The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by ufercoffy on 27.05.11 17:36

By John Hirst

http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/96/

Court 20 Before MRS JUSTICE HOGG Monday, 7 July, 2008 At 10:30 AM IN OPEN COURT FD07P01121 McCann Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN
Mr Tim Scott, Q.C., International Family Law Group, acting for Gerry and Kate McCann: Madeleine McCann is a ward of Court. She had her 5th birthday on 12 May 2008. Gerry and Kate are not here as they are on holiday with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Who could deserve a holiday more after a period more traumatic than any family should have to cope with.

Mrs Justice Hogg: I did not expect to see them.

Mr Tim Scott continues: As the world knows, Madeleine was abducted from an apartment at a resort in Praia Da Luz in Portugal on 03 May 2007. No one has ever been arrested or charged in connection with her abduction. Her whereabouts are completely unknown. There is no proof that she is alive, but there is not a scrap of evidence that she is not. After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could barely afford it, have given generously to that fund. Simultaneously a massive international police search was launched. Since the McCann family lives in Leicestershire, the Leicestershire Constabulary has been the lead force among UK law enforcement agencies. Gerry and Kate would like, through me, to acknowledge the enormous effort which has been devoted both by the Leicestershire Constabulary and by other law enforcement agencies to the search for Madeleine. They would also like to thank many individual officers for the kindness and concern which they have shown to the family throughout this terrible time. Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents’ wish that the proceedings should become adversarial. On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents’ solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine’s whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it. Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be resolved. This is that hearing. As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann’s objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy. It became clear that if today’s hearing proceeded on a fully contested basis a number of areas of law of great interest to lawyers would have had to be considered. However Gerry and Kate McCann are not lawyers and so far as they were concerned the legal proceedings were moving further and further from the only matter which concerns them: the search for Madeleine. The proceedings were in danger of becoming a distraction from rather than an aid to that single goal. Also there have been two recent developments which have greatly affected Gerry and Kate’s views on these proceedings. The first is that the Leicestershire Constabulary has now agreed to release an important, though limited, part of the information which they have been seeking; I shall come back to that. The second is that, as has been widely publicised, it is expected that Gerry and Kate’s status in Portugal as arguidos or suspects will be lifted soon. When that happens it is hoped and expected that a substantial further amount of information will be released. Since Gerry and Kate have always wanted to work with all law enforcement agencies on a cooperative basis, they decided to withdraw the application against the Leicestershire Constabulary. We therefore come to Court today to ask you to approve an Order which all parties consent to. The first part of the Order recites that the Chief Constable of Leicestershire has agreed to provide by today a document in accordance with Paragraph 50 of the Skeleton Argument which has been presented to the Court on his behalf. That Paragraph is at 34. It says that the Chief Constable is currently preparing a document which will provide the parents with the contact details of persons that have been forwarded to the investigation by the parents or those acting for them. This document will also contain a brief resume of the information that it is believed the person informed the parents or those acting for them that they wished to pass on to the investigation. I said earlier that this is an important but limited amount of the information which Gerry and Kate had hoped to obtain. I would like to explain why it is important. Although the Leicestershire Constabulary were quick to set up a major incident room and to provide a telephone number which anyone with information could call, there was a period of time before this became widely known. During that time Gerry and Kate’s solicitor, Ms Ann Thomas of The International Family Law Group, who sits in front of me, had already been retained. Her firm’s number was publicised and a large number of people called in. All of these callers were given the number which the Leicestershire Constabulary had set up for the purpose. The solicitors thought it right that the police should be receiving it. In fact with few exceptions the solicitors did not even retain any notes on what the callers were saying or even their contact details. So what the Chief Constable is now voluntarily providing is the contact details and a summary of the information provided by a substantial number of people who were among the first to try to help the investigation. It is because these were on the whole people who came forward to volunteer information in the period immediately after the abduction that it is likely that the information which they provided will be most helpful. So on that basis Gerry and Kate McCann are content to withdraw their application for any wider disclosure. Paragraph 4 of the Order provides that the documents in the case shall remain confidential to the Court. This of course is completely normal in wardship. An exception is made to enable the Chief Constable at his discretion to reveal the contents of his evidence and the legal arguments advanced on his behalf. The parents understand that the points of principle which have arisen are of wider interest to law enforcement agencies, and they would not want to restrict proper discussion of those matters which might have a beneficial purpose in future investigations. They are confident that the Chief Constable will exercise his discretion in a responsible way. The search for Madeleine continues. The fund which was established in May 2007 known as “Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned” remains closely involved in the search. It always has been and remains Gerry and Kate’s purpose to leave no stone unturned. This was why they asked for the assistance of this Court in the first place, and this is why, in the light of developing circumstances, they now withdraw their application. We hope that you will accept, and will feel able to say that they have behaved completely properly and responsibly at every stage.

Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire: We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine . We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned. There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law. The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don’t apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.

Representative of the Attorney General: The Attorney General intervened as Guardian of the public interest and has no further comment to make.

Mrs Justice Hogg: Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal. On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards. On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward. At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive. She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here. The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today. The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given. The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so. I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout. I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application. I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words: “The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court”. It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden. I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine. I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made. There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found. I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God. I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found. I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well. I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

- Transcript ends -
Notes (i) Colour Coding for Sources: International Family Law Group (re Tim Scott address)

http://www.iflg.uk.com/documents/7_july_08_address.pdf

International Family Law Group (re Justice Hogg judgement)

http://www.iflg.uk.com/documents/Judgement0708.pdf

Hat-Tip to the 3As forum


http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/96/

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Guest on 30.05.11 8:58

I would like to know if the twins were also made a WOC, to prevent their hair from being tested?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ward of court

Post by Marian on 21.07.11 21:28

Am I right in thinking that a missing person who is also a ward of court cannot be declared legally dead? The "transparently honest" Fund could not continue if Madeleine was to be so classified.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by littlepixie on 21.07.11 21:52

I've never understood the WOC thing in relation to Madeleine and still don't. I can see that they are asking for disclosure of information from Leicestershire Police but I wonder what information it was they thought the Police had and wonder why THEY wanted it.

Is a Ward of Court the same as being under a Full Care Order where the parental rights are handed over to the Authorities? Was it so important to get this strange info from the Police that they relinquished their rights to their child to try and get it? Or were they forced to hand over their rights by the Authorities.

Is this something to do with the one of the 48 questions regarding handing the child to a relative or something else.

I don't understand it at all.

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Ayniia on 13.11.13 18:10

@Marian wrote:Am I right in thinking that a missing person who is also a ward of court cannot be declared legally dead? The "transparently honest" Fund could not continue if Madeleine was to be so classified.
Can someone please confirm or deny this? Because if it's true, now it's making sense for me!

____________________
"My advice to any British tourist ,please come to Portugal,please come to the Algarve but if you're coming as a family holiday treat it as a family holiday and do things together, don't leave the kids"
Words from an ExPat Algarve resident

Ayniia

Posts : 546
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Guest on 13.11.13 18:33

@Ayniia wrote:
@Marian wrote:Am I right in thinking that a missing person who is also a ward of court cannot be declared legally dead? The "transparently honest" Fund could not continue if Madeleine was to be so classified.
Can someone please confirm or deny this? Because if it's true, now it's making sense for me!
I'm not sure but I don't think anyone is declared legally dead, unless relatives actually ask for this, so they can sort out financial matters, any estate etc. or a husband who wanted to move on and perhaps marry someone else? Usually only in the case of adults I would think.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Guest on 13.11.13 19:45

More often, than not making a child WOC, is be to be able to reclaim a child abducted by one of the parents and taken abroad [in general in a divorce or separation and by the one who doesn't have custody]. In those cases the Court can put in their weight. But why Madeleine ...?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by listener on 13.11.13 23:23

@littlepixie wrote:I've never understood the WOC thing in relation to Madeleine and still don't. I can see that they are asking for disclosure of information from Leicestershire Police but I wonder what information it was they thought the Police had and wonder why THEY wanted it.

Is a Ward of Court the same as being under a Full Care Order where the parental rights are handed over to the Authorities? Was it so important to get this strange info from the Police that they relinquished their rights to their child to try and get it? Or were they forced to hand over their rights by the Authorities.

Is this something to do with the one of the 48 questions regarding handing the child to a relative or something else.

I don't understand it at all.

And Chatelaine "More often, than not making a child WOC, is be to be able to reclaim a child abducted by one of the parents and taken abroad [in general in a divorce or separation and by the one who doesn't have custody]. In those cases the Court can put in their weight. But why Madeleine ...?"
I too have never understood this! As Chatelaine asks - Why Madeleine ?

listener

Posts : 565
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by AB1 on 18.11.13 23:00

From Wiki, re 'Death in Absentia':

In February - March 2013, a Presumption of Death Act was passed to simplify this process. The Act is currently due for publication.[3] The new act will allow an application to be made to the UK High Court to declare a person dead. This declaration is conclusive and cannot be appealed. It will be recorded on a new Register of Presumed Deaths, and will have the same effect as a registration of death. Death is taken to occur on (a) the last day that they could have been alive (if the court is satisfied that they are dead), or (b) the day seven years after the date they were last seen (if death is presumed by the elapse of time).
In England and Wales, if it is believed that there should be an inquest, the local coroner will file a report; this may be done to help a family receive a death certificate that will bring some closure. This will bring any suspicious circumstances into light. The coroner will then apply to the Secretary of State for Justice under the Coroners Act 1988 section 15, for an inquest with no body. The seven years rule will only apply in the High Court of Justice on the settlement of an estate. According to a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, the number of requests received each year is fewer than 10 but very few of these are refused. Without a body an inquest relies mostly on evidence provided by the police, and whether the senior officers believe the missing person is dead.

This will end the need for 7 years to have passed.
SY could make a referral...

AB1

Posts : 49
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by stumo on 18.11.13 23:27

@AB1 wrote:From Wiki, re 'Death in Absentia':

In February - March 2013, a Presumption of Death Act was passed to simplify this process. The Act is currently due for publication.[3] The new act will allow an application to be made to the UK High Court to declare a person dead. This declaration is conclusive and cannot be appealed. It will be recorded on a new Register of Presumed Deaths, and will have the same effect as a registration of death. Death is taken to occur on (a) the last day that they could have been alive (if the court is satisfied that they are dead), or (b) the day seven years after the date they were last seen (if death is presumed by the elapse of time).
In England and Wales, if it is believed that there should be an inquest, the local coroner will file a report; this may be done to help a family receive a death certificate that will bring some closure. This will bring any suspicious circumstances into light. The coroner will then apply to the Secretary of State for Justice under the Coroners Act 1988 section 15, for an inquest with no body. The seven years rule will only apply in the High Court of Justice on the settlement of an estate. According to a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, the number of requests received each year is fewer than 10 but very few of these are refused. Without a body an inquest relies mostly on evidence provided by the police, and whether the senior officers believe the missing person is dead.

This will end the need for 7 years to have passed.
SY could make a referral...
So who can make the application to the court?

stumo

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-03-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by AB1 on 19.11.13 0:10

@stumo wrote:
@AB1 wrote:From Wiki, re 'Death in Absentia':

In February - March 2013, a Presumption of Death Act was passed to simplify this process. The Act is currently due for publication.[3] The new act will allow an application to be made to the UK High Court to declare a person dead. This declaration is conclusive and cannot be appealed. It will be recorded on a new Register of Presumed Deaths, and will have the same effect as a registration of death. Death is taken to occur on (a) the last day that they could have been alive (if the court is satisfied that they are dead), or (b) the day seven years after the date they were last seen (if death is presumed by the elapse of time).
In England and Wales, if it is believed that there should be an inquest, the local coroner will file a report; this may be done to help a family receive a death certificate that will bring some closure. This will bring any suspicious circumstances into light. The coroner will then apply to the Secretary of State for Justice under the Coroners Act 1988 section 15, for an inquest with no body. The seven years rule will only apply in the High Court of Justice on the settlement of an estate. According to a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, the number of requests received each year is fewer than 10 but very few of these are refused. Without a body an inquest relies mostly on evidence provided by the police, and whether the senior officers believe the missing person is dead.

This will end the need for 7 years to have passed.
SY could make a referral...
So who can make the application to the court?

Summary of the Presumption of Death Bill 2008-09
This Bill would enable the High Court to make a ‘declaration of presumed death’ where a missing person is thought to have died, or has not been known to be alive for at least seven years. A Register of Presumed Deaths would be maintained by the Registrar General. Any person would be able to apply to the High Court for the making of a declaration. However, where the application was made by someone who is not a spouse, civil partner, or close relative of the missing person, the High Court would hear the application only if the applicant had a ‘sufficient interest’ in the making of the declaration.


So 'any person... with sufficient interest'.

Present system requires the applicant to bear costs, and haven't seen anything in this Bill which would change that.

Cannot see how the High Court would declare a presumption of death without referral to a (Leics) Coroner.
So, as an interested party, SY could go to the High Court or (more probable) make a direct referral to the Coroner, who would review the cirumstances.
Hard to envisage a Coroner refusing testimony regarding the 'intelligence' provided by Eddie and Keela...

AB1

Posts : 49
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by littlepixie on 07.01.14 0:31

.

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by mysterion on 14.01.14 17:42

Since MBM was made a WOC, has SY applied for her medical records, I wonder.

mysterion

Posts : 358
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by ultimaThule on 14.01.14 18:21

In a case of this magnitude it would be highly unlikely for SY not to access Madeleine's medical records together with those of any other family members that warrant interest.

NB Subsequently edited to add that the fact the child is a Ward of Court is irrelevant to this particular issue.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Newintown on 14.01.14 18:29

@mysterion wrote:Since MBM was made a WOC, has SY applied for her medical records, I wonder.

Not forgetting the McCanns' bank statements, credit card statements, mortgage payment statements etc since 3rd May 2007, if not, why not????

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Guest on 14.01.14 18:35


If SY can access them, would they be passed to the PJ whose request for access was denied previously ??

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by sallypelt on 14.01.14 18:48

@ufercoffy wrote:By John Hirst

http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/96/

Court 20 Before MRS JUSTICE HOGG Monday, 7 July, 2008 At 10:30 AM IN OPEN COURT FD07P01121 McCann Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN
Mr Tim Scott, Q.C., International Family Law Group, acting for Gerry and Kate McCann: Madeleine McCann is a ward of Court. She had her 5th birthday on 12 May 2008. Gerry and Kate are not here as they are on holiday with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Who could deserve a holiday more after a period more traumatic than any family should have to cope with.

Mrs Justice Hogg: I did not expect to see them.

Mr Tim Scott continues: As the world knows, Madeleine was abducted from an apartment at a resort in Praia Da Luz in Portugal on 03 May 2007. No one has ever been arrested or charged in connection with her abduction. Her whereabouts are completely unknown. There is no proof that she is alive, but there is not a scrap of evidence that she is not. After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could barely afford it, have given generously to that fund. Simultaneously a massive international police search was launched. Since the McCann family lives in Leicestershire, the Leicestershire Constabulary has been the lead force among UK law enforcement agencies. Gerry and Kate would like, through me, to acknowledge the enormous effort which has been devoted both by the Leicestershire Constabulary and by other law enforcement agencies to the search for Madeleine. They would also like to thank many individual officers for the kindness and concern which they have shown to the family throughout this terrible time. Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents’ wish that the proceedings should become adversarial. On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents’ solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine’s whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it. Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be resolved. This is that hearing. As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann’s objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy. It became clear that if today’s hearing proceeded on a fully contested basis a number of areas of law of great interest to lawyers would have had to be considered. However Gerry and Kate McCann are not lawyers and so far as they were concerned the legal proceedings were moving further and further from the only matter which concerns them: the search for Madeleine. The proceedings were in danger of becoming a distraction from rather than an aid to that single goal. Also there have been two recent developments which have greatly affected Gerry and Kate’s views on these proceedings. The first is that the Leicestershire Constabulary has now agreed to release an important, though limited, part of the information which they have been seeking; I shall come back to that. The second is that, as has been widely publicised, it is expected that Gerry and Kate’s status in Portugal as arguidos or suspects will be lifted soon. When that happens it is hoped and expected that a substantial further amount of information will be released. Since Gerry and Kate have always wanted to work with all law enforcement agencies on a cooperative basis, they decided to withdraw the application against the Leicestershire Constabulary. We therefore come to Court today to ask you to approve an Order which all parties consent to. The first part of the Order recites that the Chief Constable of Leicestershire has agreed to provide by today a document in accordance with Paragraph 50 of the Skeleton Argument which has been presented to the Court on his behalf. That Paragraph is at 34. It says that the Chief Constable is currently preparing a document which will provide the parents with the contact details of persons that have been forwarded to the investigation by the parents or those acting for them. This document will also contain a brief resume of the information that it is believed the person informed the parents or those acting for them that they wished to pass on to the investigation. I said earlier that this is an important but limited amount of the information which Gerry and Kate had hoped to obtain. I would like to explain why it is important. Although the Leicestershire Constabulary were quick to set up a major incident room and to provide a telephone number which anyone with information could call, there was a period of time before this became widely known. During that time Gerry and Kate’s solicitor, Ms Ann Thomas of The International Family Law Group, who sits in front of me, had already been retained. Her firm’s number was publicised and a large number of people called in. All of these callers were given the number which the Leicestershire Constabulary had set up for the purpose. The solicitors thought it right that the police should be receiving it. In fact with few exceptions the solicitors did not even retain any notes on what the callers were saying or even their contact details. So what the Chief Constable is now voluntarily providing is the contact details and a summary of the information provided by a substantial number of people who were among the first to try to help the investigation. It is because these were on the whole people who came forward to volunteer information in the period immediately after the abduction that it is likely that the information which they provided will be most helpful. So on that basis Gerry and Kate McCann are content to withdraw their application for any wider disclosure. Paragraph 4 of the Order provides that the documents in the case shall remain confidential to the Court. This of course is completely normal in wardship. An exception is made to enable the Chief Constable at his discretion to reveal the contents of his evidence and the legal arguments advanced on his behalf. The parents understand that the points of principle which have arisen are of wider interest to law enforcement agencies, and they would not want to restrict proper discussion of those matters which might have a beneficial purpose in future investigations. They are confident that the Chief Constable will exercise his discretion in a responsible way. The search for Madeleine continues. The fund which was established in May 2007 known as “Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned” remains closely involved in the search. It always has been and remains Gerry and Kate’s purpose to leave no stone unturned. This was why they asked for the assistance of this Court in the first place, and this is why, in the light of developing circumstances, they now withdraw their application. We hope that you will accept, and will feel able to say that they have behaved completely properly and responsibly at every stage.

Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire: We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine . We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned. There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law. The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don’t apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.

Representative of the Attorney General: The Attorney General intervened as Guardian of the public interest and has no further comment to make.

Mrs Justice Hogg: Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal. On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards. On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward. At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive. She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here. The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today. The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given. The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so. I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout. I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application. I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words: “The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court”. It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden. I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine. I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made. There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found. I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God. I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found. I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well. I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

- Transcript ends -
Notes (i) Colour Coding for Sources: International Family Law Group (re Tim Scott address)

http://www.iflg.uk.com/documents/7_july_08_address.pdf

International Family Law Group (re Justice Hogg judgement)

http://www.iflg.uk.com/documents/Judgement0708.pdf

Hat-Tip to the 3As forum


http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/96/

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Mirage on 14.01.14 19:41

Thank you for posting the WOC information sallypelt.

To be frank, I am incredulous at the audacity of this pair. The date of the application, 14 days after MM's disappearance is mind-boggling. To have the presence of mind to investigate such things as the Hague Convention, or to be capable of taking in such information, even if suggested to you by someone else, is beyond my comprehension. Every parent can guess the state of mind they would be in, the paralysing shock; the zombie state. And look - the first application made to the court is at distance too, from Portugal, adding to the stress of the enterprise.

Strip out the liberal references to leaving no stone unturned and what are you left with? Two parents who have not yet had their arguido status lifted, possible suspects in their own daughter's disappearance, who are going to extraordinary legal lengths to know the ins and outs of what information is held within the police investigation. It is simply jaw dropping.

This goes some way to explaining Uncle Brian Kennedy's prescient observation that the fund would be used mainly for legal costs. So how long had this WOC application been on the radar in reality? Sounds like a lot of preparation and thought went into strategies within days, nay hours if you count the two timelines, of MM's disappearance.

How chilling.

____________________
Kate McCann: "It's too 'ot. Give 'im a minute."

Mirage

Posts : 1665
Reputation : 382
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by tigger on 29.03.14 8:20

It's my personal conviction that it is more the Blair and Booth interference in the early days, with Brown standing in the wings to continue the good work.
So did the lawyers and Bell Pottinger report to nr 10? Were they then instructed to put in place a number of safety measures.?
Such as WoC. Such as reputation management experts?  Such as getting a Papal blessing asap?

To use a building term: the 'making good' of the enterprise McCann was done by experts in legal matters in the early days.
Some small cracks had to be filled, the walls made smooth but by July it was clear to all that  the foundations of TM were the real cause of  the trouble and no amount of  plastic filler would  make good.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by ultimaThule on 29.03.14 15:47

The McCanns instructed IFLG, another fledgling venture which only got off the ground after Madeleine's disappearance, to make application for Wardship, tigger, and I see no evidence of Blair/Booth or Brown involvement in those proceedings.

Having given the matter some thought, it seems to me probable that, despite KM's claim on p124 of her bewk that 'It was difficult to know what this company could do but we decided it would be worth meeting them to dicuss the possibilities'', the Wardship was a pre-emptive measure which had been discussed with 'the paralegal' based in Leicester whose offer of help came 'via a colleague of Gerry's' and that the purpose of said paralegal's visit to Luz in the company of a barrister was to take instruction from their new clients.

In order that there can be no confusion as to the present and future status of the Wardship, regardless of all/any other considerations, as the law stands Madeleine Beth McCann will remain a Ward of Court until such time as she attains her majority or the Wardship is discharged by the Court.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by tigger on 29.03.14 18:19

That would be this para-legal who, I believe was in London before this little interlude:

Mr Nicholls was instructed by the McCanns' solicitors, The International Family Law Group, who have sent their solicitor Richard Jones to Portugal to be with them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551645/McCann-family-to-launch-fighting-fund.html

Looking at the archives for the IFLG website, Richard jones is on the first archived instance (21 June 2007) but is no longer there on the next archived instance (22 Aug 2007). Also seems he was a lawyer in leicester:
Unquote (from the IFLG and PACT topic, Stevie's post)

Elsewhere I read that Rachel Oldfield recommended IFLG. Could be the same problem as the taking of the tennis photo where several explanations are given for no apparent reason.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by ultimaThule on 30.03.14 4:06

In the Telegraph article you've linked to, tigger, it's my belief that Mike Nicholls' 'specialisms' have pertinence here.  This particular QC can be found at 1 Hare Court which is the chambers of choice in all matters relating to family law and it would appear to be Nicholls who assured the bereft parents that their 'behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed well within the bounds of reasonable parenting", albeit that many would disagree with this opinion.

Being interested in how this fledgling firm of ambulance chasers came to brief a silk of the calibre of Nicholls, it occurs to me that I should revise my earlier opinion re Cherie Booth's non-involvement and put her in the frame for introducing the McCanns to her very good friend, Lady Catherine Meyer, who shares Cherie's belief that charity begins and ends in their at home. 

This thread has relevance here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2969-iflg-and-pact#69081 and, after giving the issues further thought, I intend to return to this page with what I believe may be a more realistic account of why application was made for Wardship than that given in KM's bewk.

In the meantime, from the previous page I re-iterate that, regardless of all/any other considerations, there should no be confusion as to the present and future status of the Wardship because as the law stands Madeleine Beth McCann will remain a Ward of Court until such time as she attains her majority or the Wardship is discharged by the Court.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Watching on 30.03.14 7:36



(note this is from Sept 2013)


Snipped
...   Is Madeleine McCann still a Ward of Court?
Does her Wardship still lie with Mrs Justice Hogg? 
And if so,  With regards the upcoming libel trial - Does Mrs Justice Hogg believe that the action taken against the now retired Portuguese Police Officer, Goncalo Amaral by the McCanns, Madeleine's parents is in the best interests of the child? 
Did the McCanns or do the McCanns have to consult with, gain permission from Mrs Justice Hogg (or whomever is the appointed person in relation to Madeleine being a Ward of Court at this time) before they can raise legal actions in the child’s name?

Does Mrs Justice Hogg approve of the monies donated by the public to aid whatever is the so called private search for Madeleine, to be used in this way?
Does she consider spending the child's money funding legal actions as being in Madeleine's best interest?

Where is the line drawn where the McCanns as Madeleine's parents make the decisions and Mrs Justice Hogg making decisions on Madeleine's behalf, Madeleine being her Ward?  More importantly, is anyone, anyone at all, truly acting in Madeleine's best interests?


If they are it is more than difficult to identify who those persons may be!

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
8th September 2013

Watching

Posts : 289
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by tigger on 30.03.14 7:58

So not until the 2nd of April 2008 was MBM officially a WoC.

On the 7th of July the McCanns ( who were not present at the hearing as iirc they were in Canada) were granted access to police files even though the arguido status had not yet been lifted.

Application for the above could not have taken place then before 2/4/08.
That date is interesting because the rogatory interviews were starting and the McCanns on that occasion found themselves urgently required to speak to the European parliament in Brussels to tell them something they already knew.

Is the long gap between the application for WoC (17th May  2007) of nearly a year significant?  What would be the usual timespan?  Surely a lot could happen to child in need of this protection whilst waiting for this status to be granted?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Post by Watching on 30.03.14 8:30

@tigger wrote:So not until the 2nd of April 2007 was MBM officially a WoC.

On the 7th of July the McCanns ( who were not present at the hearing as iirc they were in Canada) were granted access to police files even though the arguido status had not yet been lifted.

Application for the above could not have taken place then before 2/4/08.
That date is interesting because the rogatory interviews were starting and the McCanns on that occasion found themselves urgently required to speak to the European parliament in Brussels to tell them something they already knew.

Is the long gap between the application for WoC (17th May  2007) of nearly a year significant?  What would be the usual timespan?  Surely a lot could happen to child in need of this protection whilst waiting for this status to be granted?

Morning Tigger, Your opening line should read 2nd April 2008 - I think!

Cheers

Watching

Posts : 289
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum