Author Topic: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.  (Read 17514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #30 on: April 26, 2013, 09:05:49 AM »


If not content with the final decision of the investigation phase, the assistente or the accused may request the opening of new research, called instruction. This stage is optional and overseen by a judge, named examining magistrate, you will be able to collect more evidence to allow him to assess whether the final decision of the investigation was appropriate. At the end of this phase the judge will decide whether to archive the process or take it to court.



Thanks for the information (personally I find it helpful to have it in both languages).

My understanding of the article you quoted in this case is that the inquiry phase was going to be archived. If they had appealed the decision, it would pass into the instruction phase - in which a decision would be taken as to whether the archival was a justified ruling or whether there was sufficient evidence (or new evidence) to take the case to court. If that is correct, I don't see how it would have prolonged the inquiry phase (i.e. kept the investigation going), or reopened it.


ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #31 on: April 26, 2013, 09:11:57 AM »
As I've always understood it, the instruction phase follows the investigation phase where there is an intention to prosecute.

Where there is no intention to prosecute, the instruction phase simply doesn't apply.

I can't cite a source.  That is my memory of the gist of Stinky Sardine's posts on the old 3As.

I was a disciple of Stinky Sardine, incidentally ...

Offline Carana

Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #32 on: April 26, 2013, 09:20:59 AM »
From the legal summary:

Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.

Technically, it was apparently a possibility. The only situation in which I could imagine it applying in this instance would be if one of the arguidos had found sufficient evidence against one of the others... which wasn't the case.



ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #33 on: April 26, 2013, 09:23:31 AM »
prompting diligences based on new evidence,

Within 20 days, hard on the heels of an 18 month-long investigation when the McCanns (in particular) couldn't read the files because they were all in Portuguese.

....

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #34 on: April 26, 2013, 09:34:39 AM »
As I've always understood it, the instruction phase follows the investigation phase where there is an intention to prosecute.

Where there is no intention to prosecute, the instruction phase simply doesn't apply.

I can't cite a source.  That is my memory of the gist of Stinky Sardine's posts on the old 3As.

I was a disciple of Stinky Sardine, incidentally ...

So was I. I learnt a lot from him.

Offline Carana

Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #35 on: April 26, 2013, 09:36:21 AM »
prompting diligences based on new evidence,

Within 20 days, hard on the heels of an 18 month-long investigation when the McCanns (in particular) couldn't read the files because they were all in Portuguese.

....

I seem to remember that they actually had longer than that due to the summer recess (although I'm not certain of that).

In any event, there was an enormous amount of material to wade through with no specific smoking gun.

Hence the push for the review to collate all the information held by the various forces to see if any emerge.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #36 on: April 26, 2013, 09:59:11 AM »
As I've always understood it, the instruction phase follows the investigation phase where there is an intention to prosecute.

Where there is no intention to prosecute, the instruction phase simply doesn't apply.

I can't cite a source.  That is my memory of the gist of Stinky Sardine's posts on the old 3As.

I was a disciple of Stinky Sardine, incidentally ...
21 steps to trial by StinkySardine at the 3 A's

1 - Police has knowledge of ‘occurence’. Decides if it likely to be a crime

2 – After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Ministério Público)
3 – The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Ministério Público (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).

4 – Some powers can be delegated by the Ministério Público to the police (PJ)

5 – All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.

6 – Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why’s that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 – which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.

7 – When the inquiry phase ends, the Ministério Público will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.

8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:

9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.

10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. ‘overseen’ as in the inquiry phase).

11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.

12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido

13 – The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.

14 – All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase

15 – No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.

16 – At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal ‘get together’ where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.

17 – In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)

18 – The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn’t.

19 – The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it’s null.

20 – It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is ‘adjusted’ at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A ‘BULL’S EYE’ CHARGE!

21 – The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury – under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.




Offline Carana

Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #37 on: April 26, 2013, 10:12:54 AM »
Thanks Redblossom. That's helpful.



AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #38 on: April 26, 2013, 10:28:42 AM »
prompting diligences based on new evidence,

Within 20 days, hard on the heels of an 18 month-long investigation when the McCanns (in particular) couldn't read the files because they were all in Portuguese.

....
That's one of the reasons why they had Portuguese and anglophone lawyers,

Offline Carana

Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #39 on: April 26, 2013, 10:59:46 AM »
prompting diligences based on new evidence,

Within 20 days, hard on the heels of an 18 month-long investigation when the McCanns (in particular) couldn't read the files because they were all in Portuguese.

....
That's one of the reasons why they had Portuguese and anglophone lawyers,

But you can't really expect lawyers to find a smoking gun, nor judge which leads hadn't been sufficiently investigated.


ETA: It would presumably have been a different matter if any of the arguidos had been charged...
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 11:01:18 AM by Carana »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2013, 11:22:23 AM »


I seem to remember that they actually had longer than that due to the summer recess (although I'm not certain of that).

In any event, there was an enormous amount of material to wade through with no specific smoking gun.

Hence the push for the review to collate all the information held by the various forces to see if any emerge.
Yes, they had more time because of the 4 or 5 weeks justice holidays.
I feel it would have been difficult for them to request the reopening of the inquiry (the third possibility) since precisely the rejected reconstruction had been presented by the MP as necessary to go on with the inquiry (excuse or not..), unless they had offered to reconstruct.

Offline Carana

Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #41 on: April 26, 2013, 11:38:47 AM »


I seem to remember that they actually had longer than that due to the summer recess (although I'm not certain of that).

In any event, there was an enormous amount of material to wade through with no specific smoking gun.

Hence the push for the review to collate all the information held by the various forces to see if any emerge.
Yes, they had more time because of the 4 or 5 weeks justice holidays.
I feel it would have been difficult for them to request the reopening of the inquiry (the third possibility) since precisely the rejected reconstruction had been presented by the MP as necessary to go on with the inquiry (excuse or not..), unless they had offered to reconstruct.

I'm not sure I follow, Anne.

How would a reconstruction have helped keep an active investigation into the search for Madeleine open?






ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2013, 11:52:01 AM »
As I've always understood it, the instruction phase follows the investigation phase where there is an intention to prosecute.

Where there is no intention to prosecute, the instruction phase simply doesn't apply.

I can't cite a source.  That is my memory of the gist of Stinky Sardine's posts on the old 3As.

I was a disciple of Stinky Sardine, incidentally ...
21 steps to trial by StinkySardine at the 3 A's

1 - Police has knowledge of ‘occurence’. Decides if it likely to be a crime

2 – After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Ministério Público)
3 – The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Ministério Público (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).

4 – Some powers can be delegated by the Ministério Público to the police (PJ)

5 – All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.

6 – Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why’s that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 – which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.

7 – When the inquiry phase ends, the Ministério Público will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.

8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:

9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.

10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. ‘overseen’ as in the inquiry phase).

11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.

12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido

13 – The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.

14 – All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase

15 – No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.

16 – At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal ‘get together’ where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.

17 – In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)

18 – The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn’t.

19 – The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it’s null.

20 – It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is ‘adjusted’ at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A ‘BULL’S EYE’ CHARGE!

21 – The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury – under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.

Yes, that's helpful:

8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:

9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.

10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. ‘overseen’ as in the inquiry phase).

11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.

12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido


No charges were laid ...

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2013, 12:04:54 PM »


I seem to remember that they actually had longer than that due to the summer recess (although I'm not certain of that).

In any event, there was an enormous amount of material to wade through with no specific smoking gun.

Hence the push for the review to collate all the information held by the various forces to see if any emerge.
Yes, they had more time because of the 4 or 5 weeks justice holidays.
I feel it would have been difficult for them to request the reopening of the inquiry (the third possibility) since precisely the rejected reconstruction had been presented by the MP as necessary to go on with the inquiry (excuse or not..), unless they had offered to reconstruct.

I'm not sure I follow, Anne.

How would a reconstruction have helped keep an active investigation into the search for Madeleine open?
Carana, it's just my feeling.
The MP made clear that, without a reconstruction, the investigation was condemned more sooner than later. Though a little girl was being searched for, the reconstruction was finally rejected by the group. Logically, as announced by the MP, the case was shelved after a few months.
Nevertheless the MP assured that it wasn't for ever : a new fact could lead the MP to reopen the case.
Both the McCanns and Robert M could request the re-opening of the investigation. If the McCanns had done it, the MP certainly would have reminded them a re-opening was useless without the reconstruction the proper MP had considered necessary to proceed.
If I were a PR I would have let them know this before they took the right decision... but I'm not !

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Process for shelving the investigation or having it reinstated.
« Reply #44 on: April 26, 2013, 12:11:29 PM »
a new fact could lead the MP to reopen the case.
Both the McCanns and Robert M could request the re-opening of the investigation.


It's important to link those, two, inseparable, points: the one cannot (could not!) exist without the other ...