Met Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley gives update on the search for Madeleine McCann.

[misty]

Which point of law?

The SC rejection
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.


The original legal summary http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.

Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.

[G-Unit]

The SC rejection
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.


The original legal summary http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.

Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.

They pointed out that the wrong part of Article 277 had been quoted in the archiving dispatch. That wasn't changing a point of law, it was clarifying it.

[Alfie]

Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.

This is a simply absurd statement to make.  You seem to be suggesting that the Met did nothing more than read the archiving report and then were too dumb to actually understand it.  Do you seriouly believe that?

[misty]

They pointed out that the wrong part of Article 277 had been quoted in the archiving dispatch. That wasn't changing a point of law, it was clarifying it.

The SC altered the context of the archiving dispatch, whichever way you look at it.

[Mr Gray]

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

If there are no indications of any crime then they are no longer suspects as they are no longer suspects in the SY investigation.....

what else could the archiving report say...it could not declare them innocent

where does this idea that there was insufficient evidence to charge them.....there was none...no indications

[Alice Purjorick]

Will someone please explain to me the precise difference between the provisions of Article 277-1 and Article 277-2 and the impact thereof on the SC ruling ?

[misty]

Will someone please explain to me the precise difference between the provisions of Article 277-1 and Article 277-2 and the impact thereof on the SC ruling ?

http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
See attached screenshot as it won't C&P.



ETA It has absolutely no impact on the SC's decision but shows that they took a decision to over-write the legal archiving report wording upon which the appeal was launched.

[Alice Purjorick]

http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
See attached screenshot as it won't C&P.



ETA It has absolutely no impact on the SC's decision but shows that they took a decision to over-write the legal archiving report wording upon which the appeal was launched.

Yeah I have already read that document and came to the same conclusion i.e it had no impact.
Are you suggesting the SC removed the archiving report and overwrote it then re filed it or that as G-Unit suggests were merely correcting something which was incorrect in the appeal documentation?
I am struggling to see your point.

[Mr Gray]

http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
See attached screenshot as it won't C&P.



ETA It has absolutely no impact on the SC's decision but shows that they took a decision to over-write the legal archiving report wording upon which the appeal was launched.

so the archiving report said there was NO indications of any crime 277(1) and the SC overwrote  that to there was insufficent evidence to charge 271(2)..is that right

[misty]

so the archiving report said there was NO indications of any crime 277(1) and the SC overwrote  that to there was insufficent evidence to charge 271(2)..is that right

In a nutshell, yes. Clarified/altered/overwrote  -  they changed the context of the official archiving report.

[misty]

Yeah I have already read that document and came to the same conclusion i.e it had no impact.
Are you suggesting the SC removed the archiving report and overwrote it then re filed it or that as G-Unit suggests were merely correcting something which was incorrect in the appeal documentation?
I am struggling to see your point.

The AG decided which section of the penal code applied to the filing process based on the complete files. Why did the SC need to change it, apart from the need not to have egg on their faces?

[Mr Gray]

In a nutshell, yes. Clarified/altered/overwrote  -  they changed the context of the official archiving report.

then that is an absolute disgrace...how are they allowed to basically change the archiving report

[Mr Gray]

The AG decided which section of the penal code applied to the filing process based on the complete files. Why did the SC need to change it, apart from the need not to have egg on their faces?

they changed it because 277(1) clears the mccanns but 271(2) doesnt
so the archiving report did clear the mccanns until the SC changed it

it will be interesting to see how many posters understand that important point

[misty]

then that is an absolute disgrace...how are they allowed to basically change the archiving report

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but it's clear to me that the alteration was not made until the SC got involved. Here is the wording from the Appeal Court judgement in April 2016.

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2016/
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.” (...)

[Mr Gray]

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but it's clear to me that the alteration was not made until the SC got involved. Here is the wording from the Appeal Court judgement in April 2016.

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2016/
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.” (...)

its clear...the archiving report clears the mccanns ...no indications of any crime 277(1) then the SC changed it from none to not insufficient...implying there is some 277(2)...a disgrace