Procedures around becoming an arguido.

[Robittybob1]

"Were the McCanns being accused of something?  Surely the facts surrounding that would be detailed in the PJ files associated with the arguido statements by the McCann as a guess.

Can they be made arguido without an accusation being made?

[Alice Purjorick]

"Were the McCanns being accused of something?  Surely the facts surrounding that would be detailed in the PJ files associated with the arguido statements by the McCann as a guess.

Can they be made arguido without an accusation being made?

They can request to be given Arguido status.

Questioning of the Suspect or Arguido Pre-Trial
It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime; however 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. 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 arguido has the right to remain silent and any declaration that he/she makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.


It's best if you read the CCP.
It really is quite straightforward, just ignore the names McCann when reading it.
Learn what it is about the see how it was applied to the case in question.
See my sig strip.......

[Robittybob1]

"It's okay to reinvent the wheel, but only when you understand how the current wheel works." 
If you reinvent the wheel do you have a wheel or something else?

[Robittybob1]

They can request to be given Arguido status.

Questioning of the Suspect or Arguido Pre-Trial
It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime; however 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. 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 arguido has the right to remain silent and any declaration that he/she makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.


It's best if you read the CCP.
It really is quite straightforward, just ignore the names McCann when reading it.
Learn what it is about the see how it was applied to the case in question.
See my sig strip.......

"It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime"  So that suspicion may not actually be based on evidence that can be presented but it should at least be explainable.

In this case they had dogs running around the apartment barking.  Also some debatable DNA results.

[sadie]

"It's okay to reinvent the wheel, but only when you understand how the current wheel works." 
If you reinvent the wheel do you have a wheel or something else?

Touchee, Rob

Do we have a wheel or something else?

I think something else.

[Carana]

They can request to be given Arguido status.

Questioning of the Suspect or Arguido Pre-Trial
It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime; however 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. 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 arguido has the right to remain silent and any declaration that he/she makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.


It's best if you read the CCP.
It really is quite straightforward, just ignore the names McCann when reading it.
Learn what it is about the see how it was applied to the case in question.
See my sig strip.......

Where did you get that text from, Alice? I only have the CCPs in Portuguese.
I believe that's referring to the CCP version that came into force after they were questioned. The old one didn't specify "founded suspicion". The old wording about being informed of the facts against an arguido changed as well. IMO in the old one, it wasn't clear that being informed of them was a right per se.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2127.msg70219#msg70219

[Robittybob1]

Touchee, Rob

Do you have a wheel or something else?

Tracked vehicles seem to be an advantage over the wheeled versions.

[Robittybob1]

When Gerry said "When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this."  we might be correct in thinking that that was the main accusation against the McCanns "That they had some responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine".

[barrier]

When Gerry said "When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this."  we might be correct in thinking that that was the main accusation against the McCanns "That they had some responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine".

Unfortunately or not,its not known why there were arguido's made back in 2014,it can't have been just because three of them were alleged burglars surely,was the main accusation one of you must be involved cause you are a an alleged burglar,perish the thought,oh! and you own a phone?

[Carana]

Unfortunately or not,its not known why there were arguido's made back in 2014,it can't have been just because three of them were alleged burglars surely,was the main accusation one of you must be involved cause you are a an alleged burglar,perish the thought,oh! and you own a phone?

I don't think that that was the situation, Barrier.

They were people in PT that the UK wanted to interview. If they wanted to do so "under caution" on PT soil, I can't see any other possibility other than the nearest equivalent which is arguido status.

As far as I can work out, that was a provisional status which didn't exist in PT law the last time I had a check back then.

Normally, an arguido maintains that status until an investigation has reached a conclusion, and until the end of the road (Supreme Court ruling) in PT cases if charges are made and a trial goes ahead.

[barrier]

I don't think that that was the situation, Barrier.

They were people in PT that the UK wanted to interview. If they wanted to do so "under caution" on PT soil, I can't see any other possibility other than the nearest equivalent which is arguido status.

As far as I can work out, that was a provisional status which didn't exist in PT law the last time I had a check back then.

Normally, an arguido maintains that status until an investigation has reached a conclusion, and until the end of the road (Supreme Court ruling) in PT cases if charges are made and a trial goes ahead.

Wasn't there another batch interviewed later in the year,I don't think they had the arguido status.
Given that's the case the four in July were under suspicion? which it turns out was about nothing.


From the beeb.

The source added: "The 'arguido' [suspect] status was given to the suspects to protect them. It gives them legal rights including the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during interviews.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123433


I think that the term is an headline grabber to us brits where quite possible the term is lost in translation where it affords some,some protection against leading questions.

[barrier]

Normally, an arguido maintains that status until an investigation has reached a conclusion, and until the end of the road (Supreme Court ruling) in PT cases if charges are made and a trial goes ahead.

That poses an interesting question if its the case,as in  was Bilton interfering in an ongoing investigation when interviewing the three amigo's last year.

[Carana]

Wasn't there another batch interviewed later in the year,I don't think they had the arguido status.
Given that's the case the four in July were under suspicion? which it turns out was about nothing.


From the beeb.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123433


I think that the term is an headline grabber to us brits where quite possible the term is lost in translation where it affords some,some protection against leading questions.

I don't know the ins-and-outs of the negotiations. Some appear to have had arguido status (whether imposed or requested) and others not.

AFAIK, the only arguidos were some of those the UK wanted to interview and, unless I've missed something, the status was reported as ended - and termination of arguidoship prior to a new ruling is what I couldn't find a provision for in PT law at the time.

[Carana]

That poses an interesting question if its the case,as in  was Bilton interfering in an ongoing investigation when interviewing the three amigo's last year.

I don't think so if the arguido status had been lifted.

[barrier]

I don't think so if the arguido status had been lifted.

I agree but I was responding to this part.

Normally, an arguido maintains that status until an investigation has reached a conclusion, and until the end of the road (Supreme Court ruling) in PT cases if charges are made and a trial goes ahead.