Lord Janner’s lawyers lose legal bid to prevent court appearance – ITV News

Lord Janner must appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in person for a hearing over a series of child abuse charges he faces, chief magistrate Howard Riddle has ruled.

The former MP – who denies all 22 allegations – had not appeared at the first hearing in his trial, with his lawyer saying he was “unfit” to appear due to his dementia.

The hearing comes after the Crown Prosecution Service reversed a decision not to prosecute the 86-year-old because of the illness.

Source: Lord Janner’s lawyers loses legal bid to prevent court appearance – ITV News

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


18 thoughts on “Lord Janner’s lawyers lose legal bid to prevent court appearance – ITV News

  1. Mr.Angry

    Oh what a shame another one of the inner circle almost got away with it, let justice prevail.

    One wonders if he is eligible for legal aid probably already given Gove the handshake and has the full backing of his cohorts.

  2. Chris Bergin

    Seem to remember that someone called Guiness was cured of ALzheimers after leaving prison. Will this be another miracle?

  3. Daniel Margrain

    Janner’s insistence that he is too ill to face justice is hypocrisy of the highest order since he was one of those who demanded that former Nazi war criminals face the judges no matter the state of their health.

  4. Timro

    My grandmother suffered from vascular dementia for about four years before she died. My family nursed her and took care of her as her personality dissolved away in front of us like a sugar cube in a cup of hot tea. She forgot who we were, who she was, and everything about her past. She held conversations with the television set believing that people appearing in programmes were in the room with her and could answer back. She became convinced that I was a “lovely girl” called Elizabeth. (I’m a tall beefy man.) She wouldn’t believe and in fact denied that my mother was her only daughter and even displayed violence towards her at times. Watching this formerly vigorous and intelligent lady degenerate before our eyes was harrowing.

    Whatever Janner has done in the past THAT man almost certainly no longer exists and the person who has taken his place almost certainly will have no memory of the evils his former self perpetrated. To publicly put a dementia ridden husk on trial is as cruel and pointless as putting an animal on trial for attacking a human being, as they used to do in the middle ages.

    The man is dying a slow and horrible death.

    Isn’t that punishment enough?

    1. hayfords

      I agree entirely. My father in law died a year ago of dementia. Dragging Janner into court serves no purpose. The case can proceed without him and so it should.

      The comment above about Nazi war criminals is mainly true. Jenner did say that Nazi war criminals should be prosecuted no matter what their age or state of health. He did not say that they should be dragged into court.

      If he has dementia then he is effectively a different person now as his brain has changed so much. I can only think that the judge wants to see for himself the extent of his illness. However, I am sure that the judge could do it by some other means.

    2. Bex Hallihan

      The issue isn’t how terrible Alzheimer’s is, it’s whether or not he has Alzheimer’s at all. If he is so ill he can’t answer for himself in a court of law how is he still doing his “job”? He somehow managed to vote in the House of Lords 203 times AFTER his initial announcement of his disease. It’s possible that he and his team have managed to very cleverly stall until he is in fact incapable but if true, that only goes to show what a devious b*****d he is. If he is indeed guilty then I hope his Alzheimers makes him as miserable as the people he abused.

      1. hayfords

        This is a misunderstanding of how Alzheimer’s works. Janner was diagnosed in 2009. Many people are aware of their condition such as Terry Pratchett’s the author who made several documentaries about his condition. My father in law was thankfully never aware of his condition though. He continued to drive for about six months in the early stages as we were getting him diagnosed. He could operate quite well in the world for the first two years. He could shop, handle his bank account, travel on buses with his wife. Only towards the end in the last two years of his life, did he change dramatically. He would get agressive and child-like alternately. He would say things out loud, which were funny at the time. He once said to a fat woman in a cafe that she needed two chairs after saying very loudly, “look at the state of her”.

        I notice the reports of Janner in court yesterday that he was giggling as he went in court and was heard to say, “This is wonderful”. When they left his daughter said, ” come on daddy, we are going home for an ice cream”. This is exactly what you would expect from advanced Alzheimer’s.

        Far from being miserable, Alzheimer’s patients are blissfully unaware of much and are generally very happy and content. Their short term memory is such that they never get upset about anything.

        There is little point in him attending court as he will be unaware of what is going on.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        My grandmother had Altzheimer’s in the latter years of her life, and I can assure you, your claim that “they never get upset about anything” is entirely wrong. The condition creates bewilderment, confusion and extreme unhappiness.

        I will leave it to others who have more expertise on this subject to go further into it.

  5. hayfords

    That was not exactly what I meant. Alzheimer’s often causes the stress and upset you mention. However many patients have episodes of such feelings but float along most of the time unaware of most things. It seems that Janner may be like that. I had another relative years ago who suffered very badly. She thought she was being kept captive by these two people who happened to be her children and said her children were going to come and release her. She even threw her daughter down the stairs once. The illness varies so much. However, if Janner is in advanced dementia then it is pointless to take him to court any more.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      If he’s in advanced dementia, why was he still allowed to attend and vote in the House of Lords?

  6. hayfords

    He hasn’t voted since 2013. My father in law was only in advanced dementia in his last year. Janner signed powers of attorney in 2009 and 2011.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      … In which case, should he not have been banned from the HoL from 2009 onwards?

Comments are closed.