Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

by Guest 02.06.14 12:19

found it

by haroldd2 02.06.14 12:31

ultimaThule wrote:
(...)lawyers can only advise on what their clients tell them and it may be that the McCanns did not inform ID that Madeleine is a Ward of Court.

As it's my understanding that her field of expertise is Portuguese libel law, I would not expect ID to be an expert in family law or, more particularly, to be au fait with UK Wardship proceedings and the necessity of obtaining the consent of the High Court before any important step, such as making her party to libel proceedings, can be taken in the Ward's life (for the purpose of this exercise we will overlook the probability that the Ward is deceased).

However, if ID was informed that Madeleine is Ward of Court, and if she was unaware of how this fact might impact on the McCanns claim, she should have done her homework before instituting any proceedings on their behalf.

Is ID not instructed by a British lawyer on whether any considerations of English law are relevant to her clients' position in the Portuguese proceedings and if so, how they are relevant? I would have thought the McCanns would be canny enough to guard their back in that respect.

by russiandoll 02.06.14 12:34

bb1 off her head ranting that any fool knows that all missing Brit children are made wards of court ; this in case of any attempt made when found abroad to disrupt their safe return home...so under Crown protection.

Is Ben Needham a ward of court? Don't recall reading that he is.

by Guest 02.06.14 12:39

Libel trial procedings have been a poor show from the beginning on the McCanns' part.
Looks to me as if they did not waste any money on it.

imo
parapono

by sami 02.06.14 12:40

I gave up trying to understand the reasoning behind this years ago. However as a parent I cannot understand willingly starting such proceedings less than two weeks after loosing my child. It is almost like loosing her once then giving her away a second time, handing her over to someone else, at a time when she would most need her parents. At that point it was possible she could have turned up alive.

by **PeterMac** 02.06.14 12:45

ultimaThule wrote:
(...)lawyers can only advise on what their clients tell them and it may be that the McCanns did not inform ID that Madeleine is a Ward of Court.

Exactly the position in which Carter-Ruck found themselves.
Though in that notorious case one of their Senior solicitors had already given 'evidence' under oath before they realised that the McCanns had trapped them
and she had to withdraw rapidly.
It is all in the record.

by haroldd2 02.06.14 12:56

Was the Portuguese judge ruling on an application by GA? If so, did TMcC contest it?

And a third question - are they going to go to the High Court in England and try to get it to back them?

Maybe they will make an application in England and use it as grounds for requesting a lengthy adjournment in Portugal? I would have thought the English judge would have to consider the chances of success in the Portuguese libel case. Having an English case might be one of the last things they want at the moment.

Got to wonder what people at SY think of all this. Some of them might be fed up at having to play so much 11-dimensional chess.

by ultimaThule 02.06.14 13:28

russiandoll wrote:bb1 off her head ranting that any fool knows that all missing Brit children are made wards of court ; this in case of any attempt made when found abroad to disrupt their safe return home...so under Crown protection.

Is Ben Needham a ward of court? Don't recall reading that he is.

This isn't say that precedent doesn't exist somewhere in the annals of Wardship, but as I haven't been able to find one case where a child who is alleged to have been abducted by a stranger, or strangers, has been made a Ward of Court rd, perhaps bb1 could provide a couple of names to give me a headstart in a renewed search?

This fool knows that Wardship is not automatically conferred on missing children and that these days it's a course usually resorted to where children are either at risk of being, or have been, taken out of the UK by parents who have no intention of returning them in a timely manner.

by ultimaThule 02.06.14 13:35

parapono wrote:Libel trial procedings have been a poor show from the beginning on the McCanns' part.
Looks to me as if they did not waste any money on it.

imo
parapono

If you add up the cost of the various court proceedings in Lisbon including appeals, together with the cost of flights/accomodation/meals for their witnesses and themselves, I think you'll find that the McCanns have ~~wasted~~ spent the best part of £1million on putting on this poor but long running show, parapono.

by Guest 02.06.14 13:42

ultimaThule wrote:
parapono wrote:Libel trial procedings have been a poor show from the beginning on the McCanns' part.
Looks to me as if they did not waste any money on it.

imo
parapono

If you add up the cost of the various court proceedings in Lisbon including appeals, together with the cost of flights/accomodation/meals for their witnesses and themselves, I think you'll find that the McCanns have ~~wasted~~ spent the best part of £1million on putting on this poor but long running show, parapono.

I know. I agree. What I meant, should've put it clearer, was this last trial. From the moment that no settlement could be reached.
Then in court non-witnesses and non-arguments. imo

by ultimaThule 02.06.14 13:58

PeterMac wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
This, of course, begs the question of which court in which country will hold any monies awarded to Madeleine McCann by a Portuguese court and who is looking out for the financial interests of the twins?
I think the legal position is as set out by Mitchell some time ago.
The money will be held in a brown envelope addressed to McCanns, Rothley, and will be dealt with in accordance with other monies received.

How could I have forgotten that cometh the hour, cometh the ~~pink one~~ man - and his ~~flasher's~~ collector's mac, the interior of which is equipped with all the tools of his trade such as brown envelopes, back pockets, collection boxes, jars, collapsible buckets, a gadget which detects fake notes, and a selection of statements guaranteed to have pensioners and children donating money they can ill afford to give in order to facilitate the search of 5* hotels around the globe, PeterM?

In fact, there's so much equipment stashed in the mac that there's no room for a calculator which, as I understand it, led to an embarrassing moment when the proudly announced total raised proved to be considerably less than the actual total raised. laughat

by jeanmonroe 02.06.14 14:07

Could THIS the 'reason' WHY they 'included' Madeleine in the libel case?

The McCanns decided on the figure of £1 million (£1.2 million Euros) as the sum they wish to claim for defamation against the former PJ police officer.

What they are demanding

£430,000 damages for Madeleine which will be used to continue the search for her.

£215,000 for each parent for the emotional distress the book has caused them. They say they suffer 'permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear'. The writ also says Kate McCann is 'steeped in a deep and serious depression'.

£86,000 for each of their twins Sean and Amelie, who could hear his allegations when they start school in September.

Well, Madeleine's 'damages' would certainly be 'missed' if now not included in the libel case, wouldn't it?

by ultimaThule 02.06.14 14:16

haroldd2 wrote:Was the Portuguese judge ruling on an application by GA? If so, did TMcC contest it?

And a third question - are they going to go to the High Court in England and try to get it to back them?

Maybe they will make an application in England and use it as grounds for requesting a lengthy adjournment in Portugal? I would have thought the English judge would have to consider the chances of success in the Portuguese libel case. Having an English case might be one of the last things they want at the moment.

Got to wonder what people at SY think of all this. Some of them might be fed up at having to play so much 11-dimensional chess.

There has been no transcripts provided of those court sessions which have been held in camera since early January of this year, harrold but from what has been ascertained is that the defence asked the judge to 'evaluate the wardship' which has resulted in the ruling which is under debate here. As the judge's word is final, the McCanns are not a in position to contest the ruling except by way of appeal to the Supreme Court of Portugal.

With regard to your third question, could you please explain who is 'they' and why would they go to the High Court to get whatever 'it' is back to them?

by haroldd2 02.06.14 14:49

ultimaThule wrote:
There has been no transcripts provided of those court sessions which have been held in camera since early January of this year, harrold but from what has been ascertained is that the defence asked the judge to 'evaluate the wardship' which has resulted in the ruling which is under debate here. As the judge's word is final, the McCanns are not a in position to contest the ruling except by way of appeal to the Supreme Court of Portugal.

I meant did they make any representations on the wardship issue to the Portuguese court before the judge issued the decision. For example, they could have argued that the wardship was not relevant because bringing the libel claim was not an important step in their daughter's life. Weak grounds, but maybe they had the right to be heard.

ultimaThule wrote:
There has been no transcripts provided of those court sessions which have been held in camera since early January of this year, harrold but from what has been ascertained is that the defence asked the judge to 'evaluate the wardship' which has resulted in the ruling which is under debate here. As the judge's word is final, the McCanns are not a in position to contest the ruling except by way of appeal to the Supreme Court of Portugal.

With regard to your third question, could you please explain who is 'they' and why would they go to the High Court to get whatever 'it' is back to them?

I wrote "to back", not "back to" :-) I was just asking whether the McCanns are going to ask an English High Court judge to support the entering of the Portuguese libel claim on their daughter's behalf. After all, one day they might be asked why, if they thought so strongly that submitting the libel claim on her behalf was in her best interests, they didn't think they'd be able to convince an English judge.

by jeanmonroe 02.06.14 14:59

they didn't think they'd be able to convince an English judge.
-----------------------------------------------

They couldn't even 'convince' an English Judge to get the LP 'files'..............and SHE, the Judge, was their MATE!

by haroldd2 02.06.14 15:31

jeanmonroe wrote:they didn't think they'd be able to convince an English judge.
-----------------------------------------------

They couldn't even 'convince' an English Judge to get the LP 'files'..............and SHE, the Judge, was their MATE!

So they think an action is in their daughter's best interests, but they won't even bother making representations to that effect before an English judge, because they're so certain that the judge wouldn't agree with them? Can they spell "nemesis"?

Mary Hogg is a friend of the McCanns?! I thought they'd only got as far as double-glazing barons, property speculators, government ministers connected with dodgy scaffolding firms, and businessmen at football clubs! :yes:Can you post a link or a bit of background on the Hogg connection. (Sorry to ask, but I came to this case later than a lot of people here.)

by jeanmonroe 02.06.14 16:15

haroldd2 wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:they didn't think they'd be able to convince an English judge.
-----------------------------------------------

They couldn't even 'convince' an English Judge to get the LP 'files'..............and SHE, the Judge, was their MATE!
So they think an action is in their daughter's best interests, but they won't even bother making representations to that effect before an English judge, because they're so certain that the judge wouldn't agree with them? Can they spell "nemesis"?

Mary Hogg is a friend of the McCanns?! I thought they'd only got as far as double-glazing barons, property speculators, government ministers connected with dodgy scaffolding firms, and businessmen at football clubs! :yes:Can you post a link or a bit of background on the Hogg connection. (Sorry to ask, but I came to this case later than a lot of people here.)

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

Justice Hogg.

"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."

by tiny 02.06.14 16:18

And this hogg is a judge,and she comes out with crap like this.
I despare over our judges, I really do

by lj 02.06.14 17:04

ultimaThule wrote:
lj wrote:
sami wrote:
Watching wrote:
noddy100 wrote:Why was she made a ward of court?

So that Mr & Mrs could use it to their advantage and did so by obtaining files held by the Leicestershire police. Justice Hogg ruled against Leicestershire police, and granted Mr & Mrs be given access to a number of police files...all for Maddie's benefit!

I don't believe they were given all of the files or anything significant. Didn't Kate complain the information they were allowed was already in their possession from the PJ files.

Yeah, I believe they just got the list of names that had contacted them through website or phone. Good for the Leicester police. While their role not always was very honest or proffessional this they did at least try and also launched the great line:

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

Mrs Justice Hogg most emphatically did NOT "rule against Leicestershire Police" in this matter. What took place is that the McCanns withdrew their demand for some 11,000 files/documents/paperwork held by LP and settled for disclosure of 81 items "which included trivial details that our family had passed on to the police in the first place"*,

Kate just couldn't understand how the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire could make the statement bolded in lj's post (above) after "he had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine's abduction and had seen us at our most grief stricken"**. How about he took one look at the pair of you and came to same conclusion many on this forum had already reached, Kate, and of course there's always Eddie & Keela's fine noses to rely on when it comes to scenting out a crime scene

*Exhibit KH1 p.316 and ditto **

JUst to make clear: the rule part is from Watching. He/she might be right, I cannot remember that part.

by lj 02.06.14 17:08

Bishop Brennan wrote:
russiandoll wrote:

Yes, UT. I asked a little way back in the thread why ID had allowed this to happen, she should have known the procedures!

I suspect everybody knew but hoped that the case would be settled out of court same as all the others. So a calculated gamble to keep Maddie on the claim so that it looked more intimidating. Without her it would also have looked like a very selfish, money-grabbing act by the parents. No ability to claim it was all done for poor Madeleine... And arrogant enough to believe that GA's Portuguese lawyers were also 'f...ing tossers' and wouldn't even realise about the WOC thing.

Well who's looking like a FT now?!

I also suspect that the conning couple is hard to advice. As we can see in Kate's bewk she make statements, or recalls events that we think any normal lawyer would strongly advice not to publish. It would not surprise me if they were warned, but thought they knew better, or that they would get away with it.

by lj 02.06.14 17:12

Portia wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
russiandoll wrote:

I agree. However, this is about the parents v Amaral and others, and as far as this part of the case is concerned, Amaral has been vindicated in asking for the wardship issue to be clarified.

I really hope so. I wonder if it was a flash of inspiration or if his team had it up their sleeves from a long way out?
Very, very risky to bring it up so late: 'normally' (but, what is normal in this case but for the judges being outstanding so far, both Judge T and Dona Melo y Castro) it would have to have been brought right at the outset, before all other defenses in order to enable the judge to get a clear view of who's who in the proceedings

I wonder if the high cost and the trouble of getting these documents have played a role in that. Dr. Amaral was almost not able to get the documents because there was not enough money available.

by lj 02.06.14 17:16

Markus 2 wrote:
Poe wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
6:27PM BST 20 Jun 2008
The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard.
So she was made a ward in 2007

[color:1e58=000000]During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.

How ironic that the stated reason for making Madeleine a woc is the very one that has tripped them up at the libel trial.
During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.
The McCanns were declared [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008

They must have known way before they were arrested that they were going to be made [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They needed someone on side before they were even arrested

They were never cleared!

by lj 02.06.14 17:18

PeterMac wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
This, of course, begs the question of which court in which country will hold any monies awarded to Madeleine McCann by a Portuguese court and who is looking out for the financial interests of the twins?
I think the legal position is as set out by Mitchell some time ago.
The money will be held in a brown envelope addressed to McCanns, Rothley, and will be dealt with in accordance with other monies received.

by haroldd2 02.06.14 18:05

lj wrote:
Portia wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
russiandoll wrote:

I agree. However, this is about the parents v Amaral and others, and as far as this part of the case is concerned, Amaral has been vindicated in asking for the wardship issue to be clarified.

I really hope so. I wonder if it was a flash of inspiration or if his team had it up their sleeves from a long way out?
Very, very risky to bring it up so late: 'normally' (but, what is normal in this case but for the judges being outstanding so far, both Judge T and Dona Melo y Castro) it would have to have been brought right at the outset, before all other defenses in order to enable the judge to get a clear view of who's who in the proceedings

I wonder if the high cost and the trouble of getting these documents have played a role in that. Dr. Amaral was almost not able to get the documents because there was not enough money available.

How much does it cost to write to the High Court and ask them whether they are the guardian of this child, identified by name, date and place of birth, nationality and parents' names? There is the price of a stamp, piece of paper and envelope. Obtaining a stamped document acceptable to the Portuguese judge can't be that expensive. Or wouldn't be, were it not for "lawyer rates"!

by stillsloppingout 02.06.14 18:58

haroldd2 wrote:
lj wrote:
Portia wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
russiandoll wrote:

I agree. However, this is about the parents v Amaral and others, and as far as this part of the case is concerned, Amaral has been vindicated in asking for the wardship issue to be clarified.

I really hope so. I wonder if it was a flash of inspiration or if his team had it up their sleeves from a long way out?
Very, very risky to bring it up so late: 'normally' (but, what is normal in this case but for the judges being outstanding so far, both Judge T and Dona Melo y Castro) it would have to have been brought right at the outset, before all other defenses in order to enable the judge to get a clear view of who's who in the proceedings

I wonder if the high cost and the trouble of getting these documents have played a role in that. Dr. Amaral was almost not able to get the documents because there was not enough money available.
How much does it cost to write to the High Court and ask them whether they are the guardian of this child, identified by name, date and place of birth, nationality and parents' names? There is the price of a stamp, piece of paper and envelope. Obtaining a stamped document acceptable to the Portuguese judge can't be that expensive. Or wouldn't be, were it not for "lawyer rates"!

Im no lawyer, Re this TB replied to myself outlining the procedure ,which he feels would have been required to obtain the information it is of my opinion that the cost would run into the tens of thousands . i would guess twenty odd thousand .

by Guest 02.06.14 19:20

stillsloppingout wrote:
haroldd2 wrote:
lj wrote: [...]

I wonder if the high cost and the trouble of getting these documents have played a role in that. Dr. Amaral was almost not able to get the documents because there was not enough money available.
How much does it cost to write to the High Court and ask them whether they are the guardian of this child, identified by name, date and place of birth, nationality and parents' names? There is the price of a stamp, piece of paper and envelope. Obtaining a stamped document acceptable to the Portuguese judge can't be that expensive. Or wouldn't be, were it not for "lawyer rates"!
Im no lawyer, Re this TB replied to myself outlining the procedure ,which he feels would have been required to obtain the information it is of my opinion that the cost would run into the tens of thousands . i would guess twenty odd thousand .

***
No kidding .. ??!!!!

by haroldd2 02.06.14 20:07

stillsloppingout wrote:

Im no lawyer, Re this TB replied to myself outlining the procedure ,which he feels would have been required to obtain the information it is of my opinion that the cost would run into the tens of thousands . i would guess twenty odd thousand .

The High Court will surely provide the information for free, so the costs are getting a lawyer to write the letter, getting a translator to translate it into English, and translating the document that comes back from the English court into Portuguese. I'm not sure whether the High Court would charge a stamp fee, but an apostille from the Foreign Office doesn't cost much.

Or maybe the honourable members of the
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or similar will look up from their tallow-lit desks, straighten their fingerless gloves, and try to impose a closed shop somewhere along the line? "Fifteen thousand if you pay upfront"? Nice work if you can get it! laughat

With apologies to any decent lawyers reading this (in fact if you are, you'll probably appreciate the above humour!).

All the Portuguese court needs to know is that she is a ward of an English court. That bringing the libel case counts as an "important" step seems to have been a Portuguese decision, so it follows that if they don't get a communication from the English court saying "we back this claim" (whether asking to take it over or saying it's OK for the McCanns to act on their behalf), then they can assume that the child's guardian, i.e. the English court, doesn't back the claim, and so out it goes, because it's been shown that the McCanns do not have the authority to bring it.

Since the McCanns are legally represented, I hope the judge awards costs against them for bringing a case they should have known they didn't have the authority to bring. If they say they were as pure as the driven snow and honestly believed they had the authority, let them sue their lawyers for negligence.

by Guest 02.06.14 20:15

I'm not sure whether this has been asked already, but has there ever previously been a case of parents attempting to receive money on behalf of and in the name of a child who does not live with them and is in fact a ward of court? How is this viewed legally?

by lj 02.06.14 21:24

I dunno much about the law, so I don't know if it would be able to it that easy as haroldd2 says. I do know Dr Amaral is dr in Portuguese law. He is also very cash strapped and would have no doubt sought for the cheapest possible solution.
I also remember very well the highly unprofessional remarks of judge Hog, so it might very well be she did try to make to costs prohibitive.

So I guess the idea that this was something simple and cheap to do might not be correct.

by plebgate 03.06.14 9:34

Popcorn wrote:I'm not sure whether this has been asked already, but has there ever previously been a case of parents attempting to receive money on behalf of and in the name of a child who does not live with them and is in fact a ward of court? How is this viewed legally?

I believe that common sense alone should possibly have made them stop and think if they were able to do it.

Would have been one of the first questions I would ask a solicitor before proceeding with any action.

Latest topics