**updated** Appeal rejected. McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court's decision

SuspiciousMinds wrote:Out of interest, does anyone know whether the SC is likely to give a more detailed report on why they came to this decision at some point, or are they just allowed to reject the complaint without further explanation?

sallypelt wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:Out of interest, does anyone know whether the SC is likely to give a more detailed report on why they came to this decision at some point, or are they just allowed to reject the complaint without further explanation?

I could be wrong, but my understanding is, it was rejected without even discussing it.

sallypelt wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:Out of interest, does anyone know whether the SC is likely to give a more detailed report on why they came to this decision at some point, or are they just allowed to reject the complaint without further explanation?

I could be wrong, but my understanding is, it was rejected without even discussing it.

Verdi wrote:Being realistic - what possible chance did the McCanns have of overturning the Lisbon Supreme Court ruling?  They must have known they didn't have a hope in hell's chance - less so their lawyer.

Just another act of bravado and another handy distraction.  They've got another six months reprieve by way of the Operation Grange time extension, which temporarily keeps the wolves at bay (they think);  they've got a milestone anniversary to look forward to with plenty of publicity on the horizon, so leave the man alone - haven't you done enough damage Drs McCann?

How dare you Snr Amaral, try to solve the case of our abducted daughter - who the hell do you think you are, poking your nose in our private affairs.  Have you any idea how much this has cost the girl's search fund, taking you to court for doing your job and then you trying to profit by the girl's abduction?


This doesn't end here - the gloves are off....

Verdi wrote:Being realistic - what possible chance did the McCanns have of overturning the Lisbon Supreme Court ruling?  They must have known they didn't have a hope in hell's chance - less so their lawyer.

Just another act of bravado and another handy distraction.  They've got another six months reprieve by way of the Operation Grange time extension, which temporarily keeps the wolves at bay (they think);  they've got a milestone anniversary to look forward to with plenty of publicity on the horizon, so leave the man alone - haven't you done enough damage Drs McCann?

How dare you Snr Amaral, try to solve the case of our abducted daughter - who the hell do you think you are, poking your nose in our private affairs.  Have you any idea how much this has cost the girl's search fund, taking you to court for doing your job and then you trying to profit by the girl's abduction?


This doesn't end here - the gloves are off....

Facts about admissibility

• 57% were rejected as manifestly ill-founded
  
• In 14% of applications, the applicants did not exhaust domestic remedies
  
• 11% were lodged more than 6 months after the final decision taken by a domestic court
  
• 11% were rejected because the applicants wanted the Court to quash, rehear or revise decisions taken by domestic courts ("fourth instance")
  
• 8% of applications were found to be incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols
  

jeanmonroe wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:Out of interest, does anyone know whether the SC is likely to give a more detailed report on why they came to this decision at some point, or are they just allowed to reject the complaint without further explanation?

I could be wrong, but my understanding is, it was rejected without even discussing it.

If the 'annulment request' was erm y'know, er accidentally 'delivered' LATE, by Isabel 'we delivered it' Durate, to the PSC, i.e. 'outside' of the 10 days 'allowed' for 'appeals' then I'd imagine it would have, possibly, have been 'read' ('for a laff!') and then 'binned'!

I don't KNOW!

Doug D wrote:31^st Jan – Date on SC ruling documents
 
(PJGA also posted on 1^st Feb that ruling received ‘yesterday’, so 31^st is confirmed as the issued date of the ruling & TM would have received it on that date also.)
 
‘Day 1’ is therefore 1^st Feb and 10 working days is 14^th
 
 Feb 16^th Annulment request document date, so it does appear to have been filed late.
 
Although we were led to believe any ‘appeal’ had to be within 10 days, the call for annulment of the SC decision is so obscure, I have not seen anything to actually confirm that this is the definite time limit.
 
Presumably it is also possible that ID applied for and was granted a few days extension to file this, due to the length and complexities of the ruling.

Doug D wrote:SuspiciousMinds,

Yes you're right in that we initially just heard the ruling, without the documentation.

We don't know exactly when the parties received it, but it was signed on 31st, so if not e-mailed to them on that actual date, it should have gone out either on 1st or 2nd, which could have pushed the '10 days' back to 16th.

In the scheme of things, whether it was filed on time or not, probably makes little difference, as the judgement was so thorough, dotting the i's and crossing the t's, that it left no real avenues for a successful appeal.

Doug D wrote:If it had just been a technicality over the filing date it would not have got as far as this:

'...the STJ decided, at a conference of the 1st Civil Court held on Tuesday, Refuse to review the decision.'


'Indeferida!'

• Maddie: The Truth of the Lie was written by ex police chief Gonçalo Amaral
  
• He claims McCanns faked Madeleine's abduction knowing she was already dead
  
• Kate and Gerry McCann have angrily protested against the book in a long battle
  
• Supreme court ruled in favour of Amaral and McCanns have nowhere to turn 
  

Kate and Gerry McCann have lost the third and final court case to silence a police officer who claims they faked the disappearance of their daughter Maddie.
Maddie: The Truth of the Lie was penned by Gonçalo Amaral, the policeman who headed up the hunt for Madeleine McCann after she vanished from a Portuguese apartment. 
A supreme court judge ruled in favour of the officer, upholding what he called his right to freedom of expression.

There is no higher court in Portugal, meaning it appears the McCanns have expended all their options, according to local press.  
The book claims the McCanns faked their daughter's abduction.
Maddie's parents Gerry and Kate, who were eating tapas in a bar in the Algarve when their daughter went missing, were hit with the fresh blow of anguish after a long civil battle.
Last month, The Portuguese Supreme Court ruled they had not proved they were innocent in the disappearance. 
The McCanns accused the Supreme Court judges who ruled against them in their court fight with ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral of nonsensical 'contradictions'.
Furious Gerry and Kate made it clear through lawyers that they strongly disagreed with the judges' 'erroneous' premise the lifting of their status as 'arguidos' or formal suspects did not mean they were innocent of any involvement in their daughter's May 3, 2007 disappearance.


+9

Madeline McCann who went missing in 2007
Portugal's Supreme Court issued its devastating put-down in February when it backed Amaral over his hurtful 2008 book The Truth of the Lie in which he claimed the McCanns faked Madeleine's abduction to cover up her death in their Algarve holiday apartment.
Judges angered the McCanns by claiming the July 2008 archiving of the first Portuguese probe into their daughter's disappearance 'was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes' by them.
The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.
It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.
The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'
They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.
Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
Mrs Duarte confirmed at the time the McCanns had lodged a formal complaint against the latest court ruling, although she declined to go into detail about why and how they were fighting it.
This has now been ruled upon, and they lost again.

Kate and Gerry of Rothley, Leicestershire, have said they will sue if 'The Truth of the Lie' is sold in Britain.
They said in a statement after learning of a previous Supreme Court ruling against them: 'What we have been told by our lawyers is obviously extremely disappointing.
'It is eight years since we brought the action, and in that time the landscape has changed dramatically, namely there is now a joint Metropolitan Police and Policia Judiciaria investigation which is what we have always wanted.
'The police in both countries continue to work on the basis that there is no evidence Madeleine has come to physical harm.
'We will of course be discussing the implications of the Supreme Court ruling with our lawyers in due course.'
It is believed the McCanns are discussing the possibility of taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.


+9
Madeleine McCann (pictured) went missing while on holiday in Praia da Luz in Portugal
Just last week the parents of tragic Maddie faced fresh heartbreak after a criminal investigator made an outrageous claim that their daughter 'died in the apartment'.
Moita Flores, a Portuguese crime expert, has lashed out at Kate, 49, and Gerry McCann, 48, as they approach the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance.
Mr Flores, who was once involved with the Policia Judiciaria - who conducted the initial search - said: 'Maddie died in that apartment, I have no doubt.'
His outburst was reported on a Portuguese website and he questioned: 'Why this child when there are so many others who have disappeared?'
Madeleine McCann disappeared from apartment 5a at the Ocean Complex in Praia da Luz in May 2007.
Gerry and Kate still hold hope that their eldest daughter, who would now be 13, is still alive despite being missing for close to a decade. 
This could be Operation Grange's final year of searching for the missing child. 
They have been concentrating on the notion that she was sold by child traffickers – her parents' and their first team of private investigators' initial hunch – and could still be alive.
So far the inquiry, launched in May 2011 on orders of then Prime Minister David Cameron, has cost more than £12million with topped-up funds set to run out at the end of March.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html

There is an old saying - 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'.

Dr What wrote:Gven that the Supreme Court judgement has now been released stating that Prosecutors had not managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the McCanns and that they have not been declared innocent, shouldn't the NHS take steps to protect members of the public who may come into contact with McCann?