McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

The Supreme Court isn't a civil court. It hears appeals relating to civil and criminal cases. The judges looked at the archiving report only because the McCann's lawyers used it as part of their appeal.

and on what grounds did the SC feel a mistake had been made in the archiving report thta needed rectifying

[G-Unit]

the most important point is taht the case can be reopened when archived under 277/1 wqhich is contrary to what gunit was claiming.......it therefore also nullifies gunits calim taht closure had to be changed to 277/2 for taht raeson.

So the question then is...why did the SC make the change

Do try to understand. When I post something with a link to a cite underneath it I'm not posting my own words or opinions. I was quoting the words of the Supreme court judges, not my own.

[Mr Gray]

Do try to understand. When I post something with a link to a cite underneath it I'm not posting my own words or opinions. I was quoting the words of the Supreme court judges, not my own.

were you quoting the SC judges....that line does not seem to be in the judgement posted on this forum

[G-Unit]

and on what grounds did the SC feel a mistake had been made in the archiving report thta needed rectifying

Groundhog day? 277/1 should have said 277/2!!!!!! 

[G-Unit]

were you quoting the SC judges....that line does not seem to be in the judgement posted on this forum

Follow the link!

[Mr Gray]

Groundhog day? 277/1 should have said 277/2!!!!!! 

as Carana has confirmed....the case can be reopened if archived under 277/1...this case was reopened even though filed under 277/1

[Mr Gray]

Follow the link!

ive fllowed the link...the line re the case not able to be reopened does not appear on the judgement on this foum

[Mr Gray]

Follow the link!

you seem to be relying on this....


This is why it was judged in the ruling that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the order should be treated as a demonstration of acquittal.

In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).

The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.

In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.

from what I can see these are not the words of the judges but comments on the judgement by persons unknown

[G-Unit]

ive fllowed the link...the line re the case not able to be reopened does not appear on the judgement on this foum

I never said it did.

[Mr Gray]

I never said it did.

Thats because the judges never said it

[slartibartfast]

Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something  of a clue that the conditions  have been met

This is where you went wrong, G-unit hadn’t mentioned 279/1 that was Brietta. You should apologise.

[slartibartfast]

Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something  of a clue that the conditions  have been met

No she said it could 9 posts earlier.

[Mr Gray]

This is where you went wrong, G-unit never mentioned 279/1 that was Brietta. You should apologise.

typo...Ive be refering to 277/1 all day...

[Mr Gray]

No she said it could 9 posts earlier.

she claimed the judges said it couldnt...we have the judgement here and no mention

[G-Unit]

Don't follow, G-Unit.

An archived case can be reopened whichever of the two clauses it fell under, if something suddenly credible, relevant and pertinent, suddenly falls on the desk and could be sufficient to reopen it whoever was responsible.

If her remains had been found, it would reopen the inquiry, but wouldn't necessarily involve the former arguidos. It might, of course, if something was found that provided founded suspicions. Just as it might not, depending on the circumstances and what exactly the new elements were.

Preferably not involving non-missing pink blankets...

I agree with the SC judges. The investigation did not gather sufficient evidence that the arguidos did not practice a crime. If they had, the prosecutors wouldn't have included this in their archiving dispatch;

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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation

1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible