Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[carlymichelle]

"Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie’s disappearance".
Why should this be a surprise to anyone?. Those sort of things are customarily decided in lower courts. The Supreme Court rule on points of law in most countries whether the system is based on English Common Law or Roman Law. Google it of you like.

It looks like the press are breaking step and going where the story takes them...... &%+((£

is that a good thing or a bad  thing??

[Brietta]

Quote

The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority.

Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.

And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4Yz54cPAt


Seems plain enough to me.
Which makes one wonder why there is such unmitigated glee and deliberate misinterpretation of that statement ... as well as the choice of words the judges chose to use in their judgement.


Quote

After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCanns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4YzLYEVdk


It is normal practice for people to instruct their lawyer ... not the other way round.  Ms Duarte could not take it upon herself to make decisions on behalf of her clients ... nor would she ever presume to do so.  There would be discussion and consultation on the aftermath of the appeal court judgement.

"Blocked" may be a journalistic term for that and as good a word as any to grab the attention.  Not really good enough though, as in my opinion it tends to illustrate what the reporter knows about the confidential discussions which may have taken place between client and lawyer ... and that is absolutely nothing.

As usual the celebratory tone utilised when there might be discomfort caused to the McCann family always seems to overlook the child who was removed from that family and who may well be a young woman now ... Madeleine.

That was nearly ten years ago.

Madeleine's parents have been kept in the loop as far as the investigations into her disappearance are concerned.  We have no idea exactly where the police have reached with that, but the McCanns do.
Therefore extraordinary decisions by the Portuguese court of appeal may be the least of their thoughts just now.  You can be sure that whatever decision they make and whatever statements they may choose to issue, if they choose to issue any at all, will all be carried out with Madeleine at the forefront of their consideration.

[Mr Gray]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4YzbIf0Xl

Why should anyone be surprised at this given what happened with Oakley International?  They too were the subject of a gagging order which prevented them from releasing damaging material to the media and from speaking out. 

No stone unturned has become keep every stone buried just as transparency has turned opaque.

Absolute rubbish John
Every professional has an obligation of confidentiality
This is a story out of nothing
Duarte is not governed by a gagging order but by her professional responsibilities

[G-Unit]

Correio da Manha reported today: 'The McCanns have requested the annulment of the Supreme Court decision, terming it frivolous for saying it 'had not been possible for public prosecutors to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237066/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-fight-court-ruling.html#ixzz4Z1vkKzuM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[jassi]

Correio da Manha reported today: 'The McCanns have requested the annulment of the Supreme Court decision, terming it frivolous for saying it 'had not been possible for public prosecutors to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237066/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-fight-court-ruling.html#ixzz4Z1vkKzuM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Are they able to do that? Is the Supreme Court not  the final word in Portugal for any and all legal decision?

[stephen25000]

Are they able to do that? Is the Supreme Court not  the final word in Portugal for any and all legal decision?

I believe it is in the UK.

If they try it in Portugal, they will have another disappointment.

Their only option would be the ECHR and the success rate for UK cases is almost zero.

PS. Since the shelving of the case had the same effective comment, why didn't the Mccann's raise their objection then ?

[ferryman]

Quote

The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority.

Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.

And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4Yz54cPAt


Seems plain enough to me.
Which makes one wonder why there is such unmitigated glee and deliberate misinterpretation of that statement ... as well as the choice of words the judges chose to use in their judgement.


Quote

After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCanns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4YzLYEVdk


It is normal practice for people to instruct their lawyer ... not the other way round.  Ms Duarte could not take it upon herself to make decisions on behalf of her clients ... nor would she ever presume to do so.  There would be discussion and consultation on the aftermath of the appeal court judgement.

"Blocked" may be a journalistic term for that and as good a word as any to grab the attention.  Not really good enough though, as in my opinion it tends to illustrate what the reporter knows about the confidential discussions which may have taken place between client and lawyer ... and that is absolutely nothing.

As usual the celebratory tone utilised when there might be discomfort caused to the McCann family always seems to overlook the child who was removed from that family and who may well be a young woman now ... Madeleine.

That was nearly ten years ago.

Madeleine's parents have been kept in the loop as far as the investigations into her disappearance are concerned.  We have no idea exactly where the police have reached with that, but the McCanns do.
Therefore extraordinary decisions by the Portuguese court of appeal may be the least of their thoughts just now.  You can be sure that whatever decision they make and whatever statements they may choose to issue, if they choose to issue any at all, will all be carried out with Madeleine at the forefront of their consideration.

Very well put, Brietta.

I certainly can't Isabel discussing in detail the nature of the transaction that took place between her and her clients, and the paper has adopted a sensationalist spin.

[Robittybob1]

Are they able to do that? Is the Supreme Court not  the final word in Portugal for any and all legal decision?

It says in the article they had 10 days to make a formal complaint, which seems rather fitting if they have.

[faithlilly]

Quote

The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority.

Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.

And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4Yz54cPAt


Seems plain enough to me.
Which makes one wonder why there is such unmitigated glee and deliberate misinterpretation of that statement ... as well as the choice of words the judges chose to use in their judgement.


Quote

After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCanns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4YzLYEVdk


It is normal practice for people to instruct their lawyer ... not the other way round.  Ms Duarte could not take it upon herself to make decisions on behalf of her clients ... nor would she ever presume to do so.  There would be discussion and consultation on the aftermath of the appeal court judgement.

"Blocked" may be a journalistic term for that and as good a word as any to grab the attention.  Not really good enough though, as in my opinion it tends to illustrate what the reporter knows about the confidential discussions which may have taken place between client and lawyer ... and that is absolutely nothing.

As usual the celebratory tone utilised when there might be discomfort caused to the McCann family always seems to overlook the child who was removed from that family and who may well be a young woman now ... Madeleine.

That was nearly ten years ago.

Madeleine's parents have been kept in the loop as far as the investigations into her disappearance are concerned.  We have no idea exactly where the police have reached with that, but the McCanns do.
Therefore extraordinary decisions by the Portuguese court of appeal may be the least of their thoughts just now.  You can be sure that whatever decision they make and whatever statements they may choose to issue, if they choose to issue any at all, will all be carried out with Madeleine at the forefront of their consideration.

I think the pertinent point is that for years the McCanns have claimed that the archiving report was tantamount to a declaration of their innocence in the disappearance of their daughter. The SC has clarified that this isn't the case.

[Robittybob1]

I think the pertinent point is that for years the McCanns claimed that the archiving report was tantamount to a declaration of their innocence in the disappearance of their daughter. The SC has clarified that this isn't the case.

And quite clearly they were wrong. 
Wrong for making Jez Wilkins' refusal to do a reconstruction attributable to the guilt of the McCanns.  Making Jane Tanners statements attributable to the guilt of the McCanns.

In fact any actions by the Tapas 7 should not be made attributable to the guilt of the McCanns. 

[Brietta]

Maddie's parents accuse the Supreme Court

Kate and Gerry are asking for a nullity of judgment.

The McCann couple, Maddie's parents, the English girl missing in the Algarve in 2007, called for the nullity of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, calling it light-hearted (classificando-o de leviano)"because it was not possible for the Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by recurrent". The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Relation to revoke the payment of a compensation of 500 thousand euros by the ex-inspector of PJ Gonçalo Amaral.

Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pais-de-maddie-acusam-o-supremo?ref=HP_Outros

[Alfie]

Good luck on 'em I say.

[Brietta]

Good luck on 'em I say.

All the supreme court had to do and say was to confirm the decision in favour of Amaral.  That would have been it ... all done and dusted.

For some reason best known to themselves they have overstepped the mark with probably illegal pronouncements which have further damaged the McCanns.  They knew what they were doing as they said in their judgement they had no locus in criminal cases.

It remains to be seen if there is justice in Portugal ... a situation which I think quite a few Portuguese citizens will be watching with interest.

[Mr Gray]

As I have said they contradicted themselves in their judgement which isn't very impressive
Have they supplied the McCanns with the ammunition to have their judgement annulled
What an absolute farce Portuguese justice is

[faithlilly]

Maddie's parents accuse the Supreme Court

Kate and Gerry are asking for a nullity of judgment.

The McCann couple, Maddie's parents, the English girl missing in the Algarve in 2007, called for the nullity of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, calling it light-hearted (classificando-o de leviano)"because it was not possible for the Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by recurrent". The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Relation to revoke the payment of a compensation of 500 thousand euros by the ex-inspector of PJ Gonçalo Amaral.

Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pais-de-maddie-acusam-o-supremo?ref=HP_Outros

Good money after bad but hey, they've got to be seen to be doing something !