Procedures around becoming an arguido.

[Carana]

I agree but I was responding to this part.

I don't know who would have time to double-check, but I recall an official statement from PT stating that they didn't have any current arguidos in this case. If my recollection is correct, it would corroborate the idea that arguido status at the time of the  PJ rogs conducted on behalf of the UK was an exceptional, temporary measure, for the purposes of complying with requests made by a foreign police force.

[barrier]

I don't know who would have time to double-check, but I recall an official statement from PT stating that they didn't have any current arguidos in this case. If my recollection is correct, it would corroborate the idea that arguido status at the time of the  PJ rogs conducted on behalf of the UK was an exceptional, temporary measure, for the purposes of complying with requests made by a foreign police force.

Slightly off topic but relevant imo,maybe this is why the CPS had been out there to find out just what the procedure was for such an event.

[Eleanor]

Slightly off topic but relevant imo,maybe this is why the CPS had been out there to find out just what the procedure was for such an event.

Good Point.

[Alice Purjorick]

Just to take up where I left off:-

•   Arguido is a status automatically conferred on someone who is suspected by the authorities of committing an offence.
•   A person must be given arguido status before an arrest can be made.
•   A person/witness may request arguido status.
•   The arguido must be informed of whatsoever evidence is held against them. [I can find no definition of the extent or manner covered by “informed”]
•   It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime.
•   Since the purpose of questioning is precisely to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and who is the perpetrator the questioning may be ordered with a lesser degree of suspicion.
•   This measure may be executed by a judge the PP or the criminal police.
•   An arguido has NOT been formally charged or arrested and possibly may never be so.
•   The defence lawyer must be informed of the time and place of the questioning but the lawyers presence is not mandatory unless the arguido is in custodial detention.
•   The Portuguese procedural system assigns the arguido the right to remain silent during the procedure from the moment he/she is formally designated Arguido.
•   The fact that the arguido decides to remain silent cannot be detrimental to himself.
•   The CCP does not threaten with a sanction of any kind the arguido that having decided to talk instead of remaining silent makes false declarations.
•   Any declaration that the arguido makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.
•   As a consequence of the right to remain silent the arguido has no duty of any kind to cooperate with investigative authorities for the purpose of determining the truth.
•   As a consequence of the privilege against self incrimination the arguido cannot  make a declaration under oath.(CCP Article14(3)).
•   Arguido status confers all sorts of rights all of which are laid out the CCP. The right to be have legal assistance provided by the state for example. And this beauty of a banana skin “The Right To Full and Accurate Recording of His /Her Statements”.
Hint: best to read the rules in CCP before saddling up !

[Robittybob1]

When it says: "•   Arguido is a status automatically conferred on someone who is suspected by the authorities of committing an offence."
That must clash with ideas like "Amaral suspected the McCanns from day one".

That would mean the McCanns should have been declared "automatic" arguidos but they weren't, so is this implying the law was not being followed?

[slartibartfast]

When it says: "•   Arguido is a status automatically conferred on someone who is suspected by the authorities of committing an offence."
That must clash with ideas like "Amaral suspected the McCanns from day one".

That would mean the McCanns should have been declared "automatic" arguidos but they weren't, so is this implying the law was not being followed?

...or that they weren’t suspects from day one....

[Venturi Swirl]

...or that they weren’t suspects from day one....

Amaral, in his book, tells us he was suspicious from day one.  Was that only with the benefit of hindsight then?

[Eleanor]

Amaral, in his book, tells us he was suspicious from day one.  Was that only with the benefit of hindsight then?

Or the benefit of a looming court case for Perjury.

[Robittybob1]

...or that they weren’t suspects from day one....

There must be a status prior to declaring them arguidos for the purpose of recording phone and personal conversations without them being aware of that happening IMO.
Gerry was questioned again after day 1 (10th May 2007) and he wasn't made aware he was a suspect.  There must be suspects and "suspects" IMO.

[Alice Purjorick]

When it says: "•   Arguido is a status automatically conferred on someone who is suspected by the authorities of committing an offence."
That must clash with ideas like "Amaral suspected the McCanns from day one".

That would mean the McCanns should have been declared "automatic" arguidos but they weren't, so is this implying the law was not being followed?

That will depend on how you are defining "the authorities".
If you beleive that "The Authorities" is restricted to Sr Amaral and that wot is writ in 'is book you may have a point.
I would suggest the "the authorities" extends a little further than that.
If you belivee a law has been broken identify the law (they all have refernce numbers) then state how in your opinion that law has been breached.
It does help to work out what "The Files" means in the context of the case.

[Carana]

Slightly off topic but relevant imo,maybe this is why the CPS had been out there to find out just what the procedure was for such an event.

Quite possibly. I think I already suggested that as a possibility for the CPS's visit on some other thread when the topic cropped up.

[Eleanor]

There must be a status prior to declaring them arguidos for the purposed of recording phone and personal conversations without them being aware of that IMO.
Gerry was questioned again after day 1 and he wasn't made aware he was a suspect.  There must be suspects and "suspects" IMO.

If only it were that complicated.

[Carana]

There must be a status prior to declaring them arguidos for the purposed of recording phone and personal conversations without them being aware of that IMO.
Gerry was questioned again after day 1 and he wasn't made aware he was a suspect.  There must be suspects and "suspects" IMO.

Ahhh. While wading one day through the PT codes, as one does just for fun, I came across some articles that mentioned "arguidos" and "suspeitos" - from the context, I assume that they are slightly different, although I couldn't find a clear distinction.

Thinking about it later, IMO, "arguido" equals the legal status in which someone is formally informed that they are a suspect, or is about to be questioned on potentially self-incriminating details and can request the status in order to exercise their rights, and the "suspeito" one might well cover covert operations on an unofficial suspect.

[Alice Purjorick]

Ahhh. While wading one day through the PT codes, as one does just for fun, I came across some articles that mentioned "arguidos" and "suspeitos" - from the context, I assume that they are slightly different, although I couldn't find a clear distinction.

Thinking about it later, IMO, "arguido" equals the legal status in which someone is formally informed that they are a suspect, or is about to be questioned on potentially self-incriminating details and can request the status in order to exercise their rights, and the "suspeito" one might well cover covert operations on an unofficial suspect.

"The difference between suspect and arguido is established by the magistrate who directs the investigation".

 

[Mr Gray]

"The difference between suspect and arguido is established by the magistrate who directs the investigation".

 

so what is the difference between the two