Text Messages and calls ‘can now be submitted in court as evidence’
21st May 2015
In a historic ruling, Évora’s court of appeal has clarified that text messages (even if they are not read) and mobile phone records can now be used in criminal cases and do not require any authorisation by a judge.
But emails - which can be accessed by mobile phones - can only be used if the person to whom they have been addressed has read them.
The decision was announced in today’s Diário de Notícias which claimed the law up until now has been “unclear in this context”.
Indeed it could have changed endless police investigations in the past - not least the original Madeleine McCann inquiry.
As TVI24 reveals, in 2007 Portimão Judge Pedro Frias “refused the PJ the right to look at text messages on Kate McCann’s mobile phone”, justifying his decision on the basis that “telephonic interceptions could not be authorised after the event”, and that he “could not authorise the consultation of written messages sent and received before receiving a request” to this effect.
Indeed TVI has run an exposé on the “controversial judge” (see our story elsewhere), adding that in 2007 “there were many voices” speaking out against this decision.
Now, as a result of the appeal court’s decision, the PJ would have had a great deal more investigative freedom.
Évora’s judges were asked to rule on the law following a case of theft in Serpa where the suspect had “inadvertently” left his mobile phone at the scene of the crime.
To find out who he was, police had gone through the man’s text messages and phone records.
The Public Ministry had argued that this was the kind of action that only a judge could authorise, but the panel defended that, “in essence”, a message kept in digital support “had the same protection as a written letter received in the post that had been opened and then filed in a personal file”.
Referring specifically to the case in Serpa, which DN stressed “should now apply to other cases”, the use of this kind of material should not require “previous intervention by a judge” to be authorised as proof.
Within hours of running the story, DN had received a number of commentaries both for and against.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/text-messages-and-calls-“can-now-be-submitted-in-court-as-evidence”
Yes, certainly would have been useful for these communications:-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm*snip*
In the timing diagrams (Annexes 5, 6 and 7) calls on days 2, 3 and 4 May were reviewed and analysed.
All phones were identified where possible, whether Portuguese, English or other nationality. Telephone lists from PT, TMN, VODAPHONE and OPTIMUS [the four service operators] were used. Collaboration from officers of the UK police was relied on to identify telephones of that country. Similarly, they correlated all the phone numbers in the inquiry and the calendars under review.
It was sought to compare and to correlate, whether through the flow charts of calls, or through the cell masts activated by the mobile phones, by place/time, the declarations made by each one of those seen.
No discrepancies were found between the time line (statements of RM, MW and SM) and the timing diagram, either in terms of the time that calls were made or received, or in terms of masts activated. But there were omissions, due to forgetfulness or intent.
In this way, one realises, only for him, it is not proven, for determined periods of time, where Robert Murat was located, specifically in the period in which Madeleine disappeared.
[At this point the report lists various calls made and received on RM's mobile and his (and his mother's) fixed service number on 2 and 3 May.
The report continues:]
Observation:
There should be new inquiries made of Robert and Michaela in order to clarify the calls between them on 3 May from 20h15 to 20h25 (fixed), from 23h20 to 23h29 (mobile), from 23h55 to 23h37 (mobile), 23h40 to 23h47 (mobile) and from 23h53 to 24h01 (fixed).And the call of 30 seconds from Robert to Sergey at 23h39 ' the only such call on those days.
In the flow charts (Annexes 8, 9, and 10) there were considered and analysed connections on days 1, 2, 3 and 4 May 2007, relating to each telephone.
In the flow chart (Annexe 11 - combination of call in Annexes 8, 9 and 10) there were considered and analysed connections on the days 1, 2, 3 and 4 May 2007, together with the target numbers.
- In the period under review, calls by phone and SMS between RM and MW are demonstrated, ether by mobile or fixed service phones.
- No calls are recorded between MW and SM. Between RM and SM only one call is recorded.
- No common numbers are shared between SM and RM, nor between SM and MW.
- Only one common number was found between RM and MW 707960000 UZO (Call Centre
