McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Sunny]

Portuguese court decisions in the McCanns' favour suggest the justice system couldn't determine conclusively that Amaral did no wrong imo.

A bit like the Attourney General couldn't determine conclusively that the McCanns did no wrong imo.

[misty]

A bit like the Attourney General couldn't determine conclusively that the McCanns did no wrong imo.

Likewise with the other arguido.....hence at least 2 different crimes could have been possible.

[faithlilly]

IMO justice was served as the 2 11yr old  boys should not have been tried in an adult court, despite the abhorrent nature of their crimes. Current legislation reflects this for 10-17yr olds.

 https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1999/dec/16/echr-judgment-thompson-and-venables
*snipped*
On article 6(1), the right to a fair trial, the court found that, notwithstanding the special arrangements made to help ensure that the youths could properly participate in the trial process in the Crown Court,

it was highly unlikely that either applicant would have felt sufficiently uninhibited, in the tense court room and under public scrutiny, to have consulted with their legal representatives during the trial or, indeed, that, given their immaturity and disturbed emotional state, they would have been capable outside the court room of co-operating with their lawyers and giving them information for the purpose of their defence". It therefore followed, in the view of the court, that the applicants had been denied a fair hearing in breach of article 6(1).

On the setting of tariffs and their continued review, the court first held that there was a fundamental distinction between the sentence for murder in respect of juveniles and that for murder in respect of adults. As far as the latter—the sentence for adults—was concerned, the European Court, in an earlier judgment on the 1994 Wynne case, had accepted the lawfulness of the mandatory life sentence for adults convicted of murder. It had also accepted as lawful the arrangements for tariff-setting by the Secretary of State.

Today's judgment does not deal with the arrangements for adults who have been, or will be, convicted of murder in the courts in England and Wales. However, in this case, which involves juveniles, the European Court followed a decision by the House of Lords' Appellate Committee of the Privy Council that the setting of the tariffs for juveniles was itself a sentencing exercise. The court added that, as the Home Secretary—who set the applicants' tariffs—was clearly not independent of the Executive, there had been a breach of article 6(1) in respect of the determination of the applicants' tariffs.

On article 5(4), the court held that, because the applicants' tariffs had been decided by the Home Secretary, there had been no judicial supervision incorporated in the initial fixing of their sentences. The court therefore found a violation of article 5(4) based on the lack of any opportunity for the applicants to have the lawfulness of their detention assessed by a judicial body.

You didn’t answer my question misty. Was the court’s ruling correct ?

[misty]

You didn’t answer my question misty. Was the court’s ruling correct ?

I thought my first sentence answered your question, unless you are asking from a moral rather than a legal point of view?

[Mr Gray]

For the doubters Mark S has posted a screenshot of the McCann's application to the ECHR

Awaiting first judicial decision

[G-Unit]

For the doubters Mark S has posted a screenshot of the McCann's application to the ECHR

Awaiting first judicial decision

Do you have a link please?

[Mr Gray]

Do you have a link please?

I'm on my phone so will be later... It's on his, Twitter feed... It's from the official site but the number is obscured

https://mobile.twitter.com/saunokonoko/with_replies


Scroll down

[slartibartfast]

I'm on my phone so will be later... It's on his, Twitter feed... It's from the official site but the number is obscured

https://mobile.twitter.com/saunokonoko/with_replies


Scroll down

Why is the number obscured?

[Mr Gray]

Why is the number obscured?

I have no idea.. But it looks totally genuine... Data protection... GDPR... who knows

[Eleanor]

I have no idea.. But it looks totally genuine... Data protection... GDPR... who knows

Thank You for that.

[jassi]

I see from the twitter that -

'Application awaiting first judicial decision' + 'Application requiring a decision' in fact mean same thing. These are applications which have been allocated to a judicial formation of the Court but not yet disposed of or communicated to the Govt concerned (from ECHR press team)

This suggest that the application is still at an early stage if the 'defending' country haven't been informed.
Presumably they will  be told only if the application proceeds to the next round.

[jassi]

Why is the number obscured?

Maybe the number only becomes public when a decision to progress the application is made.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Maybe the number only becomes public when a decision to progress the application is made.

All court processing documents have numbers which track the documents- therefore they are in the public domain already- No to reason to withhold the number.  You may be correct Jassie. Portugual seems not to have responded, so very early stages indeed!

[barrier]

For the doubters Mark S has posted a screenshot of the McCann's application to the ECHR

Awaiting first judicial decision

Which is likely to be admissable or inadmissable.

[G-Unit]

Maybe the number only becomes public when a decision to progress the application is made.

Whoever found that page knew the application number.