Saunders Defence

I have been writing to the Crown Prosecution Service about the case of a Labour peer who escaped questioning about 20 allegations of child sexual abuse on grounds of being too demented to answer questions.

I have been requesting a second opinion, psychometric testing and further diagnostic investigations.

On September 11 I have made a formal complaint to the CPS regarding their handling of the case of two accused paedophiles. The complaint is here.

On August 11 2014, I wrote to Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, as there has been a slight reluctance to respond from the normal channels. (see further down).

Having heard nothing back, I phoned the CPS and got through to the Parliamentary and Complaints Unit. We discussed the matter, and they insisted that I make a formal complaint. I did not request this, as I was only seeking to know whether to expect a reply to my letter. However, I started the complaints procedure, and it said first contact your local office, so I phoned Bristol CPS where a very lovely West Country man listened very patiently, and then offered to speak to London. He was unable to progress the matter further, beyond saying that the reviewing lawyer had seen my correspondence.

I am now making a formal complaint that the CPS has failed in its duty to serve the public interest by getting a second opinion, backed by appropriate investigations, in the cases of Suspect J and also in the case of Raymond Varley.

I do not like making formal complaints. It is distressing for busy Government officials. However, they have brought this situation on themselves by refusing to enter into reasonable correspondence.

The term Saunders Defence refers to Ernest Saunders the fraudster.

It is noteworthy also that a paedophile by the name of Robert Varley is resisting extradition to India using the Saunders Defence.

William Ayers, another person accused of child abuse, also tried the Saunders Defence. Although he was a psychiatrist, he was found out.

_

Alison Saunders
Director of Public Prosecutions
Crown Prosecution Service
2 Rose Court, London,
London SE1 9HS

Cc John Penrose MP

August 11

I am writing to request that the Crown Prosecution Service seek further medical tests on an unnamed Peer who is suspected of abusing children. Let us call him Suspect J. This Labour peer and past MP was questioned by police in December 2013 over 20 child sex abuse allegations, but was deemed to be suffering from dementia and therefore unable to answer questions.

You will recall the case of the fraudster Ernest Saunders, one of the Guinness Four, who was released from prison because of dementia, but who subsequently made a recovery from said “dementia”. In view of this precedent, I am sure that you will agree that it would be wise to have a second (or third) opinion on the diagnosis of Suspect J, with full psychometric testing and MRI in order to be absolutely certain that he is truly suffering from dementia, and not just taking refuge in the Saunders Defence. This action is necessary at very least to build up public trust in our governmental system, which has taken a few knocks recently.

In terms of the evidential criterion for prosecution, 20 witnesses would seem to provide enough evidence for a prosecution. There may be an issue with the ability of survivors of abuse to stand up to adversarial questioning by the defence barrister, but you are aware of the need to rebalance the court process so that it is fairer to vulnerable witnesses. You are aware of the tragic case of the violinist who killed herself after giving evidence about her abuse in court. Abused people cope by repressing the memories, and it is greatly upsetting for them to have to resurrect these memories in detail, especially in court under hostile cross-examination. We are of course aware that the process has to be balanced so as not to be unfair to the defendant, but this is a matter for the Government and legal profession to look at in a reasonable way.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that it is in the public interest to bring this case to court. There has clearly been an enormous amount of sexual abuse of children in care homes of various kinds in the past. We cannot be certain that it is not continuing today.

Sexual abuse has serious adverse effects on abusees, in terms of psychological problems of all degrees. There is a high incidence of suicide among survivors of abuse. For many, social function is impaired, and about 10% get a criminal record. A 1997 study by HMP Inspectorate of Prisons concluded that 30-70% of female prisoners had experienced childhood sexual abuse.

The State intervened in the lives of these children, assuming loco parentis. In the case of the many children who were abused, the State has signally failed to discharge its duties correctly and has betrayed the trust put in it. Therefore the State has a clear duty to rectify its failures by causing all abusers, without exception, to face the consequences of their actions.

There is a substantial body of evidence that points to a tendency to cover up on the part of the authorities. I have collected 40 instances of responses which could be seen as such. The cover-up response adds insult to the injury which has been inflicted on children. Such cover-ups are inimical to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Indeed, they can be seen as a form of corruption, where political influence is used, not just for financial gain, but to obtain immunity from prosecution for serious crimes.

Paedophiles exercise a great deal of denial when viewing their activities. If it is known that persons of public prominence are exempt from prosecution, this will confirm to them that what they are doing is acceptable. If on the other hand, they see that even serving MPs and other people of high rank are prosecuted for sexual abuse of children, this will cause some of them to draw back from acting out their inclinations.

I hope you will agree therefore that there is a clear public interest in bringing a prosecution in the case of Suspect J.

Regarding the supposed mental condition of Suspect J, in reading the Code for Crown Prosecutors, I find no exemptions from prosecution for people suffering from any form of mental or physical condition.

If after another psychiatric assessment, psychometric testing and use of MRIs and other tests for dementia it is determined that Suspect J is indeed suffering from dementia, I would be grateful if you could explain why, in terms of the Code, he should not be brought to Court.

Many thanks for giving attention to these representations.

With best wishes,

_
12/8/14 - reply to the email version of the above letter :

Dear Dr Lawson

Thank you for your letter of 11 august 2014, addressed to Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions. This has been forwarded to the Special Crime Division, who as you know have conduct of this matter, and will be brought to the attention of the reviewing CPS lawyer. Thank you for making your representations, but I must advise you that we will be unable to enter into any further correspondence with you.

Yours sincerely

Special Crime & Counter Terrorism Division

Complaints & Enquiries Team

Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

RL: However, a paper letter has also been sent to Alison Saunders, so she may choose to reply herself, since the letter is raising fundamental questions about what the CPS is for.
___

Letter to the CPS
To Crown Prosecution Service
2 Rose Court, London, SE1 9HS

Dear [CPS official]

Thank you for getting back to me.

I am interested in the case of the Labour peer who was interviewed in connection with child sexual abuse but deemed to be too demented to face questioning.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-peer-escapes-probe-over-3836213#.U729yn0ALxu.twitter

You will recall the case of the fraudster Ernest Saunders who was released from prison because of dementia, but who subsequently made a full recovery.

In view of this, it would be wise to have a second opinion on the diagnosis of the Labour peer, with psychometric testing and MRI.

I would be grateful if you would confirm that this will be done.

Kind regards

Richard Lawson
MB BS, MRCPsych

(Update 25 July: the CPS Press Office referred this to their Public Enquiries Unit, who referred me to the local office dealing with the case. I do not have this information. I have requested the CPS to reply, since they have the data on the case).

28 July: response from CPS:

Following your email to [Public Enquiry Unit], they passed your contact details to CPS’ Special Crime Division – managing this case – and asked them to make contact with you with regards to your request to make representations. They should be in touch in due course.

8 August: Letter to MP John Penrose

I would appreciate your help in getting the Crown Prosecution Service to seek a further medical tests on a Peer who is suspected of abusing children.
This Labour peer and past MP was questioned by police in December 2013 over 20 child sex abuse allegations (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-peer-escapes-probe-over-3836213#.U-SWt9JdWSr), but was deemed to be suffering from dementia and therefore was unable to answer questions.

You will recall the case of the fraudster Ernest Saunders, one of the Guinness Four, who was released from prison because of dementia, but who subsequently made a full recovery.

In view of this precedent, it would be wise to have a second opinion on the diagnosis of the Labour peer, with psychometric testing and MRI in order to be absolutely certain that he is truly suffering from dementia, and not just taking refuge in the Saunders Defence.

I have put these points to the Crown Prosecution Service, but apart from the Public Enquiries Unit, who have been helpful, they have not responded to my emails.

I would be grateful if you ask the Home Secretary to order a full review of the diagnosis along the lines I have suggested.

Many thanks

Kind regards

_
Update 8/8/14

Email from deputy head of Special Crime unit refusing either to confirm or deny that they would follow my suggestion, but saying that my email would be put before CPS lawyer.
___
My reply

Dear Mr xxxxxxxx

Thank you for passing my email to the CPS lawyer.

I would like to make clear that I was not seeking the name of the person concerned.

I am sure that the CPS lawyer will agree that it would be wise to have a second opinion on the diagnosis of the peer, with a clinical opinion backed by psychometric testing and MRI in order to be absolutely certain that the peer truly suffering from dementia.

There is a clear public interest in bringing all those who abuse children sexually to justice, especially persons in positions of power and authority, since if the perception that there is one law for the powerful and another for ordinary people is allowed to grow, law itself could come into disrepute in Britain. This matter is therefore of great importance both to the CPS and to Parliament, and for this reason I am cc'ing this email to my MP.

I would be grateful if you would forward this email also to the CPS lawyer.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely

Dr Richard Lawson

___

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License