Was Kate McCann right to decline to answer the 48 questions?

[slartibartfast]

If her ulterior motive was to avoid jail, what motive did she publicly espouse?

Seems a difficult question?

[Brietta]

This is a quote where Kate talks about getting a lawyer,  it's after the dogs went in -

By this time,  we felt as if we had been completely cut adrift.  The police ignored us, we were up against a convoluted system neither of us really understood and the media juggernaut was now well and truly out of control.  If we were going to have any chance of protecting ourselves,  we needed somebody familiar with the system, a Portuguese lawyer, to represent our interests.  Later that day,  Gerry contacted Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a human-rights lawyer in Lisbon,  who'd been recommended to us, and arranged for us to go and see him the following afternoon. Unquote

Thanks for that Lace.

Their child had gone missing in a foreign country and they were subject to a legal system they did not understand; why there would be any objection to them seeking professional legal advice from a lawyer is a bit of a mystery for me.

Having understood the necessity of employing a lawyer who understood what Kate described as " a convoluted legal system" failing to listen to his legal advice as Gerry did was not the sensible course of action.

Kate behaved appropriately and more importantly, legally and accepted his advice to remain silent;  I fail to see why exercising one's legal rights should be considered a cause for censure.

[barrier]

Does any one know what right is given under police interview in Portugal.We know in Engalnd and Wales its states.

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

This was amended in 1994 from

"You do not have to say anything but anything you do say will be taken down and may be given in evidence.

[Brietta]

Does any one know what right is given under police interview in Portugal.We know in Engalnd and Wales its states.

This was amended in 1994 from

Being interviewed as a witness entails answering truthfully all questions asked.  If self incriminating questions are to be asked the person is given arguido status which entitles them to have a lawyer present and entitles them to the right to remain silent.
Witnesses can request arguido status which will entitle them to those rights.

That is my understanding ... any one able to add or suggest where I have gone wrong.

[slartibartfast]

Being interviewed as a witness entails answering truthfully all questions asked.  If self incriminating questions are to be asked the person is given arguido status which entitles them to have a lawyer present and entitles them to the right to remain silent.
Witnesses can request arguido status which will entitle them to those rights.

That is my understanding ... any one able to add or suggest where I have gone wrong.

IMO explains why they were made Arguidos.

[barrier]

Being interviewed as a witness entails answering truthfully all questions asked.  If self incriminating questions are to be asked the person is given arguido status which entitles them to have a lawyer present and entitles them to the right to remain silent.
Witnesses can request arguido status which will entitle them to those rights.

That is my understanding ... any one able to add or suggest where I have gone wrong.

Is it an implied right then? where a lawyer advises rather than a policeman reads them that right.

[Brietta]

Is it an implied right then? where a lawyer advises rather than a policeman reads them that right.

Sorry Barrier ... I'm not understanding your question.

It is a different system in Portugal ... but in my opinion the right of silence in any European country is just that ... a right ... with nothing implicit about it.

[barrier]

Sorry Barrier ... I'm not understanding your question.

It is a different system in Portugal ... but in my opinion the right of silence in any European country is just that ... a right ... with nothing implicit about it.

Some one in for questioning in the uk under caution must be read these rights by a policeman,what of Portugal?

[faithlilly]

Do you have a cite.... otherwise it's just opinion

I think it's up to you to provide a cite as it was you who first made the claim that he didn't answer police questions.

[Mr Gray]

I think it's up to you to provide a cite as it was you who first made the claim that he didn't answer police questions.

I've looked and at the moment can't find one....as you haven't provided a cite then it's just opinion by you too

[Brietta]

Some one in for questioning in the uk under caution must be read these rights by a policeman,what of Portugal?

Whether or not a form of words is used to inform individuals of their rights when they are constituted arguidos, I have no idea.
I would imagine it would be necessary. 

[Carana]

Whether or not a form of words is used to inform individuals of their rights when they are constituted arguidos, I have no idea.
I would imagine it would be necessary.

I presume so as well. However, in the McCanns' arguido police statements, for some reason "arguido" was translated as "being held as defendant".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2553.jpg

[Alice Purjorick]

because its the only one that gives specific guidance on interviewing those who dont speak english...you did provide alink to it so its no surprise I quoted from the link you provided

The Home Office Document says an interpreter must be used then remains silent on how.
The clear implication being the mere act of providing/utilising an interpreter denotes compliance.

[Alice Purjorick]

I would have to divulge too much

What I can say I often have to gain consent from people........to a standard that I could show in court if necessary that the person had understood what I have said......a piece of paper signed by the person in a language they did not understand would not be acceptable by the court...even if they had signed it

That's where the use of an interpreter comes in.
To be admissible in court a witness statement must be in writing and must be signed by the witness.
Extending the argument you put forward would mean the taking witness statements from any foreign national would be a waste of time. One wonders why the EU came up with a directive covering such eventualities and why the CPS issued guidelines for England and Wales.

[Brietta]

I presume so as well. However, in the McCanns' arguido police statements, for some reason "arguido" was translated as "being held as defendant".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2553.jpg

I think your post answers Barrier's question.  The PJ weren't about to lose them through a technicality ... pity they didn't expend the same diligence on the quality of the evidence they were relying on.