Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[jassi]

According to the judgement the McCanns are not proven innocent.  So what are they then?

Inbetweenies.
This may not be the case for all aquidos,some of whom may have been fully excluded during the investigative process.

[xtina]

The law is the Supreme Court and they have given an opinion if we accept this translation
They should be entitled to the presumption of innocence

why....

[xtina]

seems like the first translation 10 pages.......


http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm 8

[Alfie]

Inbetweenies.
This may not be the case for all aquidos,some of whom may have been fully excluded during the investigative process.

There is no such status.  You cannot be a bit guilty or a bit innocent.
Was Murat "fully excluded", because the wording in the archiving report was exactly the same for all three arguidos.

[faithlilly]

If in the eyes of the law the McCanns are neither innocent nor guilty then what is their legal position?  A little bit guilty?  A teensy bit innocent?  What?

I would think the nearest equivalent  in British law is the Scottish not proven.

[Eleanor]

It would seem that because the McCanns were once arguidos 9 years ago, that their legal status is now different from, say, mine or Joe Bloggs.  Unlike me or Joe Bloggs, the McCanns  are not allowed to be considered free of any implication of guilt in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  So, what is the legal name for this state of purgartory they find themselves in?

Limbo?

[Alfie]

I would think the nearest equivalent  in British law is the Scottish not proven.

I think you'll find that that only applies after the defendant has been tried in a court, and never to describe someone who was interviewed for a crime many years ago and never charged.

[faithlilly]

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

[Eleanor]

As I have already said, please do not forget that Presumption of Innocence is still fundamental to British Law.  Any suggestion that they were involved would be Libel.

[Alfie]

Limbo?

Again, not a term recognised in law methinks.

[Eleanor]

Again, not a term recognised in law methinks.

Perhaps it is in Portugal.  There appears to be a lot of it about.

[Alfie]

Perhaps it is in Portugal.  There appears to be a lot of it about.

I honestly think they make it up as they go along.

[faithlilly]

I think you'll find that that only applies after the defendant has been tried in a court, and never to describe someone who was interviewed for a crime many years ago and never charged.

It's not perfect but the nearest equivalent.

[Brietta]

I would think the nearest equivalent  in British law is the Scottish not proven.

There is no equivalent to the B......d Verdict or any verdict at all.  The McCanns have never been charged with any crime. The McCanns have never been tried with any crime.
At a stroke it appears that three law lords by setting precedent ... have changed the law in Portugal.  Whether or not that is how legislation is enacted in Portugal and whether or not Portuguese citizens are content to be propelled backward to less enlightened times remains to be seen.
Are the Portuguese leaving Europe too? ... having abrogated human rights legislation as demonstrated by imposition of this insular verdict.

[ShiningInLuz]

There is a big difference between proved innocent and presumption of innocence.

The archiving report proved the McCanns innocent of neglect in Portuguese law, to all intents and purposes, irrespective of what others might think.

The McCanns are entitled to a presumption of innocence in anything more serious re Madeleine's disappearance, but such a presumption does not prove them innocent.