KEVIN HALLIGEN EXTRADITION DECISION - Issued on the internet tomorrow (23 May) around 10.00am

jd wrote:I am wondering if this will be reported in the UK news tomorrow! - by our professional, responsible, investigative journalists in the land of free speech. And if by miracle it is, will they report that Kevin Halligen was employed by the McCanns as their private investigator from the monies the public donated to them, and got conned £500,000! Somehow I doubt it, as this would mean looking at Brian 'bulldozer' Kennedy too...

friedtomatoes wrote:If Halligen worked for the Mccanns, Redwood's team can not not interview him and collect all the info he had.JMO.
Even if he is extradited does that mean he will spill the beans on his involvement with the Mccanns, or is it the case he will if he is extradited? Funny worlds some inhabit.

Tony Bennett wrote:There could hardly be a better illustration of the stranglehold that the McCann Team has gained over press coverage of anything to do with this case. Extradition cases involving the U.S.A. have been two a penny over the past couple of years, Gary Mckinnon, for instance, and Christopher Tappin, the bloke who sold batteries to Iran.

But not a squeak about Kevin 'multiple identity' Halligen, the man who helped to convert the generous donations of pensioners who willingly gave their weekly pensions and children who willingly gave their weekly pocket money, intended to help find Madeleine McCann, but ended up being spent on double whiskies in a posh London club and on five-star hotels in New York and London. And still the government refuses a public enquiry into all this

jd wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:There could hardly be a better illustration of the stranglehold that the McCann Team has gained over press coverage of anything to do with this case. Extradition cases involving the U.S.A. have been two a penny over the past couple of years, Gary Mckinnon, for instance, and Christopher Tappin, the bloke who sold batteries to Iran.

But not a squeak about Kevin 'multiple identity' Halligen, the man who helped to convert the generous donations of pensioners who willingly gave their weekly pensions and children who willingly gave their weekly pocket money, intended to help find Madeleine McCann, but ended up being spent on double whiskies in a posh London club and on five-star hotels in New York and London. And still the government refuses a public enquiry into all this

Very very true. "There could hardly be a better illustration of the stranglehold that the McCann Team has gained over press coverage of anything to do with this case". And considering the mcanns have had their begging bowl out for 5 years taken monies from the public, this public has a right to know how it has been spent. The press have a moral duty to report the truthful facts and inform the public what has truly happened with the monies the public have given to the mccanns. Tomorrow is a golden opportunity for the media to report the fact that Kevin Halligen was employed by the mccanns using the publics donated monies and he conned them out of £500,000. There can't be any fears of being sued as this is a TRUE FACT!!! in the land of free speech

I suspect all there will be is a little paragraph on page 9 and somewhere lost in the middle will be the words of something like "once worked with the mccanns'. Yes this is a brilliant illustration of the stranglehold that the McCann Team has gained over press coverage of anything to do with this case....and how important information the public are entitled to know are being held back from them

candyfloss wrote:

jd wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:There could hardly be a better illustration of the stranglehold that the McCann Team has gained over press coverage of anything to do with this case...

Very very true. Tomorrow is a golden opportunity for the media to report the fact that Kevin Halligen was employed by the mccanns using the publics donated monies and he conned them out of £500,000. There can't be any fears of being sued as this is a TRUE FACT!!! in the land of free speech...

jd, it was reported at the time in quite a few papers here's just a couple............

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

jd wrote:These are excellent questions Tony. Especially "The McCanns appear to have made no claim against Halligen for his blatant mis-use of the £500,000 they gave him."....Considering they are suing and destroying people who are purporting theories based on the facts (which gerry mccann says at the LI he has no problem with)....why are they not suing a man who has conned the 'No Stone Unturned" Ltd company out of £500,000? Why so quiet? After all, it is the public monies Kevin Halligen has fraudulently stolen and a matter of public interest this man is brought to account. And this is not the first time the mccanns have been conned by private investigators either

Snifferdog wrote:

jd wrote:These are excellent questions Tony. Especially "The McCanns appear to have made no claim against Halligen for his blatant mis-use of the £500,000 they gave him."....Considering they are suing and destroying people who are purporting theories based on the facts (which gerry mccann says at the LI he has no problem with)....why are they not suing a man who has conned the 'No Stone Unturned" Ltd company out of £500,000? Why so quiet? After all, it is the public monies Kevin Halligen has fraudulently stolen and a matter of public interest this man is brought to account. And this is not the first time the mccanns have been conned by private investigators either

Very true. Why? Must be unable to sue as afraid what may come out in the wash!
Jd I love your badge! but beware! it could be added to the Official FM site.....if you know your child to be your own, and can prove it, buy the badge now! Your purchase could help find Madeleine! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

candyfloss wrote:Nothing yet on Halligen??? Have searched and can't find anything.

PRESS SUMMARY
Lukaszewski v The District Court in Torun, Poland; Pomiechowski v District Court of Legunica 59-220 Poland; Rozanski v Regional Court 3 Penal Department Poland; R (on the application of Halligen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 20 On appeal from [2011] EWHC 2060 Admin; [2011] EWHC 1584 Admin
JUSTICES: Lord Phillips (President); Lady Hale; Lord Mance; Lord Kerr; Lord Wilson
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
Lukaszewski (“L”), Pomiechowski (“P”) and Rozanski (“R”) are Polish citizens who are each the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) issued by the Polish court. Each is wanted in order to serve an existing sentence. L is wanted, in addition, to stand trial on ten charges of fraud. The fourth appellant, Halligen (“H”), is a British citizen whose extradition is sought to the USA under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the “Act”) to face allegations of wire fraud and money laundering. All four appellants were arrested and brought before Westminster Magistrates’ Court. L, P and R’s extradition were ordered on (respectively) 28th January 2011, 2nd March 2011 and 4th March 2011. H’s case was sent to the Secretary of State for her to decide whether H should be extradited. On 22nd December 2010, H’s extradition was ordered by the Secretary of State, and the order and a letter setting out the Secretary of State’s reasons were sent by post and fax (at either 15.48 or 16.48) to H’s solicitors on that same day. All four appellants were remanded in custody at HMP Wandsworth pending extradition. The permitted time-period for giving notice of appeal against an extradition order was 7 days in the case of L, P and R, and 14 days in the case of H.

L, P and R were each assisted by a prison officer working in the legal services department at HMP Wandsworth to complete a notice of appeal. The legal services department faxed the notices of appeal to the Administrative Court for filing and stamping, which faxed back a copy of the sealed front page to the legal services department. The legal services department then faxed to the Crown Prosecution Services (“CPS”), as legal representatives of the judicial authority of the state requesting surrender, a copy of the sealed front page together with a cover sheet. In the case of each of L, P and R, all this occurred within the 7-day permitted period. However, in each case, the CPS was not served with a full copy of the notice of appeal, sealed or unsealed, until after the 7-day time limit had expired. The High Court held it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals. A notice of appeal had to be both filed and served within the non-extendable permitted period, and must (a) identify the appellant, (b) identify the decision against which he seeks to appeal, and (c) set out at least the gist of the basis on which the appeal is sought to be presented. Accordingly, the purported notices of appeal were invalidly constituted and served out of time.

H’s solicitors prepared a notice of appeal, attaching grounds of appeal, on 23rd December 2010. The notice of appeal was filed and stamped on 29th December 2011, well within the 14-day permitted period which expired at midnight on 4th January 2011. However, only on 5th January 2011 did H’s solicitors send the notice of appeal to the CPS by fax and to the Home Office by post (reaching the latter on 6th January 2011). H himself had written from prison by fax to the Home Office on 29th December 2010 asking them to “accept the letter as notice & service of my intent to appeal that decision” and stating that he had instructed solicitors for that purpose. The High Court held it had no jurisdiction to hear H’s appeal, that H’s letter of 29th December 2011 did not constitute a valid notice of appeal, and the Secretary of State should be treated as having informed H of her decision on 22nd December, not 23rd December, 2011, so that the purported notice of appeal was in any event served out of time.
All four appellants appealed the decisions of the High Court to the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court allows all four appeals unanimously. Lord Mance gives the leading judgment of the Court. Lady Hale gives a separate concurring judgment.
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
The requirement under the Act that a notice of an appeal be given within the relevant permitted period meant that it had to be filed in the High Court and served on all respondents to the appeal within such period (following the decision of the House of Lords in Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] UKHL 2) [5], [17]. However, a generous view should be taken of this requirement, bearing in mind the shortness of the permitted periods under the Act and that what really matters is that an appeal should have been filed and that all respondents be on notice of this, sufficient to warn them that they should not proceed with extradition pending an appeal [18]. In the cases of L, P and R, the irregularity involved in the absence of pages following the sealed front page of their notices of appeal was capable of cure. The CPS, having received in time the sealed front page of each notice of appeal, can have had no difficulty in identifying the decisions being appealed. It would be disproportionate if the practice followed by the court and the prison legal services department should lead to the appellants losing their right of appeal [19].

The Court regards H’s letter as notice to the Secretary of State of an appeal within the Act, albeit that the letter was highly irregular in its form [20]. However, even if it is accepted that H’s solicitors only received the relevant fax from the Secretary of State at 16.48, there was no basis for deeming the fax to have been received the following day. It follows that no notice of an appeal was given to the CPS within the permitted period, and H’s appeal is on its face impermissible as against both respondents [21]. In these circumstances, the question for the Court is whether the apparently inflexible time limits for appeals within the Act are subject to any qualification or exception [22].
Under Article 6(1) of the Human Rights Convention, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him. The Court is satisfied that extradition does not involve the determination of a criminal charge [31]. However, H, as a UK citizen, enjoyed a civil right to enter and remain in the UK as and when he pleased [32]. Proceedings under the Act, in that they may affect H’s freedom to remain in the UK, at least for the duration of foreign extradition proceedings, involve the “determination” of that civil right [32]. It follows that the extradition proceedings against H fall within Article 6(1) [33]. In the case of a UK citizen, the statutory provisions concerning appeals can and should be read (pursuant to the obligation of conforming interpretation under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998) as being subject to the qualification that the court must have a discretion in exceptional circumstances to extend time for both filing and service, where such statutory provisions would otherwise operate to prevent an appeal in a manner conflicting with the right of access to an appeal process under Article 6(1).

Accordingly, the Court allows all four appeals and remits each appeal against extradition to the High Court to be heard there [19], [41].

References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
NOTE This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD T: 020 7960 1886/1887 F: 020 7960 1901 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Tony Bennett wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Nothing yet on Halligen??? Have searched and can't find anything.

The first three judgments for today have already been released, here is the link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Halligen is not one of the three already released, but it shouldn't be long now

PeterMac wrote:There was a lovely Private Eye cartoon some time ago, Silk advising junior.
"If the facts are against you argue that it is a point of law.
"If the law is against you, argue that it is an issue of fact.
If the facts and the law are against you, argue that it is an issue of Human Rights."

jd wrote:Let me get this right...Halligen cons £500,000 of public monies and gets UK legal aid to protect himself!!!

Why aren't the directors of 'No Stone Unturned' Ltd being questioned for the grave lack of judgement with their usage of public donated monies (TWICE)...they have a duty of responsibility to the public that it is being used wisely

This country has gone past the point of ridicule and corruption

jd wrote:
LOL I do like Ian Hislop! I wish he was free to speak what he really knows

ShuBob wrote:I'm coming out of hibernation to make the point that despite all the negative stories about Halligen in the press perpertuated by the McCanns, Halligen may have actually PERFORMED the duties he was HIRED to do for the McCanns. Has anyone seen a copy of his contract? How can you then say confidently he "conned" them? What about Metodo 3? Did they also con the couple?

To cut a long story short, I believe Metodo 3, Halligen, Edgar and Cowley and all the other assorted characters the McCanns have employed have actually done what they were hired to do which has NOTHING to do with "finding" Maddie. What that is, one can only guess!

ShuBob wrote:I'm coming out of hibernation to make the point that despite all the negative stories about Halligen in the press perpertuated by the McCanns, Halligen may have actually PERFORMED the duties he was HIRED to do for the McCanns. Has anyone seen a copy of his contract? How can you then say confidently he "conned" them? What about Metodo 3? Did they also con the couple?

To cut a long story short, I believe Metodo 3, Halligen, Edgar and Cowley and all the other assorted characters the McCanns have employed have actually done what they were hired to do which has NOTHING to do with "finding" Maddie. What that is, one can only guess!

PeterMac wrote:

ShuBob wrote:I'm coming out of hibernation to make the point that despite all the negative stories about Halligen in the press perpertuated by the McCanns, Halligen may have actually PERFORMED the duties he was HIRED to do for the McCanns. Has anyone seen a copy of his contract? How can you then say confidently he "conned" them? What about Metodo 3? Did they also con the couple?

To cut a long story short, I believe Metodo 3, Halligen, Edgar and Cowley and all the other assorted characters the McCanns have employed have actually done what they were hired to do which has NOTHING to do with "finding" Maddie. What that is, one can only guess!

It is a good and valid point.
The pure guesses might include
• keeping the "Fund" going by a pretence at investigation
• keeping the money coming in by inventing "sightings"
* keeping the public's concentration away from awkward facts
• money laundering, by taking "donated funds and relocating it elsewhere for future use
and so on and on.

*

Tony Bennett wrote:

jd wrote:Let me get this right...Halligen cons £500,000 of public monies and gets UK legal aid to protect himself!!!
Why aren't the directors of 'No Stone Unturned' Ltd being questioned for the grave lack of judgement with their usage of public donated monies (TWICE)...they have a duty of responsibility to the public that it is being used wisely
This country has gone past the point of ridicule and corruption

Hallligen...
1. Got £500,000 plus expenses from the McCann Team - and found NOTHING of interest, whilst spending much time drinking in a London club and living it up in 5-star hotels in New York and London with his girlfriend Shirin Trachioitis...
2...not to mention being found in a £700-a-night Oxfordshire hotel when he was arrested...
3...Oh, and he owed thousands of pounds in unpaid hotel bills at the time he was arrested...
4...allegedly defrauded a U.S. company of $2 million, for which the U.S. has been trying to extradite him for four long years (and more years to come, no doubt)...
5...was involved in numerous other cons and frauds (exposed in some of the articles 'candyfloss' referred to further up this thread)...
6...used the services of various companies whilst employed by the McCanns and then didn't pay their bills (it is not known whether the Find Madeleine Fund paid these defrauded companies their bills, as this is one of the Fund's many secrets)...
7...Halligen even underwent a bogus marriage in the U.S....
8...He failed to follow up any calls to the McCanns' investigation hotline whilst employed by the McCanns in 2008, according to the Managing Director of Virginia-based company iJet...
9...has (according to reports) had tens of thousands of legal aid spent on him...
10...is about to complete 949 days of continuous imprisonment in a British jail...
11...and yet one of Britain's leading media manipulators, Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, employed right at the top by Labour Prime Ministers, Conservative Party leaders and Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, was allowed to get away by the mainstream British media with describing Halligen's one-man-band Oakley International, formed AFTER Madeleine McCann was reported missing, as 'the big boys of international private detection'...