21 steps to trial and secrecy of justice

Madeleine Beth McCann went missing from PDL in Portugal on the 3rd May 2007, there are so many unanswered questions, please discuss

21 steps to trial and secrecy of justice

Postby StinkySardine » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:02 pm

geeeez!.. the title reminds Kafka...

OK!

For the last couple of days, I have been involved in pseudo-legal discussions on this forum. I have tried to make a brief, more systematic description of how the whole thing works. It is VERY simle, it's SCHEMATIC (the whole legal monster is 130 pgs long!). Hope it helps. If the mods think this would be better on the legal thread, be my guest. I've tried to the best of my abilities, to make it readable to everybody.

Enjoy!!
:blackeye:
StinkySardine
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:48 pm
Location: Europe's West Coast

Re: A (tentative) summary of the Process

Postby Pussycat » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:03 pm

no linky, Stinky :)
Pussycat
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:22 pm

Re: A (tentative) summary of the Process

Postby StinkySardine » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:03 pm

1 - Police has knowledge of 'occurence'. Decides if it likely to be a crime

2 – After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Minist├®rio P├║blico)
3 – The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Minist├®rio P├║blico (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).

4 – Some powers can be delegated by the Minist├®rio P├║blico to the police (PJ)

5 – All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.

6 – Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why's that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 – which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.

7 – When the inquiry phase ends, the Minist├®rio P├║blico will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.

8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:

9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.

10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. 'overseen' as in the inquiry phase).

11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.

12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido

13 – The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.

14 – All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase

15 – No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.

16 – At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal 'get together' where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.

17 – In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)

18 – The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn't.

19 – The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it's null.

20 – It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is 'adjusted' at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A 'BULL'S EYE' CHARGE!

21 – The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury – under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.


SECRECY OF JUSTICE

Art.86
Publicity of the process and secrecy of justice

1 – The penal process is, under penalty of nullity, public, taken into consideration the exceptions foreseen in the law
2 – The instruction judge may, at the request of the arguido, the assistant or the plaintiff, and having heard the Public Ministry, determine the process will be under secrecy of justice in the inquiry phase if he/she believes publicity may harm the rights of those subjects or other legal participants. This decision is not subject to appeal.

3 – Whenever the MP believes that the investigation or the legal rights of the process participants may be in jeopardy, in can subject the process – in the inquiry phase – to secrecy of justice. That decision has to be validated by the instruction judge within 72 hours.

4 – In the case the process has been declared under secrecy of justice under the terms of the previous number, the MP can, by its own initiative or by request of the arguido, the assistant or the plaintiff, lift the secrecy terms at any moment of the inquiry.

5 – Whenever the arguido, the assistant or the plaintiff require lifting the secrecy terms but the MP does no do so, all documents are sent to the instruction, who will decide whether or not to lift those terms. That decision is not appealable.

6 – Publicity of the process implies, under the terms defined by the law, and particularly, of the following articles, the rights to:

a- for the public in general, to be present in all procedural acts
b- Narration of the procedural acts or the reproduction of its terms, by the media
c- Consultation of the files and request for copies, extracts and certified copies of any parts of those files

7 – Publicity does not include data pertaining to the basic rights of privacy that do not constitute evidence. The judicial authority determines, by dispatch, by its own initiative or at request, the elements which will remain [always – my annotation] under secrecy of justice ordering, if it's the case, its destruction or giving it back to the person(s) to whom it concerns.

8 – The secrecy of justice binds ALL those subjects and procedural participants as well as any other person who, in any count, has been in contact with the process or has any knowledge of any elements contained therein. Namely, it implies prohibition:

a- to witness or gather knowledge of any aspects of any procedural acts that he/she does not have the right or duty to witness or take knowledge
b- to publicise or otherwise divulge the occurrence of any procedural acts or its contents regardless of the motive of such publicity or divulgation.

9 – The judicial authority can, on a founded basis, give, order or allow access to certain persons of the contents of procedural acts or documents if it does not harm the investigation and if :

a- it's convenient to determine the truth
b- it's indispensable to allow the interested parties to exercise their rights

10 – The persons referred to in the previous number are nevertheless bound by secrecy of justice.

11 – The judicial authorities may authorise the emission of certified copies of the contents of a procedural act or document currently under secrecy of justice as long as such copies are necessary to a process of criminal nature, to the instruction of a disciplinary action of public nature or to the admission of a civil indenisation request.

12 – If the process concerns an accident caused by a road vehicle, the judicial authority will allow certified copies to be taken:

a- where knowledge is given of procedural act or document under secrecy of justice for the purposes foreseen in the last part of the previous number and under request founded on art. 72, n. 1, a.
b- From the official acknowledgement of accident notice emitted by police authority for the purposes of extrajudicial litigation resolution where the insurance company ensuring civil liability is an interested party.

13 – The secrecy of justice does not hinder the judicial authority to make public statements when they are necessary for the reestablishment of the truth and do not jeopardise the investigation:
a- At the request of persons who have been publicly put into question
b- to ensure the safety of people
Last edited by StinkySardine on Tue May 20, 2008 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
StinkySardine
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:48 pm
Location: Europe's West Coast

Re: A (tentative) summary of the Process

Postby Photon » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:26 pm

StinkySardine wrote:1 - Police has knowledge of 'occurence'. Decides if it likely to be a crime

2 – After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Minist├®rio P├║blico)
3 – The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Minist├®rio P├║blico (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).

4 – Some powers can be delegated by the Minist├®rio P├║blico to the police (PJ)

5 – All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.

6 – Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why's that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 – which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.

7 – When the inquiry phase ends, the Minist├®rio P├║blico will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.

8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:

9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.

10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. 'overseen' as in the inquiry phase).

11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.

12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido

13 – The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.

14 – All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase

15 – No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.

16 – At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal 'get together' where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.

17 – In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)

18 – The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn't.

19 – The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it's null.

20 – It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is 'adjusted' at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A 'BULL'S EYE' CHARGE!

21 – The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury – under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.


Very many thanks for that - incredibly informative :D
Truth always seems stranger than fiction, somehow!

Soon, very soon the world will know the "Truth about the Lie" and "we will gain truth and justice for a little girl who has no voice", dead on the evening of May 3rd
User avatar
Photon
On Parole
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:13 pm
Location: Lancashire, UK

Re: A (tentative) summary of the Process

Postby bonnybraes1 » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:44 pm

Thanks for a clear explanation, stinky!
bonnybraes1
Moderator
 
Posts: 3681
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:46 pm

Re: A (tentative) summary of the Process

Postby mickey1 » Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:11 pm

Thank you Sardine its all sooooooo confusing to us Brits exposed to Morse and Rebus
"Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense" [Winston Churchill]
User avatar
mickey1
On Parole
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:47 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: A (tentative) summary of the Process

Postby MaryPoppins2 » Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:11 pm

StinkySardine wrote:1 - Police has knowledge of 'occurence'. Decides if it likely to be a crime

2 – After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Minist├®rio P├║blico)
3 – The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Minist├®rio P├║blico (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).

4 – Some powers can be delegated by the Minist├®rio P├║blico to the police (PJ)

5 – All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.

6 – Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why's that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 – which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.

7 – When the inquiry phase ends, the Minist├®rio P├║blico will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.

8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:

9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.

10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. 'overseen' as in the inquiry phase).

11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.

12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido

13 – The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.

14 – All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase

15 – No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.

16 – At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal 'get together' where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.

17 – In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)

18 – The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn't.

19 – The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it's null.

20 – It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is 'adjusted' at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A 'BULL'S EYE' CHARGE!

21 – The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury – under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.


Thanks indeed SS. Clear and refreshingly 'unclarrified' :D
MaryPoppins2
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:59 pm

Re: A (tentative) summary of the Process

Postby mannie » Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:17 pm

MaryPoppins2 wrote:
StinkySardine wrote:1 - Police has knowledge of 'occurence'. Decides if it likely to be a crime

2 – After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Minist├®rio P├║blico)
3 – The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Minist├®rio P├║blico (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).

4 – Some powers can be delegated by the Minist├®rio P├║blico to the police (PJ)

5 – All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.

6 – Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why's that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 – which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.

7 – When the inquiry phase ends, the Minist├®rio P├║blico will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.

8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:

9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.

10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. 'overseen' as in the inquiry phase).

11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.

12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido

13 – The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.

14 – All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase

15 – No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.

16 – At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal 'get together' where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.

17 – In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)

18 – The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn't.

19 – The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it's null.

20 – It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is 'adjusted' at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A 'BULL'S EYE' CHARGE!

21 – The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury – under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.


Thank you,very clear,much more easy to understand what is going on now.
mannie
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 21 steps to trial

Postby Laffin Assasin » Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:33 pm

Thanks
Laffin Assasin
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 3866
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:18 am
Location: Far side of the moon

Re: 21 steps to trial

Postby StinkySardine » Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:37 pm

Thanks for the kind words, guys.

U all have a nice week-end.

See ya on Monday! :D
StinkySardine
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:48 pm
Location: Europe's West Coast

Re: 21 steps to trial

Postby Alpine Aster » Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:57 pm

Thank you Sardine, it was very informative.
Those who play the game do not see as clearly as those who watch
User avatar
Alpine Aster
Local Lag
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: Venus ;-)

Re: 21 steps to trial

Postby dogrose » Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:11 am

interesting thank you
User avatar
dogrose
On Parole
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:47 am

Re: 21 steps to trial

Postby beachy » Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:21 am

Very helpful, SS. Thank you for all your effort.
beachy
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: 21 steps to trial

Postby celticcarla » Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:48 am

:salute: :blob: :blob2: :blob3: :blob4: :blob5: :blob6: :blob7: :blob8: :hello1: :hello1: :hello1:

Thank you our learned friend thanks for the clear and conscise and dilligent detail.
"We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business", says David Payne.
Gonçalo Amaral promises to clarify "all the lies created"
User avatar
celticcarla
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 2552
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:13 am

Re: 21 steps to trial

Postby mickey1 » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:44 pm

Sardine or any Portuguese legal type....

It has been said that the Mcs were arguidificated so that the PJ could then put certain questions to them...

What kind of questions would they be?? how different from normal??

and surely if the arguidification gives them the right to not answer questions, surely self-defeating in its concept??
"Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense" [Winston Churchill]
User avatar
mickey1
On Parole
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:47 pm
Location: Scotland

Next

Return to Justice for Madeleine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests