McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Miss Taken Identity]

So on to the ECHR with that? surely they can't contest anything else.

It is just too funny. them taking Portugal to court. I MEAN  way too funny. They may contest the colour of the parchment used...

It says a lot that NONE of their time and effort has been spent searching/looking for their daughter...

[Alice Purjorick]

It is just too funny. them taking Portugal to court. I MEAN  way too funny. They may contest the colour of the parchment used...

It says a lot that NONE of their time and effort has been spent searching/looking for their daughter...

It raises two notions in my head:
1) A bad day at the races where you are putting a couple of grand you don't have on a no hoper in the last race in the wishfulness it will come in and you break even.
2) How many times do you need to stick your finger in the fan before you cotton on it's not such a bright idea?

[Miss Taken Identity]

It raises two notions in my head:
1) A bad day at the races where you are putting a couple of grand you don't have on a no hoper in the last race in the wishfulness it will come in and you break even.
2) How many times do you need to stick your finger in the fan before you cotton on it's not such a bright idea?

Yeah flogging a dead hoss does spring to mind.

[G-Unit]

The difference between 277/1 and 277/2 seems quite subtle to me, but the McCann team said that the use of 277/1 was correct because the investigation had gathered enough evidence to prove the arguidos innocent.

"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons"
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

They are ignoring, however the quite clear statement in the document that;

"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."

So their innocence wasn't proved at all, according to that paragraph, and that's one of the reasons why the SC judges corrected the archiving dispatch to 277/2; insufficient evidence.

In support of the SC judges, it was mostly in the UK that the archiving procedure was reported as having cleared the arguidos. In Portugal it was reported correctly from the beginning as being due to insufficient evidence.

Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime

[misty]

The difference between 277/1 and 277/2 seems quite subtle to me, but the McCann team said that the use of 277/1 was correct because the investigation had gathered enough evidence to prove the arguidos innocent.

"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons"
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

They are ignoring, however the quite clear statement in the document that;

"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."

So their innocence wasn't proved at all, according to that paragraph, and that's one of the reasons why the SC judges corrected the archiving dispatch to 277/2; insufficient evidence.

In support of the SC judges, it was mostly in the UK that the archiving procedure was reported as having cleared the arguidos. In Portugal it was reported correctly from the beginning as being due to insufficient evidence.

Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime

How could anyone be not innocent of 2 separate crimes? RM was suspected of abduction. McCanns were suspected of concealing a cadaver. Until the nature of any crime was determined, RM was innocent re. concealing a cadaver & the McCanns were innocent re. abduction. 277/1 was correct & stood unchallenged for 9 years. IMO.

[Carana]

The difference between 277/1 and 277/2 seems quite subtle to me, but the McCann team said that the use of 277/1 was correct because the investigation had gathered enough evidence to prove the arguidos innocent.

"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons"
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

They are ignoring, however the quite clear statement in the document that;

"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."

So their innocence wasn't proved at all, according to that paragraph, and that's one of the reasons why the SC judges corrected the archiving dispatch to 277/2; insufficient evidence.

In support of the SC judges, it was mostly in the UK that the archiving procedure was reported as having cleared the arguidos. In Portugal it was reported correctly from the beginning as being due to insufficient evidence.

Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime

Hang on, I hadn't twigged at the time what the discussion re 277/1 or 277/2 was about on here over the past pages.

So... am I correct in thinking the the Supreme Court judges checking through legal argument in a civil case, decided that the public prosecutor's* ruling had, erm, got that aspect of their legal ruling wrong... on a criminal case that the court was at pains to state was outwith their remit, but from which they nonetheless quoted bits?

Seriously?? lol

Was there an official answer to this "annulment request"? Or not yet...? Only 16 months later, after all.

* Correction public prosecutor, not AG.

[Carana]

Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:

a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Just copying those articles here to avoid having to hunt for them every time. I've taken the extract from the CÓDIGO DE PROCESSO PENAL Lei 48/2007, de 29 de Agosto one.

Artigo 277.o
Arquivamento do inquérito
1 — O Ministério Público procede, por despacho, ao arquivamento do inquérito, logo que tiver recolhido prova bastante de se não ter verificado crime, de o arguido não o ter praticado a qualquer título ou de ser legalmente inadmissível o procedimento.
2 — O inquérito é igualmente arquivado se não tiver sido possível ao Ministério Público obter indícios suficientes da verificação de crime ou de quem foram os agentes.
68
3 — O despacho de arquivamento é comunicado ao arguido, ao assistente, ao denunciante com faculdade de se constituir assistente e a quem tenha manifestado o propósito de deduzir pedido de indemnização civil nos termos do artigo 75.o, bem como ao respectivo defensor ou advogado.

[Carana]

I wonder if that could be the basis for an application to the ECtHR? Not quite sure under which of the articles, however.

Do Supreme Courts reviewing a civil case usually change the Attorney General's ruling on a criminal one because of a knuckle-rapping paragraph related to witnesses and assumed that the AG and his deputy hadn't weighed everything up?

[jassi]

I wonder if that could be the basis for an application to the ECtHR? Not quite sure under which of the articles, however.

Do Supreme Courts reviewing a civil case usually change the Attorney General's ruling on a criminal one because of a knuckle-rapping paragraph related to witnesses and assumed that the AG and his deputy hadn't weighed everything up?

If that were to be the case, then it has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral's stupendous win in the Portuguese Court

[Carana]

If that were to be the case, then it has absolutely nothing to do with Amaral's stupendous win in the Portuguese Court

Until now, I couldn't think why it might impact on him, either.

However, if that decision to suddenly come to the conclusion that the AG and the deputy didn't know what they were talking about and changed part of the ruling, and if that change then altered the course of the SC's reasoning for its own ruling... what then?

It would still be a case against Portugal and not him, in any case, AFAIK. If the SC rules in your favour and you get to keep your money, then could PT then ask you to give it back, if it were determined that they'd screwed up? Or not?

I haven't looked into that yet.

But what does an annulment mean in practical terms?

[faithlilly]

Until now, I couldn't think why it might impact on him, either.

However, if that decision to suddenly come to the conclusion that the AG and the deputy didn't know what they were talking about and changed part of the ruling, and if that change then altered the course of the SC's reasoning for its own ruling... what then?

It would still be a case against Portugal and not him, in any case, AFAIK. If the SC rules in your favour and you get to keep your money, then could PT then ask you to give it back, if it were determined that they'd screwed up? Or not?

I haven't looked into that yet.

But what does an annulment mean in practical terms?

What money ? His own which was sequestered? His lawyer’s fees ? What money are you talking about ?

[slartibartfast]

Snip

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Snip

The words indicate 277/2.

[Carana]

What money ? His own to was sequestered? His lawyer’s fees ? What money are you talking about ?

It can sometimes get complicated with two connected threads. On the other thread there was a recent discussion as to whether his money had been released yet or whether it was still withheld due to this apparent ECtHR application.

Anyway, that was just a thought that popped into my head because of the other thread. On this one, I'm more interested in whether what G-Unit brought up could be the basis of an acceptable application and, if so, how that would be judged.

[Carana]

The words indicate 277/2.

Why? There are two identical paragraphs (a and b) in the archival ruling as one concerns Murat and the other Kate and Gerry. Both are 277/1.

[G-Unit]

It can sometimes get complicated with two connected threads. On the other thread there was a recent discussion as to whether his money had been released yet or whether it was still withheld due to this apparent ECtHR application.

Anyway, that was just a thought that popped into my head because of the other thread. On this one, I'm more interested in whether what G-Unit brought up could be the basis of an acceptable application and, if so, how that would be judged.

I'm working my way through the annulment request because that's where their case seems to be set out. There are two points made, both connected to the archiving dispatch.

They seem to be arguing that it declared them innocent (which is connected to the 277/1 or 2 point)
They also seem to be arguing that such a dispatch has the same legal standing as a court judgement, which the SC judges also rejected.
Somewhere in the mix is the presumption of innocence also.

The Attorney General didn't write the archiving dispatch, by the way, it was written to him by the prosecutors. He seems to have agreed with the SC judges, citing insufficient evidence as the reason for the archiving.

Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime