Latest News HelenaFiquiras / Paulo Lourenco

Helena Figueiras / Paulo Lourenço
17 Jun, 2014, 14:25 / updated on 17 Jun, 2014, 14:36
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation/transcript

Gonçalo Amaral states that there isn't anything else to add to the Madeleine McCann disappearance and, for that same reason, he isn't planning on publishing a second book about the girl's case, even though he has already written it. Despite the fact that the former Judiciary Police inspector still has to face the McCann couple in court, he continues to maintain that the Portuguese police investigation was a job well done and that he would only do one thing differently. He would have had considered Kate and Gerry McCann as suspects on the exact day the child disappeared.


Transcript

Helena Figueiras [Voice Over] - Gonçalo Amaral says that he is not a victim of the Maddie case but acknowledges that he has been dealing with the consequences of a battle for the past seven years, a battle which he was forced to fight on the account of being a policeman.

ongoing...

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 11, 16 June 2014


Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 11
With thanks to Anne Guedes for report

Libel Trial > McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 11

The hearing as it happened

(16.06.2014, 10.30am)
The judge informs the court that she has received a request this morning from Gonçalo Amaral to consider the fact that he has just dismissed his lawyer, Dr Vitor Santos de Oliveira.

The lawyers are asked to state their respective position on this issue.

- Dr. Santos de Oliveira [Gonçalo Amaral's former lawyer]

He explains that the notification sent to him by Gonçalo Amaral implies that his participation as a lawyer is inhibited and therefore he can't function as the authorised representative of Gonçalo Amaral.

He considers that, given the nature of this process, the instruction of a new lawyer is required. Therefore he asks for the suspension of the current session.

- Dr. Fátima de Oliveira Esteves [Guerra e Paz book publishers]

She observes firstly the oddness of notifying the court of the dismissal at 9am.

She reminds the court of the CPC [Civil Process Code] rules with regard to the conditions of the dismissal, the effects of which start directly after the notification.

She reminds the court also that the contradictory principle is at the core of a civil trial. If the instruction of a new lawyer is required, it can happen only after the notification. Therefore there has to be a delay in order for Gonçalo Amaral to instruct a new lawyer.

- Dr Miguel Coroadinha [TVI, Portuguese TV channel]

He has nothing to add except to express his solidarity with Dr Santos de Oliveira.

- Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto [Valentim de Carvalho Productions]

He seconds Dr Miguel Coroadinha's words about solidarity and says that the solution to the current issue belongs with the court: To suspend or interrupt the hearing? (The difference is minimal and more a technicality with an effect on expiring terms).

He observes that now the dismissal of Santos de Oliveira's mandate to represent Gonçalo Amaral has taken effect, it would not be right to go ahead with the hearing, and is a solid reason (force majeure) for interrupting it.

He believes that the legal delay to constitute a new lawyer is 10 days, subject to the Tribunal eventually naming a representative.

- Dra Isabel Duarte [McCanns' lawyer]

She observes that the Court was notified of the dismissal only this morning, when her clients had already left the UK.

She mentions the effect on the process of the plaintiff's reactions to a postponement and claims there is no right impediment to the hearing going ahead, although she observes that there would be one if the lawyer was incapable of exercising his function.

She further distinguishes between a case of renouncement and one of dismissal and finally states she considers that the hearing must not be suspended but go on with Gonçalo Amaral being asked to constitute a new representative.

- Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro

She states that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral had come to notify the court this morning that he had (on the evening of the 13th) informed Dr Santos de Oliveira that his mandate to represent him would be revoked on the 15th. She states further that the effects of this dismissal start with the notification to his representative and the opposite parties. Therefore the mandate can be considered to be at an end.

She also observes that the act that led to the mandate's cessation is voluntary.

As to the consequences on the process, there are two possibilities, both supported by the law (one was put forward by Dra Isabel Duarte and the other was suggested by the defence lawyers). The judge describes those two possibilities referring to jurisprudence and cites the arguments in favour of both.

She concludes that the second option better adjusts to the contradictory principle of the defence and to the equality between the parties. Therefore she considers fairer to allow the defendant a delay to instruct a new lawyer, with the condition that if he fails the process will go on with the juridical acts previously accomplished. Gonçalo Amaral is therefore given 10 days to appoint a lawyer. This is why the current hearing cannot proceed.

Taking into account those 10 days she proposes the date of 8 of July.

Dra Isabel Duarte asks to go and consult with her clients (who are not in the courtroom) and finally agrees with this date but objects that her final allegation [closing argument] will be long and doubts that everything can be done in only one day.

The judge asks the lawyers which kind of allegations they'll do: allegations of law or allegations of facts? The defence lawyers say they will claim the first and Dra Duarte the second.

The judge then decides that the plaintiffs will be heard on the morning of the 8th of July and the Duarte allegation [closing argument] in the afternoon.

Another date, 10th of July, is fixed to hear the four defence speeches.

The judge then asks the court clerk to call the plaintiffs. The interpreter (the same who worked at the first hearings) is there. The judge explains what happened and apologises but adds that they were circumstances beyond her control.

And so it ended.

Santos de Oliveira speaks to the press, 16 June 2014


Santos de Oliveira speaks to the press SIC

Dr. Víctor Santos de Oliveira

16 June 2014
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation, transcript and image

Luís Maia [SIC reporter/LM] - Good afternoon, this was a morning full of surprises. First we learned that Gonçalo Amaral had revoked his lawyer's mandate, the lawyer that had defended him so far, Dr. Víctor Santos de Oliveira who spoke with us. Then all lawyers were in a meeting for several hours with the judge, to try to figure out what solution to give to this situation. The meeting lasted for quite a while, first there was a short session that lasted about 10 minutes, then followed another that lasted well over one hour. It was decided that today there wouldn't be any further proceedings. After, upon leaving the courtroom, Víctor Santos de Oliveira expressed his surprise for the decision of his client and said that this was not a strategy planned by the two of them. Let's watch the statements of Víctor Santos de Oliveira.

Luis Garriapa, another reporter from SIC TV channel [LG] - Was this a concerted decision?

Víctor Santos de Oliveira [VSO] - Absolutely not, it was not a concerted decision. I am not aware of the reasons that led to his decision but I presume that it was a decision essentially intimate from my client, basically a private matter that I don't know about, I don't have the slightest idea, however it's a decision that parties have the right to make at all times.

LG - Do you believe that it was a strategy to delay the trial?

VSO - No, I don't believe in that at all. That would be... a strategy like that would be a very ill thought strategy.

LG - Did you fall out with your client?

VSO - It has nothing to do with that, whatsoever, it's just a situation where my client has decided like that, on his own, it's his problem.

LG - Were you surprised by it?

VSO - Evidently. When a defence was already done, when there is work done on this process, when we have accomplished milestones in the process namely the restitution of the book sales - which was achieved by this defence [meaning him], and also to successfully prove that the McCanns at the moment when they brought this action in their daughter's name, they could not have done it. Today that is more than completely established, it's obvious that his decision came as a surprise. One of the important milestones of this process, in my view, was - it wasn't one, but two - it was effectively to restitute the books so they could be sold, supported in the ruling of the Court of Appeals, that clearly states that the McCanns exposed themselves in the media by their own free will, thus becoming subject to the scrutiny of everyone. Thus it wouldn't make sense to ban the books. And there, the work of the defence was to put the books back on sale and that was fully achieved.

The second is related to a Ward of Court which means that who ultimately has the responsibility and the tutelage of the child is the English High Court. This fact was already known to the McCanns at the moment when they filed this lawsuit. It's a shame that this wasn't done immediately at start by the previous defence lawyer but now that it is established and proven, so much so that there is an official decision which gives the McCanns 30 days to get the records of the English Court's authorization under penalty of absolving the defendant Gonçalo Amaral on the request made on behalf of the missing child, the unfortunate Maddie McCann, obviously. But that is done, it's good...

LM - What is going to happen now?

VSO - ... When one leaves a process, and leaves things to be done that's not good ...

LM - [asks the same question again] What is going to happen now?

Another [unknown] reporter Was it a delaying strategy?

VSO - I don't believe that it was a delaying strategy. I really don't. I'm not even going to answer to a question formulated in that way, I don't believe it and I will not comment if it was a delaying strategy, I simply don't believe that.

LM - [asks the same question for the third time] What is going to happen now?

VSO - What's going to happen now is that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral has 10 days - following a decision based on equity and justice by the court - to appoint a new mandatary [lawyer] to represent him in the lawsuit, attach that information to the process records. Then, his declarations and the McCanns closing statements will be heard.

So he's written a second book. (updated version) but he's not going to publish it.


And...there isn't nothing new to add to the investigation...he's said everything.

Right.

kitti wrote:So he's written a second book. (updated version) but he's not going to publish it.


And...there isn't nothing new to add to the investigation...he's said everything.

Right.

Yes kitti, wake me up when it's all over , it's become a farce. Someone , I think from PDL commented that the SY search did not venture far into the search area because they wanted to be photographed busily searching....pathetic isn't it.   

This part is interesting.

Taking into account those 10 days she proposes the date of 8 of July.

Dra Isabel Duarte asks to go and consult with her clients (who are not in the courtroom) and finally agrees with this date but objects that her final allegation [closing argument] will be long and doubts that everything can be done in only one day.

The judge asks the lawyers which kind of allegations they'll do: allegations of law or allegations of facts? The defence lawyers say they will claim the first and Dra Duarte the second.

The judge then decides that the plaintiffs will be heard on the morning of the 8th of July and the Duarte allegation [closing argument] in the afternoon.

So the big dramatic speech by the Lizard Queen is going to take more than a day. What can she possibly say at this point, that will take more than a day?

The Judge has clearly no time for her shenanigans. The McCanns have been given the morning and she's been given an afternoon. That's it.

They just dig the hole deeper every time they open their lying mouths.

Iris wrote:This part is interesting.

Taking into account those 10 days she proposes the date of 8 of July.

Dra Isabel Duarte asks to go and consult with her clients (who are not in the courtroom) and finally agrees with this date but objects that her final allegation [closing argument] will be long and doubts that everything can be done in only one day.

The judge asks the lawyers which kind of allegations they'll do: allegations of law or allegations of facts? The defence lawyers say they will claim the first and Dra Duarte the second.

The judge then decides that the plaintiffs will be heard on the morning of the 8th of July and the Duarte allegation [closing argument] in the afternoon.

So the big dramatic speech by the Lizard Queen is going to take more than a day.  What can she possibly say at this point, that will take more than a day?

The Judge has clearly no time for her shenanigans.  The McCanns have been given the morning and she's been given an afternoon.  That's it.

They just dig the hole deeper every time they open their lying mouths.

  Well said Iris.

I don't think anything will be said by them that hasn't already been said before. The same old song. But I think Mr Amaral should speak as well. Is it too late for that now?

Perhaps as mr Amaral has no lawyer he may be able to speak for himself if he wasnt allowed to before.

MaryB wrote:I don't think anything will be said by them that hasn't already been said before.  The same old song.  But I think Mr Amaral should speak as well.  Is it too late for that now?

Good morning Mary   

I think Goncalo Amaral will be in full control of his actions on that day. He will know whether he is going to speak or not to speak on that day, if he doesn't speak, it will be because it isn't relevant to speak.

I've been negative towards the Judge, in this lawsuit and it's because of past events regarding the case of the banning of Goncalo Amaral's book, even though he eventually came out on top.

In my opinion, if the Judge had any thoughts of finding in favour of the McCanns, I feel sure that their disgraceful behaviour outside the court, after they learned that the case was being adjourned until July the 10th, will have made her think again. However I'm only speaking as a person who is ignorant of the Portuguese law.