Ward of Court information for Madeleine Beth McCann

Watching wrote:

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

Thanks, just had time to change it -      14 days after 3/5, one does wonder if those 'on the ground ' as it were advised this move with some urgency, if they'd taken the situation on board the big cracks in the storymust have shown up and of course they must have had conversations with the McCanns ....  
Despite the fact that none other than Pike declared them model parents as early as Saturday the 5th, the WoC status was applied for just 14 days ( which included two weekends and a bank holiday)  after 3/5.

tigger wrote: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?

When an application is made for Wardship, the minor becomes a Ward of Court immediately pending a full hearing of the case, tigger, and it's not unusual for some considerable time to elapse before the court makes an Order, as in the case of MBM.

Having read the first post, I'm a little confused as it seems to me that the same day Maddie became a WoC - 2/4/08, although the application was made on the 17th May 2007, the same day the parents applied for the documents of the police?

Here it is:

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
Unquote

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.

About this wardship, despite Justice Hogg's above statement, I doubt MBM is WOC per se in the true sense of the definition whereby Court assumes full charge for her that every aspect of her welfare becomes the Court's responsibility and the protection of her interests comes under the Court's purview.

One would assume the Mccanns would not relinquish custodianship to the Court.  The court was used to force police agencies to supply data which otherwise the Mccanns had no power to force Police to release to them unless a Court order was served on Police and/or other agencies to comply.  
That was patently clear the objective of the Mccanns at that time.  

The pertinent question being - is MBM a WOC just for this narrow defined purpose and not in the general sense ?  The last sentence of Justice Hogg's statement  appears very ambiguous but perhaps it is meant to be read in conjunction with the rest of the document and in that context she's WOC just for stated purpose as defined and not beyond that.

If that sentence were to be taken stand-alone it would appear MBM is  WOC, but  IMO it is only in limited one restricted to the one and only purpose as laid out in that application.

I imagine the relinquishing of custodianship of a child to Court would involve elaborate and expansive legally very technically worded lengthy documents filled with clauses binding upon the Mccanns to abide by the Rules of the Court which would have been set out detailing the limits and boundaries governing what the Mccanns can or can't do concerning MBM's welfare.  In the absence of such a document obliging upon the Mccanns to refer to Court first before acting on behalf of MBM I don't believe the Mccanns have ceded custodianship of MBM to Court.

It is my view her wardship is retained by Court in restricted form in so far as the order for release of data is concerned when appropriate.

If Justice Hogg's wordings should cause grey area that can affect Mccanns' parental rights, it would be crass incompetence on IFLG part not to have noticed it.  But I doubt that is the case.  We shall know whether she is WOC or not once the libel trial resumes.

IFGL??? Please help me out?

aiyoyo wrote:

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.

About this wardship, despite Justice Hogg's above statement, I doubt MBM is WOC per se in the true sense of the definition whereby Court assumes full charge for her that every aspect of her welfare becomes the Court's responsibility and the protection of her interests comes under the Court's purview.

One would assume the Mccanns would not relinquish custodianship to the Court.  The court was used to force police agencies to supply data which otherwise the Mccanns had no power to force Police to release to them unless a Court order was served on Police and/or other agencies to comply.  
That was patently clear the objective of the Mccanns at that time.  

The pertinent question being - is MBM a WOC just for this narrow defined purpose and not in the general sense ?  The last sentence of Justice Hogg's statement  appears very ambiguous but perhaps it is meant to be read in conjunction with the rest of the document and in that context she's WOC just for stated purpose as defined and not beyond that.

If that sentence were to be taken stand-alone it would appear MBM is  WOC, but  IMO it is only in limited one restricted to the one and only purpose as laid out in that application.

I imagine the relinquishing of custodianship of a child to Court would involve elaborate and expansive legally very technically worded lengthy documents filled with clauses binding upon the Mccanns to abide by the Rules of the Court which would have been set out detailing the limits and boundaries governing what the Mccanns can or can't do concerning MBM's welfare.  In the absence of such a document obliging upon the Mccanns to refer to Court first before acting on behalf of MBM I don't believe the Mccanns have ceded custodianship of MBM to Court.

It is my view her wardship is retained by Court in restricted form in so far as the order for release of data is concerned when appropriate.

If Justice Hogg's wordings should cause grey area that can affect Mccanns' parental rights, it would be crass incompetence on IFLG part not to have noticed it.  But I doubt that is the case.  We shall know whether she is WOC or not once the libel trial resumes.

"One would assume the Mccanns would not relinquish custodianship to the Court."
 

Just a thought - would they do so if they knew she was dead?

Agree the WoC was to allow them to get their mucky mitts on information from police files so nothing to lose really everything to gain by Maddie being WoC?

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.
Unquote

So we are given the reason why she was made a WoC. As early as 17/5 in order to obtain 'various orders and directions' to do with the search - so imo the police files. Wasn't that a trifle early? They had liaison officers as from the second day, the Ambasssador in person within 12 hours of the abduction, yet they already wanted their hands on the police documents?

Murat was to translate and keep an eye on the PJ, who noticed his interference and within days dispensed with his services.
So no more peeking at police documents.

So the request for the release of police documents was ready and waiting so that on the SAME day the WoC status came into force, their request was handed to the court.

That's   

Could anyone help me out here: why would making Madeleine a Ward of Court allow the McCann parents to get their hands on police information?
If anything, I would have thought that relinquishing responsibility for Madeleine would have made them less entitled to obtain information.

Miraflores wrote:Could anyone help me out here: why would making Madeleine a Ward of Court allow the McCann parents to get their hands on police information?
If anything, I would have thought that relinquishing responsibility for Madeleine would have made them less entitled to obtain information.

My problem too, but Justice Hogg tells us that's how it is. Really strange if you consider that this status is often imposed to protect a child from his/her parents. In case of prosecution these parents would have full access to the papers as in any court case. At least that's my understanding.

I'm not sure what the situation is if the parents are not prosecuted - would the complaints/social services/ health reports not be accessible to them unless they were taken to court?

tigger wrote:

lj wrote:IFGL??? Please help me out?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2969-iflg-and-pact?highlight=Iflg+++%2Bpact

Thanks Tigger!

Copied from a topic where the title ensures it will be nearly impossible to find:   

Posted by: sixmillionquid


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.

The other submissions are from Leicester Police. So since May 2007 they've wanting to know what the police were up to and further requiring the police to give information about while the investigation was ongoing to their 'mickey mouse' investigators. Unbelievable!

Seems the WOC document has been obtained (see Noddy's post in twitter thread) so presumably trial will resume in due time......

We shall soon find out how Justice Hogg WOC will affect the Mccanns rights as her parents.

Mirage wrote: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.

Totally agree. It is astonishing. The depth of the hoax is just breathtaking, imo.