This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/07/lord-janner-fails-to-appear-in-court-for-hearing-on-child-abuse-charges

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lord Janner ordered to attend court on child abuse charges despite dementia Lord Janner ordered to attend court on child abuse charges despite dementia
(34 minutes later)
The former Labour peer Lord Janner must attend a preliminary hearing on his child abuse charges despite his severe dementia, a magistrate ruled on Friday. The former Labour peer Lord Janner must attend a preliminary hearing on his child abuse charges despite his severe dementia, a magistrate has ruled.
Chief magistrate Howard Riddle said Janner was fit to appear, even if he could become confused.Chief magistrate Howard Riddle said Janner was fit to appear, even if he could become confused.
Janner, 87, faces a trial of fact over 22 child sex offences allegedly committed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. As Greville Janner, he was an MP for Leicester for 27 years.Janner, 87, faces a trial of fact over 22 child sex offences allegedly committed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. As Greville Janner, he was an MP for Leicester for 27 years.
His lawyer, Andrew Smith QC, told the first court hearing in the case at Westminster magistrates court: “Lord Janner is not in attendance. The reason for that submission on his part is that he is unfit to face the court.” His lawyer, Andrew Smith QC, told the first court hearing in the case at Westminster magistrates court on Friday: “Lord Janner is not in attendance. The reason for that submission on his part is that he is unfit to face the court.”
Giving evidence for Janner, Dr James Warner, who has 20 years experience working with dementia, told the court: “There is no doubt in my mind that Lord Janner has dementia and that it is severe.”Giving evidence for Janner, Dr James Warner, who has 20 years experience working with dementia, told the court: “There is no doubt in my mind that Lord Janner has dementia and that it is severe.”
He added that Janner’s condition was “beginning to really impact on his day to day life”, and that he was “highly likely to become distressed” in court.He added that Janner’s condition was “beginning to really impact on his day to day life”, and that he was “highly likely to become distressed” in court.
He said the severity of dementia “would impair to a very significant extent his ability to communicate verbally” and that “he would not be able to understand that he was in court”.He said the severity of dementia “would impair to a very significant extent his ability to communicate verbally” and that “he would not be able to understand that he was in court”.
Warner added that Janner was also showing the early signs of Parkinson’s.Warner added that Janner was also showing the early signs of Parkinson’s.
The judge said: “This would appear on the face of it to be a section 51 hearing, he wouldn’t have to enter pleas, he wouldn’t have to say anything. I imagine he would be here for less than two minutes. It matters not whether he understands the proceedings.”The judge said: “This would appear on the face of it to be a section 51 hearing, he wouldn’t have to enter pleas, he wouldn’t have to say anything. I imagine he would be here for less than two minutes. It matters not whether he understands the proceedings.”
He added: “There is only one issue: is he fit enough to come through that door for less than one minute?”He added: “There is only one issue: is he fit enough to come through that door for less than one minute?”
In April, the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, decided not to charge Janner.In April, the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, decided not to charge Janner.
However, the decision was reviewed after six of the complainants made a request under a scheme that gives victims the right to challenge Crown Prosecution Service decisions.However, the decision was reviewed after six of the complainants made a request under a scheme that gives victims the right to challenge Crown Prosecution Service decisions.
The hearing was continuing on Friday.The hearing was continuing on Friday.