The 'arguido' interviews and the impact of lawyers advice.

[AnneGuedes]

What did you kindly intend to demonstrate, DCI ?
Mrs McCann seems to have understood her lawyer doubted whether they were or not involved and this doubt was a problem. The lawyer's job isn't to believe or not what the client says, but to defend the position the client has chosen, after advising of the risks.

[sadie]

Why did you pick that tiny bit out of a long explanation and present it out of context, Anne?

Twisting words again?

[sadie]

So Kate refused take his qualified advice, Thank you Lace.

If you had done nothing criminally wrong would you take a deal that meant you went to jail for, was it ?, 2 years.  Abandon your children for 2 years?  Just so that  Amaral, a proven liar in the Courts, could get a score ?

..... Another one "solved" .... and a lucrative book in the bag


JEEZ !


Just shows what corruption goes on in the PJ, that a Lawyer even suggested she took it, as the lesser of two evils.   

He knew what happens.

Take 2 years in jail .....or,  go thru probable torture, a "fixed" trial, and then languish in jail for 16 years.

An innocent woman agreeing to either of those scenarios ? .....Think about it Faith

[AnneGuedes]

Why did you pick that tiny bit out of a long explanation and present it out of context, Anne?

Twisting words again?

Why don't you swallow that or extract the substance of Mrs McCann's prose ?

[sadie]

Why don't you swallow that or extract the substance of Mrs McCann's prose ?

  Pardon ?

[Jean-Pierre]

Why don't you swallow that or extract the substance of Mrs McCann's prose ?

Anne - I am not quite sure what what your agenda is, but it is self evident that quoting extracts out of context, (as you did here) only works when dealing with those who do not have access to the original, full, work.

.....  removed unnecessarily derogative comment .....

[DCI]

Anne - I am not quite sure what what your agenda is, but it is self evident that quoting extracts out of context, (as you did here) only works when dealing with those who do not have access to the original, full, work.

.....  removed unnecessarily derogative comment .....

Exactly Jean-Pierre, thats why I posted what was written, before the selected quote, Anne chose!
Makes a hell of a difference to the real meaning, doesn't it?

[Jean-Pierre]

It does, rather.   

[AnneGuedes]

Makes a hell of a difference to the real meaning, doesn't it?

I then reckon you agree with this :
Mrs McCann seems to have understood her lawyer doubted whether they were or not involved and this doubt was a problem. The lawyer's job isn't to believe or not what the client says, but to defend the position the client has chosen, after advising of the risks.

[Jean-Pierre]

The lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. 

The lawyers job, in an investigative process, is to advise his client.  Of course, if the client admist guilt then the lawyer is obliged to advise a guilty plea, with mitigation.

But here it is rather different.  THe PJ were under an obligation to set out the evidence they had against the McCanns.  (one of the features of the investigative process). * 

The problem is that PJ lied about that evidence, suggesting that they had definitive forensic evidence which could lead to charge of murder.  It seems led to their lawyer suggesting accepting a lower tariff (2 years) for a confession of accidental death, to avoid the risk of a much more serious charge.

Fortunately, the McCanns were both sufficiently self assured to ignore that advice.

If this is correct, then some parts of the PJ, and Amaral in particular, should hang their heads in shame.
__________

* under the adversarial process (eg UK law) it is permissable for the authorities to use some deception in the conduct of the case, because there are checks and balances in place, and legal representation to protect the suspect.  Under the invesitagive process (eg Portugal, France), the idea is that both sides (police and suspect) work together to discover the truth under the direction of the court.  This provides the suspect with less direct  protection, but also places additional responsibilities on the police to be more candid about the evidence they have discovered.   

[DCI]

If I'm not mistaken, under the new legislation that would have come into effect a week later, the arguidos would have had the right to know the evidence for the "reasoned suspicions" against them. I'll try to double-check that.

Does this help, Carana?


II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED

8.Since the CPT’s last visit to Portugal in 2003, significant changes have been made to the legal framework governing the work of law enforcement agencies. Some of the new legislation is not of direct relevance in the context of the CPT’s mandate[3]. However, the changes to the CCP, which entered into force on 15 September 2007, have a profound impact on the use of detention by law enforcement officials. For instance, amendments to Article 202[4] have limited the offences for which a person may be detained outside ‘flagrante delito’[

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/prt/2009-13-inf-eng.htm

[Carana]

Does this help, Carana?


II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED

8.Since the CPT’s last visit to Portugal in 2003, significant changes have been made to the legal framework governing the work of law enforcement agencies. Some of the new legislation is not of direct relevance in the context of the CPT’s mandate[3]. However, the changes to the CCP, which entered into force on 15 September 2007, have a profound impact on the use of detention by law enforcement officials. For instance, amendments to Article 202[4] have limited the offences for which a person may be detained outside ‘flagrante delito’[

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/prt/2009-13-inf-eng.htm

Thanks, but that's not the particular point that I want to double-check... I guess I'll have to wade through the 2007 Penal Code Process yet again.

[Jean-Pierre]

I dont really think so.  I think it was just Amaral and Co. 

It is interesting to note what has happened to Amaral and Friends - the contrast with their "targets" is marked.

And by the by - whatever happened to "secrecy of Justice".  I have no doubt one of the local posters will be able to explain this. 

[Carana]

DCI

I think I've finally found what I was looking for re this arguido business.

(There are other subsections to the Articles, but I've just quoted the ones that are relevant to the point in question.)


Article 58 - a key change in 2007 was adding "...suspeita fundada..." (founded suspicion).

Without attempting a literal translation (i.e. my paraphrasing), I understand the difference to be:
- in the old one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person.
- in the new one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person when there was a well-founded suspicion of that person having committed a crime.

Article 61 - the old point 1.c moved down to 1.d. Again, my paraphrasing: The new 1.c concerns the right to be informed of the imputed facts before making a "declaration" to any entity.

(2000)
Artigo 58.º
(Constituição de arguido)
1 - Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que:
a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal;
b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial;
c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.º a 261.º; ou
d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado.


(2007 - in force as of 15 September)
Artigo 58.o
Constituição de arguido
1 — Sem prejuízo do disposto no artigo anterior, é obrigatória a constituição de arguido logo que:

a) Correndo inquérito contra pessoa determinada em relação à qual haja suspeita fundada da prática de crime, esta prestar declarações perante qualquer autoridade judiciária ou órgão de polícia criminal;

b) Tenha de ser aplicada a qualquer pessoa uma medida de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial;

c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.o a 261.o; ou

d) For levantado auto de notícia que dê uma pessoa como agente de um crime e aquele lhe for comunicado, salvo se a notícia for manifestamente infundada.


---

(2000)
Artigo 61.º
(Direitos e deveres processuais)

1 - O arguido goza, em especial, em qualquer fase do processo e, salvas as excepções da lei, dos direitos de:
a) Estar presente aos actos processuais que directamente lhe disserem respeito;
b) Ser ouvido pelo tribunal ou pelo juiz de instrução sempre que eles devam tomar qualquer decisão que pessoalmente o afecte;
c) Não responder a perguntas feitas, por qualquer entidade, sobre os factos que lhe forem imputados e sobre o conteúdo das declarações que acerca deles prestar;
d) Escolher defensor ou solicitar ao tribunal que lhe nomeie um;
e) Ser assistido por defensor em todos os actos processuais em que participar e, quando detido, comunicar, mesmo em privado, com ele;
f) Intervir no inquérito e na instrução, oferecendo provas e requerendo as diligências que se lhe afigurarem necessárias;
g) Ser informado, pela autoridade judiciária ou pelo órgão de polícia criminal perante os quais seja obrigado a comparecer, dos direitos que lhe assistem;
h) Recorrer, nos termos da lei, das decisões que lhe forem desfavoráveis.



Artigo 61.o
Direitos e deveres processuais
1 — O arguido goza, em especial, em qualquer fase do processo e salvas as excepções da lei, dos direitos de:
a) Estar presente aos actos processuais que directamente lhe disserem respeito;
b) Ser ouvido pelo tribunal ou pelo juiz de instrução sempre que eles devam tomar qualquer decisão que pessoalmente o afecte;
c) Ser informado dos factos que lhe são imputados antes de prestar declarações perante qualquer entidade;
d) Não responder a perguntas feitas, por qualquer entidade, sobre os factos que lhe forem imputados e sobre o conteúdo das declarações que acerca deles prestar;
e) Constituir advogado ou solicitar a nomeação de um defensor;
f) Ser assistido por defensor em todos os actos processuais em que participar e, quando detido, comunicar, mesmo em privado, com ele;
g) Intervir no inquérito e na instrução, oferecendo provas e requerendo as diligências que se lhe afigurarem necessárias;
h) Ser informado, pela autoridade judiciária ou pelo órgão de polícia criminal perante os quais seja obrigado a comparecer, dos direitos que lhe assistem;
i) Recorrer, nos termos da lei, das decisões que lhe forem desfavoráveis.
(2007)

2000 Penal Process Code: http://paulosantos-adv.planetaclix.pt/CPP.htm
2007: I can't find a valid online link. I'd downloaded it as a pdf.


ETA: the PJ might have had a bit of a problem if they'd interviewed them a week later as they would have been entitled to read the DNA "evidence". Ooops.

ETA2: reading it all again, I take back my first ETA just above, as it doesn't actually state that they would be entitled to read the "imputed facts", just to be informed of them.

[sadie]

Wow, Carana 

Without attempting a literal translation (i.e. my paraphrasing), I understand the difference to be:
- in the old one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person.
- in the new one: one could be made arguido when the investigation focused on a specific person when there was a well-founded suspicion of that person having committed a crime.

So can we be clear, is this the new law that took place a few days after Kate and Gerry were made Arguidos?


Cos if it was ... that shouts volumes .

Seems,
Amaral did not have a well founded suspicion that either Kate or Gerry had committed a crime.

So in an alll out effort, before the law changed and in order to be able to nail them, he rushed The Arguido Status forward?

He was determined to nail them, seems.



I wonder why?  There has to be a reason.  Things dont just happen