UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: lizzibif. on October 26, 2013, 02:47:03 AM
-
If still a Ward of Court? Does her Wardship still lie with Mrs Justice Hogg..?
-
If still a Ward of Court? Does her Wardship still lie with Mrs Justice Hogg..?
I think that is a genuinely private matter for the McCanns and their family to deal with.
I doubt that we will discover any details because basically it is none of our business, though I am sure some would disagree with me because they give the impression that they have the right to know every facet of the McCanns' lives.
If she remains a ward of court, I think it for the best, as it could give more weight if UK intervention is required in any future scenario pertaining to Madeleine being found in a third country.
-
I think that is a genuinely private matter for the McCanns and their family to deal with.
I doubt that we will discover any details because basically it is none of our business, though I am sure some would disagree with me because they give the impression that they have the right to know every facet of the McCanns' lives.
If she remains a ward of court, I think it for the best, as it could give more weight if UK intervention is required in any future scenario pertaining to Madeleine being found in a third country.
perhaps you are right.. I was just curious that's all..going now G'night
-
If still a Ward of Court? Does her Wardship still lie with Mrs Justice Hogg..?
Given that The McCann's lawyer is planning on applying for Assistente status for them, your question is highly relevent.
Being granted such a status requires that the applicants "do not cease to be the legal representatives of the girl Madeleine"
Source: McCanns Request Assistente Status 25 September 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS_ASSISTENTE.htm
When they applied for Assistente status in September 2007 the Ward of Court application was in progress and was not granted until April 2008 and so would not have factored in the original 2007 Assistente application. The difference this time is that Madeleine is now a Ward of Court and it may be that under Portuguese law the McCann's may no longer be classed as her legal representatives.
Something that suggests that they may not be is the fact that there were originally five names on the McCann v Amaral libel lawsuit: Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann but 2 years ago Madeleine's name was removed from that lawsuit.
If it is the case that they would not be regarded as Madeleine's legal representatives in an Assistente application it does explain why their lawyer Mr Alves was recently quoted saying 'I will be applying for the McCanns to become assistentes in this case but don't know yet when. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2476728/From-arguido-assistente-McCanns-apply-prosecutor-status-let-Portuguese-case-files-suspects-face-trial.html It may well be that they have to return to a UK court to make an application for the Ward of Court Status to be lifted or whatever the legalese for it is.
The problem with having the Ward of Court status lifted for the purposes of attaining Assistente status is that as Gilet explained it would mean that it would be far harder to repatriate her if she was found somewhere other than UK or Portugal without the weight that her current Ward of Court supported UK intervention would provide.
-
Given that The McCann's lawyer is planning on applying for Assistente status for them, your question is highly relevent.
Being granted such a status requires that the applicants "do not cease to be the legal representatives of the girl Madeleine"
Source: McCanns Request Assistente Status 25 September 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS_ASSISTENTE.htm
When they applied for Assistente status in September 2007 the Ward of Court application was in progress and was not granted until April 2008 and so would not have factored in the original 2007 Assistente application. The difference this time is that Madeleine is now a Ward of Court and it may be that under Portuguese law the McCann's may no longer be classed as her legal representatives.
Something that suggests that they may not be is the fact that there were originally five names on the McCann v Amaral libel lawsuit: Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann but 2 years ago Madeleine's name was removed from that lawsuit.
If it is the case that they would not be regarded as Madeleine's legal representatives in an Assistente application it does explain why their lawyer Mr Alves was recently quoted saying 'I will be applying for the McCanns to become assistentes in this case but don't know yet when. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2476728/From-arguido-assistente-McCanns-apply-prosecutor-status-let-Portuguese-case-files-suspects-face-trial.html It may well be that they have to return to a UK court to make an application for the Ward of Court Status to be lifted or whatever the legalese for it is.
The problem with having the Ward of Court status lifted for the purposes of attaining Assistente status is that as Gilet explained it would mean that it would be far harder to repatriate her if she was found somewhere other than UK or Portugal without the weight that her current Ward of Court supported UK intervention would provide.
But they weren't made asisstente's when Abreu applied for it.
To The Criminal Judge
Public Ministry
Gerald McCann, a doctor, passport no. ******** and Kate Healy, doctor, Passport no.*******, married and resident at Orchard House, Rothley, in their condition as parents of their oldest child Madeleine McCann, being the holders of the interest directly protected by the norms violated which led to the current investigation instigated in Lagos and agreed by the Public Prosecutor refer respectfully to article 68 no. 1 of the Penal Code, request their constitution as assistentes in the case and annex herewith the receipts of justice tax payments and certificates emitted in favour of their representative as well as certified translations.
Signed
Carlos Pinto de Abreu
Date (from bottom of fax) 24-08-2007
They never were!
-
But they weren't made asisstente's when Abreu applied for it.
To The Criminal Judge
Public Ministry
Gerald McCann, a doctor, passport no. ******** and Kate Healy, doctor, Passport no.*******, married and resident at Orchard House, Rothley, in their condition as parents of their oldest child Madeleine McCann, being the holders of the interest directly protected by the norms violated which led to the current investigation instigated in Lagos and agreed by the Public Prosecutor refer respectfully to article 68 no. 1 of the Penal Code, request their constitution as assistentes in the case and annex herewith the receipts of justice tax payments and certificates emitted in favour of their representative as well as certified translations.
Signed
Carlos Pinto de Abreu
Date (from bottom of fax) 24-08-2007
They never were!
I didn't say they were. I simply pointed out that in order for them to be granted Assistente status now as it also did then that it requires that the applicants "do not cease to be the legal representatives of the girl Madeleine"
Madeleine is now a Ward of Court. Suggest you re-read my post DCI
-
I didn't say they were. I simply pointed out that in order for them to be granted Assistente status now as it also did then that it requires that the applicants "do not cease to be the legal representatives of the girl Madeleine"
Madeleine is now a Ward of Court. Suggest you re-read my post DCI
Why would the Ward of Court need to be lifted, to be an assistente?
-
why is any discussion on ward of court allowed?
-
Why would the Ward of Court need to be lifted, to be an assistente?
Because as Madeleine is a Ward of court it may well be that Kate and Gerry would not be considered to be her legal representatives in the eyes of the Portuguese court
Requirements for Assistente status requires that the applicants "do not cease to be the legal representatives of the girl Madeleine"
-
Maybe a little examination of the actual facts relating to wardship may be helpful.
First of all, there are some common circumstances in which a child might be warded.
When a child is made a ward, the court 'takes over the ultimate responsibility for the child'10 sharing parental responsibility with those who already hold it, but exerting control over important decisions. Indeed no important step in the child's life can be taken without leave of the court.
The most common situations in which the court may make an injunction for the child's protection are outlined at paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 12D of the FPR, and are as follows:
a) orders to restrain publicity;
b) orders to prevent an undesirable association;
c) orders relating to medical treatment;
d) orders to protect abducted children, or children where the case has another substantial foreign element; and
e) orders for the return of children to and from another state.
Of course circumstances in which wardship proceedings may be successful are not necessarily limited to such examples but I think in this case d and e are likely to be of particular relevance.
My understanding of the wardship relating to Madeleine McCann is that her parents are her guradians (as well as, of course, remaining her parents). The intention of the court is to support her parents and join the powers of the court to their parental rights should Madeleine be found and should there be any legal difficulty with a third state.
I have not been able to find anything in Portuguese law under which Madeleine being a ward of court would prevent her parents from becoming assistentes in the investigation.
No doubt those arguing that they would lose that right will be able to provide specific reference to the law which would prevent their becoming assistentes.
-
Given that The McCann's lawyer is planning on applying for Assistente status for them, your question is highly relevent.
Being granted such a status requires that the applicants "do not cease to be the legal representatives of the girl Madeleine"
Source: McCanns Request Assistente Status 25 September 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS_ASSISTENTE.htm
When they applied for Assistente status in September 2007 the Ward of Court application was in progress and was not granted until April 2008 and so would not have factored in the original 2007 Assistente application. The difference this time is that Madeleine is now a Ward of Court and it may be that under Portuguese law the McCann's may no longer be classed as her legal representatives.
Something that suggests that they may not be is the fact that there were originally five names on the McCann v Amaral libel lawsuit: Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann but 2 years ago Madeleine's name was removed from that lawsuit.
If it is the case that they would not be regarded as Madeleine's legal representatives in an Assistente application it does explain why their lawyer Mr Alves was recently quoted saying 'I will be applying for the McCanns to become assistentes in this case but don't know yet when. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2476728/From-arguido-assistente-McCanns-apply-prosecutor-status-let-Portuguese-case-files-suspects-face-trial.html It may well be that they have to return to a UK court to make an application for the Ward of Court Status to be lifted or whatever the legalese for it is.
The problem with having the Ward of Court status lifted for the purposes of attaining Assistente status is that as Gilet explained it would mean that it would be far harder to repatriate her if she was found somewhere other than UK or Portugal without the weight that her current Ward of Court supported UK intervention would provide.
Thanks very much for this, Serendipity.
The assistente statute, in 2007, was granted and turned almost immediately obsolete by the arguido statute which provides similar rights.
-
Maybe a little examination of the actual facts relating to wardship may be helpful.
First of all, there are some common circumstances in which a child might be warded.
When a child is made a ward, the court 'takes over the ultimate responsibility for the child'10 sharing parental responsibility with those who already hold it, but exerting control over important decisions. Indeed no important step in the child's life can be taken without leave of the court.
The most common situations in which the court may make an injunction for the child's protection are outlined at paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 12D of the FPR, and are as follows:
a) orders to restrain publicity;
b) orders to prevent an undesirable association;
c) orders relating to medical treatment;
d) orders to protect abducted children, or children where the case has another substantial foreign element; and
e) orders for the return of children to and from another state.
Of course circumstances in which wardship proceedings may be successful are not necessarily limited to such examples but I think in this case d and e are likely to be of particular relevance.
My understanding of the wardship relating to Madeleine McCann is that her parents are her guradians (as well as, of course, remaining her parents). The intention of the court is to support her parents and join the powers of the court to their parental rights should Madeleine be found and should there be any legal difficulty with a third state.
I have not been able to find anything in Portuguese law under which Madeleine being a ward of court would prevent her parents from becoming assistentes in the investigation.
No doubt those arguing that they would lose that right will be able to provide specific reference to the law which would prevent their becoming assistentes.
You obviously missed the part where I said " it may be that under Portuguese law the McCann's may no longer be classed as her legal representatives."
It does need clarification, granted, hence why I said 'may be' I do wonder though for what other reason Madeleiene's name had to be removed from the McCann v Amaral libel lawsuit if it were not because they are not classed as her legal representatives under Portuguese law. Maybe someone who posts here who lives in Portugal could us assist here? :)
-
Thanks very much for this, Serendipity.
The assistente statute, in 2007, was granted and turned almost immediately obsolete by the arguido statute which provides similar rights.
Thank you Anne, I understood both statuses to have similar rights.
-
You obviously missed the part where I said " it may be that under Portuguese law the McCann's may no longer be classed as her legal representatives."
It does need clarification, granted, hence why I said 'may be' I do wonder though for what other reason Madeleiene's name had to be removed from the McCann v Amaral libel lawsuit if it were not because they are not classed as her legal representatives under Portuguese law. Maybe someone who posts here who lives in Portugal could us assist here? :)
You do seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about ways in which the McCanns should not be involved in the investigation.
-
they will be involved 8((()*/
-
why was madeleine made a ward of court in the first place..who sanctioned it ?
-
they will be involved 8((()*/
I think you are correct. (Apart from being her parents), they are also her legal guardians under the terms of the wardship, and as such it would be tricky for the Portuguese authorities to argue against their being assistentes on those grounds.
-
why was madeleine made a ward of court in the first place..who sanctioned it ?
I think her parents requested it.
-
You do seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about ways in which the McCanns should not be involved in the investigation.
Not at all, how bad minded are you? I have no problem at all with them becoming Assistente if it is granted. I merely responded to a post that happened to be relevant given the lawyers announcement yesterday that he will be applying for such a status for them. Would you not kick yourselves if they applied and were turned down on such a technicality? I felt it was a relevant point to be raised and something that if it were my lawyer making such an appliation, would hope that he was aware of the of the Assistente requirements.
Why does there have to be some sinister motive read into every post that is made that raises a query over something?
-
During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said: "I can state that on the instigation of Gerry and Kate McCann Madeleine is a ward of the High Court of England and Wales.
-
why was madeleine made a ward of court in the first place..who sanctioned it ?
Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London, 7th July 2008, in open court: International Family Law Group
Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.
On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.
On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.
At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.
She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.
-
Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London, 7th July 2008, in open court: International Family Law Group
Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.
On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.
On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.
At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.
She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.
So as far as the High Court is concerned, there is no evidence that Maddie is dead. Jolly good.
-
So as far as the High Court is concerned, there is no evidence that Maddie is dead. Jolly good.
jolly good indeed 8((()*/
and thanks DCI 8((()*/
-
Why does there have to be some sinister motive read into every post that is made that raises a query over something?
8(8-))
-
Maybe someone who posts here who lives in Portugal could us assist here? :)
I might be wrong, Serendipity, but I have a feeling that Dra Duarte announced, on the first trial day, that she was representing Mr, Mrs, Am, Se and Madeleine. But I may confound with the book injunction. Dra Duarte always speaks globally of the "McCann family".
The evaluation of the amount of damages takes into account the damages due to Madeleine through the lack of search for her.
Which document doesn't have Madeleine's name ?
-
Would I be right in assuming that the Judge is accepting Madeleine may still be alive, as the WOC refers to "all decisions affecting the life of the child?"
-
Would I be right in assuming that the Judge is accepting Madeleine may still be alive, as the WOC refers to "all decisions affecting the life of the child?"
As no one knows what happened to her, yes.
-
I have never understood why the McCanns, just days after Madeleine disappeared, decided to hand over responsibility for her
I mean, in what way did they think that would benefit her ?
In her book ( page 125 ) Kate says ; "The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order to make Madeleine a ward of court"
Notice she does not say that lawyers advised them to make an application for wardship ... merely that they 'talked to them' about it
Kate goes on to explain that such an order could be useful in aquiring records not otherwise available to them
It was just eight days since Madeleine disappeared and the McCanns were already thinking about 'aquiring records'
What records were they thinking about aquiring at that early stage then ? ... police records ?
It really is a very strange business
-
As no one knows what happened to her, yes.
So, in your opinion, what position does that put Amaral in with regard to his allegations, if the Judge considers the parents cannot take action on behalf of a possible living child?
-
So, in your opinion, what position does that put Amaral in with regard to his allegations, if the Judge considers the parents cannot take action on behalf of a possible living child?
Amaral has no case to answer, never has had.
To prove libel, one has to prove lies.
As no one knows what happened to Madeleine, it follows that it cannot be proven his book is lies or libelous.
I wouldn't worry about this anyway. They've attempted to schedule it in July so clearly, someone expects "whatever the hold up is" to be resolved by then.
The hold up may well be a gaping great hole in PDL.
-
So, in your opinion, what position does that put Amaral in with regard to his allegations, if the Judge considers the parents cannot take action on behalf of a possible living child?
I don't understand what you mean misty
The Judge has decided that only Madeleine's legal guardians can represent her interests
Isn't that what has happened here ?
Kate and Gerry McCann are not Madeleine's legal guardians and, therefore, are not permitted to represent her in court
Is that not correct ?
-
Come to think of it, why didn't any of the top-notch lawyers on the McCann payroll tell them that, legally, they had no right to bring this action ?
-
Come to think of it, why didn't any of the top-notch lawyers on the McCann payroll tell them that, legally, they had no right to bring this action ?
Right ahead of you.
As if Amaral's lawyer didn't know this from the get go.
All I can think is - suddenly someone needs a reason to suspend/delay the trial.
-
I don't understand what you mean misty
The Judge has decided that only Madeleine's legal guardians can represent her interests
Isn't that what has happened here ?
Kate and Gerry McCann are not Madeleine's legal guardians and, therefore, are not permitted to represent her in court
Is that not correct ?
If Madeleine is dead, surely the WOC status is legally terminated as it only refers to the LIFE of the child? Perhaps someone with the relevant qualifications could clarify this.
If the Judge is accepting that Madeleine may still be alive, she is directly opposing the claims made by Amaral in his book, making him guilty of libel. Don't you agree?
-
If Madeleine is dead, surely the WOC status is legally terminated as it only refers to the LIFE of the child? Perhaps someone with the relevant qualifications could clarify this.
If the Judge is accepting that Madeleine may still be alive, she is directly opposing the claims made by Amaral in his book, making him guilty of libel. Don't you agree?
Are you serious?
The issue is a simple legal one, are they able to legally represent Madeleine or are they not?
What the heck has that got to do with what happened and if she's alive or not? At the stage the judge made this decision, no one knows!
Bizarre (and wishful) thinking.
-
If Madeleine is dead, surely the WOC status is legally terminated as it only refers to the LIFE of the child? Perhaps someone with the relevant qualifications could clarify this.
If the Judge is accepting that Madeleine may still be alive, she is directly opposing the claims made by Amaral in his book, making him guilty of libel. Don't you agree?
Legally Madeleine McCann was not declared dead, there is no death certificate of hers, so she is treated as if she was alive. But it has nothing to do with the potential libel claims, AFAIK.
-
Are you serious?
The issue is a simple legal one, are they able to legally represent Madeleine or are they not?
What the heck has that got to do with what happened and if she's alive or not? At the stage the judge made this decision, no one knows!
Bizarre (and wishful) thinking.
It is an important legal point as far as I am concerned. If she is dead, what is the situation regarding the WOC status & who is legally able to represent her interests? If the McCanns had applied to have her declared dead under the 7 year ruling, who would be her legal representatives in those circumstances?
You are contradicting yourself, in that you have agreed the Judge may be considering Madeleine is still alive.
-
It is an important legal point as far as I am concerned. If she is dead, what is the situation regarding the WOC status & who is legally able to represent her interests? If the McCanns had applied to have her declared dead under the 7 year ruling, who would be her legal representatives in those circumstances?
You are contradicting yourself, in that you have agreed the Judge may be considering Madeleine is still alive.
Clearly you don't have a legal mind.
A decision on WOC status does not depend on whether the WOC is alive or not. A WOC may be in an irreversable coma in a hospital.
A decision on WOC status weighs the application of whoever applies for that status, in this case THE MCCANNS.
If the McCanns have applied for, and received, WOC status for their missing daughter, it is totally IRRELEVANT whether she is alive or dead or in a coma.
What is relevant is if the the McCanns ability to take legal action on behalf of said WOC.
In this case, apparently, it's EITHER have Madeleine declared a WOC (which they did) OR sue for libel on her behalf. They can't have it both ways, finally.
-
It is an important legal point as far as I am concerned. If she is dead, what is the situation regarding the WOC status & who is legally able to represent her interests? If the McCanns had applied to have her declared dead under the 7 year ruling, who would be her legal representatives in those circumstances?
You are contradicting yourself, in that you have agreed the Judge may be considering Madeleine is still alive.
I'm sorry misty, I'm not getting the point you're trying to make
This decision by the Judge relates to the legal issue of the McCanns being prohibited from representing Madeleine's interests in court ... by virtue of the fact that they are not her legal guardians
That's what this is about, isn't it ?
For the life of me I can't understand why the McCanns' lawyers didn't warn them that was the case
-
Clearly you don't have a legal mind.
A decision on WOC status does not depend on whether the WOC is alive or not. A WOC may be in an irreversable coma in a hospital.
A decision on WOC status weighs the application of whoever applies for that status, in this case THE MCCANNS.
If the McCanns have applied for, and received, WOC status for their missing daughter, it is totally IRRELEVANT whether she is alive or dead or in a coma.
What is relevant is if the the McCanns ability to take legal action on behalf of said WOC.
In this case, apparently, it's EITHER have Madeleine declared a WOC (which they did) OR sue for libel on her behalf. They can't have it both ways, finally.
Someone in an irreversible coma is still legally alive.
I understand that the Judge, at the 11.59th hr, has to be sure that the parents are legally permitted to make a claim for damages on Madeleine's behalf. But the point is - the WOC refers to LIFE - not DECEASED (as Amaral claims her to be) - so perhaps someone who does know about legally dead "WOCs" could provide a definitive answer for me (even if you don't think it's important at all)
-
I'm sorry misty, I'm not getting the point you're trying to make
This decision by the Judge relates to the legal issue of the McCanns being prohibited from representing Madeleine's interests in court ... by virtue of the fact that they are not her legal guardians
That's what this is about, isn't it ?
For the life of me I can't understand why the McCanns' lawyers didn't warn them that was the case
How can you be a "legal guardian" of a dead child?
If the judge is accepting the UK courts are her guardians she must be accepting Madeleine may be alive. That undermines Amaral's claims, so why has he questioned the issue?
-
How can you be a "legal guardian" of a dead child?
If the judge is accepting the UK courts are her guardians she must be accepting Madeleine may be alive. That undermines Amaral's claims, so why has he questioned the issue?
It's not about what judge accepts or not. It's about a legal status of Madeleine, which is alive, as she went missing and not declared dead in absentia. But being legally alive is not the same as being physically alive, so it does not undermine Amaral's claims. At all.
-
How can you be a "legal guardian" of a dead child?
If the judge is accepting the UK courts are her guardians she must be accepting Madeleine may be alive. That undermines Amaral's claims, so why has he questioned the issue?
The McCanns applied to have their missing child made a ward of court a week after she disappeared
A week after she disappeared her parents asked the court to be her guardian instead of them
It had nothing to do with whether she was still alive ... no-one knew whether she was or not. It had to do with the court assuming all legal rights to represent the child's interests
That right has been recognised by the Portuguese Judge
-
The McCanns applied to have their missing child made a ward of court a week after she disappeared
A week after she disappeared her parents asked the court to be her guardian instead of them
It had nothing to do with whether she was still alive ... no-one knew whether she was or not. It had to do with the court assuming all legal rights to represent the child's interests
That right has been recognised by the Portuguese Judge
OK, I understand what you are saying.
So the application for this information at the last minute was Amaral's way of trying to reduce quantum of claim against him.
-
I think that is a genuinely private matter for the McCanns and their family to deal with.
I doubt that we will discover any details because basically it is none of our business, though I am sure some would disagree with me because they give the impression that they have the right to know every facet of the McCanns' lives.
If she remains a ward of court, I think it for the best, as it could give more weight if UK intervention is required in any future scenario pertaining to Madeleine being found in a third country.
It might not be any of our business, but it is certainly the business of a Portuguese Judge at the moment, and we will, by the looks of it, discover the details whether it's our business or not
Timely bump John
-
OK, I understand what you are saying.
So the application for this information at the last minute was Amaral's way of trying to reduce quantum of claim against him.
What it means is that the writ is wrong and will be kicked out unless UK Gov decide to back the McCanns.
-
What it means is that the writ is wrong and will be kicked out unless UK Gov decide to back the McCanns.
no it doesn't...only the part relating to maddie will be disallowed...amaral is trying to limit damages as he knows he has lost
-
no it doesn't...only the part relating to maddie will be disallowed...amaral is trying to limit damages as he knows he has lost
No he hasn't.
Why is it you and your fellows never refer to the other defendants in the case ???
-
No he hasn't.
Why is it you and your fellows never refer to the other defendants in the case ???
why haven't the other defendants helped amaral with the costs of getting the papers from the uk...you know hes been appealing for funds to help him. If he was in a strong position he wouldn't bother with all this..its obvious hes lost...wait and see
-
why haven't the other defendants helped amaral with the costs of getting the papers from the uk...you know hes been appealing for funds to help him. If he was in a strong position he wouldn't bother with all this..its obvious hes lost...wait and see
Like I said.
We shall see.
Likewise if the digs reveal anything, including a body..........................
-
What it means is that the writ is wrong and will be kicked out unless UK Gov decide to back the McCanns.
Um...no. If the writ was wrong, the case would already be kicked out.
If (and it's a big if) Madeleine has to be removed from the writ, all it will mean is that the damages awarded will be slightly smaller. But frankly, I wouldn't believe her name has been removed until there is official confirmation.