ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[misty]

There were no criminal procedings because there were no arrests, charges, trial or judgement. There was an investigation which was unable to progress because witnesses refused to cooperate in a reconstitution. There was always the possibility that it could be reopened and continue if new evidence emerged, however.

Investigation is the first phase of criminal proceedings.

[Brietta]

Investigation is the first phase of criminal proceedings.

Absolutely.
How else does an investigator eliminate or decide to take an investigation further and lay charges if they don't investigate in the first instance as part of the process.

[Carana]

Investigation is the first phase of criminal proceedings.

That's how I meant it earlier, but now I'm wondering.

There's the "judicial process" (which seems to cover everything), but "criminal proceedings" might only cover the part as of when someone has been arrested on whatever charge(s).

It's been a while since I last delved into an attempt to decipher PT law, so I'm not sure for the moment.

[Brietta]

That's how I meant it earlier, but now I'm wondering.

There's the "judicial process" (which seems to cover everything), but "criminal proceedings" might only cover the part as of when someone has been arrested on whatever charge(s).

It's been a while since I last delved into an attempt to decipher PT law, so I'm not sure for the moment.

Good luck with that, Carana!
I'm bad enough trying to work out Scots law as it relates to the rest of Britain without delving into a jurisdiction I find far more unfathomable.
Whoever's law it is I think the last thing bothered with is logic.  Your hard work on all the intricacies of DNA along with 'Espacio Exterior' where an excellent explanation was to be found enabled me to get a grasp - I don't think you will manage to pull the rabbit out of the hat for me as far as Portuguese procedures are concerned.  And I'm not even going there for German procedure - I know when I'm beat.

[Carana]

I still haven't waded into the cases cited, but for the moment it seems to boil down to:

- the parents were never charged, and therefore couldn't benefit from the presumption of innocence (in the criminal procedure sense)

or

- as they were never charged, they retain rights to their honour, good name, etc.

Which is it?

Re Amaral

- once he'd officially left the payroll, he was entitled to say whatever he liked and make an enviable sum of money out of his 5 months on the case accusing the parents of criminal acts, despite the fact that neither the final PJ report nor the prosecutor found anything of substance against them

or

- as a counterpart to the pension and whatever other privileges he retained, he was expected to shut up about cases he'd been involved in and avoid (further) disrepute to his institution

Which is it?

And...

Was the Supreme Court ruling fair?

[Mr Gray]

I still haven't waded into the cases cited, but for the moment it seems to boil down to:

- the parents were never charged, and therefore couldn't benefit from the presumption of innocence (in the criminal procedure sense)

or

- as they were never charged, they retain rights to their honour, good name, etc.

Which is it?

Re Amaral

- once he'd officially left the payroll, he was entitled to say whatever he liked and make an enviable sum of money out of his 5 months on the case accusing the parents of criminal acts, despite the fact that neither the final PJ report nor the prosecutor found anything of substance against them

or

- as a counterpart to the pension and whatever other privileges he retained, he was expected to shut up about cases he'd been involved in and avoid (further) disrepute to his institution

Which is it?

And...

Was the Supreme Court ruling fair?

They absolutely are entitled to the presumpion of innocence


Directive (EU) 2016/343 — strengthening certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings

WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE DIRECTIVE?

It aims to guarantee:

the presumption of innocence of anyone accused or suspected of a crime by the police or justice authorities;
the right of an accused person to be present at their criminal trial.
KEY POINTS

Scope

The directive applies to any individual (natural person) suspected or accused in criminal proceedings.
It applies at all stages of the criminal proceedings, from the moment a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence to the final verdict.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/EN/130107_3


this gives  a definition of criminal proceedings under EU law...which portugal is subject to

[Mr Gray]

16. The Court held that a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence
(Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, § 42; Brusco v. France, §§ 47-50), a suspect questioned about his
involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, §§ 41-43; Yankov
and Others v. Bulgaria, § 23; Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland, §§ 30-31) and a person who has been
questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence (Stirmanov v. Russia, § 39),
irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness (Kalēja v. Latvia, §§ 36-41) as
well as a person who has been formally charged with a criminal offence under procedure set out in
domestic law (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], § 66; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC],
§ 44) could all be regarded as being “charged with a criminal offence” and claim the protection of
Article 6 of the Convention. On the other hand, a person questioned in the context of a border
control, in the absence of a need to determine the existence of a reasonable suspicion that she had
committed an offence, was not considered to be under a criminal charge (Beghal v. the United
Kingdom, § 121)

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf

page 9

[Carana]

Good luck with that, Carana!
I'm bad enough trying to work out Scots law as it relates to the rest of Britain without delving into a jurisdiction I find far more unfathomable.
Whoever's law it is I think the last thing bothered with is logic.  Your hard work on all the intricacies of DNA along with 'Espacio Exterior' where an excellent explanation was to be found enabled me to get a grasp - I don't think you will manage to pull the rabbit out of the hat for me as far as Portuguese procedures are concerned.  And I'm not even going there for German procedure - I know when I'm beat.

LOL Thank you.

[Brietta]

I still haven't waded into the cases cited, but for the moment it seems to boil down to:

- the parents were never charged, and therefore couldn't benefit from the presumption of innocence (in the criminal procedure sense)

or

- as they were never charged, they retain rights to their honour, good name, etc.

Which is it?

Re Amaral

- once he'd officially left the payroll, he was entitled to say whatever he liked and make an enviable sum of money out of his 5 months on the case accusing the parents of criminal acts, despite the fact that neither the final PJ report nor the prosecutor found anything of substance against them

or

- as a counterpart to the pension and whatever other privileges he retained, he was expected to shut up about cases he'd been involved in and avoid (further) disrepute to his institution

Which is it?

And...

Was the Supreme Court ruling fair?

I think -
- as they were never charged, they retain rights to their honour, good name, etc.

Just as I think it could not in conscience be argued otherwise  - as a counterpart to the pension and whatever other privileges he retained, he was expected to shut up about cases he'd been involved in and avoid (further) disrepute to his institution

As far as Was the Supreme Court ruling fair?  Immediately it was released I thought the Supreme Court had overstepped the bounds and left the weary McCanns with no alternative but to take their case to the ECHR.  Which without the allusion to their innocence they might not have bothered to do bearing in mind that 2017 marked the emergence of Brueckner into the mix which I think they probably knew about as Scotland Yard had promised in 2013 that they would be kept in the loop.

[Carana]

They absolutely are entitled to the presumpion of innocence


Directive (EU) 2016/343 — strengthening certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings

WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE DIRECTIVE?

It aims to guarantee:

the presumption of innocence of anyone accused or suspected of a crime by the police or justice authorities;
the right of an accused person to be present at their criminal trial.
KEY POINTS

Scope

The directive applies to any individual (natural person) suspected or accused in criminal proceedings.
It applies at all stages of the criminal proceedings, from the moment a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence to the final verdict.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/EN/130107_3
2016

this gives  a definition of criminal proceedings under EU law...which portugal is subject to

Well done!

Only question: which version of the applicable laws existed at the time?

[Mr Gray]

Well done!

Only question: which version of the applicable laws existed at the time?

I think whats relevant is the law at the time of the SC judgement... In jan 2017 the SC made a ruling that the mccanns had not been cleared by the archiving depatch as it was not evidence of innocence... That is a denial of tye POI... Clear and simple. No wonder the ECHR saw it as a simple case covered by existing case law

[Carana]

I think whats relevant is the law at the time of the SC judgement... In jan 2017 the SC made a ruling that the mccanns had not been cleared by the archiving depatch as it was not evidence of innocence... That is a denial of tye POI... Clear and simple. No wonder the ECHR saw it as a simple case covered by existing case law

Not sure.

Wouldn't the applicable versions of laws date back to when the complaint was filed?

[Mr Gray]

Not sure.

Wouldn't the applicable versions of laws date back to when the complaint was filed?

I think it was the SC who did not afford them the POI.. Id need to look at their application again.. So it would I think be the date of the SC judgement

The McCanns claim the reasoning in the SC judgement denied them the POI

[misty]

That's how I meant it earlier, but now I'm wondering.

There's the "judicial process" (which seems to cover everything), but "criminal proceedings" might only cover the part as of when someone has been arrested on whatever charge(s).

It's been a while since I last delved into an attempt to decipher PT law, so I'm not sure for the moment.

https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
I think Article 58 covers this.

[G-Unit]

I think whats relevant is the law at the time of the SC judgement... In jan 2017 the SC made a ruling that the mccanns had not been cleared by the archiving depatch as it was not evidence of innocence... That is a denial of tye POI... Clear and simple. No wonder the ECHR saw it as a simple case covered by existing case law

I assume that you agree with Duarte who claimed that the archiving dispatch was evidence (or was that proof?) of innocence.

According to the SC judges it could have been, had it truly  been archived under 277/1, but in their opinion it was actually archived under 277/2, because it could be reopened. See their reasoning here;

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm