The ILOR's and the CPS

[Silkywhiskers]

In certain cases, the British Ambassador might put in a personal appearance, though

Don't forget the PM!

I played rugger with him don't you know.

We have so much in common!   He can help.

[jassi]

Don't forget the PM!

I played rugger with him don't you know.

We have so much in common!   He can help.

Particularly if he turns a blind eye.

[misty]

Once again, Crown v Cheong 2006.

[Silkywhiskers]

Once again, Crown v Cheong 2006.

If you're not going to link it, don't bother posting it.

[misty]

If you're not going to link it, don't bother posting it.

I'm sorry, I'm a newbie. Is linking mandatory or can the interested party(s) not do their own research for something of no real relevance to Madeleine?

[misty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_jurisdiction
International crime

Transborder crimes take place in more than one state. For example, a defendant may fire a gun, post a package, or write or speak words in State A, but the effects of each action are felt in State B. Some states claim a public policy justification to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by, or crimes committed against their citizens, even though these crimes are committed outside their borders. Thus, one of the classifications of crime is "crimes against the state". These are crimes that affect the interests of the state or its administration. In extreme cases, a state may wish to prosecute one of its own citizens for treason even though all the relevant acts and omissions took place in another state. Similarly, if a citizen of State A is acting in a way that interferes with the friendly relations between State A and State B, it may be expedient to prosecute this citizen no matter where the relevant acts have been committed. Jurisdiction may also be claimed over crimes on board the ships and aircraft operated by corporations based in the given state, no matter where these craft may be located at the relevant time. In English law, where murder and manslaughter are concerned, the English court has jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, if it was committed by a British citizen (see section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948). In R v Cheong (2006) AER (D) 385 the appellant was living in Guyana in 1983. He shot and killed a man who had just robbed his wife and sister-in-law. Under local law he was charged only with the unlicensed possession of a firearm; but as a British citizen, section 9 of the 1861 Act applied 19 years after he returned to England and he was charged with murder. On appeal, a conviction for manslaughter was upheld.


This is one of the sources.

[Silkywhiskers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_jurisdiction
International crime

Transborder crimes take place in more than one state. For example, a defendant may fire a gun, post a package, or write or speak words in State A, but the effects of each action are felt in State B. Some states claim a public policy justification to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by, or crimes committed against their citizens, even though these crimes are committed outside their borders. Thus, one of the classifications of crime is "crimes against the state". These are crimes that affect the interests of the state or its administration. In extreme cases, a state may wish to prosecute one of its own citizens for treason even though all the relevant acts and omissions took place in another state. Similarly, if a citizen of State A is acting in a way that interferes with the friendly relations between State A and State B, it may be expedient to prosecute this citizen no matter where the relevant acts have been committed. Jurisdiction may also be claimed over crimes on board the ships and aircraft operated by corporations based in the given state, no matter where these craft may be located at the relevant time. In English law, where murder and manslaughter are concerned, the English court has jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, if it was committed by a British citizen (see section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948). In R v Cheong (2006) AER (D) 385 the appellant was living in Guyana in 1983. He shot and killed a man who had just robbed his wife and sister-in-law. Under local law he was charged only with the unlicensed possession of a firearm; but as a British citizen, section 9 of the 1861 Act applied 19 years after he returned to England and he was charged with murder. On appeal, a conviction for manslaughter was upheld.


This is one of the sources.

Hahah I love it when you McFanns try and prove something.

You almost always shoot yourself in the foot.

How is it you all haven't accidentally walked under a bus by now?

[misty]

Re: The ILOR's and the CPS
« Reply #49 on: Today at 06:57:58 PM »
•   Quote
Quote from: John on Today at 06:25:03 PM
Actually many ex pats never register residency in Spain and Portugal any more so the resident versus holidaymaker argument no longer applies.  I think it should also be borne in mind that SY have no authority in Portugal and are only operating through the goodwill extended to them by the Portuguese Ministry.

If suspects are at some point identified, it will be a matter of agreement as to who prosecutes them but the Portuguese have first dibs since the crime occurred on their soil.

The fact that Madeleine, as a minor, is a Ward of an English Court also carries some weight.

Of course they don't register residency in Spain, what would happen to their pensions?

But let's allow the apologists more room to hang themselves.

I am still waiting for an example of CPS involving themselves in a foreign crime - there is none



The above is your earlier post, which I c&p'd in case you deleted it. In this, you do not refer to a British citizen.
I would also hazard a guess that Mr Cheong was not British by birth.

[misty]

[quote author=misty48 link=topic=4331.msg158763#msg158763 date=140201217

I would also hazard a guess that Mr Cheong was not British by birth.


Once again Misty, you need to provide credible citations as opposed to personal assumptions regarding the veracity of your assertions.!

That was not an assertion, it was merely an opinion. The article stated he was a British subject which I do not dispute.

[Silkywhiskers]

That was not an assertion, it was merely an opinion. The article stated he was a British subject which I do not dispute.

So you've failed to prove a case where the CPS was involved in the crimes of a non-British citizen.

You won't find one.

You might just have to admit you're wrong.

[misty]

So you've failed to prove a case where the CPS was involved in the crimes of a non-British citizen.

You won't find one.

You might just have to admit you're wrong.

I have found you a case where the CPS prosecuted a case for a crime committed on foreign soil. Outside the Hague, I doubt there is a court in the world which would meet the full criteria you have requested. You get half a point because I never made an assertion.

However, the original point was about ILORs & the CPS & I think I have proven that point.

[misty]

Bump.

As you can see, you have completely failed to prove a point.

But carry on.

You don't know the content of those ILORs though. There are 2 British subjects who were very heavily involved in the case from the 4th May.

[Mr Gray]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10881339/Madeleine-McCann-latest-Met-police-to-speak-to-eight-potential-suspects.html

So Uk police to interview eight Portuguese subjects in Portugal as a result of the ILORs prepared by the CPS

[Alfred R Jones]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10881339/Madeleine-McCann-latest-Met-police-to-speak-to-eight-potential-suspects.html

So Uk police to interview eight Portuguese subjects in Portugal as a result of the ILORs prepared by the CPS

From the article:

Scotland Yard detectives will question the “persons of interest” they have identified during a review of the seven-year-old case.


The men wanted for questioning include three convicted drug dealers who are thought to have been involved in burglaries in the area around Praia da Luz in the days leading up to Madeleine’s disappearance.


Officers from Operation Grange sent a letter of request to Portuguese authorities earlier this year after identifying them from mobile phone records which showed the three men had made numerous calls to each other in the hours after the girl went missing on May 3, 2007

[Martina]

From the article:

Scotland Yard detectives will question the “persons of interest” they have identified during a review of the seven-year-old case.


The men wanted for questioning include three convicted drug dealers who are thought to have been involved in burglaries in the area around Praia da Luz in the days leading up to Madeleine’s disappearance.


Officers from Operation Grange sent a letter of request to Portuguese authorities earlier this year after identifying them from mobile phone records which showed the three men had made numerous calls to each other in the hours after the girl went missing on May 3, 2007

From the very same article:

Scotland Yard refused to confirm or deny the next phase of investigations. “We will not provide a running commentary on the progress of an investigation.”