Kate McCann admits in her book that private criminal investigations in Portugal were illegal.

[Alice Purjorick]

I don't see how there can be a blanket law against a private investigation, as opposed to laws against using illicit means to gather information or actively interfering with or obstructing the course of justice. Otherwise, all the good people who had tried to help in the search would all be in the same category, I would have thought.

Only if they were inhibiting a police investigation.
Ask yourself the question, forgetting about the McCanns.
"Do I believe that "civilians" who are wealthy should be allowed to hire other "civilians" to run an investigation where potentially they will with no authority question police witnesses"?. Especially as the "civilians" carrying out the investigation have no official powers and hold allegiance only to their paymasters.
That has the potential to be a gross interference in the course of justice. However if you believe that is desirable as the status quo that is up to you.

[faithlilly]

Only if they were inhibiting a police investigation.
Ask yourself the question, forgetting about the McCanns.
"Do I believe that "civilians" who are wealthy should be allowed to hire other "civilians" to run an investigation where potentially they will with no authority question police witnesses"?. Especially as the "civilians" carrying out the investigation have no official powers and hold allegiance only to their paymasters.
That has the potential to be a gross interference in the course of justice. However if you believe that is desirable as the status quo that is up to you.

Excellent question Alice.

[Carana]

Only if they were inhibiting a police investigation.
Ask yourself the question, forgetting about the McCanns.
"Do I believe that "civilians" who are wealthy should be allowed to hire other "civilians" to run an investigation where potentially they will with no authority question police witnesses"?. Especially as the "civilians" carrying out the investigation have no official powers and hold allegiance only to their paymasters.
That has the potential to be a gross interference in the course of justice. However if you believe that is desirable as the status quo that is up to you.

Many people tried to respond in the midst of a community drama in which the police were clearly overwhelmed. If the police had had more resources, had been better organised and coordinated, the civilian response might have been better channelled.

[Brietta]

Many people tried to respond in the midst of a community drama in which the police were clearly overwhelmed. If the police had had more resources, had been better organised and coordinated, the civilian response might have been better channelled.

Did Mrs Murat 'interfere' in the official police investigation when she set up a stall to take statements from people who might have felt 'uncomfortable' talking to the police?

[Carana]

Did Mrs Murat 'interfere' in the official police investigation when she set up a stall to take statements from people who might have felt 'uncomfortable' talking to the police?

I was about to ask the same question. Jenny Murat (bless) ran a stand to encourage people to come forward who may not have wanted to speak directly to the police (or may not have had the time to, if they were on their way elsewhere).

It was a community emergency and a mad panic to try to help find her.

Would I have done the same, if I'd thought of it? Yes, no doubt, unless there were clear instructions from a competent and organised force to brief people as to what else they could do to help.

[Alice Purjorick]

So the consensus of this forum is that individuals should have the freedom to decide which laws they will follow depending upon circumstances?
Interesting.

[Carana]

So the consensus of this forum is that individuals should have the freedom to decide which laws they will follow depending upon circumstances?
Interesting.

No. But no one has yet quoted a relevant law...

[Mr Gray]

Only if they were inhibiting a police investigation.
Ask yourself the question, forgetting about the McCanns.
"Do I believe that "civilians" who are wealthy should be allowed to hire other "civilians" to run an investigation where potentially they will with no authority question police witnesses"?. Especially as the "civilians" carrying out the investigation have no official powers and hold allegiance only to their paymasters.
That has the potential to be a gross interference in the course of justice. However if you believe that is desirable as the status quo that is up to you.

I think its perfectly acceptable to hire extra help...just as people pay extra for health care...education...when they are not happy with what is provided by the state...that is a freedom that should be respected in a democracy

[Brietta]

No. But no one has yet quoted a relevant law...

The authorities didn't appear worried about Mrs Murat's intervention ...

There are Portuguese private investigators who advertise their services ...

I would imagine that as long as they operated within common law, and did not interfere with witnesses, suspects or the official case ... their circumstances would be similar to anywhere else in the free world.
Seems to be the case as no one has yet given a citation which proves otherwise.

[Jean-Pierre]

Don't forget that in Portugal one can be charged with criminal libel for criticising certain public figures, including judges, politicians, doctors,  lawyers, civil servants etc.  And this includes bringing complaints to their professional body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/8275939/British-woman-may-face-trial-over-allegation-she-defamed-lawyer.html

A hangover from the bad old days.

The EU had to provide special measures to give immunity to MEPs, as otherwise they could technically have been prosecuted for arguing with Portuguese members or MPs.

 

[Alice Purjorick]

Excellent question Alice.

The responses are even more revealing Faithlilly.

[Alfred R Jones]

So the consensus of this forum is that individuals should have the freedom to decide which laws they will follow depending upon circumstances?
Interesting.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[Alice Purjorick]

I think its perfectly acceptable to hire extra help...just as people pay extra for health care...education...when they are not happy with what is provided by the state...that is a freedom that should be respected in a democracy

In order that there can be absolutely no misunderstanding what you are suggesting, are you advocating that if any individual, provided he is rich enough, and believes the police are not up to the job, should be free to hire unauthorised civilians to do the job for him?
That sir is more or less condoning vigil[ censored word]m. Do you actually believe that should be permissible within any society? Or is the view just expedient for you in the terms of the current debate?

[Alice Purjorick]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Read the thread sir. I asked a specific question that has been evaded.

[Mr Gray]

In order that there can be absolutely no misunderstanding what you are suggesting, are you advocating that if any individual, provided he is rich enough, and believes the police are not up to the job, should be free to hire unauthorised civilians to do the job for him?
That sir is more or less condoning vigil[ censored word]m. Do you actually believe that should be permissible within any society? Or is the view just expedient for you in the terms of the current debate?

As long as those people act within the law there is absolutely nothing wrong with helping the police...you are totally wrong re the vigilante scenario...vigilantes punish...the police regularly rely on help searching from ordinary individuals...your criticism is just another thinly veiled attack on the mccanns