McCanns demand Leicestershire Police open their Maddie files.

[Carana]

Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made.

On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.

Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them.

As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

Thanks, but I think there is a bit of confusion. Yes, the McCanns' representatives initiated proceedings with the High Court back in May 2007 - with a view to being able to obtain information that would normally be restricted, including, for example, from airlines or hotel registrations.

I don't read that as proceedings against LP started back then, but just trying to get the backing of a judge in general to obtain more information. ETA: Yes, I see that LP was included in what may have been a broad list.

LP then had a problem: should they be subject to the court order or not? If so, what would be the legal implications for any other case that they had to deal with?

[G-Unit]

I'm not sure, it certainly was unprecedented where missing child cases were concerned.  Has the information ever been provided even after their arguido status was lifted?

No. The order was changed to exclude law enforcement agencies;

"The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court".

[faithlilly]

Thanks, but I think there is a bit of confusion. Yes, the McCanns' representatives initiated proceedings with the High Court back in May 2007 - with a view to being able to obtain information that would normally be restricted, including, for example, from airlines or hotel registrations.

I don't read that as proceedings against LP started back then, but just trying to get the backing of a judge in general to obtain more information. ETA: Yes, I see that LP was included in what may have been a broad list.

LP then had a problem: should they be subject to the court order or not? If so, what would be the legal implications for any other case that they had to deal with?

So early in the case, and when two police forces were already investigating the disappearance, why did the McCanns even need this information ?

[Carana]

No. The order was changed to exclude law enforcement agencies;

"The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court".

Yes, I amended my earlier post as the court order apparently did include law enforcement, to which LP objected.

However, that appears to have been a broad submission, not exclusively concerning LP.

[Carana]

So early in the case, and when two police forces were already investigating the disappearance, why did the McCanns even need this information ?

Perhaps because they were advised by the International Family Law Group to submit a court order that was as broad as possible to cover eventualities?

[G-Unit]

The McCanns were astounded at not being able to get full access to the Leicestershire Police files about the case.

Reluctantly, we made a tactical decision to accept a smaller amount of information. Having to withdraw was quite galling, especially as the eighty-one items disclosed to us included trivial details that our family had passed on to the police in the first place. (Madeleine)

I wonder why these details were seen as trivial? Eighty one leads to follow up hardly seems trivial.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

[jassi]

I imagine they were viewed as trivial as they provided little that they didn't already know.
Is there anything in the public domain to indicate who did provide information under this order?

[Alfred R Jones]

If the parents were desperate, as you claim, to help the PIs 'find their kid' why not publicise the efits they had compiled ?

This has already been discussed and is off topic to this thread.  Why do you think the McCanns wanted to gain access to the Leics police files, if not because they wanted the information for their PIs to help in the search for their daughter?

[faithlilly]

This has already been discussed and is off topic to this thread.  Why do you think the McCanns wanted to gain access to the Leics police files, if not because they wanted the information for their PIs to help in the search for their daughter?

For arguidos, or suspects, it would be very useful to know if that particular police force held any evidence against them, don't you think ?

[Alfred R Jones]

For arguidos, or suspects, it would be very useful to know if that particular police force held any evidence against them, don't you think ?

No, because as has already been pointed out if they had been charged their legal team would have had access to details of whatever evidence was held against them, in order to help them mount a defence.

[jassi]

No, because as has already been pointed out if they had been charged their legal team would have had access to details of whatever evidence was held against them, in order to help them mount a defence.

Would that not only have applied to information held by the PJ ?

[G-Unit]

Thanks, but I think there is a bit of confusion. Yes, the McCanns' representatives initiated proceedings with the High Court back in May 2007 - with a view to being able to obtain information that would normally be restricted, including, for example, from airlines or hotel registrations.

I don't read that as proceedings against LP started back then, but just trying to get the backing of a judge in general to obtain more information. ETA: Yes, I see that LP was included in what may have been a broad list.

LP then had a problem: should they be subject to the court order or not? If so, what would be the legal implications for any other case that they had to deal with?

I can't think of any reason why the parents would need a disclosure order in May 2007. Two police forces were co-operating in the investigation and it seems very early days to decide to distrust them and start your own enquiries.

[Alfred R Jones]

Would that not only have applied to information held by the PJ ?

It would have applied to any information that would have been used in court against them.

[Carana]

For arguidos, or suspects, it would be very useful to know if that particular police force held any evidence against them, don't you think ?

How does that work? They weren't arguidos when the broad court order was submitted in May 2007. And by the time of that court hearing, the final PJ report had been submitted and the legal summary was about to be produced.

In any case, why shouldn't people suspected of committing a crime be informed of any evidence against them?

[Mr Gray]

I can't think of any reason why the parents would need a disclosure order in May 2007. Two police forces were co-operating in the investigation and it seems very early days to decide to distrust them and start your own enquiries.

You need to try and think a little more out of the limited box.

How many people with serious illnesses seek alternatives whilst still carrying on with conventional medicine...it's not about trust it's about exploring all possibilities. This is what intelligent people do