McCanns to fight SC ruling - Daily Mail 18 Feb 2017

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237066/amp/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-fight-court-ruling.html?client=safari

Are there legs in this? Can the McCanns do anything about the Supreme Court decision without going to the ECHR? Do they intend to 'complain' about the decision to another set of SC judges? What's the point? Is there any possibility the decision could be reviewed by doing this? I don't get what their actual intention is, the piece does not make it clear.

Or is this a case of 'staying the execution'? The longer they drag this out the longer they avoid paying the costs. Are they planning to spirit away the remaining funds to avoid paying up? Just conjecture.

The article is by Gerard Couzens, the journalist whose motives Textusa took apart on Friday and concluded was still very Pro-McCann.

Is their 'complaint' actually the procedure for going to the ECHR ?
Can't see how you can raise a complaint against the SC within Portugal.
Who would have authority to overrule the SC?

I haven't yet read the entire article but I really hope that there is nothing more that the McCanns can do.

However, I have always thought that they will never allow anyone else to have the last word on the case.

Yes, Froggy, that's what I don't get. Is there some sort of 'internal complaints procedure' within the SC whereby you can challenge a decision within that Court? Surely not. There is this bit in the article:

"It was unclear today if another set of Supreme Court judges dealt with complaints about rulings - or they were handed to another judicial body to deal with."

The ECHR is referred to at the bottom of the article only - I think this is a seperate complaint to be sorted within the Supreme Court. As such, it is very bizarre indeed and I'd be surprised if this is even legally possible.

We need to see an English translation of the article in Correio da Manha before we will glean much more.

I have bolded the relevant bit, it would seem they are seeking an annulment and have or had 10 days to complain.




Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance'


Couple lost libel battle against police chief who claimed they faked abduction
Portugal's Supreme Court last month rejected last-ditch appeal over the case
McCanns are trying to get decision invalidated by launching formal complaint


'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.

'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'

Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance'

   Couple lost libel battle against police chief who claimed they faked abduction
   Portugal's Supreme Court last month rejected last-ditch appeal over the case
   McCanns are trying to get decision invalidated by launching formal complaint

By Gerard Couzens For The Mailonline

Published: 09:40, 18 February 2017 | Updated: 10:34, 18 February 2017

   

Missing Madeleine McCann's parents are reportedly fighting a Portuguese court decision to side with former police chief Goncalo Amaral over his hurtful claims about her disappearance



Missing Madeleine McCann's parents are reportedly fighting a Portuguese court decision to side with former police chief Goncalo Amaral over his hurtful claims about her disappearance.

The country's Supreme Court last month rejected their last-ditch appeal over his 2008 book The Truth of the Lie in which he alleged Maddie died in their holiday flat and they faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy.

Judges backed a lower court's April 2016 decision to reverse their 2015 libel win against the ex-detective, leaving them facing a huge legal bill and the nightmare prospect of being sued by Amaral.

And they also challenged Gerry and Kate's insistence they had nothing to with their daughter's disappearance in a devastating put-down which is said to have sparked their fresh legal challenge.

Best-selling Portuguese daily Correio da Manha said the couple were seeking to get the Supreme Court decision invalidated after launching a formal complaint against the judges' findings.

It was known they had 10 days to file an objection with court officials.

It is thought the McCanns' reported attempt to nullify the decision is based on comments made by the judges in their 76-page ruling that the 2008 shelving of the Portuguese probe into their daughter's disappearance 'was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the crimes by the appellants.'

The McCanns had their status as 'arguidos' or official suspects lifted on the same day - July 21 2008 - just three days before Amaral published his controversial book.
The country's Supreme Court last month rejected their last-ditch appeal over his 2008 book The Truth of the Lie in which Mr Amaral (pictured) alleged Maddie died in their holiday flat and they faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy
A file photo of Madeleine McCann released after she went missing

The country's Supreme Court last month rejected their last-ditch appeal over his 2008 book The Truth of the Lie in which Mr Amaral (left) alleged Maddie (right) died in their holiday flat and they faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy

Correio da Manha reported today: 'The McCanns have requested the annulment of the Supreme Court decision, terming it frivolous for saying it 'had not been possible for public prosecutors to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants.'

The newspaper said the McCanns had described the ruling as 'leviano' in the complaint lodged through their Portuguese lawyer - which in English translates as 'frivolous' but can also mean 'sloppy' or 'rash'.

No-one from the Supreme Court was available for comment this morning.

The McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte is refusing to say anything after receiving instructions from the couple not to make any public comment on the case.

She said yesterday when asked whether the couple had filed a formal complaint to the Supreme Court about the ruling: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.'
The McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte is refusing to say anything after receiving instructions from the couple not to make any public comment on the case
+5

The McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte is refusing to say anything after receiving instructions from the couple not to make any public comment on the case

It was unclear today if another set of Supreme Court judges dealt with complaints about rulings - or they were handed to another judicial body to deal with.

Amaral was ordered to pay the McCanns EUROS 500,000 euros (POUNDS 430,000) by a Lisbon court in April 2015 after they won round one of their lengthy judicial battle over his book and a subsequent TV documentary.

The former police chief got that ruling - and a ban on selling his book - overturned on appeal in April last year.

The decision by Lisbon's Court of Appeal sparked the Supreme Court fight which was resolved on January 31.

The full 76-page ruling said to have sparked a new legal challenge by the McCanns was released last week.

Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.

But they added: 'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.

'In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.

'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'

They added, highlighting the McCanns' Tapas Nine friend Jane Tanner's much-questioned sighting of the suspected 'abductor': 'It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
She said yesterday when asked whether the couple had filed a formal complaint to the Supreme Court about the ruling: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself'


She said yesterday when asked whether the couple had filed a formal complaint to the Supreme Court about the ruling: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself'

'However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped.'

The Supreme Court judges said the McCanns claimed Amaral's book and the TV documentary based on the book formed no part of case files made public in 2008 and would have damaged the honour and good name of any 'innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation.'

But they stated: 'We consider the invocation of the violation of the principle of innocence should not be taken into account here, since this issue is not relevant to the resolution of the question that needs to be decided here.'

They said the 'crucial question' for them was how to resolve the rights of Kate and Gerry McCann to their 'good name and reputation' and the rights of Goncalo Amaral and the other respondents including the book editors to the constitutionally-inshrined right of 'freedom of expression.'

Concluding Amaral had not acted 'illicitly,' they ruled his book was not a personal and unjustified attack on the McCanns with a 'defamatory intention' behind it which would not be protected by freedom of speech rights.
Kate McCann holding Maddie's Cuddle Cat soft toy


Kate McCann holding Maddie's Cuddle Cat soft toy

Describing the book and the TV documentary based on it as an 'opinion' based on the logic of facts and evidence contained in the criminal case files, they added: 'Our opinion is that rather than an injurious animus, the intention was informative and defensive.'

The Supreme Court ruling meant Amaral was spared having to pay the McCanns the compensation he was ordered to hand them after the first court ruling in 2015.

The payment was frozen when he launched his successful appeal.

Earlier this month it emerged the ex detective, removed as head of the investigation into Madeleine's May 3 2007 disappearance after criticising British detectives, was writing a new book about the unsolved mystery.

It is understood he will be critical in the new book of some of the things Scotland Yard did in their review and later ongoing investigation of the case.

The former cop insisted from day one of his court fight with the McCanns that everything he wrote in his book was based on the publicly-available case files.

Kate and Gerry, both 48, of Rothley, Leicestershire, have said they will sue if 'The Truth of the Lie' is sold in Britain.

They said in a statement after learning of the Supreme Court ruling against them: 'What we have been told by our lawyers is obviously extremely disappointing.

'It is eight years since we brought the action, and in that time the landscape has changed dramatically, namely there is now a joint Metropolitan Police and Policia Judiciaria investigation which is what we have always wanted.

'The police in both countries continue to work on the basis that there is no evidence Madeleine has come to physical harm.

'We will of course be discussing the implications of the Supreme Court ruling with our lawyers in due course.'
Kate and Gerry, both 48, of Rothley, Leicestershire, have said they will sue if 'The Truth of the Lie' is sold in Britain
+5

Kate and Gerry, both 48, of Rothley, Leicestershire, have said they will sue if 'The Truth of the Lie' is sold in Britain

It is believed the McCanns are discussing the possibility of taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

The 20,000 page 'Madeleine files made public in 2008 contained a report by public prosecutors which said:' No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstance of Madeleine's disappearance from the apartment…including, and most dramatically, establishing whether she is alive or dead, which seems more probable.'

Referring to the McCanns' much-criticised decision to leave their daughter, then three, alone with younger siblings Sean and Amelie while they ate tapas nearby, it added: 'We must also recognise that the parents are paying a heavy penalty over the disappearance of Madeleine for their carelessness in monitoring and protecting their children.'

Portuguese police chiefs said late last year they were 'completely in tune' with British detectives still investigating Madeleine's disappearance, appearing to end years of tension between the two forces whose theories on the youngster's fate have differed wildly.

Portuguese prosecutors reopened their probe into Madeleine McCann's disappearance in May 2014, and are now working in close coordination with Scotland Yard's scaled-down Operation Grange probe into Madeleine's fate.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237066/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-fight-court-ruling.html

Good old AdirenM:

"N.M@AdirenM

I may be wrong, but I've never heard of a Supreme Court decision being over-ruled since I exist. Let alone one that has a previous 1 #McCann"


https://mobile.twitter.com/AdirenM?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I'm convinced this is a delaying tactic to avoid paying up. Hope those funds are protected, but bet they aren't.

Posted by portugalpress on February 18, 2017

Natasha Donn


Hysteria mounts as McCann parents revealed to be “fighting” defeat in Portugal’s Supreme Court


Rising hysteria following the crushing defeat suffered by the parents of Madeleine McCann in the Supreme Court last month has been ratcheted up this weekend with news that the couple are now on the attack.

According to a report in today’s Correio da Manhã, the couple consider the court has been “frivolous” in upholding last year’s decision, on appeal, to free former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral from paying any damages for his thesis on their daughter’s disappearance: the best-selling book “Maddie: The Truth of the Lie”.

The basis of the so-called frivolity, says CM, is the reference the panel of judges made to the couple not having been considered “innocent” in the affair (click here).

The particular clause under attack is the one referring to the Public Ministry’s decision to drop the McCann’s ‘arguido’ (official suspect) status on the basis it had not been able to “obtain sufficient proof of the practice of crimes”, claims the paper.

But huge question marks remain over which body the McCanns are actually complaining to, and how an annulment of a decision from the highest court in the land could be obtained.

For the time being, CM’s story is just a small paragraph in the “latest news” stories on its Saturday back page.

In the UK, the Daily Mail has picked it up, without adding anything new.

Stretching the story out to nine paragraphs, the top-selling tabloid addresses a lot of its ‘gaps’: the “huge legal bill” that the couple will be facing now that Amaral does not have to pay them the €500,000 set by an earlier court, the “nightmare prospect of being sued by Amaral” for damages he has suffered over the eight years of litigation, and of course, the “devastating put down” said to have sparked this “fresh challenge”: that they had a hand in the affair - something they have always denied.

If this was the only story to have followed the Supreme Court’s decision, it could be argued that this was ‘the next logical step’. But stories have been hitting the UK media almost daily since January 31 (when the judges’ decision was first published) - and Correio da Manhã has had its moments, too, where it claimed the McCanns have been making ‘thousands of euros’ by “selling their pain” in the form of media interviews.

Added to the latest media circus comes a new policy by UK tabloids to seemingly allow all readers’ comments, without screening.

Bystanders have been astounded by the venom unleashed online, with the Sun particularly allowing the kind of commentary that in the past it condemned as coming from ‘vile trolls’.

“Suddenly, anything goes”, a UK media source told us.

Even more bizarre have been stories alluding to the McCann’s having ‘banned’ their Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte from talking to the press (another account from the Daily Mail/ Tracey Kandohla, a reporter who writes about the Madeleine mystery for the Sun and the Mirror and is believed to be a friend of Kate McCann).

Kandohla explains that Duarte had been “carefully considering reaction” on behalf of the couple, since the Supreme Court put down, but has now been warned: “Don’t say anything!”

This has thrown up the contents of a BBC Panorama programme, screened years ago, when Duarte told reporter Richard Bilton that she felt “alone” and that many of her friends refused to talk to her about the case, as “everyone believes that I am defending a father and mother that have killed their daughter and got rid of the corpse” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=979aGU6Ezkk).

Considering this is a story previously protected by top-flight lawyers - who have used the threat of legal action to silence dissenting voices - and further shielded by a high-profile press spokesman, publicity since the Supreme Court ruling appears to have gone haywire.

http://portugalresident.com/hysteria-mounts-as-mccann-parents-revealed-to-be-%E2%80%9Cfighting%E2%80%9D-defeat-in-portugal%E2%80%99s-supreme-court

Thanks Candyfloss. So once again the real nuggets come from Portugal. Stand out sentences for me:


For the time being, CM’s story is just a small paragraph in the “latest news” stories on its Saturday back page.

“Suddenly, anything goes”, a UK media source told us. 

Considering this is a story previously protected by top-flight lawyers - who have used the threat of legal action to silence dissenting voices - and further shielded by a high-profile press spokesman, publicity since the Supreme Court ruling appears to have gone haywire.



So there has been a media gag, seemingly via the threat of litigation. But not, apparently, any more. So have Carter Ruck withdrawn their services or is the word coming from higher up?

Joana Morais ‏@JoanaAMorais  · 22m  

Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court
Kate and Gerry #McCann ask for the ruling to be annulled

http://joana.morais.blogspot.pt

Trying to catch up with all this as well. Different McStories coming out every day at the moment.

I suppose they'll have to come out 'fighting' as if they don't then it's another indication of their guilt. And more and more people are cottoning on that they are 'guilty'. I was chatting to a couple of friends today who said to me 'have you seen the news about the McCann's this week.... It looks like your were right all along and they do have something to hide'.... To which I smugly replied with a 'told you so'.

This recent one is just noise. There is diddly squat they can do and they know it. But for sure they won't go down without a fight.

Joana Morais ‏@JoanaAMorais · 27m27 minutes ago

Joana Morais Retweeted roger patrick kelly

#McCann reactions are inane: 1st they tried to CarterRuck 7 year old youtube videos, 2nd silence their own lawyer, 3rd defy STJ Court ruling

Dee Coy wrote:Thanks Candyfloss. So once again the real nuggets come from Portugal. Stand out sentences for me:


For the time being, CM’s story is just a small paragraph in the “latest news” stories on its Saturday back page.

“Suddenly, anything goes”, a UK media source told us. 

Considering this is a story previously protected by top-flight lawyers - who have used the threat of legal action to silence dissenting voices - and further shielded by a high-profile press spokesman, publicity since the Supreme Court ruling appears to have gone haywire.



So there has been a media gag, seemingly via the threat of litigation.  But not, apparently,  any more. So have Carter Ruck withdrawn their services or is the word coming from higher up?

David Beckham's injunction to stop the publication of his emails was ruled unenforceable when other European countries, who were not subject to the injunction, published the details.

The McCanns are in the same position in that any injunction is worthless if the information they want suppressing has been published in Portugal.

I agree with you Andrew, this challenge is just noise.

I'd love to know the reaction of the Supreme Court Judges, who created a well thought out and carefully worded 75 page long verdict, when they hear that their work is considered "frivolous". I can see that going down well

"frivolous" ... they must be kidding, or are afraid, or desperate, or have a sense of humour, which escapes me.

I know! Frivolous! Words fail.

This will really P-Off the SC judges imo, talk about digging your own grave.

But how much will this delay them having to fork out? Are we looking at another year or so before they have to pay the costs?

I'm [kind of] confident, that all of this will be over before the 10th anniversary.
IMO they've no way to turn to.
Scraping the barrel, when finally truth [defeat] comes closer ...
Take care of the twins!
IMO again.

Châtelaine wrote:"frivolous" ... they must be kidding, or are afraid, or desperate, or have a sense of humour, which escapes me.

Afraid and desperate I should think. They're thrashing around before they sink, I believe. OG's silence (unless they really are after a whitewash) is only encouraging their lunatic actions.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-lodge-complaint-9843695

ETA:

The McCanns may take the case to the European courts, but legal experts say they must prove they have a valid reason of appeal before any hearing would be even considered.

I've recently read HOW difficult it is to appeal to ECHR.
IMO they've no leg to stand on - in that respect & a couple of others ...

@ espeland

Yes, I've always maintained, that OGs silence gives me hope for a solution in this case.

Andrew wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-lodge-complaint-9843695

ETA:

The McCanns may take the case to the European courts, but legal experts say they must prove they have a valid reason of appeal before any hearing would be even considered.

Hmmm,

[snipped]

However, it has emerged today that the couple have lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court.

When asked if she had lodged a formal complaint against the Supreme Court ruling, the The McCann's Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte confirmed today: “We delivered it.”

Great picture and that is exactly what will happen to any complaint made.

When asked if she had lodged a formal complaint against the Supreme Court ruling, the The McCann's Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte confirmed today: “We delivered it.”

Oops, I thought the McCanns had told their Portuguese lawyer NOT to comment publicly.

Perhaps they are going to try and sue the Supreme Court. I just don't think they will ever stop this narcissistic behaviour.

Birdy wrote:Perhaps they are going to try and sue the Supreme Court. I just don't think they will ever stop this narcissistic behaviour.

Its not imo....just endless games we have to wait till they stop!!

They won't stop... They've been fighting for their lives since the 3rd of May 2007 and will continue to do so.

It will stop once we see some EAW's dished out and some handcuffs slapped on.