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: John on July 16, 2014, 04:48:58 AM
-
Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial
Judge queries whether Kate and Gerry McCann possess the requisite authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.
The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the damages case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and three other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.
On the 3rd January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action on the basis that the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.
The Judge decreed that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd May, after a lengthy, expensive process.
The Judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the Judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that, “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over, “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The Judge further considers that, “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision, “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the Court”.
The Judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an, “eminently judicial nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.
The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd April 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.
Nevertheless, the Judge has decided that the final Court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.
After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents, “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be, “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.
70
-
Does anyone know, if the Wardship for Maddie was sorted out in the last session?
-
Does anyone know, if the Wardship for Maddie was sorted out in the last session?
I believe that the McCanns still have to provide the court with written verification from the High Court that they are entitled to include her in the libel action Anna.
-
I believe that the McCanns still have to provide the court with written verification from the High Court that they are entitled to include her in the libel action Anna.
and where do you get that information from?
-
I believe that the McCanns still have to provide the court with written verification from the High Court that they are entitled to include her in the libel action Anna.
Thank you, Faith.
I knew that they had to produce the documents within 30 days I believe, after the closing arguments.
Maddie will be ruled out of the proceedings, if they fail to provide the necessary proof.
-
and where do you get that information from?
Not the most informative, piece, Davel, but the best I could do at short notice.
We still don't know if the required information/documents have been received by the court, but I hope so.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.
The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.
On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.
The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.
The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.
The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.
The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.
Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.
After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.
The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html
-
Not the most informative, piece, Davel, but the best I could do at short notice.
We still don't know if the required information/documents have been received by the court, but I hope so.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.
The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.
On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.
The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.
The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.
The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.
The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.
Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.
After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.
The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html
Thanks Annna...interesting that this site which is close to amaral refer to the trial as a libel trial
-
Thanks Annna...interesting that this site which is close to amaral refer to the trial as a libel trial
Yes I noticed that too. The last appeal in 2010, was also called a libel trial.
It does indeed get a bit confusing .
I don't believe the word "Libel" (as in law)exists there, it is "defamacao"=defamation, so all sorts get translated as "libel".
-
I wonder if your own Montclair would verify the WOC issue. Which is true July, December or yesterday's.
-
People really should remember what they said. Seems no answer will be forthcoming so here is what Montclair said last July.
The matter of Madeleine being a WOC had been brought up earlier but only later did the judge ask Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer to obtain the relevant documents. He was able to obtain them and they confirm that she is indeed a WOC. In her ruling she stated that if the McCanns are unable to show that they had authorisation from the court to represent their daughter, she would then be forced to acquit all defendents with regard to the claim made in Madeleine's name. Now the ball is the McCanns' court and they were given 30 days from the date of the last hearing to present this proof.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4663.75 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4663.75)
-
8((()*/
People really should remember what they said. Seems no answer will be forthcoming so here is what Montclair said last July.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4663.75 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4663.75)
How those of a certain persuasion hate those of a different persuasion and long memories ....
-
Montclair, you appear unrepentant for (knowingly or unknowingly) spreading the lie that the McCanns' right to bring an action in Madeleine's name remains undecided.
Or if you have repented of that, I apologise ...
-
Montclair, you appear unrepentant for (knowingly or unknowingly) spreading the lie that the McCanns' right to bring an action in Madeleine's name remains undecided.
Or if you have repented of that, I apologise ...
I must have missed that. Do you have a link to the confirmation from The High Court. I would like to read it.
-
You appear unrepentant for (knowingly or unknowingly) spreading the lie that the McCanns' right to bring an action in Madeleine's name remains undecided.
Or if you have repented of that, I apologise ...
I would I repent for saying something that was true. The McCanns have 30 days as from 21 January 2015 to present the document from the High Court which authorises them to represent their daughter in the court case. When that document is then presented, all the lawyers have 10 days to present their written allegations.
-
I must have missed that. Do you have a link to the confirmation from The High Court. I would like to read it.
Do you have confirmation Lisbon court hasn't already had it?
After all Montclair doesn't seen to want to answer to this she posted last July
The matter of Madeleine being a WOC had been brought up earlier but only later did the judge ask Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer to obtain the relevant documents. He was able to obtain them and they confirm that she is indeed a WOC. In her ruling she stated that if the McCanns are unable to show that they had authorisation from the court to represent their daughter, she would then be forced to acquit all defendents with regard to the claim made in Madeleine's name. Now the ball is the McCanns' court and they were given 30 days from the date of the last hearing to present this proof.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4663.75 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4663.75)
Surely if this was correct Amaral would now be off the hook
There is nothing in the 37 points of the report either.
-
Do you have confirmation Lisbon court hasn't already had it?
After all Montclair doesn't seen to want to answer to this she posted last July
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4663.75 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4663.75)
Surely if this was correct Amaral would now be off the hook
There is nothing in the 37 points of the report either.
I have no basis for an opinion one way or another but ferryman seems to have, hence my question.
Rather a lot of you seem to be using the Janet & John Guide to Logical Fallacy did y'all get 'em as a job lot?. 8(0(*
-
Aw c'mon DCI; Montclair's lack of confirmation is nothing more than lack of confirmation. If Montclair was blagging then someone can prove that he/she/it was blagging by posting evidence of same. Otherwise it's just bigbadwolfsville all round and does not address my question 8(>((
-
Aw c'mon DCI; Montclair's lack of confirmation is nothing more than lack of confirmation. If Montclair was blagging then someone can prove that he/she/it was blagging by posting evidence of same. Otherwise it's just bigbadwolfsville all round and does not address my question 8(>((
Nah, just bad memory of what she posted &%+((£
-
Concerning the "30 days from the last hearing" for the WOC business, what does "last hearing" refer to? The last one back in July or the recent one in which the proven / not-proven facts were read out?
-
Concerning the "30 days from the last hearing" for the WOC business, what does "last hearing" refer to? The last one back in July or the recent one in which the proven / not-proven facts were read out?
Not the recent hearing. Montclair posted that July 2014.
"In her ruling she stated that if the McCanns are unable to show that they had authorisation from the court to represent their daughter, she would then be forced to acquit all defendents with regard to the claim made in Madeleine's name. Now the ball is the McCanns' court and they were given 30 days from the date of the last hearing to present this proof."
-
Not the recent hearing. Montclair posted that July 2014.
"In her ruling she stated that if the McCanns are unable to show that they had authorisation from the court to represent their daughter, she would then be forced to acquit all defendents with regard to the claim made in Madeleine's name. Now the ball is the McCanns' court and they were given 30 days from the date of the last hearing to present this proof."
Yes, but I find that the wording isn't clear: last (at that time), or last as in final hearing (i.e., this past week)?
If the logic is to a) hear all the testimonies, b) sort out what can be considered proven or not in terms of the points submitted, c) finalise who are eligible plaintiffs, d) receive then analyse the legal arguments and e) then present a ruling, then a 30-day deadline would follow that flow, however bureaucratic it may seem. It's quite possible that there's a legal deadline in the latest civil procedure code to that effect that had to be notified, but I haven't checked. The judge may have already received the paperwork, and was just pointing out the procedural deadlines.
ETA: corrected garbled bit.
-
Yes, but I find that the wording isn't clear: last (at that time), or last as in final hearing (i.e., this past week)?
If the logic is to a) hear all the testimonies, b) sort out what can be considered proven or not in terms of the points submitted, c) finalise who are eligible plaintiffs, d) receive then analyse the legal arguments and e) then present a ruling, then a 30-day deadline would follow that flow, however bureaucratic it may seem. It's quite possible that there's a legal deadline in the latest civil procedure code to that effect that had to be notified, but I haven't checked. The judge may have already received the paperwork, and was just pointing out the procedural deadlines.
ETA: corrected garbled bit.
In that case wouldn't it say "they are/will be given" and not "were given".
Nothing has been reported on in any recent court report re WOC
-
In that case wouldn't it say "they are/will be given" and not "were given".
Nothing has been reported on in any recent court report re WOC
Probably a translation error... 8(0(*
-
Probably a translation error... 8(0(*
What from all these expert translators. @)(++(*
-
Happens all the time - so we are led to believe.
-
What from all these expert translators. @)(++(*
I think I've tried to be fair in pointing out potential translation / linguistic issues on both sides of the debate.
-
I posted earlier today that the judged ruled that the McCanns had 30 days to hand in the authorisation from the High Court. The judge had already granted the 30 days last year but there were delays and for some reason it wasn't done.
-
I posted earlier today that the judged ruled that the McCanns had 30 days to hand in the authorisation from the High Court. The judge had already granted the 30 days last year but there were delays and for some reason it wasn't done.
You mean Twice last year July and December. I might have believed that, if you had replied 3 days ago, when asked.
Still says nothing in last weeks "official report" about WOC, does it.
-
I think I've tried to be fair in pointing out potential translation / linguistic issues on both sides of the debate.
I read somewhere that those who attended the court & reported on the hearing are forbidden by law to quote the judge's words verbatim
-
I read somewhere that those who attended the court & reported on the hearing are forbidden by law to quote the judge's words verbatim
interesting point....I'm sure the judge will be most impressed with amaral pre empting her decision...whilst the McCanns maintain a dignified silence
-
The fact that the Judge issued a reminder to the plaintiff's lawyer in respect of this issue is interesting. Could there be some reluctance on behalf of the English High Court to issue such authorisation?
Accordingly, I calculate that it must be provided by Friday 20th February 2015.
-
The fact that the Judge issued a reminder to the plaintiff's lawyer in respect of this issue is interesting. Could there be some reluctance on behalf of the English High Court to issue such authorisation?
Accordingly, I calculate that it must be provided by Friday 20th February 2015.
Bearing in mind judge has now stated that in her opinion "The Book" did not impede the search and there is no mention in her deliberations that Madeleine had suffered a legally recognisable harm is the WoC issue now relevant?
-
I'm not sure why the WOC issue has arisen: if my reading of the Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg is a correct one there is precedent that the High Court allows action to be taken by the parents of Madeleine McCann on her behalf.
The action against Leicestershire Police was raised and heard apparently without the necessity for prior permission to be granted.
I think this may have just been another attempt at delay which we've heard nothing more about because it was found to be spurious ... bearing in mind that it was after Justice Hogg's ruling on July 7th 2008 that some of the lower echelons in society started campaigns aimed at having Madeleine McCann declared dead.
**snip
The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard.
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.
“An application has been made on Madeleine’s behalf by her parents for disclosure of certain documents. The hearing is currently scheduled for July 7 in the High Court in London. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2164743/Madeleine-McCann-parents-court-bid-for-information.html
IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London, 7th July 2008, in open court Madeleine
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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.
The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.
The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.
The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.
I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.
I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.
http://docslide.net/documents/judgment-madeleine-mccann-ward-of-court.html
-
That was 2008. Perhaps things changed later on.
-
That was 2008. Perhaps things changed later on.
If there has been any change to Madeleine McCann's status or her parents' right to take action on her behalf or any change to Justice Hogg's ruling it will be a matter of record which you should be able to locate and share the link with us ... just much as I have done with the judgement of 2008.
-
I haven't made an assertion, I made a suggestion, a possible explanation. Quite different.
-
I'm not sure why the WOC issue has arisen: if my reading of the Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg is a correct one there is precedent that the High Court allows action to be taken by the parents of Madeleine McCann on her behalf.
The action against Leicestershire Police was raised and heard apparently without the necessity for prior permission to be granted.
I think this may have just been another attempt at delay which we've heard nothing more about because it was found to be spurious ... bearing in mind that it was after Justice Hogg's ruling on July 7th 2008 that some of the lower echelons in society started campaigns aimed at having Madeleine McCann declared dead.
**snip
The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard.
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.
“An application has been made on Madeleine’s behalf by her parents for disclosure of certain documents. The hearing is currently scheduled for July 7 in the High Court in London. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2164743/Madeleine-McCann-parents-court-bid-for-information.html
IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London, 7th July 2008, in open court Madeleine
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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.
The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.
The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.
The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.
I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.
I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.
http://docslide.net/documents/judgment-madeleine-mccann-ward-of-court.html
Within certain constraints which is what Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro ruled hence she asked for certain documentation. Whether that documentation has been provided or not who knows. Possibly events have superseded its relevance.
-
The Portuguese judge specifically raised the issue which she would not have done had authorisation already been provided. Why the delay, is the High Court not playing ball? I would have thought as a matter of courtesy that anyone seeking to pursue a legal action on behalf of a Ward of Court should have sought permission in the first instance from the court itself.
-
Bearing in mind judge has now stated that in her opinion "The Book" did not impede the search and there is no mention in her deliberations that Madeleine had suffered a legally recognisable harm is the WoC issue now relevant?
I was about to post that myself...but of course as we don't know the whole of the judges ruling yet we simply do not know if it is relevant or not.
-
It most certainly won't be relevant if the judge dismisses the case.
-
It most certainly won't be relevant if the judge dismisses the case.
It certainly won't be and makes you therefore wonder why it was required
-
It certainly won't be and makes you therefore wonder why it was required
I would have thought she was going through the motions as any judge worth her salt would do.
-
Did the Judge, not say that she would let the trial run to the end and if necessary, remove MBM name if the wardship permissions were not received, by then?
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Excerpt:-
Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.
After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html
-
I would have thought she was going through the motions as any judge worth her salt would do.
Didn't she make the order in response to a request from Snr Amaral's departing counsel ?
-
Didn't she make the order in response to a request from Snr Amaral's departing counsel ?
I believe that to be correct, Brietta.
The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.
On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.
The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg212697#msg212697
-
I believe that to be correct, Brietta.
he judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.
On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.
The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4530.msg212697#msg212697
I'm probably misunderstanding this, but if she already has possession of a certificate, why is she now asking for something similar from the McCanns?
-
I'm probably misunderstanding this, but if she already has possession of a certificate, why is she now asking for something similar from the McCanns?
I believe the Judge is asking the McCanns for a certificate of permission. from the wardship/court, for them, to act on behalf of Madeleine.
Amaral was asked for proof, that she was a ward of court.
Two different things, I believe, jassi.
Please correct me if this is inaccurate, however.
-
I believe the Judge is asking the McCanns for a certificate of permission. from the wardship/court, for them, to act on behalf of Madeleine.
Amaral was asked for proof, that she was a ward of court.
Two different things, I believe, jassi.
Please correct me if this is inaccurate, however.
As I recall that is correct Anna. Dr Amaral was asked to provide evidence that MM was a WoC and that was protracted for one reason or another.
The judge in the Portuguese court, on sight, of the documents said she could not accept that Drs McCann had authority to act on Madeleine's behalf, in this particular instance, without written confirmation from The UK High Court.
-
As I recall that is correct Anna. Dr Amaral was asked to provide evidence that MM was a WoC and that was protracted for one reason or another.
The judge in the Portuguese court, on sight, of the documents said she could not accept that Drs McCann had authority to act on Madeleine's behalf, in this particular instance, without written confirmation from The UK High Court.
Thank you, Alice.
-
The High Court could very well refuse this permission...egg on face all round possibly?
-
There is something seriously sick about seeking damages for 'harm' to the McCann Children. The people who are responsible for this whole sorry mess are an affront to decency - the parents!.
They were/are using the children as their sympathy card.
It is not beyond the legal where for all that if Maddie should turn up alive she can use the law to made financial claims. ( yes ,even against her parents) for her suffering.
It should have been the case that ALL the children should have had Independent legal representation.
AND... If the twins so wished they could sue their parents for their suffering.
The judge could not establish the mortality of Maddie, therefore, she cannot make a judgement on her suffering as there would have to be medical evidence ( yes, we all know Little Maddie suffered) but courts like evidence. The defnce would quit rightly argue: who would receive the money if the child has been dead for 7/8 years?
-
The High Court could very well refuse this permission...egg on face all round possibly?
That is indeed a possibility, Angelo. I cant see why there would be an objection, though.
I guess, we will just have to wait and see.
-
The High Court could very well refuse this permission...egg on face all round possibly?
Justice Hogg has reserved everything pertaining to Madeleine McCann's wardship to herself.
She is very understanding of the traumas visited on the McCann family. I think it is highly unlikely that she will not communicate her assent to the Portuguese judge.
-
Justice Hogg has reserved everything pertaining to Madeleine McCann's wardship to herself.
She is very understanding of the traumas visited on the McCann family. I think it is highly unlikely that she will not communicate her assent to the Portuguese judge.
I think the issue is whether authorisation was required - and if so whether it had been sought - back in 2009.
-
Justice Hogg has reserved everything pertaining to Madeleine McCann's wardship to herself.
She is very understanding of the traumas visited on the McCann family. I think it is highly unlikely that she will not communicate her assent to the Portuguese judge.
She will also be aware of the traumas the McCanns brought upon them selves and others, including their children.
Why do the parents want money for their children suffering from a book? when it was they who placed their children in danger. I am not sure people on here can grasp this.
-
The High Court could very well refuse this permission...egg on face all round possibly?
Possibly but I don't see it makes a fat lot of difference. The judge has said "The Book" did not impede the search. Which seems to be the only thing damages could be claimed for on Madeleine's behalf.
Let's not go down the route of the trauma she suffered because of "The Book", while in the hands of an abductor!.
-
Justice Hogg has reserved everything pertaining to Madeleine McCann's wardship to herself.
She is very understanding of the traumas visited on the McCann family. I think it is highly unlikely that she will not communicate her assent to the Portuguese judge.
Can you not see the fundamental dichotomy of those two statements.
-
Can you not see the fundamental dichotomy of those two statements.
If you think there is a dichotomy ... do tell.
Remember it is a discussion forum not twenty questions.
-
The High Court could very well refuse this permission...egg on face all round possibly?
A veriitable omelette Angelo.
The McCanns have not proven the search was harmed by Amara's book so I can't really see how they can now justify using the fund to pay their legal fees. Of course if permission does not come from the High Court that will simply compound the matter.
-
Justice Hogg has reserved everything pertaining to Madeleine McCann's wardship to herself.
She is very understanding of the traumas visited on the McCann family. I think it is highly unlikely that she will not communicate her assent to the Portuguese judge.
Judges "do" law. It will boil down to whether Drs McCann had the legal authority to take out an action on Madeleine's behalf without permission from The High Court,of which Madeleine was a ward. No more no less.
-
http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.pt/2015/02/mccanns-vs-amaral-verdict-nearing.html
McCanns vs Amaral verdict nearing
The verdict in the Kate and Gerry McCann’s civil action against the former lead detective Gonçalo Amaral may come sooner than expected because of a recent behind-the-scenes development in the long-drawn-out case.
The question of whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann are legally entitled to represent their daughter Madeleine in their claim for damages has taken a significant step closer to being resolved, according to a source close to the process.
Madeleine was made a ward of court in the UK in April 2008. In January last year, Amaral argued in Lisbon’s Palace of Justice that because Madeleine was still a ward of court the McCanns did not have the legal right to represent her in their Lisbon lawsuit against him and three other parties.
The Lisbon judge, Emília Melo e Castro, gave Madeleine’s parents the opportunity to obtain appropriate documentation about the ward of court matter from the British High Court.
The McCanns had a 30-day set period in which to present this. They did so without delay and much earlier than expected. The documentation was presented to the Lisbon court through the couple’s lawyers on 23 January. None of the defence lawyers has or is expected to raise any objections.
So it is now up to the Lisbon judge to decide the relatively straightforward matter of whether the documentation attests to the McCanns’ right to represent Madeleine. When this is settled, the trial is expected to move towards its last formal exchanges and then, finally, sooner than most people had anticipated, perhaps next month, a verdict.
The McCanns are seeking €1.2 million in damages for the severe distress they say has been caused to them by Amaral’s book, A Verdade da Mentira (‘The Truth of the Lie’), and a subsequent documentary.
The judge’s recent summary of the main points in the case that had been proved or not proved left Amaral and his supporters optimistic about the eventual outcome.
Amaral said this week that he was hoping for an acquittal and the lifting of financial difficulties that have burdened him since the McCanns decided to sue five years ago.
-
http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.pt/2015/02/mccanns-vs-amaral-verdict-nearing.html
McCanns vs Amaral verdict nearing
The verdict in the Kate and Gerry McCann’s civil action against the former lead detective Gonçalo Amaral may come sooner than expected because of a recent behind-the-scenes development in the long-drawn-out case.
The question of whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann are legally entitled to represent their daughter Madeleine in their claim for damages has taken a significant step closer to being resolved, according to a source close to the process.
Madeleine was made a ward of court in the UK in April 2008. In January last year, Amaral argued in Lisbon’s Palace of Justice that because Madeleine was still a ward of court the McCanns did not have the legal right to represent her in their Lisbon lawsuit against him and three other parties.
The Lisbon judge, Emília Melo e Castro, gave Madeleine’s parents the opportunity to obtain appropriate documentation about the ward of court matter from the British High Court.
The McCanns had a 30-day set period in which to present this. They did so without delay and much earlier than expected. The documentation was presented to the Lisbon court through the couple’s lawyers on 23 January. None of the defence lawyers has or is expected to raise any objections.
So it is now up to the Lisbon judge to decide the relatively straightforward matter of whether the documentation attests to the McCanns’ right to represent Madeleine. When this is settled, the trial is expected to move towards its last formal exchanges and then, finally, sooner than most people had anticipated, perhaps next month, a verdict.
The McCanns are seeking €1.2 million in damages for the severe distress they say has been caused to them by Amaral’s book, A Verdade da Mentira (‘The Truth of the Lie’), and a subsequent documentary.
The judge’s recent summary of the main points in the case that had been proved or not proved left Amaral and his supporters optimistic about the eventual outcome.
Amaral said this week that he was hoping for an acquittal and the lifting of financial difficulties that have burdened him since the McCanns decided to sue five years ago.
Len Port! Good Heavens. It must be true.
-
Len Port! Good Heavens. It must be true.
An article in which Port criticises the Portuguese police (in another case) has just been posted in a different thread. He's clearly not the propagandist you think.
-
http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.pt/2015/02/mccanns-vs-amaral-verdict-nearing.html
McCanns vs Amaral verdict nearing
The verdict in the Kate and Gerry McCann’s civil action against the former lead detective Gonçalo Amaral may come sooner than expected because of a recent behind-the-scenes development in the long-drawn-out case.
The question of whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann are legally entitled to represent their daughter Madeleine in their claim for damages has taken a significant step closer to being resolved, according to a source close to the process.
Madeleine was made a ward of court in the UK in April 2008. In January last year, Amaral argued in Lisbon’s Palace of Justice that because Madeleine was still a ward of court the McCanns did not have the legal right to represent her in their Lisbon lawsuit against him and three other parties.
The Lisbon judge, Emília Melo e Castro, gave Madeleine’s parents the opportunity to obtain appropriate documentation about the ward of court matter from the British High Court.
The McCanns had a 30-day set period in which to present this. They did so without delay and much earlier than expected. The documentation was presented to the Lisbon court through the couple’s lawyers on 23 January. None of the defence lawyers has or is expected to raise any objections.
So it is now up to the Lisbon judge to decide the relatively straightforward matter of whether the documentation attests to the McCanns’ right to represent Madeleine. When this is settled, the trial is expected to move towards its last formal exchanges and then, finally, sooner than most people had anticipated, perhaps next month, a verdict.
The McCanns are seeking €1.2 million in damages for the severe distress they say has been caused to them by Amaral’s book, A Verdade da Mentira (‘The Truth of the Lie’), and a subsequent documentary.
The judge’s recent summary of the main points in the case that had been proved or not proved left Amaral and his supporters optimistic about the eventual outcome.
Amaral said this week that he was hoping for an acquittal and the lifting of financial difficulties that have burdened him since the McCanns decided to sue five years ago.
Interesting times, Faith %£&)**#
-
Interesting times, Faith %£&)**#
Absolutely Lyall ?{)(**
-
&%+((£ That's like asking what's a troll? There are plenty of both on both 'sides' discussing this case.
Okay. Is he right or isn't he?
-
Okay. Is he right or isn't he?
All he's saying in this article is the documentation has been provided, and you considered getting it wasn't a problem anyway. Why would you think he isn't right?
-
All he's saying in this article is the documentation has been provided, and you considered getting it wasn't a problem anyway. Why would you think he isn't right?
I have never stated an opinion on whether or not The McCanns have or would get such authorisation. I am just pleased that they now appear to have done so.
-
McCanns vs Amaral verdict nearing
The verdict in the Kate and Gerry McCann’s civil action against the former lead detective Gonçalo Amaral may come sooner than expected because of a recent behind-the-scenes development in the long-drawn-out case.
The question of whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann are legally entitled to represent their daughter Madeleine in their claim for damages has taken a significant step closer to being resolved, according to a source close to the process.
Madeleine was made a ward of court in the UK in April 2008. In January last year, Amaral argued in Lisbon’s Palace of Justice that because Madeleine was still a ward of court the McCanns did not have the legal right to represent her in their Lisbon lawsuit against him and three other parties.
The Lisbon judge, Emília Melo e Castro, gave Madeleine’s parents the opportunity to obtain appropriate documentation about the ward of court matter from the British High Court.
The McCanns had a 30-day set period in which to present this. They did so without delay and much earlier than expected. The documentation was presented to the Lisbon court through the couple’s lawyers on 23 January. None of the defence lawyers has or is expected to raise any objections.
So it is now up to the Lisbon judge to decide the relatively straightforward matter of whether the documentation attests to the McCanns’ right to represent Madeleine. When this is settled, the trial is expected to move towards its last formal exchanges and then, finally, sooner than most people had anticipated, perhaps next month, a verdict.
The McCanns are seeking €1.2 million in damages for the severe distress they say has been caused to them by Amaral’s book, A Verdade da Mentira (‘The Truth of the Lie’), and a subsequent documentary.
The judge’s recent summary of the main points in the case that had been proved or not proved left Amaral and his supporters optimistic about the eventual outcome.
Amaral said this week that he was hoping for an acquittal and the lifting of financial difficulties that have burdened him since the McCanns decided to sue five years ago.
Portugal Newswatch
-
The Lisbon judge, Emília Melo e Castro, gave Madeleine’s parents the opportunity to obtain appropriate documentation about the ward of court matter from the British High Court.
The McCanns had a 30-day set period in which to present this. They did so without delay and much earlier than expected.
None of the defence lawyers has or is expected to raise any objections.
-
Where has Port got this info from, not a leak was it? &%+((£
As if it was doubted they would get this information from the court.Is that why it was obtained earlier than thought? Amaral had already got this info, hadn't he?
-
Where has Port got this info from, not a leak was it? &%+((£
As if it was doubted they would get this information from the court.Is that why it was obtained earlier than thought? Amaral had already got this info, hadn't he?
You would assume it came from the people providing the document.
-
You would assume it came from the people providing the document.
You might. I wouldn't.
-
Can't see it matters where it comes from - apart from to point-scorers.
-
Where has Port got this info from, not a leak was it? &%+((£
As if it was doubted they would get this information from the court.Is that why it was obtained earlier than thought? Amaral had already got this info, hadn't he?
I believe that, Amaral got the evidence, that Madeleine was a ward of court, after he complained, that her parents could not act on her behalf and he was requested to show the evidence.
I don't think he would have the documents of permission given to the McCanns , to act on behalf of Madeleine, that would be with the lawyers and Judge, surely?
-
You might. I wouldn't.
So the McCanns are asked to produce authorisation to act on Madeleine's behalf. They go to the high court , get the permission and go to the PT judge who says fine. Now this is something that is supposed to be good for the McCanns so of course it must by the PT who leaked..... &%+((£
-
So the McCanns are asked to produce authorisation to act on Madeleine's behalf. They go to the high court , get the permission and go to the PT judge who says fine. Now this is something that is supposed to be good for the McCanns so of course it must by the PT who leaked..... &%+((£
As Port says.
The documentation was presented to the Lisbon court through the couple’s lawyers on 23 January. None of the defence lawyers has or is expected to raise any objections.
So Amarals lawyer also had the report, otherwise they wouldn't have the option to object, would they?
So yeah, leaked by PT. IMO!
-
The Judge has obviously had the required Ward of Court documentation in her possession for over a year and will have taken it into account in her deliberations.
I think you are right to urge caution about the accuracy of the content of the published ruling.
I also think raising the WOC was a delaying tactic perhaps in the hope that the predicted chaos in the reorganisation of the Portuguese Justice System would cause an even further delay ... and I think that may well have happened if we had had any other judge than Maria de Melo e Castro presiding in the case.
Mr Amaral isn't exuding a great deal of confidence and his latest correspondence is perhaps the softening up letter for further requests for donations to finance further legal adventures or something ... maybe a villa in Spain ... although I believe it possible he may already have one.