Madeleine case used in Court as reason not to jail absent mother.

[icabodcrane]

If she popped out for and went to the cash machine sober and came back I doubt it would have even made court or she would have been charged of anything

I think she committed three different crimes whilst out might have had something to do with being charged -

drink driving
dangerous driving
leaving the scene

all pretty serious -  and must have been contributory to being also charged for neglect. If the McCann's had broken numerous laws whilst dining at the restauitrant such as this then I am sure there would have been charges   

at the end of the day we have a legal system we have to put our faith in - there will always be mistakes and you will never satisfy everyone - just look at Duggan case

but this case had very little to do with McCann's

The charges of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident were entirely seperate from the charge of negligence,  which was made on the basis of her having left her five year old alone while he was asleep, to make a less than half hour trip to the cashpoint

Implying that the other charges  had an impact on the negligence charge is simply wrong

If this woman had arranged for an adult to watch her son while she went to the cashpoint then the other charges would still have been made  ...  but no charge of negligence would

[Sherlock Holmes]

It would be interesting to see court transcript, so that we could see what the lawyer actually argued and what the magistrate's logic was in sentencing.

Unfortunately the journalists have not provided us with any of this information, and without knowing the specifics we can only speculate as to why the judgement was what it was.

[Carana]

.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The charges of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident were entirely seperate from the charge of negligence,  which was made on the basis of her having left her five year old alone while he was asleep, to make a less than half hour trip to the cashpoint

Implying that the other charges  had an impact on the negligence charge is simply wrong

If this woman had arranged for an adult to watch her son while she went to the cashpoint then the other charges would still have been made  ...  but no charge of negligence would

Probably just as well she left the child - if she had taken him in  the car with her he could have been injured.

[south of the river]

The charges of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident were entirely seperate from the charge of negligence,  which was made on the basis of her having left her five year old alone while he was asleep, to make a less than half hour trip to the cashpoint

Implying that the other charges  had an impact on the negligence charge is simply wrong

If this woman had arranged for an adult to watch her son while she went to the cashpoint then the other charges would still have been made  ...  but no charge of negligence would

sorry but how do you know there is no link ? If she had left the flat sober - went down to the cash machine and got siome cash out and returned - but was reported for leaving her child then IMO she would have had nothing but maybe a caution at worst

IMO the fact that she was drunk , driving and had an accident had everything to do with looking at the fact she was incapable of looking after the child hence the charge - to say there is no link to the charges doesn't make sense  - the judge would take everything into consideration

anyway as SH says we don't have the summing up or transcripts so all surmising

[Estuarine]

I looked at this for a while wondering whether to post because of my prejudice against boozers (the three shifts a day type). But what the hell?
The woman committed the same sin as the McCanns. The law says that parents can be prosecuted if they leave a child unsupervised ‘in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.  I believe Portuguese law is similar but their “thing” is abandonment which in the McCann case would have been difficult to prove. There is certainly a best practice published by the NSPCC. So the sin was committed when the door closed shutting the kid(s) in. Previous comments about within the bounds of responsible parenting notwithstanding.
https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone
In this case the rest occurred because the woman was driving pissed out of her head probably to the hole in the wall for some folding stuff to buy another bottle. I feel sorry for the child; unless his dad takes an interest he will wind up in care.
The lawyer was probably ill advised to make the alleged comment he did on several levels.

[icabodcrane]

sorry but how do you know there is no link ? If she had left the flat sober - went down to the cash machine and got siome cash out and returned - but was reported for leaving her child then IMO she would have had nothing but maybe a caution at worst

IMO the fact that she was drunk , driving and had an accident had everything to do with looking at the fact she was incapable of looking after the child hence the charge - to say there is no link to the charges doesn't make sense  - the judge would take everything into consideration

anyway as SH says we don't have the summing up or transcripts so all surmising

If the police had been alerted and found that a  five year old was home alone they would have charged this woman on her return , whether she had been drinking or not 

If you are suggesting that the fact she had been drinking was a contributory factor to the neglect charge,  then that is another comparison this lawyer may have drawn  ...  the McCanns had been drinking too 

[Carana]

Do you think she was properly charged with negligence for leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint,  returning in less than half an hour  ?

Where does it say that she returned in less than half an hour?

[Carana]

The charges of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident were entirely seperate from the charge of negligence,  which was made on the basis of her having left her five year old alone while he was asleep, to make a less than half hour trip to the cashpoint

Implying that the other charges  had an impact on the negligence charge is simply wrong

If this woman had arranged for an adult to watch her son while she went to the cashpoint then the other charges would still have been made  ...  but no charge of negligence would

I'm not sure about that. Would the charge of neglect not be the sum total of her actions, even though she also faced separate charges?

[Benice]

No, there's no reason to ignore it, bearing in mind the context in which the comments were made - the poor defense of a rather desperate defense lawyer in quite an unenviable position with regard to the client he was representing.

I don't think there's a concern that the McCanns' neglectful behaviour will result in a spate of cases of parents being let off the hook for dangerous 'parenting' like that of the woman above, because, once again, there is absolutely no legal basis for it.

Were the McCanns ever to be charged with anything - a theoretical possibility for the future - that could change things.

As matters stand, the Madeleine case has given most people a jolt with regard to their childcare arrangements, especially on holiday, and children are probably safer as a result rather than the opposite.

[/b]I

 I do agree that many people may have rejected the 'Baby L istening' service offered to holidaymakers as a direct result of what happened to Madeleine.     However it seems that Baby Alarms are now a popular substitute  - and IMO they could not possibly guarantee that a child is safe from abduciton.   The very fact that parents have the baby alarms with them in full public view - is advertising the fact that their child/children is alone.   IMO they should by law only be allowed to be used in the home.

[AnneGuedes]

[/b]I

 I do agree that many people may have rejected the 'Baby L istening' service offered to holidaymakers as a direct result of what happened to Madeleine.     However it seems that Baby Alarms are now a popular substitute  - and IMO they could not possibly guarantee that a child is safe from abduciton.   The very fact that parents have the baby alarms with them in full public view - is advertising the fact that their child/children is alone.   IMO they should by law only be allowed to be used in the home.

Not by law, imo, but out of common sense.

[icabodcrane]

Probably just as well she left the child - if she had taken him in  the car with her he could have been injured.

...  and what if the child had woken,  and gone outside looking for mum,  stumbling into the path of a passing car in the process 

It would not have been a   'just as well'  that she left him vulnerable then ,  would it  ?     

[Sherlock Holmes]

...  and what if the child had woken,  and gone outside looking for mum,  stumbling into the path of a passing car in the process 

It would not have been a   'just as well'  that she left him vulnerable then ,  would it  ?   

It was a slightly facetious comment --maybe in poor taste. All I meant was that she was not in a position, unfortunately, to 'parent' in or out of the house.

[Benice]

Not by law, imo, but out of common sense.

Unfortunately Anne - human beings suffer from a universal misconception.   And that is that nasty things only ever happen to other people.   They do not realise that to everyone else on the planet they ARE the 'other people.

That is why IMO sometimes the law has to be applied.

[icabodcrane]

[/b]I

 I do agree that many people may have rejected the 'Baby L istening' service offered to holidaymakers as a direct result of what happened to Madeleine.     However it seems that Baby Alarms are now a popular substitute  - and IMO they could not possibly guarantee that a child is safe from abduciton.   The very fact that parents have the baby alarms with them in full public view - is advertising the fact that their child/children is alone.   IMO they should by law only be allowed to be used in the home.

I don't know where you get the idea that parents routinely go out for the night on holiday and place a baby monitor amongst the crockery and wine glasses on a restaurant table

We had a monitor back in the day 

It was on the living room carpet,  and we had one ear on it constantly,  whilst watching TV on a low volume  ....   waiting for any cough,  or muffled cry  ...  even the sound of a gentle  rustle of the sheet would elicit a  'whup'  .... and the obligatory trot up  the stairs to have a look  'just in case' 

It's no good I suppose  ...  there is just no way I can relate to the cavalier attitude that group  displayed toward the care of their children that week