The verdict in Kate and Gerry McCann’s civil action against the former lead detective
Gonçalo Amaral may come sooner than expected because of a recent behind-the-scenes
development in the long-drawn-out case.
The question of
whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann are legally entitled to represent their
daughter Madeleine in their claim for damages has taken a significant step closer
to being resolved, according to a source close to the process.
Madeleine was
made a ward of court in the UK in April 2008. In January last year, Amaral
argued in Lisbon’s Palace of Justice that because Madeleine was still a ward of
court the McCanns did not have the legal right to represent her in their Lisbon
lawsuit against him and three other parties.
The Lisbon judge,
Emília Melo e Castro, gave Madeleine’s parents the opportunity to obtain
appropriate documentation about the ward of court matter from the British High
Court.
The McCanns had a
30-day set period in which to present this. They did so without delay and much
earlier than expected. The documentation was presented to the Lisbon court
through the couple’s lawyers on 23 January. None of the defence lawyers has or is
expected to raise any objections.
So it is now up
to the Lisbon judge to decide the relatively straightforward matter of whether
the documentation attests to the McCanns’ right to represent Madeleine. When
this is settled, the trial is expected to move towards its last formal
exchanges and then, finally, sooner than most people had anticipated, perhaps
next month, a verdict.
The McCanns are
seeking €1.2 million in damages for the severe distress they say has been
caused to them by Amaral’s book, A
Verdade da Mentira (‘The Truth of the Lie’), and a subsequent documentary.
The
judge’s recent summary of the main points in the case that had been proved or
not proved left Amaral and his supporters optimistic about the eventual
outcome.
Amaral
said this week that he was hoping for an acquittal and the lifting of financial
difficulties that have burdened him since the McCanns decided to sue five years
ago.
3 comments:
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Quote "Amaral argued in Lisbon’s Palace of Justice that because Madeleine was still a ward of court the McCanns did not have the legal right to represent her". I've often asked myself: why did Amaral introduce this topic, with the possibility that his application might make the case go into extra time, when (in January 2014) he was already winning 4-1 with only minutes to play?
I ask myself such questions, with little hope of getting a sensible reply back. Can anyone help?
The amount of compensation awarded to five people would surely be more than that awarded to four people.
Post a Comment