Mrs Justice Hogg

Anyone who still believes the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is not a massive UK establishment conspiratorial cover-up, needs to read and absorb this.   The McCanns applied for their daughter Madeleine to be made ward of court shortly after her alleged disappearance, ostensibly to aid the investigation by short circuiting legalities as regards access to information.  My interpretation has always been a condensed version of the same - for the McCanns to get their grubby trotters on confidential information relative to the investigation..

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:

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 ha

ve 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.

[Acknowledgement maddiecasefiles]

Now, I don't profess to be knowledgeable on matters such as this but I find it extraordinary that a judge, before a court of law, will opine on the circumstances, personal and otherwise, of two individuals who are the prime suspects in the disappearance of the very child under discussion in the court proceedings.  Is it customary for a judge to comment in this manner on a case in a court of law, a case that remains unsolved and under a cloud of suspicion?

An appointed judge perverting the course of justice - now there's a novelty.

And proceedings were started 17 May 2007. So just 2 weeks after she was "abducted"......boy, they move fast those McCanns

That is pretty extraordinary.

The phrase "unseemly haste" has tripped from my lips so many times with the Mcs. Like Uncle John packing in his job so swiftly. The Fund. The website. The merchandise. The Trademark.
You'd hear, "They're a bit previous, ain't they?", everywhere.

If you didn't know this was about a missing child you would think it was the launch of a new product in the Dragons' Den.

When Maddie was made WOC I had originally thought it was to pre-empt the Mcs being responsible (for her) should anything untoward happen to her, thus avoiding any future prosecution. 
Thereafter it was noted that her being WOC lent the Mcs a snoop into undertakings they'd not normally be afforded, likely the ostensible reason.

https://suesspiciousminds.com/tag/mrs-justice-hogg/

Thanks for that Kaz.
 
Interestingly, the tweeting barrister Barbara Hewson has just had her application for a judicial review into the Met’s Prevention of Harassment letter issued in favour of Sarah Phillimore kicked into touch by the High Court.
 
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/471.html

sar wrote:"in danger of becoming a distraction"

Hi sar,"In danger of becoming a distraction".

how can anything be a distraction if a Judge within the UK Court system is found to be lacking,"Judgement in child welfare",who then grants Ward Of Court to non appearing parents of whose daughter had disappeared 3 May 2007  then within fourteen Days of the WOC granted,retrospectively?
ergo,we 've told a legal representative to apply on Our behalf for you Lady Justice Hogg to grant the said WOC document and could you also tell the Police we want access to what they know,cheers,Kate & Gerry!

If Lady Hogg has made errors of Judgement in Child Care Orders,post Madeleine's WOC and the return of children to Parents has then resulted in Harm or death to the Children,they presided over, surely the Judge must bear their share of the blame,shouldn't they if harm has happened to children in question?

So in effect,the Judge,Lady Hogg does not know the Parents,Kate,Gerry McCann or Madeleine,but grants Special Court proceedings against a UK Police force,Leicestershire, that was assisting the McCann family in Portugal?
Little wonder that Acting Police Commissioner Matt Bagot made his statement and never withdrew his quoted words,perhaps he then realised that he had been duped by the clever minded person's put in place to protect,self serving clan a Brotherhood,"Without Fear Nor Favour"?

One of the offers of help we’d received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry’s. He worked for a firm specializing in family law, the International Family Law Group (IFLG). It was difficult to know what this company could do but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities.

So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces – the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of that weekend to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press , based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of metres away’, that we could face prosecution for negligence.

After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’.  This had hardly been our biggest concern, but it was reassuring to hear, all the same. The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order to make Madeleine a ward of court.

Wardship status gives the courts certain statutory powers to act on a child’s behalf in any legal disputes and to bypass some of the data-protection laws that deal with access to information (hotel guest records, for example, and airline passenger lists), when knowledge of this information is considered to be in the interests of the child in question. Such an order could be useful in acquiring records not otherwise available to us that might be relevant in our case.  We decided to proceed with an application, which was granted in due course.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN
[Excerpt for research purposes only]

So there you have it, a prosaic summation straight from the primary source, two for the price of one - the issue of neglect and the issue of ward of court, nicely packaged and tied up with good quality green and yellow ribbon to be presented before the world as 'my version of the truth' 

Funny how this case has attracted so many prominent persons acting out of character, or more to the point, well and truly exceeding the line of duty.  A barrister flying out to advise on neglect and other defence issues - did he have the proverbial 'fee' clock ticking beneath his panama hat I wonder?

....indeed  easily distracted are they.

sar wrote:

polyenne wrote:And proceedings were started 17 May 2007. So just 2 weeks after she was "abducted"......boy, they move fast those McCanns

".....afternoon of Friday 11" thanks Verdi, so now 1 week?

Hi sar,as above,shocking isn't it
But of course you know,they were acting in the best interest of their child Madeleine WOC!
"If Something had happened to the child and we wern't present,how would we be held to blame or account for any accident"it speaks volumes,these may not be the precise words,but very quickly stating the obvious.

I can only hazard a guess if No Prosecutions can be determined with this Cover Up,what next?

You’d almost believe that they’d been through this old rigmarole before.....”Damn, the kid’s gone missing, what a bind. Never mind, let’s run through the checklist......
Main Stream Media - check
Key Family Members - check
Prime Minister - check
Old Photo Images - check
Media Manipulation Expert - check
Fall Guy Patsy - check
Set Up Fund - check
Ward Of Court - check
Use Of Abduction Word - check

All done ? Okey doke, let’s both fall on the floor and wail in a strange way............”

Sorted.

Laughable if it wasn’t so tragic

...ok so maybe 9 or 10 categories, each costing 250,000 wow, like you just pick these up at the mall!

sar wrote:

polyenne wrote:And proceedings were started 17 May 2007. So just 2 weeks after she was "abducted"......boy, they move fast those McCanns

".....afternoon of Friday 11" thanks Verdi, so now 1 week?

Not only was the seed sown on 11th May 2007, just a week after Madeleine's alleged disappearance but it was sown and fertilized by the abduction theory.

A theory that never flourished because there was absolutely no evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that Madeleine was abducted. To the contrary, a circumstance which the PJ realised within hours of Kate McCann's alert.

OK, I accept the ward of court order was on behalf of Madeleine McCann and not the parents but should a UK judge and court of law be opining on an unsolved criminal investigation, a crime committed on foreign soil with all the evidence pointing in the direction of the parents? Should the same judge be pleading on behalf of the victim in same court of law - is that not tantamount to perverting the course of justice?

In a criminal court hearing, the jury would be asked to disregard any inappropriate disclosure during court proceedings as it could sway their judgment. Is that not exactly what Mrs Justice Hodge was doing - swaying opinion?

Another layer of protection but an incredibly important one designed to signal that the judiciary were fully behind the abduction idea.

“It has come to our attention that some details of court proceedings concerning Madeleine have been made public. This is regrettable.

At the instigation of Kate and Gerry McCann, Madeleine was made a Ward of the High Court of England and Wales. An application has been made on Madeleine’s behalf by her parents for disclosure of certain documents. Kate and Gerry have always said that they will do whatever is necessary to find Madeleine and that they will leave no stone unturned in their search for their daughter.”

Clarence Mitchell [circa. 2008]