_freitas/

--
Les

[JNugent]

Thanks.

I do remember it now you give the details.