Lord Janner fails to appear in court to face child abuse charges

Lord Janner has been ordered to appear in court in person over child sex charges after a judge ruled his severe dementia should not prevent him standing in the dock.

The district 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”.

This decision has been taken by Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

Sky’s Tom Parmenter said: “This is a case that has attracted a great deal of attention because of who it involves and the unusual nature of how it has come about with the U-turn by the Crown Prosecution Service”.

Judge Riddle said he believed that it would be physically possible for Lord Janner to attend court even if he could not understand proceedings or respond to questions.

He is therefore now facing a “trial of facts”, the likely outcome of which is an absolute discharge without punishment or conviction, the CPS have said.

He added that alternative measures that might be considered by the court “do not in reality ameliorate the difficulties identified by the experts”, including the duration of the hearing and the “alien” surroundings.

What happens after he appears in court?

“I further understand, and this is very significant, it is likely to have no long-term effect on him”.

Authorities had previously ruled he was unfit to stand trial because he has Alzheimer’s.

Both he and psychiatrist Dr Norman Poole agreed Janner was not fit to attend court because of his severe dementia.

Riddle said that the peer, who has been suspended by the opposition Labour party, would only be needed for as little as a minute in a brief hearing.

The 87-year-old former Labour MP for Leicester West was due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today charged with 22 sexual offences against boys and men, between 1963 and 1988.

Ms Saunders said in June: “I don’t think in any way it’s a resigning matter”.

However, Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle ruled that he is legally required to appear at court.

Andrew Smith QC, for Janner, argued that the distress to his client would be “inappropriate and disproportionate to the process”.

The court heard such “catastrophic reaction” was common in patients suffering severe dementia. When he interviewed Lord Janner at his home in late July, he became increasingly irritated and quite angry and began pacing around the room, he said.

Dr Warner added that Janner was also showing the early signs of Parkinson’s.