McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

The judges ruled that the duty of reserve was not breached. Their laws, their call.

But the question could come down to were they right?

[sadie]

Biased or not if their judgements don't violate the McCann's human rights it's irrelevant to the ECHR.

This might not affect their human rights per se, but I shall never forget how The Mccanns were told dates for certain processes in the trial and after arranging time off work, childcare, companions, flights, hotels, Lawyers etc and psyching themselves up, at the very last minute they were told that the sitting that day had been cancelled. 

This happened several times with the weakest of reasons given.  On at least one occasion they actually arrived at Court to be turned away IIRC

This was a massively destructive thing for them and undoubtedly violated their Human Rights.  It seemed a deliberate ploy IMO.   I doubt that the ECHR will take this on board but IMO they should

[misty]

Are you saying they were treated unfairly during the libel trial? Could you be more specific?

The presumption of innocence is as valid in a civil trial as in a criminal trial. The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced, especially in light of the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred.

[Brietta]

The presumption of innocence is as valid in a civil trial as in a criminal trial. The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced, especially in light of the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred. 

Subject matter and scope of the Directive
Snip
The approach taken in the new Directive is rather broad as it addresses not only the presumption of innocence and connected rights such as the right to remain silent, but it equally addresses the right to be present at one’s trial.
Snip
Finally, Article 2 of the Directive does not, like the previously adopted Roadmap Directives, link the applicability of the Directive to a notification of the authorities of their status of suspected or accused person. Instead it  provides that the Directive is applicable once an individual is suspected or accused of a criminal offence, and it is applicable to all stages of the criminal proceedings, until the decision on the final determination of whether the person has committed the criminal offence becomes definitive.

The presumption of innocence and connected rights
Snip
It obliges MS to ensure that, until a person has been duly found guilty, the individual involved is not presented as guilty in public statements by public authorities or judicial decisions, other than those determining the person’s guilt. Recital 17 shows that ‘public authorities’ should be understood broadly as covering judicial authorities, police officers as well as ministers.
https://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/05/03/the-presumption-of-innocence-and-the-right-to-be-present-at-trial-directive/

I think the latest directive clarifying the presumption of innocence of suspects can only benefit the McCann case to be heard by the ECHR.
I doubt their legal team will have much difficulty in presenting that case and I doubt there will be much difficulty in in having it accepted ... particularly as the new directive clarifies the situation regarding civil and criminal cases ... as well as clarification on the innocent status of suspects and as you have pointed out in particular, "the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred."

I think it was obvious from first reading of the SC judgement what was going to be read into it;  proved by the subsequent headlines.
I wonder if the sc judges thought through in any depth how damaging their remarks would be to the McCanns or that they had opened the door to legal redress as a result.

I think the McCann case also represents not just them but the greater good ... if allowed to pass unchallenged it means a precedent is set for all ~ whether Portuguese or foreign ~ in the Portuguese court system.

[John]

The Supreme Court merely restated what was previously included within the Archive Report and that was that the parents had failed to demonstrate what they had claimed.

[Brietta]

The Supreme Court merely restated what was previously included within the Archive Report and that was that the parents had failed to demonstrate what they had claimed.

They didn't have to 'demonstrate their innocence' in the eyes of the law they are innocent.

Misty posted:
"The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg423032#msg423032

  ... and reasoned a good case on why they had done that.

[Brietta]

The Supreme Court merely restated what was previously included within the Archive Report and that was that the parents had failed to demonstrate what they had claimed.

       PS  ...  Love the new avatar

[John]

They didn't have to 'demonstrate their innocence' in the eyes of the law they are innocent.

Misty posted:
"The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg423032#msg423032

  ... and reasoned a good case on why they had done that.

Demonstrate what they had claimed.

[G-Unit]

The presumption of innocence is as valid in a civil trial as in a criminal trial. The mere fact that the SC referred to the McCanns not having demonstrated their innocence is evidence that the scales were not balanced, especially in light of the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred.

Do you have a cite for the words in bold please? I would need to see the context in order to reply.


..

[Robittybob1]

Do you have a cite for the words in bold please? I would need to see the context in order to reply.


..

There were whole threads on this topic earlier this year wasn't it?

[G-Unit]

Subject matter and scope of the Directive
Snip
The approach taken in the new Directive is rather broad as it addresses not only the presumption of innocence and connected rights such as the right to remain silent, but it equally addresses the right to be present at one’s trial.
Snip
Finally, Article 2 of the Directive does not, like the previously adopted Roadmap Directives, link the applicability of the Directive to a notification of the authorities of their status of suspected or accused person. Instead it  provides that the Directive is applicable once an individual is suspected or accused of a criminal offence, and it is applicable to all stages of the criminal proceedings, until the decision on the final determination of whether the person has committed the criminal offence becomes definitive.

The presumption of innocence and connected rights
Snip
It obliges MS to ensure that, until a person has been duly found guilty, the individual involved is not presented as guilty in public statements by public authorities or judicial decisions, other than those determining the person’s guilt. Recital 17 shows that ‘public authorities’ should be understood broadly as covering judicial authorities, police officers as well as ministers.
https://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/05/03/the-presumption-of-innocence-and-the-right-to-be-present-at-trial-directive/

I think the latest directive clarifying the presumption of innocence of suspects can only benefit the McCann case to be heard by the ECHR.
I doubt their legal team will have much difficulty in presenting that case and I doubt there will be much difficulty in in having it accepted ... particularly as the new directive clarifies the situation regarding civil and criminal cases ... as well as clarification on the innocent status of suspects and as you have pointed out in particular, "the fact that no crime had been proven to have occurred."

I think it was obvious from first reading of the SC judgement what was going to be read into it;  proved by the subsequent headlines.
I wonder if the sc judges thought through in any depth how damaging their remarks would be to the McCanns or that they had opened the door to legal redress as a result.

I think the McCann case also represents not just them but the greater good ... if allowed to pass unchallenged it means a precedent is set for all ~ whether Portuguese or foreign ~ in the Portuguese court system.

Who presented them as guilty? Not the SC judges. In fact they specifically said;

It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here. Page 69
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

[G-Unit]

There were whole threads on this topic earlier this year wasn't it?

Are you suggesting that the onus is on me to find the cite so I can see the context?

[Robittybob1]

Are you suggesting that the onus is on me to find the cite so I can see the context?

No. Just remember all what was said in the past.

[Brietta]

No. Just remember all what was said in the past.

In my opinion it is failure to do just that which keeps our feet firmly cemented in groundhog day.

It has been a long and winding road ... but here we are with innocents knocking at the door of the ECHR ... there are those who may wish to airbrush how they got here from history ... but in my opinion the wording of the SC ruling is a neon road sign the meaning of which was eminently clear.

[kizzy]

When they were eating in what was effectively their own garden, within Tapas group sight of 5A at only 50 metres away?
And the area around the only entrance that they believed unlocked (but closed) was illuminated by a street lamp immediately iopposite

Oh and I nearly forgot, they were checking every half hour and better with Matts 9 pm window check.


Of course they couldn't have made a charge of abandonment stick.  No abandonment there, just a bad judgement ... and one that anyone might have made without proper understanding of the way those shutters worked, or knowledge of the previous burglaries in that very block in the preceding days..  PdL looks so quiet and peaceful, but there obviously is an undercurrent of criminality

It wasn't there own garden though , was it. fgs

As you well know it was an apartment , at the side of a main road.

As for the 30 min checks, they may as well have been half hour away.

They couldn't hear them cry, or know if they had an accident.

They left them on there own, they walked away to a tapas bar.