The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Mm11

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Regist10

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

Page 3 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Watching on 01.06.14 20:43

@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!
avatar
Watching

Posts : 289
Activity : 293
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-02-13

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by sami on 01.06.14 20:45

@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.
avatar
sami

Posts : 965
Activity : 1019
Likes received : 54
Join date : 2012-04-08

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Watching on 01.06.14 20:50

@Mirage wrote:
@TheTruthWillOut wrote:
@Mirage wrote:I am wondering if this libel suit could now be adjudged vexatious.

It is the very definition!   big grin 

denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.

Especially when this quote comes back to haunt Kate McCann:
"He deserves to be miserable and feel fear"

Vexatious doesn't cover it then! They intended much more than  'annoyance?' more malicious intent, done to cause the greatest harm, and hardship, in the hope they caused GA as Mrs said misery and fear.  What kind of sicko b-tch is Mrs?
avatar
Watching

Posts : 289
Activity : 293
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-02-13

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by tasprin on 01.06.14 20:51

It's no secret that the McCanns sued Amaral naming Madeleine as a plaintiff. The libel trial has been front page news since 2010 and can't have escaped the attention of the family court. Madeleine is a Ward of Court and it's confirmed that the McCanns didn't obtain the necessary authorisation to bring an action in her name but for some reason the court has ignored it. The British Family Court is renowned for its ruthlessness so why has this situation been allowed to continue for 5 years without anyone from the court stepping in?
avatar
tasprin

Posts : 834
Activity : 896
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by ShuBob on 01.06.14 20:51

@russiandoll wrote:Why did ID not produce the relevant /required documentation when Amaral raised this issue with the court?

  There is a lively debate on twitter now about whether that judgment implies that the PT court will allow this authorisation in retrospect.. my reading of it is NO... the judge wants to see if UK authorisation was in existence when the case was brought to court, if not...

 The judge might throw the entire case out as vexatious for timewasting and the Mcs not going through the necessary process. Why has ID allowed them to do this ?

I am sure Amaral and the various lawyers representing the other defendants will vehemently oppose any such ruling. Like you, I think it's a non-started.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by sami on 01.06.14 20:52

@russiandoll wrote:Why did ID not produce the relevant /required documentation when Amaral raised this issue with the court?

  There is a lively debate on twitter now about whether that judgment implies that the PT court will allow this authorisation in retrospect.. my reading of it is NO... the judge wants to see if UK authorisation was in existence when the case was brought to court, if not...

 The judge might throw the entire case out as vexatious for timewasting and the Mcs not going through the necessary process. Why has ID allowed them to do this ?



Was ID not confident they could bring a case, without the inclusion of Madeleine ?  What is the exact nature of the suit ?  They have no right to seek compensation on Madeleine's behalf and have now been told so for a second time.

Are they entitled to compensation for themselves and the twins, on the basis the search has been harmed (allegedly) by Amaral's book.  Perhaps not, given they have no rights to act on her behalf, should they be compensated at all as she is legally not in their charge.

T
avatar
sami

Posts : 965
Activity : 1019
Likes received : 54
Join date : 2012-04-08

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Watching on 01.06.14 20:52

@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.
No they weren't you are correct, but as suspects at that time in the case of their missing daughter they should not have been given anything IMHO.  Never heard the likes, suspects getting access.
avatar
Watching

Posts : 289
Activity : 293
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-02-13

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by missmar1 on 01.06.14 20:57

@Watching 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.
No they weren't you are correct, but as suspects at that time in the case of their missing daughter they should not have been given anything IMHO.  Never heard the likes, suspects getting access.
 I may be wrong , but I believe they were only given their own files back ...ie, the files their own solicitors had handed in to Leic police
avatar
missmar1

Posts : 253
Activity : 253
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by ShuBob on 01.06.14 20:57

@tasprin wrote:It's no secret that the McCanns sued Amaral naming Madeleine as a plaintiff. The libel trial has been front page news since 2010 and can't have escaped the attention of the family court. Madeleine is a Ward of Court and it's confirmed that the McCanns didn't obtain the necessary authorisation to bring an action in her name but for some reason the court has ignored it. The British Family Court is renowned for its ruthlessness so why has this situation been allowed to continue for 5 years without anyone from the court stepping in?

Had Amaral not brought the issue up, there's the possibility the couple would have got away with it and then the British courts would have remained silent like they've been since 2010, even before!

I have to say that huge credit goes to Amaral for obtaining the documentation. It couldn't have been easy especially given how difficult the PJ found it trying to obtain documents before the case was archived. Perhaps, Tessy May really wants this case solved.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Mirage on 01.06.14 21:03

@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.
From memory, what the pair argued to the court (in absentia) once they realised they were on a losing wicket was that info had been passed to Leics police of calls had come in from people with information that had not been followed up. Having given up on a more ambitious claim of looking at all files they settled for requesting these people's contact details from the files for their own investigation.

As I say, this is from memory only. I believe they were given very limited info in the end because the Leics Chief Constable objected in court to allowing them open season on police files.

I was never too sure why this volte-face occurred, considering how they were allowed to steer the rogs and see to it that  the tapas lot  could look at each others' statements and generally get all their ducks in a row. Not that this stopped them sounding incoherent.
avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by russiandoll on 01.06.14 21:05

KEY POINTS  imo :


The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.  [ i.e.   was a requirement  at the time of filing the libel action]

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

 Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”. [ all claims re Maddie will be null and void ?]

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.


 pros arguing Amaral knows he is in the merde and the wardship ploy was to lessen the amount of damages by removing Maddie's name from the libel case.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

russiandoll
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Activity : 4058
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Montclair on 01.06.14 21:09

@canada12 wrote:
@Watching wrote:'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'


A written statement to be read out in Court or is Mr going to make an appearance?

They've vowed not to return unless Madeleine's DNA is discovered. Will be interesting if Gerry does appear to read a statement. He can't ever be sure now that whatever he states won't come back to slap him in the face at some point.

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.
Montclair
Montclair

Posts : 156
Activity : 159
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 74
Location : Algarve

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Mirage on 01.06.14 21:11

@Montclair wrote:
@canada12 wrote:
@Watching wrote:'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'


A written statement to be read out in Court or is Mr going to make an appearance?

They've vowed not to return unless Madeleine's DNA is discovered. Will be interesting if Gerry does appear to read a statement. He can't ever be sure now that whatever he states won't come back to slap him in the face at some point.

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.
Is that as in, not a read-out statement, Montclair?
avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by russiandoll on 01.06.14 21:22

Almost feel sorry for the pros. JATYK2, UK Justice Forum, Twitter.... like a stuck record. Yes, it reads as if the Mcs did need the authorisation at the time. How does anyone know that they did not have it?

 Answer - because the judge has read the wardship documentation provided by Amaral and within that there appears to be nothing suggesting that the McCann position was that they could act on her behalf in legal matters ?

They did not appear to have this right in 2009. If they did, they have omitted to show the court the necessary documentation. Not good for them in either case, although the judge seems pretty certain that the former is the state of affairs.

 Oops.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

russiandoll
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Activity : 4058
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Montclair on 01.06.14 21:23

@russiandoll wrote:Why did ID not produce the relevant /required documentation when Amaral raised this issue with the court?

  There is a lively debate on twitter now about whether that judgment implies that the PT court will allow this authorisation in retrospect.. my reading of it is NO... the judge wants to see if UK authorisation was in existence when the case was brought to court, if not...

 The judge might throw the entire case out as vexatious for timewasting and the Mcs not going through the necessary process. Why has ID allowed them to do this ?

The correct word, BTW, is retroactive not retrospect. Sorry for being pedantic but the use of retrospective got to me.

However, it is a constant in law that no decision or action can have a retroactive effect. Therefore, the authorisation had to have been given prior to the filing of the lawsuits. Either their lawyer is sloppy or they thought that the case would be settled out of court and there would be no need to go into a courtroom.
Montclair
Montclair

Posts : 156
Activity : 159
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 74
Location : Algarve

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Montclair on 01.06.14 21:26

@Mirage wrote:
@Montclair wrote:
@canada12 wrote:
@Watching wrote:'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'


A written statement to be read out in Court or is Mr going to make an appearance?

They've vowed not to return unless Madeleine's DNA is discovered. Will be interesting if Gerry does appear to read a statement. He can't ever be sure now that whatever he states won't come back to slap him in the face at some point.

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.
Is that as in, not a read-out statement, Montclair?

That is correct. Gerry cannot read out a written statement. It must come from the heart, which will be very difficult considering that Gerry does not have one.
Montclair
Montclair

Posts : 156
Activity : 159
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-01-26
Age : 74
Location : Algarve

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Shhh on 01.06.14 21:29

Apologies, just posted about this in the trial forum
avatar
Shhh

Posts : 198
Activity : 238
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-03-03

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by sallypelt on 01.06.14 21:31

Maybe it's worth posting this here, as it may have had some bearing on Dr Amaral getting the information he was seeking:

Family law changes: information from the Ministry of Justice - See more at: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/family-court-resources/family-law-changes-information-from-the-ministry-of-justice/#sthash.1eanyJNo.dpuf

As you will be aware, the Children and Families Act 2014 was given Royal Assent on 13 March and a number of significant family justice reforms will be introduced from 22 April.

The reforms to the family justice system are aimed at improving the way the system functions as a whole. In particular, we want to make sure that the welfare of children is at the centre of decisions, reduce delays in proceedings, and encourage families to use court as a last resort to resolve disputes. We are:
Placing a requirement on a person to attend a meeting to find out about mediation before they are allowed to make certain applications to the family court, for example, disputes over finances or children arrangements (unless exemptions apply – such as in cases of domestic violence).
Moving to the use of child arrangements orders (CAOs) in place of ‘residence’ and ‘contact’ orders.
Streamlining court processes for divorce and dissolution of a civil partnership by removing the requirement for the court to consider the arrangements for children as part of these processes.
Introducing a 26-week time limit for completing care and supervision cases, to improve the timeliness of finding a permanent placement for children. The court will have the discretion to extend cases by up to eight weeks at a time, should that be necessary to resolve proceedings justly.
Restricting the use of expert evidence in children (both public and private law) proceedings to that which is necessary to resolve the proceedings justly and requires courts to have regard to the impact of delay on the child when deciding whether to permit expert evidence in children proceedings and whether the court can obtain information from parties already involved;
Reducing unnecessary administrative work, by removing the need to renew interim care orders and interim supervision orders as frequently, allowing the courts to set interim orders which are in line with the timetable for the case.

It is also planned for the Crime and Courts Act 2013 section 17(3) to be commenced on 22 April. This will create a single Family Court for England and Wales, which should operate more efficiently for court users.

A programme of secondary legislation for the family court will also come into force on 22 April and the creation of the Family Court has meant a significant amount of legislation will be revoked, repealed or amended. The main implications for family practitioners are set out below.

The single Family Court

When the new single Family Court comes into operation it will be able to deal with all family proceedings, except for a limited number of matters, which will be exclusively reserved to the High Court. At the same time family proceedings courts will cease to exist.

Magistrates’ courts and the new single county court will not be able to deal with family proceedings. However, as the family court can sit anywhere in England and Wales, in practice hearings will tend to be in county or magistrates court buildings. You will still receive notification of the address of the court building that you should attend for a hearing.

Lay magistrates and all levels of judges will be able to sit on the Family Court.

Applications for family proceedings should be sent to the Family Court. You should be able to locate your nearest Designated Family Court Centre on the updated courtfinder on the gov.uk website.

Appeals against decisions of a district judge (Magistrates’ Courts) will require permission to appeal. Appeals against case management decisions will now need to be made within seven days. There are some changes to the routes of appeal which are set out in legislation.

Transitional arrangements are being finalised and will be set out in a Transitional Order and Practice Direction which will be available later this month. But all outstanding family proceedings that were issued in a county court or Family Proceedings Court before 22 April will continue in the Family Court. Any applications received but not issued on or before 21 April will be issued in the Family Court.

Mediation

The new legal requirement for applicants to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting: The Pre-Application Protocol (part of Practice Direction 3A) introduced in April 2011 clearly states that prospective applicants and respondents in family cases are 'expected' to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) to see if mediation might be helpful to them, before they can make certain applications.

The Children & Families Act turns this 'expectation' into a legal requirement for the applicant so it is more important than ever that you make sure that any prospective court applicant knows that they need to contact a mediator in order to arrange a MIAM.

Revised Practice Direction 3A reinforces the expectation on prospective respondents to attend a MIAM if asked to do so.

The exemptions from MIAM attendance have been amended and are set out in Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules and in revised Practice Direction 3A.

Where an application is being made for a Section 8 Children Act 1989 order, or for a financial order or financial remedy, you/your client will need to complete new MIAM sections contained in application forms C100, Form A and Form A1. Form FM1 will no longer be in use for these forms, but an amended version of Form FM1 will be used for less common types of private law Children Act applications in conjunction with Forms C1 and C2.

Where your client is the prospective applicant you should advise them that compliance with section 10 of the Act and with Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules and revised Practice Direction 3A) will be checked before the application is issued and allocated in the new family court. If necessary hearings will be adjourned to allow attendance at a MIAM. More information on this is in the new Child Arrangement Programme (PD12B).

You should also ensure that you make clear to enquirers that legal aid is still available for MIAM attendance and for mediation, including for legal advice in support of mediation. It is essential that your reception/switchboard staff are fully aware of the position on family mediation and legal aid and that they are advising callers appropriately.

You may wish to use public awareness materials produced by the Ministry of Justice and Family Mediation Council to help ensure the public understands the legal position. Materials make clear that legal advice can be sought at any stage of the mediation process. You can download a leaflet and poster from the Ministry of Justice's website. An embeddable public information video has been created part of the same suite of products.

Changes to legislation

The existing legislation including statutory instruments to create the Family Court is available on www.legislation.gov.uk and further legislation will be published on the site before 22 April. Amendments have also been made to the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Directions as a consequence of the Family Court and the implementation of the Children and Families Act 2014. Find out more.

The Public Law Outline (PLO) 2014 for care, supervision and other Part 4 proceedings will come into effect on 22 April. The PLO 2014 updates the pilot PLO that was introduced on 1 July 2013. There will also be an updated version of the C110A application form. The revised form should be used for all applications for care or supervision or other part 4 orders and for emergency protection orders from 22 April. Find out more.

Court forms

Many court forms have been amended. Most old versions of forms will be accepted but certain forms have been materially amended and so old versions will not be accepted. A list of those that will not be accepted will be contained in revised Practice Direction 36A to be issued shortly.

The new forms will be available on HM Courts and Tribunals Services' website from 22 April 2014. Ahead of this date, MoJ has created a temporary web page for practitioners and legal publishers from which copies of amended forms can be downloaded. Please note that the link to this web page is not intended to be disseminated to the general public.

The amended forms can be downloaded from the Ministry of Justice's website. New forms are being added as they are finalised.

Some titles of forms have been changed, an up to date list of the title of forms prescribed in the Family Procedures Rules 2010 will be in the amended PD5A.
- See more at: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/family-court-resources/family-law-changes-information-from-the-ministry-of-justice/#sthash.1eanyJNo.dpuf
avatar
sallypelt

Posts : 4000
Activity : 5314
Likes received : 960
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by canada12 on 01.06.14 21:33

Just had an interesting thought.

If it can be proved that Kate and Gerry knew they did not have the UK court's authorization to sue on behalf of Madeleine...
...and if it can be proved that this was NOT an oversight, but a clear case of going ahead with the libel lawsuit regardless...
Could GA sue Kate and Gerry for malicious prosecution?
avatar
canada12

Posts : 1461
Activity : 1697
Likes received : 210
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Shhh on 01.06.14 21:36

I don't like mrs Hogg one bit.  She gave Ellie butler back to her abusive family, the dad then went on to kill her.
avatar
Shhh

Posts : 198
Activity : 238
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-03-03

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by ShuBob on 01.06.14 21:37

@Montclair wrote:
@Mirage wrote:
@Montclair wrote:SNIP

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.
Is that as in, not a read-out statement, Montclair?

That is correct. Gerry cannot read out a written statement. It must come from the heart, which will be very difficult considering that Gerry does not have one.

 laughat 
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by canada12 on 01.06.14 21:38

@ShuBob wrote:
@Montclair wrote:
@Mirage wrote:
@Montclair wrote:SNIP

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.
Is that as in, not a read-out statement, Montclair?

That is correct. Gerry cannot read out a written statement. It must come from the heart, which will be very difficult considering that Gerry does not have one.

 laughat 

He can probably borrow one. He knows people in the business.
avatar
canada12

Posts : 1461
Activity : 1697
Likes received : 210
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by ShuBob on 01.06.14 21:42

@canada12 wrote:Just had an interesting thought.

If it can be proved that Kate and Gerry knew they did not have the UK court's authorization to sue on behalf of Madeleine...
...and if it can be proved that this was NOT an oversight, but a clear case of going ahead with the libel lawsuit regardless...
Could GA sue Kate and Gerry for malicious prosecution?

I think he was already considering counter-suing them anyway. This may add weight to his claim.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by ShuBob on 01.06.14 21:43

@Shhh wrote:I don't like mrs Hogg one bit.  She gave Ellie butler back to her abusive family, the dad then went on to kill her.

I don't remember that case. What a dreadful decision if it is as you say  sad 
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014 - Page 3 Empty Re: Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial June 1st 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.06.14 21:50

@stillsloppingout wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Bang goes about one-fifth of their claim, I think.

Down to a mere 950,000 euros or so now (about £800,000)
Question: Possibly TB could answer .

Is it usual practice for a request for this type of document to be:

1) difficult to obtain for an overseas court?

2) an expensive undertaking ? 
 
I will reserve my judgement until I receive responses to this request.
First of all, I have now established that the McCanns' claim on behalf of Madeleine was actually 500,000 euros - much more than I'd remembered. I will say more about this in a moment.

Before answering your question (which I've only just seen), 'stillsloppingout', it is necessary to explain a few basic things about Wardship Proceedings, a legal procedure I've been involved in professionally many times in the past, both as a child care social worker, and later, as a solicitor.

Before doing so, it is necessary to say, once again, that in so many respects this case is wholly unique, so when, SSO, you refer to 'usual practice', there is no 'usual practice' in a case like this.

The basic purpose of making a child a Ward of Court (i.e. taking Wardship Proceedings, as the McCanns did) - or a Ward of the High Court to be precise - is to give the Court a range of extra powers in the interests of the child's welfare.

A common example would be where a parent refuses a medical procedure which is necessary for the child's health or life: e.g. Jehovah's Witness parents refusing a life-saving blood transfusion. The High Court steps in and orders the transfusion where the parents have refused.

Another basic principle where a child is a Ward of Court is that nobody - whether parent or anybody else - may take any significant step on behalf of the child without first getting the permission of the High Court. 

And this may be one of the things that is exercising Dr Amaral and the Lisbon Civil Court. As far as I can ascertain, Amaral's lawyer has asked a simple question of the High Court: did the McCanns ask permission of the High Court before making their libel claim on Madeleine's behalf in June 2009? I think the answer to that is probably: 'No'. 

Now, whether or not the Lisbon Civil Court take account of that, is another matter. They could take one of a range of views, for example:

1) 'The High Court hasn't given you permission to make this claim, therefore we're refusing it

2) We wiil allow the claim if the High Court gives permission, or, say

3) We will make an award, but only pay it to you if Madeleine is found alive.

Now, turning to your question, ShuBob has just now provided her answer (and I think she has some legal knowledge so is probably well qualified to answer):

I have to say that huge credit goes to Amaral for obtaining the documentation. It couldn't have been easy especially given how difficult the PJ found it trying to obtain documents before the case was archived.

I agree. For example, Amaral's Solicitor would have to find out which court made the order, where to write to etc. He would have to get a translator to translate his letter into English. In all probability the High Court would require Amaral to make a formal application in the Wardship Proceedings to be heard, as he is a third party (only the McCanns are parties to the proceedings). That would mean filling in a Court application form, again in English, paying any fee (the fees a high) and possibly, even (we don't know) attending a hearing in London. It's by no means a simple matter of putting through a 'phone call to a clerk in the High Court saying: "Oh, could you please tell me if the McCanns got permission to make a legal claim on Madeleine's behalf in the Lisbon High Court?"

I move on now to the amounts claimed by the McCanns in their libel claim

The made the following claims for damages:

Madeleine: 500,000 euros (5/12ths)
Gerry: 250,000 euros (5/24)
Kate: 250,000 euros (5/24)
Sean: 100,000 euros (one twelfth)
Amelie: 100,000 euros (one twelfth)

TOTAL: 1,200,000 euros

Now, at the time of their claim, the £ was trading at 1 euro = 85p.

That made the value of their claim £1,020,000.

However, since then the cost of living has risen in the past 5 years by around 18%. In real terms, therefore, the value of their claim has now been reduced to about £840,000.

But in addition to that, the value of the £ has dropped from 85p to around 81p, a drop of nearly 5%.

That reduces the total value of their claim from £840,000 to around £790,800. 

IF (and of course we don't know yet) the Lisbon Civil Court knocks out the claim for Madeleine, that removes 5/12ths (five twelfths) of the McCanns' total claim, thus, take off 5/12ths from £790,800, and we are left with just £461,300 - less than half of the value of their original claim.

That would then be split as follows:

£164,750 - Gerry
£164,750 - Kate
£65,900 - Sean
£65,900 - Amelie.

The only other thing to say is to point out the disgraceful way the Portuguese judicial system has been unable to deliver a verdict to the two parties after the lapse of a full 5 years, and the utter absurdity of deeming this book to be libellous given that it is freely on sale in 9 separate languages in over 30 countries across the globe - and is available on the internet in English (10th language) by virtue of AnnaEsse's translation. 

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum