Re: McCanns and the ECHR

by lion77 16.05.20 19:52

Jill Havern wrote:Answer the question.

I don't give in to threats. I'm quite happy to answer any question but not if you hav already made the decision to ban me

by **Jill Havern** 16.05.20 19:58

75 posts on various threads of your nonsense and drivel is more than enough.

Away with you.

by Guest 17.05.20 6:28

lion77 wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:Answer the question.
I don't give in to threats. I'm quite happy to answer any question but not if you hav already made the decision to ban me

You don't answer questions though.
You also ignore answers and plough on regardless.

by **PeterMac** 17.05.20 10:47

This is becoming almost as bizarre at Pam G's stuff in the comments section of the Sun articles.
Most recently she tried to argue that the photo showing the blue tennis bag in the wardrobe was not included in the PJ's files, and that therefore it was not a 'real' photo, but must have been tampered with . . .
2 minutes with a decent search engine would have taken her to the photo in question and the expanded version immediately under it on the same page as the 48 questions which KM refused to answer.
But she also denies that happened, so she is at least consistent.
[10VOLUME_Xa_PAGE_2562, and 2563 since you ask]

This constant repetition of "LIBEL" which it never was, (and incidentally TB's case wasn't either, despite what the Tabloids urge people to believe) is surely evidence of a less than full understanding of what has been developing over the past decade.

by Portia 04.06.20 12:22

Hello Jill,

Absent for some time now, but alerted by Dutch broadsheet de Telegraaf of some anonymous incarcerated German now being seen as the main suspect in the Mc Cann case today, June 4th 2020.

Can you tell me how the McCanns fared with their case before the ECHR? Did they go that route, and what came of it?

Thank you

by **Jill Havern** 04.06.20 12:28

Portia wrote:Hello Jill,

Absent for some time now, but alerted by Dutch broadsheet de Telegraaf of some anonymous incarcerated German now being seen as the main suspect in the Mc Cann case today, June 4th 2020.

Can you tell me how the McCanns fared with their case before the ECHR? Did they go that route, and what came of it?

Thank you

Hiya Portia, good to see you back.

No update on the ECHR case as yet.

by joyce1938 04.06.20 16:16

Have decided to come back ,been a bit more lazy ,but kept up with some things on the other side hope i shall learn more but ofcourse i have been on line using both parties .Have my poor husband in care home now ,very sad.joyce1938.

by Portia 05.06.20 11:35

Jill Havern wrote:
Portia wrote:Hello Jill,

Absent for some time now, but alerted by Dutch broadsheet de Telegraaf of some anonymous incarcerated German now being seen as the main suspect in the Mc Cann case today, June 4th 2020.

Can you tell me how the McCanns fared with their case before the ECHR? Did they go that route, and what came of it?

Thank you
Hiya Portia, good to see you back.

No update on the ECHR case as yet.

Hello Jill,

Just checked the current ECHR public registers of pending cases, since 2016 under names for applicants Healy and McCann.
No mention of them.
Did they address the ECHR at all, I wonder.

by **Jill Havern** 05.06.20 12:09

Did you check the case number Portia? 57195/17

by **PeterMac** 05.06.20 15:30

2 minutes ago.

by Doug D 05.06.20 16:53

No sign of this from UK on either the ECHR main or HUDOC sites.

I wonder if it's blocked to UK users?

by Guest 05.06.20 17:36

PeterMac wrote:2 minutes ago.

2017?

More proof of EU inefficiency.

That is ridiculous.... are they munching chips and mayo sandwiches?

by Ladyinred 05.06.20 17:51

DougD posted upthread that 2022 is likely date of judgement.

isn't ECHR independent of EU?

by **Verdi** 05.06.20 21:23

Ladyinred wrote:DougD posted upthread that 2022 is likely date of judgement.

isn't ECHR independent of EU?

Yes, totally independent.

by **PeterMac** 05.06.20 21:48

It may not get as far as judgment.

It FIRST has to get past the filter system to establish whether is it is an arguable case at all.
THEN to establish whether it is already covered by other EHCR judgments, as being so similar in legal terms as to be covered by them.
THEN it has to be established whether the points being argued are within the jurisdiction of the Court itself. In other words whether this is truly a reasonable analysis of the wording and the subsequent effects of the Portuguese Constitution, OR whether this is simply a couple of people who don't like and can't accept the decision that was made.
THEN they may look at the actual points of the argument

So far as the ECHR is concerned, the Factual legal matter was concluded in the Supreme Court of Portugal some little time ago.

All that remains is an overview of the Human Rights issues raised by the exact wording of the Portuguese Constitution,
and whether the McCann case should be sufficient to cause the Nation to amend it immediately.

As somebody said some time ago – Good luck there !

by **Verdi** 05.06.20 22:08

Let's forget this ridiculous attempt by the McCanns to take Portugal to the ECHR. It will never happen, they haven't a leg to stand on

After today's Daily Mail abomination, it's past time Portugal took the UK to the ECHR.

How bloody dare they angry

! I am so angry - even more so that some people appear to believe.

I give up!

spam

I'm in need of another session of social distancing.

by Guest 06.06.20 7:26

Verdi wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:DougD posted upthread that 2022 is likely date of judgement.

isn't ECHR independent of EU?
Yes, totally independent.

Damn... I bet they munch frogs leg sandwiches.

by **Jill Havern** 17.03.21 8:09

PeterMac sent me this earlier:

The window has just been updated.
There is movement.
This is dated as happening in January, but I check this every couple of days and it is new

http://app.echr.coe.int/SOP/index.aspx?lg=en
And then enter 57195/17

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Applicants_communication_ENG.pdf
Information to applicants:
Proceedings after communication of an application (single phase)
1. Notification of an application to the respondent Government: Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of your application, the Court has decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of its Rules, that notice of the application should be given to the Government and that it should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the whole case or of one or more of the complaints you have raised.
If a partial decision has been adopted, declaring the remainder of the application inadmissible, the examination of this/these complaint(s) is thereby terminated and you should not file any further submissions on this part of the application.

So Portugal has merely been invited to submit written observations on Admissibility and Merits. I can imagine what they will say!

But the good news is that it has moved out of the pending tray
P

by Doug D 17.03.21 15:14

Some time after the 14^th January this screen changed to this from the one just showing the application dated August 2017:

so we are now the ‘two months’ mentioned in the last sentence. No idea of the reasoning behind this as the full communicated case (in French) has been up the whole time since then.

The translated case is on the thread at:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17030-bitter-blow-madeleine-mccanns-parents-12-year-fight-to-silence-ex-cop-who-claims-their-daughter-is-dead-suffers-setback#432640

Not sure where I got it from as I can’t find anything at the moment, but I had a feeling that Portugal had twelve weeks to respond.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.21 22:17

This is pretty bad news for the McCanns.

It is normally dead easy for applicants to pass the three main tests as to whether an application is admissible or not, viz.

1. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies? (which basically means: have they taken their case to the highest court in the land? (in this case, Portugal))

2. Has the applicant brought her/his case to the ECHR within 6 months of their final appeal in the courts (of Portugal)?

3. Does the application fall within one or more of the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights?

If they can't easily meet these three simple tests without the Portuguese government being invited to comment, it looks like further progress for them may be hanging only by a thread

by sar 17.03.21 23:26

Tony Bennett wrote:This is pretty bad news for the McCanns.

It is normally dead easy for applicants to pass the three main tests as to whether an application is admissible or not, viz.

1. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies? (which basically means: have they taken their case to the highest court in the land? (in this case, Portugal))

2. Has the applicant brought her/his case to the ECHR within 6 months of their final appeal in the courts (of Portugal)?

3. Does the application fall within one or more of the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights?

If they can't easily meet these three simple tests without the Portuguese government being invited to comment, it looks like further progress for them may be hanging only by a thread

....a good day to bury bad news

by **PeterMac** 22.03.21 11:41

AN UPDATE.
In their case presented to the ECHR in 2017 the McCanns (& Healy) sought to rely on two main legal precedents.
Axel Springer v Germany, and Larrañaga Arando and others v. Spain.
The latter case had not been decided at that point, (so in legal terms is was NOT a precedent).

And so it has turned out. Larrañaga Arando et autres c. Espagne was declared Inadmissible in Jun 2019.

The facts in Larrañaga are beyond belief. Relatives of ETA terrorists were seeking compensation for their deaths at the hands of other terrorist groups. Not surprisingly it was chucked out, but not before lawyers had no doubt added to their own pension funds.

The facts in Axel Springer are curiously relevant to the McCann's case - but not in the direction they would want us to believe. Axel Springer, a German publishing company was sued for breach of an injunction preventing publication of the details of an arrest at the Munich Beer festival for possession of cocaine of a TV star. They paid the €1000, and then a further €5000 when they continued to publish the story.

The ECHR held; [forgive me for pasting the lot, because it is important]
firstly, that the published articles concerned the arrest and conviction of an actor, that is public judicial facts that could be considered to present a degree of general interest. Second, the actor was sufficiently well known to qualify as a public figure and, even though the nature of the offence was such that it would probably not have been reported on had it been committed by an ordinary individual, the fact that the actor had been arrested in public and had actively sought the limelight by revealing details about his private life in a number of interviews meant that his legitimate expectation that his private life would be effectively protected was reduced. As regards the third criterion – how the information was obtained and whether it was reliable – the first article about the actor’s arrest had a sufficient factual basis as it was based on information provided by the public prosecutor’s office and the truth of the information related in both articles was not in dispute between the parties. The applicant company had not acted in bad faith: not only had it received confirmation of the information from the prosecuting authorities, there was nothing to suggest that it had not undertaken a balancing exercise between its interest in publishing and the actor’s right to respect for his private life before concluding, in the light of all the circumstances, that it did not have sufficiently strong grounds for believing it should preserve the actor’s anonymity. As to the content, form and consequences of the publications, the articles had not revealed details about the actor’s private life, but had mainly concerned the circumstances of his arrest and the outcome of the criminal proceedings. There had been no disparaging comments or unsubstantiated allegations. The applicant company had not challenged a court injunction prohibiting it from publishing photographs and it had not been shown that the publication of the articles had resulted in serious consequences for the actor. As regards the final criterion, while the sanctions imposed on the applicant company were lenient, they had nevertheless been capable of having a chilling effect and were not justified in the light of the factors referred to above. Accordingly, the restrictions imposed on the company had not been reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the actor’s private life.

Article 41: EUR 17,734.28 in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to penalties and costs incurred in the domestic proceedings less the two penalty payments of EUR 5,000.

In my humble opinion there are some strong parallels there with McCann & Healy v Amaral which we recall the McCanns LOST in the Appeal and then the Supreme Court. The same court which said at the time it had considered precedents from the ECHR.

Even more odd are the other two cases apparently relied on by the McCanns.
In von Hannover there was found to be NO violation of s8. when details of Prince Rainier of Monaco's final illness were published
In Bédat v Switzerland the journalist was penalised for publishing details of an incident under active investigation. The ECHR held: that there was NO violation of his rights under s.10 because the penalty (suspended sentence replaced by fine) had been " imposed for breaching the secrecy of a criminal investigation and its purpose, in the instant case, was to protect the proper functioning of the justice system and the rights of the accused to a fair trial and respect for his private life."

In other words, as the world knows, you are not allowed to publish details of an ACTIVE case.
How this affects the McCanns whose case has been shelved since 2008 is not entirely clear.

Is this their second Wisconsin v Zapata moment ?

REFS:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22\%22MCCANN%20ET%20HEALY%20c.%20PORTUGAL\%22%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-207898%22]}

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-12570%22]}

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-106%22]}
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-98%22]}

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-11094%22]}

by **PeterMac** 22.03.21 12:50

PART 2:
And the last case they reply on for their claim relates to the Presumption of Innocence, under Article 6§2
They cite Allen v. the United Kingdom, but again it seems a strange one to choose.

The appellant had been convicted of manslaughter of her baby son by shaking. The Appeal Court quashed the conviction on the grounds that it was 'unsafe', in that new evidence might have affected the jury's decision. The Crown did not ask for a re-trial.

She lodged a claim for compensation arguing there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal refused, on the grounds "that the acquittal decision did “not begin to carry the implication” that there was no case for her to answer, so that the test for a “miscarriage of justice” had not been made out.

In her application to the European Court, the applicant alleged that the reasons given in the decision not to award her compensation had violated her right to be presumed innocent.

HELD: the Court noted that the applicant’s acquittal was not an acquittal “on the merits” in a true sense. Although formally an acquittal, the termination of the criminal proceedings in her case shared more of the features present in a case in which criminal proceedings had been discontinued.
No violation of Article 6

Again, strange parallels with the McCann case, but in the wrong direction.
"the termination of the criminal proceedings in her case shared more of the features present in a case in which criminal proceedings had been discontinued" – is almost word for word what the Portuguese Supreme Court added to its judgment when they made the observation about the "shelving' of the case in Portugal.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-7633%22]}

by Silentscope 22.03.21 13:25

I have always believed that McCanns legal defence strategy has its origins in the Scottish mind and to be found only in Scottish Law books.

‘Not proven’ is their hope.

A verdict between ‘Guilty’ and ‘not Guilty’.

Not to be found in use outside of Scottish Law anywhere else in the world as far as I am aware. ‘There is no proof’ should always be read as ‘there were indications, but not enough evidence’. IMHO.

by Silentscope 22.03.21 14:07

Jurors' claims that an accused person can be retried following a not proven verdict were not always clearly incorrect, given the possibility of retrial under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011. ... "Not proven means that you could still be brought back to trial again. Not guilty means you can't."