Was the translation process a limiting factor in the Maddie case?

[Robittybob1]

What is the correct basis?

Are you saying it was done on an incorrect basis?

I'm not saying anything ATM, but it is something further to look at.  We need to know what the PJ have to consider when choosing an interpreter, and only then will we make a judgement.

[G-Unit]

"The system in Portugal complies with the requirements of the ECHR in respect of the right to a fair trial. If people don't speak Portuguese adequate arrangements are made."  OK the system complies but was the system followed in this case?  That is the question I would like you to answer.

"If you make a witness statement in the UK you won't get a copy of your statement, it's the property of the police. "
I was told in NZ that you are entitled to ask for a copy of your own statement, so what you say there really surprises me.

I expect I could answer if I trawled the net looking for something telling me what the rules are and if they contain anything relating to statements taken from foreigners. Instead I quoted something which told me that Portugal meets ECHR standards. I also quoted something showing that the Public Prosecutor is in charge of the PJ and of the investigation. I'm content to assume that he ensured things were done 'by the book'.

A witness is not entitled as of right to see his or her statement or be sent a copy of it before the day of the trial.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/victims_and_witnesses_supplying_witnesses_with_copies_of_their_statements/

[jassi]

I'm not saying anything ATM, but it is something further to look at.  We need to know what the PJ have to consider when choosing an interpreter, and only then will we make a judgement.

Why?  How does it advance the search for Madeleine ?

[Robittybob1]

Why?  How does it advance the search for Madeleine ?

it might not help immediately, but it will help in the long run to take Goncalo's lawyers off the McCann's case and maybe the search fund will get a boost from the Portuguese.

[stephen25000]

it might not help immediately, but it will help in the long run to take Goncalo's lawyers off the McCann's case and maybe the search fund will get a boost from the Portuguese.

Why should the Portuguese boost the fund.

Surely you believe people should be held responsible for their own actions.

So why shouldn't the Mccanns pay for any 'search' themselves.

The taxpayers of this country have already involuntarily contributed, via Cameron's instructions, courtesy of R. Brooks.

[G-Unit]

In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05So witness statements from the English in Portugal  should have been done with an interpreter present.  The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.

None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present.  But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis.

You can't use an example relating to the UK to suggest that Portugal is not meeting ECHR standards. The UK may have higher or different standards, but Portugal meets the standard required, end of. People may not like tha way they do things, but they are doing nothing wrong.

UK interpreters are strictly regulated. They must be members of the IOL and they must pass exams to be considered for the positions of police and court interpreters. No such requirements exist in Portugal. That doesn't mean Portugal is wrong, it means it's different, just as the UK and New Zealand are different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Institute_of_Linguists

Here's some advice relating to Spain;

The report can be made in two ways:

·      Written (in Spanish) -  delivering a document with the statement you want to report along with any other evidence.
·      Spoken -  which is the traditional way to do it, telling the events and addressing questions asked by the police officer
The majority of police stations in Spain do not have interpreters, so you will need one if you do not speak Spanish.
http://www.abacoadvisers.com/spain_explained/spanish-law/news/making-police-report-denuncia-spain#

Portugal;

The submission of evidence is acceptable only in the Portuguese language. There is no right to have the
evidence translated into your language.
https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/PORTUGAL-Mar-2016-new-Printer-Friendly.pdf

[Robittybob1]

Why should the Portuguese boost the fund.

Surely you believe people should be held responsible for their own actions.

So why shouldn't the Mccanns pay for any 'search' themselves.

The taxpayers of this country have already involuntarily contributed, via Cameron's instructions, courtesy of R. Brooks.

Portuguese  = GA
he is held responsible for his actions.
The McCann fund will get a boost and they will have the money required.
And the UKJustice forum will solve the case.  That would be a good one!

[Robittybob1]

You can't use an example relating to the UK to suggest that Portugal is not meeting ECHR standards. The UK may have higher or different standards, but Portugal meets the standard required, end of. People may not like tha way they do things, but they are doing nothing wrong.

UK interpreters are strictly regulated. They must be members of the IOL and they must pass exams to be considered for the positions of police and court interpreters. No such requirements exist in Portugal. That doesn't mean Portugal is wrong, it means it's different, just as the UK and New Zealand are different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Institute_of_Linguists

Here's some advice relating to Spain;

The report can be made in two ways:

·      Written (in Spanish) -  delivering a document with the statement you want to report along with any other evidence.
·      Spoken -  which is the traditional way to do it, telling the events and addressing questions asked by the police officer
The majority of police stations in Spain do not have interpreters, so you will need one if you do not speak Spanish.
http://www.abacoadvisers.com/spain_explained/spanish-law/news/making-police-report-denuncia-spain#

Portugal;

The submission of evidence is acceptable only in the Portuguese language. There is no right to have the
evidence translated into your language.
https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/PORTUGAL-Mar-2016-new-Printer-Friendly.pdf

Until we know we are using the UK law as an example.  A lot of countries follow Westminster legal precedence.
That Portuguese Fair Trials document still didn't cover the taking of witness statements.

[G-Unit]

it might not help immediately, but it will help in the long run to take Goncalo's lawyers off the McCann's case and maybe the search fund will get a boost from the Portuguese.

Tut. Amaral's lawyers are employed to defend him against the McCann's various accusations.

Whatever occurs in connection with other matters has nothing to do with their role. I would imagine they are libel lawyers, like the McCann's lawyer.

You are assuming that the Portuguese turned against the McCanns following the publication of his book etc. Others have suggested that UK people did the same. That is a fallacy. People disbelieved the McCanns long before Amaral published his book and broadcast his DVD. If he is discredited it will not affect people's opinions of the McCanns at all in my opinion. 

[stephen25000]

Portuguese  = GA
he is held responsible for his actions.
The McCann fund will get a boost and they will have the money required.
And the UKJustice forum will solve the case.  That would be a good one!

One might get the impression you have a thing for the Mccanns, especially Mrs. Mccann.

Perhaps you agree what James O'Brien said about her.

PS. In case you haven't realized by now, Amaral is just a citizen of Portugal, he is not Portugal. *&*%£

[ShiningInLuz]

I have already posted the declaration

You have posted it in English, or rather, what you think it says in English.  Given that you are complaining about the quality of translation, that is rather rich.

Are you going to post the Portuguese version or not?

[ShiningInLuz]

It is absurd to think there are no errors in the translation on the basis that all translations are likely to contain errors and the PJ do not seem to have any strict control on the quality of the translators. This is why there should have been a signed copy of the statement in English
The fact that some want to defend this flawed system is testament to their bias against the McCanns

The fact that some find the system suitable for purpose, when no significant error has yet been quoted, attests to the ability of those people to evaluate the facts and reach a conclusion based on them.

To claim that there is a flawed system, without evidence of such flaws, is a flight of fancy.

To claim that not finding the system flawed is evidence of bias against the McCanns is arrant nonsense.

[ShiningInLuz]

Evidence?  The incident happened in around 1984. Evidence would be long gone but it is definitely etched in my memory.

The thing that made it hard to prove in Court was the fact that I had not asked for a copy of my statement at the time of signing it.  So I wonder if in the MM case whether the witnesses were given copies of their statements made at the time?

Please do not quote an incident in 1984 as being relevant to 2007.  23 years apart is far too long.

PACE 1984 was brought in to fix major issues in the way witnesses were treated, and I have no doubt there has been other relevant legislation since.

I neither know, nor care, about the relevant legislation in 2007 in Portugal, in the UK, or in NZ.

But if you are going to blacken the image of NZ police, provide evidence of an event contemporaneous with 2007.  Evidence means the event and the laws or regulations that were breached.

[ShiningInLuz]

In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05So witness statements from the English in Portugal  should have been done with an interpreter present.  The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.

None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present.  But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis.

If you wish to claim that an equivalent of PACE 1984 exists in Portugal, find it and post it. 

There is no reason to infer commonality of law between England and Portugal other than that those emanating from European Law.  If you think there is any European law requiring an equivalent of PACE, find it and post it.

The incident occurred in Portugal.  The relevant legal system is that of Portugal.  What happens in Canada, South Africa, Greece, Germany etc. has no relevance.

[G-Unit]

Until we know we are using the UK law as an example.  A lot of countries follow Westminster legal precedence.
That Portuguese Fair Trials document still didn't cover the taking of witness statements.

The fruitlessness of using one country's procedures to judge those of another country has been demonstrated by the difference between the UK and New Zealand, which is heavily based on English Law.

That document said evidence [statements ?] are admissible only in Portuguese. I expect that's because any case arising would be heard in that language because it would be heard in Portugal where they speak Portuguese.

It also said there is no right to a translation of the evidence [statements?]

Seems fairly clear to me.

If anyone is ever tried in connection with this case the trial will take place in Portugal, in Portuguese, and any defendant who doesn't speak the language will be entitled to an interpreter in court. How will they check the interpreter is doing that correctly? Answer; they won't be able to.