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: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Page 11 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by ultimaThule on 23.02.15 4:30

http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/mccanns-vs-amaral-verdict-nearing.html

It seems only Len Port has reported that the McCanns' submitted the required documentation on 23rd January and, as his account appears to be based on information "according to a source close to the process", I find myself reaching for the salt cellar.  

As stated elsewhere, after a number of lengthy searches I've been unable to find any precedent for a minor alleged to have been abducted by stranger(s) being made a Ward of Court, nor have I been able to find any precedent for a Ward of Court to be made party to the type of legal action which has been ongoing in Lisbon for the past 7 years.  This doesn't necessarily mean that such precedents don't exist, but if they do I again ask others to provide the revelant case numbers.
.
Fwiw, any authorisation/direction from the High Court in respect of its Ward in this matter will be in the form of an Order, or Orders, dated prior to the commencement of the proceedings in Lisbon and, as any such Order(s) will have been served on both the McCanns and their solicitors at the time they were made, it shouldn't take more than a week or so to have the required document(s) translated and properly attested.

In any event the 30 day period granted to the McCanns elapsed on Friday of last week and, by my estimation, lawyers for all of the parties have until 2 March to submit their 'allegations of law' to the Court, after which the Judge will retire to consider her verdict.

ultimaThule

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by G-Unit on 23.02.15 8:38

Following an application by the McCanns lawyers on 17th May 2007, Judge Hogg made an order on 22nd May which required anyone having 'information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts' to disclose it to the McCann's solicitors. 


At some point this Order was served on Leicester Police, who refused to release the information they were holding. The McCann's lawyers sought a ruling from the Court on this matter on 2nd April 2008. Coincidentally, Madeleine McCann was made a Ward of Court on this date also, which could have been done to add weight to the request for information from the Police. 


I think the McCanns and their legal team surprised everyone by trying to use the Order to force the Police to disclose their files, and  the judge quickly changed the Order at the hearing on 7th April 2008 so it no longer applied to any UK law enforcement agencies.

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Guest on 23.02.15 11:50

@ultima Thule
I sent you a pm.
I'll send a second one.
Please read them.
Kindest regards.
parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Guest on 23.02.15 11:59

[quote="G-Unit"][size=13]Following an application by the McCanns lawyers on 17th May 2007, Judge Hogg made an order on 22nd May which required anyone having 'information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts' to disclose it to the McCann's solicitors. [/size]


[size=13]At some point this Order was served on Leicester Police, who refused to release the information they were holding. The McCann's lawyers sought a ruling from the Court on this matter on 2nd April 2008. Coincidentally, [b]Madeleine McCann was made a Ward of Court on this date also, which could have been done to add weight to the request for information from the Police. [/b][/size]


[size=13]I think the McCanns and their legal team surprised everyone by trying to use the Order to force the Police to disclose their files, and [/size] [size=13]the judge quickly changed the Order [/size][size=13]at the hearing on 7th April 2008 [/size][size=13]so it no longer applied to any UK law enforcement agencies[/size][size=13].[/size][/quote]

Hmm.
So already on May 17 2007 the MCCanns firmly suspected their daughter to have been abducted/harmed/... by somebody or more than one person WITHIN BRITISH JURISDICTION (instead of inside Portugal, where the Order would carry no weight whatsoever?

In fact, this suspicion was so firm, they judged it worthwhile to pay money to a law firm to take the matter to Court, and get that Order. 

Remember: the big money was not rolling in at that time yet (10 days after the facts), so it was their own money they had to spend. From which you may surmise, that their suspicions were very firm indeed, probably based on solid facts known to them.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by j.rob on 23.02.15 13:06

@Portia wrote:
@G-Unit wrote:Following an application by the McCanns lawyers on 17th May 2007, Judge Hogg made an order on 22nd May which required anyone having 'information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts' to disclose it to the McCann's solicitors. 


At some point this Order was served on Leicester Police, who refused to release the information they were holding. The McCann's lawyers sought a ruling from the Court on this matter on 2nd April 2008. Coincidentally, Madeleine McCann was made a Ward of Court on this date also, which could have been done to add weight to the request for information from the Police. 


I think the McCanns and their legal team surprised everyone by trying to use the Order to force the Police to disclose their files, and  the judge quickly changed the Order at the hearing on 7th April 2008 so it no longer applied to any UK law enforcement agencies.

Hmm.
So already on May 17 2007 the MCCanns firmly suspected their daughter to have been abducted/harmed/... by somebody or more than one person WITHIN BRITISH JURISDICTION (instead of inside Portugal, where the Order would carry no weight whatsoever?

In fact, this suspicion was so firm, they judged it worthwhile to pay money to a law firm to take the matter to Court, and get that Order. 

Remember: the big money was not rolling in at that time yet (10 days after the facts), so it was their own money they had to spend. From which you may surmise, that their suspicions were very firm indeed, probably based on solid facts known to them.


which required anyone having 'information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts' to disclose it to the McCann's solicitors.


 
I presume that the McCanns were desperate to cover their own backsides. And find out exactly what other people knew that might incriminate them.

I think this is why they took the (extreme?) measure of making Madeleine a ward of court. To force Leicester police to disclose information. It was nothing to do with 'finding Madeleine'. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think TM were desperate that Madeleine would NOT be found.

I think the McCanns and their legal team surprised everyone by trying to use the Order to force the Police to disclose their files, and  the judge quickly changed the Order at the hearing on 7th April 2008 so it no longer applied to any UK law enforcement agencies.


So the Judge saw through their rouse and made sure that it didn't apply to UK police. 

Hmm.
So already on May 17 2007 the MCCanns firmly suspected their daughter to have been abducted/harmed/... by somebody or more than one person WITHIN BRITISH JURISDICTION (instead of inside Portugal, where the Order would carry no weight whatsoever?



Indeed. Who would they know that, I wonder?  prisoner 

What about Pimple-man, Tractor-man, Swarthy Continental Tanner-man, Bundle-man, Ugly-man and the Big Bad Bogey-man?  window

Mere diversions, of course. All part of 'the script' to keep everyone's eye off the ball.

Remember: the big money was not rolling in at that time yet (10 days after the facts), so it was their own money they had to spend. From which you may surmise, that their suspicions were very firm indeed, probably based on solid facts known to them.



Indeed. When Gerry and Kate put their hands in their pockets you can guarantee it is not for babysitters or 'child care'. 

They had to pull out the heavy guns very early on. And they would only do that to cover their own backsides, imo.  fan

Something really bad had 'happened'. Now just was it, exactly? It sure as hell wasn't the big bad mystery bogey-man climbing in through the bedroom window.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by G-Unit on 23.02.15 15:21

On 13th May 2007  The International Family Law Group, specialists in child abduction and international family law announced that they were acting for the McCanns to help them in their search for Madeleine. This follows visits by the firm to Portugal to consult with the McCanns. I think they were involved with the setting up of the Fund as well as applying to the Family Court. Money was already there before the Fund was formally set up - £10,000 had already been donated.

It's possible that the Court's rulings could apply to Portugal if the UK had agreements in place (for custody matters for eg). There was some reference to the Hague Convention and the Child Abduction and Custody Act.

I think the powers that be were horrified that the Order made by the judge could be used to obtain information held by UK law enforcement agencies - think of the consequences with all and sundry reading information gathered during investigations! Hence the intervention of the Attorney General in the case. I myself think the judge was made aware pretty sharply that she should change the Order to exclude law enforcement agencies from having to comply with it. 
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

The McCanns were certainly very keen to see information held by the Leicestershire Police. You could assume that this was because they had no faith in either LP or the PJ and wanted the information in order to start their own investigation; they were critical of the Portugese investigation from 3rd May onwards, after all.

My own opinion is that they wished to see what, if any, evidence there was against them and/or their friends. In some cases the information they did get was used to contact witnesses; to the point of harassment in some cases. By July 2008 they were happy to accept LP's offer of some information because they knew that the Portugese investigation was close to being archived and that all their files would shortly be released.

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by XTC on 25.02.15 23:06

@Portia wrote:
@G-Unit wrote:Following an application by the McCanns lawyers on 17th May 2007, Judge Hogg made an order on 22nd May which required anyone having 'information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts' to disclose it to the McCann's solicitors. 


At some point this Order was served on Leicester Police, who refused to release the information they were holding. The McCann's lawyers sought a ruling from the Court on this matter on 2nd April 2008. Coincidentally, Madeleine McCann was made a Ward of Court on this date also, which could have been done to add weight to the request for information from the Police. 


I think the McCanns and their legal team surprised everyone by trying to use the Order to force the Police to disclose their files, and  the judge quickly changed the Order at the hearing on 7th April 2008 so it no longer applied to any UK law enforcement agencies.

Hmm.
So already on May 17 2007 the MCCanns firmly suspected their daughter to have been abducted/harmed/... by somebody or more than one person WITHIN BRITISH JURISDICTION (instead of inside Portugal, where the Order would carry no weight whatsoever?

In fact, this suspicion was so firm, they judged it worthwhile to pay money to a law firm to take the matter to Court, and get that Order. 

Remember: the big money was not rolling in at that time yet (10 days after the facts), so it was their own money they had to spend. From which you may surmise, that their suspicions were very firm indeed, probably based on solid facts known to them.
Portia

I think your fourth paragraph is very intresting:

Hmm.
So already on May 17 2007 the MCCanns firmly suspected their daughter to have been abducted/harmed/... by somebody or more than one person WITHIN BRITISH JURISDICTION (instead of inside Portugal, where the Order would carry no weight whatsoever?

As G-Unit says below the International Family Law Group's assistance is fascinating too.

An abductor/ or abductors who come within the scope of UK Law not Portuguese Law.

Despite my cynicism re : SY this may be an avenue worth exploring for them.

I'll tell you and others on this forum that when I first heard of the dis-appearance and how it unfolded I genuinely thought that it literally was what is termed ' an inside job' That is: only those close to the so called Tapas nine would know whether the Mccann children were unattended in 5a. Simple reasoning really, because for a group or single foreign -abductor to spend their time ( particularly -if Portuguese who don't understand the patois of the British ) awaiting their abduction opportunity ready to pounce from the environs of the Tapas Bar on an unsuspecting group of tourists it doesn't square with reality.

Neither does the SY burglar theory which is more of a straw clutcher than the broken shutter narrative. in my humble opinion.

If ( and it's a gigantic if ) Madeleine was abducted by a British person then there might be a miniscule percenatge of hope that the girl is alive still.

But back to reality. Eddie and other dogs trained in a similar manner are deemed to be very good at their jobs. More reality - no-one is credited with dying in 5a and no-one else is missing from PdL in a mysterious manner never to be seen again.

The ' inside job' scenario does give me a slight bit of hope that Madeleine may be alive - but the dogs negate that I'm afraid.

But as yourself and G-Unit say the speed of the move to make Madeleine  a WOC ( only 14 days later ) is an indication to intention of future plans . It is not a reaction to events ( too early) which infers that some kind of plan was in place very eraly.

It will be fascinating to find out how Lady Justice Hogg's status will be viewed by the Portuguese Judge.

It will be even more fascinating as to how a person who is missing can make a claim for damages against some one who was initially involved i in the search for the claimant and allegedly failed to find her being as he was removed by his superiors.

Surely they are claiming against the wrong person here?

Try Rebeiro and the AG's. They and the claimants themselves prevented the investigation from progressing further.

A letter and a stamp was all that was required even after the arch rival was dismissed to keep the investigtion open.

The letter complete with stamp  never arrived.

SY will not find anything to add to the file.

We shall see as always.

Just opinion though.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by G-Unit on 26.02.15 6:09

The IFLG work internationally, usually on parental child abduction cases (custody battles for eg). There are laws on stranger abduction which would perhaps apply in Madeleine's case though. Maybe the disclosure order was also served on the PJ via an international agreement of some kind?

Abduction is an extraditable offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984, so if say, a British ex-pat was  found to be involved..................

I assume that the IFLG were working on the abduction theory so I think they were getting all the legal bits in place to deal with all eventualities. The McCanns were critical of the Portugese investigation almost immediately, so IFLG and the Judge didn't find it at all strange that they wanted to have access to the Police files in order to conduct their own private investigation. 

Some info about what IFLG do here;
http://www.reunite.org/edit/files/Conference%20papers%202011/Anne-Marie%20Hutchinson%20OBE.pdf

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by ultimaThule on 26.02.15 10:43

The somewhat grandly named 'International Family Law Group' came into being in April 2007, a matter of weeks before the McCanns utilised their services, http://www.iflg.uk.com/history-of-iflg and that organisation should not be confused with the long-standing firm of Dawson Cornwell,  nor should it be associated with the work of one of its partners, Anne-Marie Hutchinson, who received an OBE in 2002 for her services to international child abduction, G-Unit http://www.dawsoncornwell.com/en/about_amh.html

As your link makes clear, "where a child is missing the court can order various third parties to disclose information ie (from) banks, benefit agencies, travel agents, airlines, and telephone companies to assist in location".

Any such orders are not intended to be served on police/law enforcement agencies and the McCanns had to rapidly backpedal after their audacious attempt to prise information out of Leceistershire's Regional Police Authority attracted the attention of the Attorney General and certain security agencies.

With regard to what constitutes an 'extraditable offence', under the terms of the Extradition Act 2003 which came into force 1 Jan 2005 two requirements must be met:
1. the alleged conduct constitutes a crime in the requesting country and the UK (ie there must be “dual criminality”)
2. the crime in each country carries a potential prison sentence of at least 12 months.

However, unlike many other countries which seek to extradite its citizens for comparatively minor felonies, the UK will only seek extradition in respect of the offences shown here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmquad/419/41920.htm and, as can be seen, child abduction/kidnapping are not on the list.

Imo there were distinct advantages to be gained in making Madeleine a Ward of Court but none of them have to do with Portia's theory.

ultimaThule

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by G-Unit on 26.02.15 12:44

Thanks for the clarification Ultima Thule. It's difficult to get the correct information I find, especially as stranger abduction is not the norm, family abduction is the usual scenario. 

It was audacious of the McCann's legal team to try to force UK Law enforcement agencies to open their files IMO. I wonder if the Judge was aware that this was going to be happening when she made the disclosure order?

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by HelenMeg on 02.03.15 11:14

Hoping for some sort of judgement soon -  surely has to be within the next couple of weeks.... clapping

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Guest on 02.03.15 12:56

Isn't it today the closing legal argumentation from all sides must be made over to the Court in Lisbon?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 11 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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