McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Carana]

Would it have been an offence in Portugal for Amaral to have published his opinion of the investigation if the McCanns were still under suspicion by the judiciary? (277/2)

That's the question I raised the other day... witth no response.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469898#msg469898

[misty]

That's the question I raised the other day... witth no response.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469898#msg469898

Sorry, I missed that - but I think my question takes it on a stage further. If their arguido status was re-imposed shortly after the book's publication, would Amaral have broken any law in Portugal?

[faithlilly]

Sorry, I missed that - but I think my question takes it on a stage further. If their arguido status was re-imposed shortly after the book's publication, would Amaral have broken any law in Portugal?

Was it reimposed?

[misty]

Was it reimposed?

No, it wasn't but it could have been at any time if SC are saying 277/2 was the correct filing article. So, a genuine question - as Amaral wouldn't shouldn't have known if the arguido status may be imposed at any time, did he break the law or not by writing about the parents in the manner he did?

[Carana]

Sorry, I missed that - but I think my question takes it on a stage further. If their arguido status was re-imposed shortly after the book's publication, would Amaral have broken any law in Portugal?

That was raised as well

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469841#msg469841

[faithlilly]

No, it wasn't but it could have been at any time if SC are saying 277/2 was the correct filing article. So, a genuine question - as Amaral wouldn't shouldn't have known if the arguido status may be imposed at any time, did he break the law or not by writing about the parents in the manner he did?

I’m sorry but I think you’re clutching at straws there Misty.

[misty]

That was raised as well

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg469841#msg469841

So the case was in a state of suspension rather than formally closed, despite the fact that no criminal case was actually pending against anybody?

[Robittybob1]

So the case was in a state of suspension rather than formally closed, despite the fact that no criminal case was actually pending against anybody?

"State of suspension" could be a good description.

[G-Unit]

AFAIK, 279/1  would seem to be most likely re the reopiening.

The discussion was about which point in the article it had been archived under: 277/1 or  /2. And why the SC had apparently opined that it couldn't have been opened under 277/1, when seemingly it already had been 3 years previously.

Perhaps I'm having a "senior moment", but for the moment I really don't understand.

279/1 was quoted when the case was reopened.

For all the reasons the Judges gave, the case was archived under 277/2. The SC Judges corrected a mistake by the prosecutors. They did it over a year ago and there has been no official protest as far as I know.

[G-Unit]

So the case was in a state of suspension rather than formally closed, despite the fact that no criminal case was actually pending against anybody?

What makes you think the case was 'formally closed'?

[misty]

What makes you think the case was 'formally closed'?

Article 276 states that the inquiry should be either concluded or brought to trial. Was the preliminary judicial inquiry (2nd phase) under Article 286 ever brought into play?

[Carana]

No, it wasn't but it could have been at any time if SC are saying 277/2 was the correct filing article. So, a genuine question - as Amaral wouldn't shouldn't have known if the arguido status may be imposed at any time, did he break the law or not by writing about the parents in the manner he did?

Not sure, but I don't think so as the argument would be that it was published in good faith at the time. It might have curtailed further runs of it, the media circuit and presumably the documentary if the status had been reimposed before that was due to appear.

[faithlilly]

Not sure, but I don't think so as the argument would be that it was published in good faith at the time. It might have curtailed further runs of it, the media circuit and presumably the documentary if the status had been reimposed before that was due to appear.

But that didn’t happen so not sure what the purpose of these musings are ?

[Carana]

Article 276 states that the inquiry should be either concluded or brought to trial. Was the preliminary judicial inquiry (2nd phase) under Article 286 ever brought into play?

Do you mean the instruction phase, Misty? If so, not AFAIK.

[misty]

Do you mean the instruction phase, Misty? If so, not AFAIK.

I used this as a reference for the sequence of investigative phases:-
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf