McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

by Mirage 18.02.17 12:35

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237066/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-fight-court-ruling.html

Missing Madeleine McCann's parents are reportedly fighting a Portuguese court decision to side with former police chief Goncalo Amaral over his hurtful claims about her disappearance.

The country's Supreme Court last month rejected their last-ditch appeal over his 2008 book The Truth of the Lie in which he alleged Maddie died in their holiday flat and they faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy.

Judges backed a lower court's April 2016 decision to reverse their 2015 libel win against the ex-detective, leaving them facing a huge legal bill and the nightmare prospect of being sued by Amaral.

And they also challenged Gerry and Kate's insistence they had nothing to with their daughter's disappearance in a devastating put-down which is said to have sparked their fresh legal challenge.

Best-selling Portuguese daily Correio da Manha said the couple were seeking to get the Supreme Court decision invalidated after launching a formal complaint against the judges' findings.

It was known they had 10 days to file an objection with court officials.

It is thought the McCanns' reported attempt to nullify the decision is based on comments made by the judges in their 76-page ruling that the 2008 shelving of the Portuguese probe into their daughter's disappearance 'was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the crimes by the appellants.'

The McCanns had their status as 'arguidos' or official suspects lifted on the same day - July 21 2008 - just three days before Amaral published his controversial book.

Correio da Manha reported today: 'The McCanns have requested the annulment of the Supreme Court decision, terming it frivolous for saying it 'had not been possible for public prosecutors to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants.'

The newspaper said the McCanns had described the ruling as 'leviano' in the complaint lodged through their Portuguese lawyer - which in English translates as 'frivolous' but can also mean 'sloppy' or 'rash'.

by Doug D 18.02.17 12:37

Google translate of the CM Jornal article:

Maddie's parents accuse the Supreme Court
Kate and Gerry are asking for a nullity of judgment.

The McCann couple, Maddie's parents, the English girl missing in the Algarve in 2007, called for the nullity of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, classifying it as mild "because it was not possible for the Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by recurrent".

The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Relation to revoke the payment of a compensation of 500 thousand euros by the ex-inspector of PJ Gonçalo Amaral.

http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pais-de-maddie-acusam-o-supremo?ref=HP_Outros

by MayMuse 18.02.17 13:19

Doug D wrote:Google translate of the CM Jornal article:

Maddie's parents accuse the Supreme Court
Kate and Gerry are asking for a nullity of judgment.

The McCann couple, Maddie's parents, the English girl missing in the Algarve in 2007, called for the nullity of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, classifying it as mild "because it was not possible for the Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by recurrent".

The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Relation to revoke the payment of a compensation of 500 thousand euros by the ex-inspector of PJ Gonçalo Amaral.

http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pais-de-maddie-acusam-o-supremo?ref=HP_Outros

So yesterday the KM and GM banned their lawyer Duarte from speaking out about the case and today we learn that they are asking for an annulment?

When will the McCanns stop this merry go round, they always think they are above the law.

This is not about Madeleine, this is about them getting their own way in my opinion.

by Verdi 18.02.17 15:38

Correio da Manha reported today: 'The McCanns have requested the annulment of the Supreme Court decision, terming it frivolous for saying it 'had not been possible for public prosecutors to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants.'

The newspaper said the McCanns had described the ruling as 'leviano' in the complaint lodged through their Portuguese lawyer - which in English translates as 'frivolous' but can also mean 'sloppy' or 'rash'.
----------

bravo

For once I totally agree with McCann Inc. It was indeed frivolous of the Supreme Court to conclude that "it had not been possible for public prosecutors to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants".

Why? Because the British heavies stepped in very early in the investigation, err.. think it was around Friday 4th May 2007.. crushed the scene with their hefty jack boots and managed to fluff and/or lose vital evidence in UK forensic laboratories.

Tis no wonder high5

.

by RosieandSam 18.02.17 16:26

Hysteria mounts as McCann parents revealed to be “fighting” defeat in Portugal’s Supreme Court

McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017) Screenshot_2017-02-18_12.05.20

Rising hysteria following the crushing defeat suffered by the parents of Madeleine McCann in the Supreme Court last month has been ratcheted up even further this weekend with news that the couple are now on the attack.

According to a report in today’s Correio da Manhã, the couple consider the court has been “frivolous” in upholding last year’s decision, on appeal, to free former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral from paying any damages for his thesis on their daughter’s disappearance: the best-selling book “Maddie: The Truth of the Lie”.

The basis of the so-called frivolity, says CM, is the reference the panel of judges made to the couple not having been considered “innocent” in the affair (click here).

