UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on June 13, 2018, 11:34:23 PM
-
"Were the McCanns being accused of something? Surely the facts surrounding that would be detailed in the PJ files associated with the arguido statements by the McCann as a guess.
Can they be made arguido without an accusation being made?
-
"Were the McCanns being accused of something? Surely the facts surrounding that would be detailed in the PJ files associated with the arguido statements by the McCann as a guess.
Can they be made arguido without an accusation being made?
They can request to be given Arguido status.
Questioning of the Suspect or Arguido Pre-Trial
It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime; however since the purpose of questioning is precisely to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and who is the perpetrator the questioning may be ordered with a lesser degree of suspicion. This measure may be executed by a judge the PP or the criminal police. The defence lawyer must be informed of the time and place of the questioning but the lawyers presence is not mandatory unless the arguido is in custodial detention. The arguido has the right to remain silent and any declaration that he/she makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.
It's best if you read the CCP.
It really is quite straightforward, just ignore the names McCann when reading it.
Learn what it is about the see how it was applied to the case in question.
See my sig strip....... 8(>((
-
"It's okay to reinvent the wheel, but only when you understand how the current wheel works."
If you reinvent the wheel do you have a wheel or something else?
-
They can request to be given Arguido status.
Questioning of the Suspect or Arguido Pre-Trial
It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime; however since the purpose of questioning is precisely to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and who is the perpetrator the questioning may be ordered with a lesser degree of suspicion. This measure may be executed by a judge the PP or the criminal police. The defence lawyer must be informed of the time and place of the questioning but the lawyers presence is not mandatory unless the arguido is in custodial detention. The arguido has the right to remain silent and any declaration that he/she makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.
It's best if you read the CCP.
It really is quite straightforward, just ignore the names McCann when reading it.
Learn what it is about the see how it was applied to the case in question.
See my sig strip....... 8(>((
"It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime" So that suspicion may not actually be based on evidence that can be presented but it should at least be explainable.
In this case they had dogs running around the apartment barking. Also some debatable DNA results.
-
"It's okay to reinvent the wheel, but only when you understand how the current wheel works."
If you reinvent the wheel do you have a wheel or something else?
8(>((
Touchee, Rob
Do we have a wheel or something else?
I think something else.
-
They can request to be given Arguido status.
Questioning of the Suspect or Arguido Pre-Trial
It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime; however since the purpose of questioning is precisely to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and who is the perpetrator the questioning may be ordered with a lesser degree of suspicion. This measure may be executed by a judge the PP or the criminal police. The defence lawyer must be informed of the time and place of the questioning but the lawyers presence is not mandatory unless the arguido is in custodial detention. The arguido has the right to remain silent and any declaration that he/she makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.
It's best if you read the CCP.
It really is quite straightforward, just ignore the names McCann when reading it.
Learn what it is about the see how it was applied to the case in question.
See my sig strip....... 8(>((
Where did you get that text from, Alice? I only have the CCPs in Portuguese.
I believe that's referring to the CCP version that came into force after they were questioned. The old one didn't specify "founded suspicion". The old wording about being informed of the facts against an arguido changed as well. IMO in the old one, it wasn't clear that being informed of them was a right per se.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2127.msg70219#msg70219
-
8(>((
Touchee, Rob
Do you have a wheel or something else?
Tracked vehicles seem to be an advantage over the wheeled versions.
-
When Gerry said "When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this." we might be correct in thinking that that was the main accusation against the McCanns "That they had some responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine".
-
When Gerry said "When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this." we might be correct in thinking that that was the main accusation against the McCanns "That they had some responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine".
Unfortunately or not,its not known why there were arguido's made back in 2014,it can't have been just because three of them were alleged burglars surely,was the main accusation one of you must be involved cause you are a an alleged burglar,perish the thought,oh! and you own a phone?
-
Unfortunately or not,its not known why there were arguido's made back in 2014,it can't have been just because three of them were alleged burglars surely,was the main accusation one of you must be involved cause you are a an alleged burglar,perish the thought,oh! and you own a phone?
I don't think that that was the situation, Barrier.
They were people in PT that the UK wanted to interview. If they wanted to do so "under caution" on PT soil, I can't see any other possibility other than the nearest equivalent which is arguido status.
As far as I can work out, that was a provisional status which didn't exist in PT law the last time I had a check back then.
Normally, an arguido maintains that status until an investigation has reached a conclusion, and until the end of the road (Supreme Court ruling) in PT cases if charges are made and a trial goes ahead.
-
I don't think that that was the situation, Barrier.
They were people in PT that the UK wanted to interview. If they wanted to do so "under caution" on PT soil, I can't see any other possibility other than the nearest equivalent which is arguido status.
As far as I can work out, that was a provisional status which didn't exist in PT law the last time I had a check back then.
Normally, an arguido maintains that status until an investigation has reached a conclusion, and until the end of the road (Supreme Court ruling) in PT cases if charges are made and a trial goes ahead.
Wasn't there another batch interviewed later in the year,I don't think they had the arguido status.
Given that's the case the four in July were under suspicion? which it turns out was about nothing.
From the beeb.
The source added: "The 'arguido' [suspect] status was given to the suspects to protect them. It gives them legal rights including the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during interviews.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123433
I think that the term is an headline grabber to us brits where quite possible the term is lost in translation where it affords some,some protection against leading questions.
-
Normally, an arguido maintains that status until an investigation has reached a conclusion, and until the end of the road (Supreme Court ruling) in PT cases if charges are made and a trial goes ahead.
That poses an interesting question if its the case,as in was Bilton interfering in an ongoing investigation when interviewing the three amigo's last year.
-
Wasn't there another batch interviewed later in the year,I don't think they had the arguido status.
Given that's the case the four in July were under suspicion? which it turns out was about nothing.
From the beeb.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28123433
I think that the term is an headline grabber to us brits where quite possible the term is lost in translation where it affords some,some protection against leading questions.
I don't know the ins-and-outs of the negotiations. Some appear to have had arguido status (whether imposed or requested) and others not.
AFAIK, the only arguidos were some of those the UK wanted to interview and, unless I've missed something, the status was reported as ended - and termination of arguidoship prior to a new ruling is what I couldn't find a provision for in PT law at the time.
-
That poses an interesting question if its the case,as in was Bilton interfering in an ongoing investigation when interviewing the three amigo's last year.
I don't think so if the arguido status had been lifted.
-
I don't think so if the arguido status had been lifted.
I agree but I was responding to this part.
Normally, an arguido maintains that status until an investigation has reached a conclusion, and until the end of the road (Supreme Court ruling) in PT cases if charges are made and a trial goes ahead.
-
I agree but I was responding to this part.
I don't know who would have time to double-check, but I recall an official statement from PT stating that they didn't have any current arguidos in this case. If my recollection is correct, it would corroborate the idea that arguido status at the time of the PJ rogs conducted on behalf of the UK was an exceptional, temporary measure, for the purposes of complying with requests made by a foreign police force.
-
I don't know who would have time to double-check, but I recall an official statement from PT stating that they didn't have any current arguidos in this case. If my recollection is correct, it would corroborate the idea that arguido status at the time of the PJ rogs conducted on behalf of the UK was an exceptional, temporary measure, for the purposes of complying with requests made by a foreign police force.
Slightly off topic but relevant imo,maybe this is why the CPS had been out there to find out just what the procedure was for such an event.
-
Slightly off topic but relevant imo,maybe this is why the CPS had been out there to find out just what the procedure was for such an event.
Good Point.
-
Just to take up where I left off:-
• Arguido is a status automatically conferred on someone who is suspected by the authorities of committing an offence.
• A person must be given arguido status before an arrest can be made.
• A person/witness may request arguido status.
• The arguido must be informed of whatsoever evidence is held against them. [I can find no definition of the extent or manner covered by “informed”]
• It is mandatory to question a person whenever there is a founded suspicion that he/she has committed a crime.
• Since the purpose of questioning is precisely to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and who is the perpetrator the questioning may be ordered with a lesser degree of suspicion.
• This measure may be executed by a judge the PP or the criminal police.
• An arguido has NOT been formally charged or arrested and possibly may never be so.
• The defence lawyer must be informed of the time and place of the questioning but the lawyers presence is not mandatory unless the arguido is in custodial detention.
• The Portuguese procedural system assigns the arguido the right to remain silent during the procedure from the moment he/she is formally designated Arguido.
• The fact that the arguido decides to remain silent cannot be detrimental to himself.
• The CCP does not threaten with a sanction of any kind the arguido that having decided to talk instead of remaining silent makes false declarations.
• Any declaration that the arguido makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.
• As a consequence of the right to remain silent the arguido has no duty of any kind to cooperate with investigative authorities for the purpose of determining the truth.
• As a consequence of the privilege against self incrimination the arguido cannot make a declaration under oath.(CCP Article14(3)).
• Arguido status confers all sorts of rights all of which are laid out the CCP. The right to be have legal assistance provided by the state for example. And this beauty of a banana skin “The Right To Full and Accurate Recording of His /Her Statements”.
Hint: best to read the rules in CCP before saddling up !
-
When it says: "• Arguido is a status automatically conferred on someone who is suspected by the authorities of committing an offence."
That must clash with ideas like "Amaral suspected the McCanns from day one".
That would mean the McCanns should have been declared "automatic" arguidos but they weren't, so is this implying the law was not being followed?
-
When it says: "• Arguido is a status automatically conferred on someone who is suspected by the authorities of committing an offence."
That must clash with ideas like "Amaral suspected the McCanns from day one".
That would mean the McCanns should have been declared "automatic" arguidos but they weren't, so is this implying the law was not being followed?
...or that they weren’t suspects from day one....
-
...or that they weren’t suspects from day one....
Amaral, in his book, tells us he was suspicious from day one. Was that only with the benefit of hindsight then?
-
Amaral, in his book, tells us he was suspicious from day one. Was that only with the benefit of hindsight then?
Or the benefit of a looming court case for Perjury.
-
...or that they weren’t suspects from day one....
There must be a status prior to declaring them arguidos for the purpose of recording phone and personal conversations without them being aware of that happening IMO.
Gerry was questioned again after day 1 (10th May 2007) and he wasn't made aware he was a suspect. There must be suspects and "suspects" IMO.
-
When it says: "• Arguido is a status automatically conferred on someone who is suspected by the authorities of committing an offence."
That must clash with ideas like "Amaral suspected the McCanns from day one".
That would mean the McCanns should have been declared "automatic" arguidos but they weren't, so is this implying the law was not being followed?
That will depend on how you are defining "the authorities".
If you beleive that "The Authorities" is restricted to Sr Amaral and that wot is writ in 'is book you may have a point.
I would suggest the "the authorities" extends a little further than that.
If you belivee a law has been broken identify the law (they all have refernce numbers) then state how in your opinion that law has been breached.
It does help to work out what "The Files" means in the context of the case.
-
Slightly off topic but relevant imo,maybe this is why the CPS had been out there to find out just what the procedure was for such an event.
Quite possibly. I think I already suggested that as a possibility for the CPS's visit on some other thread when the topic cropped up.
-
There must be a status prior to declaring them arguidos for the purposed of recording phone and personal conversations without them being aware of that IMO.
Gerry was questioned again after day 1 and he wasn't made aware he was a suspect. There must be suspects and "suspects" IMO.
If only it were that complicated.
-
There must be a status prior to declaring them arguidos for the purposed of recording phone and personal conversations without them being aware of that IMO.
Gerry was questioned again after day 1 and he wasn't made aware he was a suspect. There must be suspects and "suspects" IMO.
Ahhh. While wading one day through the PT codes, as one does just for fun, I came across some articles that mentioned "arguidos" and "suspeitos" - from the context, I assume that they are slightly different, although I couldn't find a clear distinction.
Thinking about it later, IMO, "arguido" equals the legal status in which someone is formally informed that they are a suspect, or is about to be questioned on potentially self-incriminating details and can request the status in order to exercise their rights, and the "suspeito" one might well cover covert operations on an unofficial suspect.
-
Ahhh. While wading one day through the PT codes, as one does just for fun, I came across some articles that mentioned "arguidos" and "suspeitos" - from the context, I assume that they are slightly different, although I couldn't find a clear distinction.
Thinking about it later, IMO, "arguido" equals the legal status in which someone is formally informed that they are a suspect, or is about to be questioned on potentially self-incriminating details and can request the status in order to exercise their rights, and the "suspeito" one might well cover covert operations on an unofficial suspect.
"The difference between suspect and arguido is established by the magistrate who directs the investigation".
8(0(*
-
"The difference between suspect and arguido is established by the magistrate who directs the investigation".
8(0(*
so what is the difference between the two
-
Just to take up where I left off:-
•
• Any declaration that the arguido makes during the preliminary phases of the procedure has very limited evidentiary value.
do we take taht to mean that any statements made as witnesses have limited evidentary value...as i suggested a log...long ...time ago
-
so what is the difference between the two
Depends on whether the case is civil or criminal and what the investigating magistrate says.
-
Depends on whether the case is civil or criminal and what the investigating magistrate says.
lets say its criminal...whats the diference..we know what rights an arguido has...what rights does a suspect have..the lack of response suggests you do not have a clue
-
lets say its criminal...whats the diference..we know what rights an arguido has...what rights does a suspect have..the lack of response suggests you do not have a clue
Maybe I don't, maybe I do, maybe I know a man who does.
Place your bets....or better yet give your version of what rights suspeitos have. It is farily well defined in the CCP and legal reference tomes; so we can compare.
-
Tracked vehicles seem to be an advantage over the wheeled versions.
Ah, but if I am not mistaken, tracked vehicles still have a row of wheels, driving them, under each track.
So we still need the wheel !
-
If ever, we had a thread trying to work all this out... erm, nearly 4 years ago. lol
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5673.0
-
If ever, we had a thread trying to work all this out... erm, nearly 4 years ago. lol
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5673.0
I suspect all things have been discussed at some time previous,there ain't no news and nor will there be until the next tranche is announced in pursuit of one last lead.imo,innit.
-
I suspect all things have been discussed at some time previous,there ain't no news and nor will there be until the next tranche is announced in pursuit of one last lead.imo,innit.
Deja Vu. Don't you just love it.
-
This is from the version that came into force on 14 September, i.e, just AFTER the McCanns / Murat became arguidos, as I can't lay my hands on the earlier one for the moment. A bit annoying as I expect that some of the wording will have been modified to clarify any ambiguity between "suspicion" and "founded suspicion" as in the amendments of various articles mentioned earlier (including 58).
For the purposes of simply working out roughly what a "suspeito" is, it might be adequate.
From the legal definitions bit:
(e) A suspect means any person for whom there is an "indício" (indication) that he has committed or is preparing to commit a crime, or who participated in one or is preparing to participate in one.
CÓDIGO DE PROCESSO PENAL Lei 48/2007, de 29 de Agosto
Disposicões preliminares e gerais
Artigo 1.o
Definicões legais
Para efeitos do disposto no presente Código considera-se:
e) «Suspeito» toda a pessoa relativamente à qual existia indício de que cometeu ou se prepara para cometer um crime, ou que nele participou ou se prepara para participar;
It is mentioned concerning the recusal of a judge (which is irrelevant)
This is about when it is mandatory to confer arguido status and refers to when a suspect has been arrested according to the terms and for the purposes set out in articles 254-261 (the article below was modified as I posted earlier):
Artigo 58.o
Constituicão de arguido
(...)
c) Um suspeito for detido, nos termos e para os efeitos previstos nos artigos 254.o a 261.o;
This bit is about the judge being able to order the seizure of correspondence sent by or to a suspect
Artigo 179.o
Apreensão de correspondencia
1 — Sob pena de nulidade, o juiz pode autorizar ou ordenar, por despacho, a apreensão, mesmo nas estacões de correios e de telecomunicações, de cartas, encomendas, valores, telegramas ou qualquer outra correspondência, quando tiver fundadas razões para crer que:
a) A correspondencia foi expedida pelo suspeito ou lhe é dirigida, mesmo que sob nome diverso ou através de pessoa diversa;
Further down in that same article, it states that it is forbidden to seize or otherwise intercept correspondence between an arguido and his/her defence lawyer, except when the judge has a founded suspicicion that it is the object or an element of a crime:
2 — É proibida, sob pena de nulidade, a apreensão e qualquer outra forma de controlo da correspondência entre o arguido e o seu defensor, salvo se o juiz tiver fundadas razões para crer que aquela constitui objecto ou elemento de um crime.
Mentioned here re phone tapping of a suspect or arguido:
CAPÍTULO IV
Das escutas telefónicas
Artigo 187.o
Admissibilidade
(...)
4 — A intercepcão e a gravacão previstas nos números anteriores só podem ser autorizadas, independentemente da titularidade do meio de comunicacão utilizado, contra:
a) Suspeito ou arguido;
b) Pessoa que sirva de intermediário, relativamente à qual haja fundadas razões para crer que recebe ou transmite mensagens destinadas ou provenientes de suspeito ou arguido;
There is a long article Artigo 250.o which is when law enforcement officers can request someone to show ID.
251 is about the kinds of inspections and searches that can be carried out without a warrant (frisking, etc). House searches require a warrant.
-
I suspect all things have been discussed at some time previous,there ain't no news and nor will there be until the next tranche is announced in pursuit of one last lead.imo,innit.
Yeah, feels like Groundhog Day sometimes. lol
-
This reporter details some of the restraints on the McCanns following the declaration of their arguido status. https://youtu.be/VGsbPZtUue4?t=189
-
do we take taht to mean that any statements made as witnesses have limited evidentary value...as i suggested a log...long ...time ago
It depends how you are defining "as witnesses". So the response could be yes or no and still be correct.
I suggest you read the whole of the Portuguese processes as applicable to this case. You will then be better informed if none the wiser.