The 'Arguido' designation. What does it mean to invoke such a status?

[Mr Moderator]

A 'defendant' in Portugal has a different meaning to that in the UK.

[Mr Gray]

Arguido really cannot be interpreted as suspect because any witness can claim this status as protection under the Law.

why would they need protection unless the police suspected they had committed an offence

[Admin]

why would they need protection unless the police suspected they had committed an offence

I believe you have answered your own question Mr Davel.

[Carana]

if anyone feels like wading through the 2010 CPP:

http://www.legix.pt/docs/CPP-30_Ago_2010.pdf

[Mr Gray]

I believe you have answered your own question Mr Davel.

arguido equates to suspect

[Carana]

Here's a summary of changes in the CP and CPP (2013).
http://www.vda.pt/xms/files/Newsletters/Flash_Litigation___Arbitration_-_New_package_of_Criminal_Legislation_2013_-June_2013-.pdf

[ferryman]

arguido equates to suspect

There is a certain logic.

Suspects generally appreciate legal representation, and arguidos are entitled to that ...

[John]

There is a certain logic.

Suspects generally appreciate legal representation, and arguidos are entitled to that ...

As has already been pointed out, not all arguidos are suspects but suspects are usually designated arguidos before being questioned.  The terms arguido and suspect are not mutually exclusive.

The Portuguese refer to arguidos as defendants so that is good enough for me.

[John]

why would they need protection unless the police suspected they had committed an offence

It is their right.

[Carana]

This explains the CPP as of Sept 2007 (although primarily about pre-trial detention).

http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf

For some reason, I can't copy the relevant bits (it copies as gibberish).

Of interest is p. 6 concerning the phases of the process and the deadlines for concluding an investigation (it must be read with footnote 6).

This is what I tried to point out some time ago - barring certain crimes, an investigation has to be concluded (either by archiving it or by laying charges) within 8 months and within 6 months if the arguido is held on remand. The footnote specifies that the 6-month deadline clock starts ticking once an arguido has been constituted (barring exceptions).

This issue at the time was that various people were arguing that if the McCanns had done the reconstruction (as the investigation was drawing to a close) and had thereby thus somehow proven their innocence (I still have no idea how a reconstruction could prove that), then the PJ would have had to go back to square one and start investigating other possibilities.

It wouldn't - because of the deadlines. If Amaral & co., had organised one right at the beginning, then that may have been a different story.

 

[Carana]

As has already been pointed out, not all arguidos are suspects but suspects are usually designated arguidos before being questioned.  The terms arguido and suspect are not mutually exclusive.

The Portuguese refer to arguidos as defendants so that is good enough for me.

To make matters more complicated, in the Article on deadlines, the PT code mentions both "suspeitos" and "arguidos". It doesn't clarify the distinction. The only potential one that I can think of is if a "suspeito" is under covert surveillance prior to being made arguido.

As pointed out on a different thread, the notion of founded suspicion was introduced in Sept 2007, as well as the right to be informed of the facts that led to it.

Waving a piece of paper in the air insinuating damning forensic evidence was no longer an option.


On your second point, arguido doesn't mean defendant in the UK / US sense of a person being prosecuted / sued in a court of law - although that would be the term if ever that were to happen.

Don't forget that there are several phases in the Portuguese criminal process. 

[Carana]

same as being cautioned in the UK....it enables the police to use any statement in court at a later date

That appears to be the case in the latest version (2013), according to this summary:

Main amendments to Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code:
> The defendant is now only required to answer truthfully about his identity and no
longer regarding his criminal background
> The judge may apply a more severe preventive measure than the one suggested by the Public Prosecutor in cases of risk of escape or risk of continuity of criminal activity or disturbance of public order
> The defendant shall be informed, during his first inquiry before the Judge or the Public Prosecutor, that his declarations may be used in further stages of the proceedings, even if he is not present during the trial or decides to remain silent
> The declarations made by the defendant before a Judge or Public Prosecutor during the investigation phase, when accompanied by a lawyer and made after the warning referred to in the previous point, may be read during the trial, even if the defendant does not request such reading and even if the defendant decides to remain silent
> During the trial phase, the judge shall be more restrictive in accepting evidence that could have been presented in a previous phase of the proceedings
> Relevant amendments were made to the summary proceedings – wider and faster proceedings but less protective of the defendants
> Every type of crime may be judged through summary proceedings (by a single judge), regardless of the maximum penalty applicable, provided that the defendants have been arrested in flagrante delicto, except in cases of highly organized crime, crimes against cultural or personal identity or personal integrity, crimes against State security and for Violations of International Humanitarian Law
> The defendant may request 15 days to prepare his defense and may indicate 7 witnesses to prove the facts invoked therein
> The trial shall begin within 48 hours or, in maximum, within 20 days after the arrest when the defendant has requested time to prepare his defense or the Public Prosecutor considers that there are essential demarches to be made to discover the truth
> The following decisions are no longer appealable:
> acquittal decisions issued by the high court in the context of an appeal, even when revoking a first instance decision, except in cases where, in first instance, the defendant had been condemned to imprisonment for more than 5 years
> condemnation decisions issued by the high court that apply non- imprisonment penalties or imprisonment for less than 5 years, even in case of a contrary first instance decision
> A unique 30 day-deadline to appeal from any decision
> Avoidance of useless acts: party against whom an appeal is submitted shall only be notified to reply to such appeal after a (preliminary) court decision accepting the said appeal

That wasn't the case during the Cipriano trial.

[Carana]

There is a certain logic.

Suspects generally appreciate legal representation, and arguidos are entitled to that ...

There is also the reverse: e.g., when a witness suspects that the police are asking leading questions or are otherwise asking "when did you stop beating your wife" - type questions.

There is also the small fact that it has only recently become a recommendation to tape arguido interviews - there is no such recommendation concerning witness ones, neither is it compulsory to do so for arguidos (unless the law has changed very recently in that respect).

Witnesses and arguidos in theory are supposed to read their statements prior to signing them, but I wonder how many actually pay attention to the wording of every detail, particularly if they've been through extremely long interviews, with little sleep and a lot of stress?

[Luz]

I see there's still much confusion regarding the LEGAL STATUS of ARGUIDO.

Every step of a criminal investigation is under the Pubblic Ministry's control - police don't make their cases like in UK or US  and the whole process takes 3/4 steps:

Inquiry
Instruction (optional)
Trial
Sentencing

The Inquiry corresponds to the investigation where, by initiative of the PJ or the suspect/interrogated/witness, you may be attributed or require the ARGUIDO status. Sometimes witness may require that status regarding their potential involvement in other cases/affairs that may rise up during the questionning...

If the ARGUIDO is never charged he never becomes a DEFENDANT (this is already part of a trial, but in PT it's common to call defendants as ARGUIDOS because they maintain the same rights).

In the same sense if a Case is Archived after Inquiry, because there is not enough evidence to charge, the ARGUIDO status is lifted, but the suspects remain so until they are cleared by a new investigation or a trial..

[Benice]

I see there's still much confusion regarding the LEGAL STATUS of ARGUIDO.

Every step of a criminal investigation is under the Pubblic Ministry's control - police don't make their cases like in UK or US  and the whole process takes 3/4 steps:

Inquiry
Instruction (optional)
Trial
Sentencing

The Inquiry corresponds to the investigation where, by initiative of the PJ or the suspect/interrogated/witness, you may be attributed or require the ARGUIDO status. Sometimes witness may require that status regarding their potential involvement in other cases/affairs that may rise up during the questionning...

If the ARGUIDO is never charged he never becomes a DEFENDANT (this is already part of a trial, but in PT it's common to call defendants as ARGUIDOS because they maintain the same rights).

In the same sense if a Case is Archived after Inquiry, because there is not enough evidence to charge, the ARGUIDO status is lifted, but the suspects remain so until they are cleared by a new investigation or a trial..

So how does that work for someone who has had their arguido status removed and then applies for a job at  sometime in the future which requires background checks?    Can they expect to be  described by the authorities as a 'Suspect in an unsolved crime' for the rest of their lives - if the case is never solved?