The particular clause under attack is the one referring to the Public Ministry’s decision to drop the McCann’s ‘arguido’ (official suspect) status on the basis it had not been able to “obtain sufficient proof of the practice of crimes”, claims the paper.

But huge question marks remain over which body the McCanns are actually complaining to, and how an annulment of a decision from the highest court in the land could be obtained.

For the time being, CM’s story is just a small paragraph in the “latest news” stories on its Saturday back page.
In the UK, the Daily Mail has picked it up, without adding anything new.

Stretching the story out to nine paragraphs, the top-selling tabloid addresses a lot of its ‘gaps’: the “huge legal bill” that the couple will be facing now that Amaral does not have to pay them the €500,000 set by an earlier court, the “nightmare prospect of being sued by Amaral” for damages he has suffered over the eight years of litigation, and of course, the “devastating put down” said to have sparked this “fresh challenge”: that they had a hand in the affair - something they have always denied.

If this was the only story to have followed the Supreme Court’s decision, it could be argued that this was ‘the next logical step’. But stories have been hitting the UK media almost daily since January 31 (when the judges’ decision was first published) - and Correio da Manhã has had its moments, too, where it claimed the McCanns have been making ‘thousands of euros’ by “selling their pain” in the form of media interviews.

Added to the latest media circus comes a new policy by UK tabloids to seemingly allow all readers’ comments, without screening.

Bystanders have been astounded by the venom unleashed online, with the Sun particularly allowing the kind of commentary that in the past it condemned as coming from ‘vile trolls’.

“Suddenly, anything goes”, a UK media source told us.

Even more bizarre have been stories alluding to the McCann’s having ‘banned’ their Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte from talking to the press (another account from the Daily Mail/ Tracey Kandohla, a reporter who writes about the Madeleine mystery for the Sun and the Mirror and is believed to be a friend of Kate McCann).

Kandohla explains that Duarte had been “carefully considering reaction” on behalf of the couple, since the Supreme Court put down, but has now been warned by the couple: “Don’t say anything!”

This has thrown up the contents of a BBC Panorama programme, screened years ago, when Duarte told reporter Richard Bilton that she felt “alone” and that many of her friends refused to talk to her about the case, as “everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=979aGU6Ezkk).

Considering this is a story previously protected by top-flight lawyers - who have used the threat of legal action to silence dissenting voices - and further shielded by a high-profile press spokesman, publicity since the Supreme Court ruling appears to have gone haywire.

natasha.donn@algarveresident.com

http://portugalresident.com/hysteria-mounts-as-mccann-parents-revealed-to-be-%E2%80%9Cfighting%E2%80%9D-defeat-in-portugal%E2%80%99s-supreme-court

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.17 16:55

According to the Mirror she has done it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-lodge-complaint-9843695

McCann's lodge complaint against court which said they weren't 'in the clear'
www.mirror.co.uk
Judges from the Portuguese Supreme Court also ruled against the couple in a legal battle with a police officer who led the hunt for their daughter

But he fought the case and Portugal’s Supreme Court sided with him.
However, it has emerged today that the couple have lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court.
When asked if she had lodged a formal complaint against the Supreme Court ruling, the McCann's Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte confirmed today: “We delivered it.”

by Mirage 18.02.17 17:11

Get'emGonçalo wrote:According to the Mirror she has done it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-lodge-complaint-9843695
McCann's lodge complaint against court which said they weren't 'in the clear'
www.mirror.co.uk
Judges from the Portuguese Supreme Court also ruled against the couple in a legal battle with a police officer who led the hunt for their daughter
But he fought the case and Portugal’s Supreme Court sided with him.
However, it has emerged today that the couple have lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court.
When asked if she had lodged a formal complaint against the Supreme Court ruling, the The McCann's Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte confirmed today: “We delivered it.”

"We delivered it."

Sounds like distancing. Hobs? "We"? Also the "it".
Perhaps not surprising when she's been told not to speak.

I also wonder if there is not a degree of embarrassment for her delivering a complaint to the Supreme Court after a long-considered judgement being described as "frivolous".

A reluctant messenger by the sound of that terse statement.

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.17 17:18

Maybe they'll get Carter-Ruck to sue the Judges next...

by Liz Eagles 18.02.17 17:26

Oh, Portuguese Law in a civil procedure which has been taken to a Supreme Court ruling is now open to further nit-picking. Welcome to the UK we're masters of nit-picking on points of law (as long as you have an endless amount of money at your disposal).

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.17 17:38

aquila wrote:Oh, Portuguese Law in a civil procedure which has been taken to a Supreme Court ruling is now open to further nit-picking. Welcome to the UK we're masters of nit-picking on points of law (as long as you have an endless amount of money at your disposal).

Which they keep telling the papers they haven't got.

by Liz Eagles 18.02.17 17:45

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
aquila wrote:Oh, Portuguese Law in a civil procedure which has been taken to a Supreme Court ruling is now open to further nit-picking. Welcome to the UK we're masters of nit-picking on points of law (as long as you have an endless amount of money at your disposal).
Which they keep telling the papers they haven't got.

Absolutely.

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.17 17:51

aquila wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
aquila wrote:Oh, Portuguese Law in a civil procedure which has been taken to a Supreme Court ruling is now open to further nit-picking. Welcome to the UK we're masters of nit-picking on points of law (as long as you have an endless amount of money at your disposal).
Which they keep telling the papers they haven't got.
Absolutely.

But they do have Smethurst and Kennedy in the background with all their millions whilst they carry on appealing for public donations to pay their mortgage and pay for the extension on their house.

Oh, and Waitrose strawberries.

Not Tescos anymore...oh dear me, no.

Concealing the corpse of a child helps you go up the grocery ladder.

by Guest 18.02.17 17:56

It's OK.

They will lose face yet again.

by JohnyT 18.02.17 18:21

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
aquila wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
aquila wrote:Oh, Portuguese Law in a civil procedure which has been taken to a Supreme Court ruling is now open to further nit-picking. Welcome to the UK we're masters of nit-picking on points of law (as long as you have an endless amount of money at your disposal).
Which they keep telling the papers they haven't got.
Absolutely.

But they do have Smethurst and Kennedy in the background with all their millions whilst they carry on appealing for public donations to pay their mortgage and pay for the extension on their house.

Oh, and Waitrose strawberries.

Not Tescos anymore...oh dear me, no.

Concealing the corpse of a child helps you go up the grocery ladder.

@Get'emGonçalo ...very surprised at you making that last sentence and to be honest I don't think it was a nice thing to say.
JohnyT

by coati mundi 18.02.17 18:51

Hi All,

I haven't posted in quite a while, but have followed the forum regularly and am always ready to regale anyone who will listen with the facts I have learned from this and other web sources. Thanks to all the people on this forum who have researched this extraordinary case and in part helped to get things to the very interesting juncture they are now at,

My main point, though, is about the Mcs supposed complaint about the Portuguese Supreme Court's judgement, in particular it's declaration that the PJ investigation had not cleared them. You need to ask with whom will they lodge the complaint?

I know very little about the Portuguese legal system, but I did at one time work in the UK legal system and have studied Law, so there are certain things I can say about the Mcs insistence that they will lodge a complaint (if it is true that they said that, and it is not just more media spin.

You cannot appeal to a court against its own decision, The court itself will not go back on its own decision, and indeed has no mechanism to do so, This will be true of almost all European justice systems, based as they all are on the same basic principles of jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court is precisely that -Supreme: there is no higher court, There is no body with which the Mcs could lodge a complaint, I know that the European Court has been mentioned, but good luck with that K and G, You need Leave to Appeal from the country in which the judgement has been made. Like I say - good luck with that!

Sorry for being so long-windedby, but there has been so much nonsense put forward by the McCann side since the judgement that it needs countering. They are clutching at straws, as the wind gathers force.

by nglfi 18.02.17 19:02

I don't understand what any complaint would be based on? It is a fact that their status as arguido was lifted due to insufficient evidence. Don't they understand that these are undisputable facts? Or do they think it's 'mean' and 'not cricket' to mention it?

by sallypelt 18.02.17 19:09

This refers to the UK, but on reading it, it explains why the McCanns are appealing. According to this information, it doesn't cost a great deal, and if there is a possibility that a decision could make them bankrupt, then they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by lodging an appeal:

The Supreme Court is the final appeal court in the United Kingdom: it is not possible to appeal further. However in some cases involving fundamental human rights it is possible, after exhausting all avenues of complaint in the United Kingdom, to make a complaint direct to the European Court of Human Rights. This is not strictly an appeal but, because the ECHR can award compensation, in many cases the practical consequences of winning at the ECHR are similar to having won an appeal in the UK.

The above is only a general introduction and there are probably exceptions to most of what is stated above. In some rare cases, such as decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, no appeal is possible (though a complaint to the ECHR might be possible).
Some statutes give a right of "appeal" against certain decisions of government bodies. Depending on the statute this might be a right to appeal on a point of law only (such as an appeal against the decision on the Secretary of State on an planning enforcement appeal) or it might be a full right to appeal on law and fact (such as an appeal against an assessment to tax by H M Revenue and Customs). In the latter case although called an "appeal" the court or tribunal hearing the appeal is the first judicial body to hear the matter and so often this "appeal" is more like a trial than an appeal.

Consulting a barrister on whether to appeal

If you have won your case and the other side is appealing, you have no choice but to respond. If you have lost and are considering appealing, you should immediately seek advice from a barrister, as you need to decide, within a limited time frame, whether to appeal or not. If your chances of success in the appeal are low, then you need to know that and not incur further costs (unless, of course, the judgment you are considering appealing against is so damaging to you - e.g. would make you bankrupt - that you have in effect nothing to lose by appealing) but if there are good chances of success then you need to know that well before the deadline for appealing expires.
If you were represented by a barrister in the lower court/tribunal, that barrister would normally be the barrister to advise you whether you have grounds to appeal, and on the chances of success, because they will be familiar with the details of the case. If you prefer to instruct another barrister to advise you, you can, but (1) the new barrister’s fee to advise you will inevitably be higher because they will need to read all the papers to become familiar with the case (2) the time limit for appealing is generally very short so you need to contact your chosen barrister straight away – preferably within 48 hours of the decision you are considering appealing against – and you need to get all the available papers to that new barrister promptly.
In some cases tribunals and courts notify the parties of their decision, with full reasons, in writing by post. Sometimes the parties are simply notified of the the basic decision and have to write to the tribunal if written reasons are sought (which are then sent out by the tribunal, provided they have been requested within a time limit). Sometimes a judge will simply give his judgment in court. There may be an audio recording but in some courts the onus is on any party considering an appeal to arrange and pay for the audio recording of the judgment to be transcribed (using a court-authorised transcription company). It is important to appreciate that the time limit for lodging an appeal varies between different courts and tribunals and can depend party on the type of case or type of decision. In some cases the time for appealing may only be 21 days or less. In other cases it may be up to 42 days or more. It is also important to understand that when the time period (21 days or 42 days or whatever it is) starts to run also depends on the type of court or tribunal and/or type of case or type of decision. Sometimes time starts to run when you receive written reasons for the decision, but sometimes time starts to run when you are first notified of the decision - e.g. by it being announced by the judge in court - even before you have written reasons. Indeed it is quite possible that in some cases you will not receive written reasons until after the time for appealing has expired. In such cases parties wishing to appeal are expected to lodge an appeal within the relevant time limit based on notes of what the judge said when he announced his decision. The appeal court will not actually hear the appeal until the written reasons are available but the "grounds of appeal", which have to be drafted when the appeal is lodged, may have to be based purely on notes of what the judge said if a transcript is not by then available. The important thing in all cases is to do your best to get all the papers that you can, as quickly as you can, but not to delay contacting your chosen barrister for advice. You should contact your chosen barrister without delay will all papers which are available even if you are waiting for other papers.
If, up to now, you have been represented by solicitors, you can either ask your solicitors to instruct your chosen barrister to advise on the question of appeal, or you can contact your chosen barrister direct but if you are instructing the barrister direct you need to get from your former solicitors all the available papers in the case (if you do not already have your own copies) as soon as possible (but do not delay contacting the barrister if there are papers which are not immediately available).

How much does it cost to appeal?

Many people are surprised to learn that the cost of an appeal (particularly if you go direct to a barrister) is usually very much less than the legal costs incurred up to that point. There are two reasons for this. First, the role of the appeal court is not to hold a retrial but rather to review the decision made by the trial judge in the light of legal argument from each side's barrister. The appeal court does not hear witnesses again or consider all the documentation from the trial but rather concentrates only on the particular "grounds of appeal" and consequently the hearing does not last as long as the previous trial. Secondly, the appeal (except in rare cases where new evidence is allowed) uses only materials which have already been used at the trial so that the costs incurred before the trial in e.g. disclosure of documents, expert witnesses, and obtaining witness statements, are not repeated during the appeal.
If the appeal is successful, there may be additional costs afterwards if there has to be a retrial. For example, if the grounds of appeal are that the trial judge asked the wrong legal question, sometimes the appeal court can not only decide what the right legal question is but itself decide what the answer to the right legal question on the facts of the particular case is. Sometimes, however, the appeal court, after deciding what the right legal question is, will direct that the nature of the issue in context of the case is such that only a judge who actually hears the witnesses is equipped to answer the question, so that there has to be a retrial before a different judge. Even if a retrial is ordered, however, the pre-trial work (e.g. disclosure of documents, expert witnesses, and obtaining witness statements) should not have to be repeated so that the further costs are only the costs of the retrial itself.

Judicial Review

There is a procedure known as judicial review which can sometimes be used to challenge a decision even if there is no right of appeal as such. The right to judicial review is a longstanding common-law right based on the ancient prerogative writs of Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari and proceeds on the basis that all decisions made by public bodies have to be made lawfully, which includes being made with procedural fairness, being within the legal powers which the particular body has, and being rational. The decisions of all public bodies (and even some private bodies if they affect public rights) are subject to judicial review as long as the decision is about something which is justicible. So, for example, a planning permission decision is justicible whereas foreign policy may not be (unless in an area regulated by statute). Judicial Review is a discretionary remedy and is not normally appropriate if there is an adequate mechanism for appeal.

by Guest 18.02.17 19:22

A complaint is not an appeal.

They can complain all they like.

It's going nowhere.

However, the media can twist it to say they are fighting it.

It's lipstick on a pig.

by plebgate 18.02.17 20:16

Instead of complaining about Supreme Court judges why not ask Duarte to ask for the Portugese investigation to get underway again?

I remember a report when Rocky first made it known that a book was going to be written and the report said along the lines that Clarrie was warning that legal action would follow if said book was published.

Rocky took no notice of that and he will not take any notice of anything else they throw into the ring imo.

I think it's about time they acccepted this latest decision, it takes a smart person to know when to stay down imo.

Something else I have noticed, the decision by the Supreme Court judges has been reported in most of the tabloids, but not as far as I know not by the Daily Express. I may have missed a report by them, but I wonder why we haven't seen a report in that paper?

My brain is working over time wondering why.

by plebgate 18.02.17 20:41

You know what I would like to read in the newspapers?

An announcement that Mr. & Mrs. have reached out to Maddie's abductor and pleaded for him/her/them to let her come home to her family before the 10th anniversary.

If they do not wish to contact the press since the Supreme Court Ruling, this could be done via a source or close family friend or maybe even one of their legal advisors?

by Verdi 18.02.17 20:42

nglfi wrote:I don't understand what any complaint would be based on? It is a fact that their status as arguido was lifted due to insufficient evidence. Don't they understand that these are undisputable facts? Or do they think it's 'mean' and 'not cricket' to mention it?

Sour grapes methinks. I don't believe the McCanns ever expected to win their legal action against Mr Amaral. As I've said numerous times in the past, they thought Mr Amaral would crumble beneath their threats and agree to settle out of court, just as the UK media outlets did - they seriously misjudged the man's tenacity. They never had a strong valid case to present before a court (outside of a jester's court) - just a load of whimpering about harming the search and upsetting their general equilibrium - which was never proven. Au contraire!

McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017) MadeleineMcCann-4th_Birthday_12May2007_PraiaDaLuz_Church

To back down mid-stream would have been an admission of guilt and defeat and would look abysmal in the eye of public scrutiny. Besides, all the legal fees are not coming from their personal funds, it's either being financed by the Find Madeleine Co. Ltd. or one of their wealthy backers. Having said that, if they continue this masquerade they will never ever succeed and will only embarrass themselves further. Heaven knows, the general populace must already see them as a couple of mercenary megalomaniacs - do they really want to stir-up any more animosity?

The entire process was a farce, much like the UK intervention and the resultant Operation Grange. I'll wager Isabel Duarte received a very healthy pay cheque for services rendered.

by plebgate 18.02.17 20:45

IMO it did not help them when they asked a load of people who were not on the holiday to attend court and act as witnesses to their sorrow and grief but not one of the Tapas crew took to the witness box. I thought that very odd.

by mootle 18.02.17 23:17

Interesting front pages

http://e3.365dm.com/17/02/536x302/36e0af9639df838a80c13234f732ecb4609f22b76e86488879082bd6a2f62c20_3893580.jpg?20170218225120
and
http://e3.365dm.com/17/02/536x302/16756213c674c58213d38e2f82a0d73dd749f7d8702323e7e3d670a6ae826e5a_3893576.jpg?20170218223656

by plebgate 18.02.17 23:59

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-launch-new-court-battle-9847926

They are afraid the find maddie fund will be wiped out if they have to pay costs apparently.

by tinkier 19.02.17 0:35

mootle wrote:Interesting front pages

http://e3.365dm.com/17/02/536x302/36e0af9639df838a80c13234f732ecb4609f22b76e86488879082bd6a2f62c20_3893580.jpg?20170218225120
and
http://e3.365dm.com/17/02/536x302/16756213c674c58213d38e2f82a0d73dd749f7d8702323e7e3d670a6ae826e5a_3893576.jpg?20170218223656

The McCann story sharing a front page with Rose West….oops titter

McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)