I have been reading EUR-lex and a guide to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Some sections that I found interesting and potentially applicable to our case:
"This Directive applies from the time persons are made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether the suspect or accused person has committed the criminal offence, including, where applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any appeal."
from the above, it appears that CB does not need to be 'charged' per se for this Directive to apply in his case; jmo. with the appeal for witnesses by the BKA, CB has been made aware that he is suspected of having murdered MM.
EUR-Lex - 32012L0013 - EN - EUR-Lex
Since he is already in jail, there is no need to arrest him and therefore no need to give him right of access to the materials of the case.
But it appears from the above that since he has been made aware by the public prosecutor of what he is suspected as well as the exact day of the suspected offence, etc, his lawyer could legally and with this I mean within the protection of the legal context of the ongoing criminal proceedings, provide the watertight alibi of his client. jmo
also, HCW himself had used the word the "accused" in an interview to the BBC in 2020:
"If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do but I can't give you details because we don't want the accused to know what we have on him - these are tactical considerations."
Madeleine McCann: Public 'would reach same conclusion' on suspect
Moreover, reading a bit more the "Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights", it appears to me that CB could consider himself legally and officially as charged on suspicion of murdering MM. That FF has not gone to the court yet could mean that the rights of CB have not been prejudiced, since CB could indeed claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention. jmo
16. The concept of “charge” has to be understood within the meaning of the Convention. The Court takes a “substantive”, rather than a “formal”, conception of the “charge” contemplated by Article 6 (Deweer v. Belgium, § 44). Charge may thus be defined as “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”, a definition that also corresponds to the test whether “the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected” (ibid., §§ 42 and 46; Eckle v. Germany, § 73, and also Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 249; Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], § 110).
17. The Court held that a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, § 42; Brusco v. France, §§ 47-50), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, §§ 41-43; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 23; Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland, §§ 30-31) and a person who has been questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence (Stirmanov v. Russia, § 39), irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness (Kalēja v. Latvia, §§ 36-41) as well as a person who has been formally charged with a criminal offence under procedure set out in domestic law (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], § 66; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], § 44) could all be regarded as being “charged with a criminal offence” and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf
and from reading more this guide, it appears to me that HCW has been very careful with his wording and that surely CB and FF could have talked to the BKA within the legal protection of the ongoing criminal proceedings.
Eta: that FF considers his client to have been formally charged and therefore claim the protection of article 6 could also potentially be seen by the allegations that there were British lawyers combing the British newspapers and tabloids to see if CB's rights had been violated. What has come out of that?
"This Directive applies from the time persons are made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether the suspect or accused person has committed the criminal offence, including, where applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any appeal."
from the above, it appears that CB does not need to be 'charged' per se for this Directive to apply in his case; jmo. with the appeal for witnesses by the BKA, CB has been made aware that he is suspected of having murdered MM.
EUR-Lex - 32012L0013 - EN - EUR-Lex
Since he is already in jail, there is no need to arrest him and therefore no need to give him right of access to the materials of the case.
But it appears from the above that since he has been made aware by the public prosecutor of what he is suspected as well as the exact day of the suspected offence, etc, his lawyer could legally and with this I mean within the protection of the legal context of the ongoing criminal proceedings, provide the watertight alibi of his client. jmo
also, HCW himself had used the word the "accused" in an interview to the BBC in 2020:
"If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do but I can't give you details because we don't want the accused to know what we have on him - these are tactical considerations."
Madeleine McCann: Public 'would reach same conclusion' on suspect
Moreover, reading a bit more the "Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights", it appears to me that CB could consider himself legally and officially as charged on suspicion of murdering MM. That FF has not gone to the court yet could mean that the rights of CB have not been prejudiced, since CB could indeed claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention. jmo
16. The concept of “charge” has to be understood within the meaning of the Convention. The Court takes a “substantive”, rather than a “formal”, conception of the “charge” contemplated by Article 6 (Deweer v. Belgium, § 44). Charge may thus be defined as “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”, a definition that also corresponds to the test whether “the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected” (ibid., §§ 42 and 46; Eckle v. Germany, § 73, and also Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 249; Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], § 110).
17. The Court held that a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, § 42; Brusco v. France, §§ 47-50), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, §§ 41-43; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 23; Schmid-Laffer v. Switzerland, §§ 30-31) and a person who has been questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence (Stirmanov v. Russia, § 39), irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness (Kalēja v. Latvia, §§ 36-41) as well as a person who has been formally charged with a criminal offence under procedure set out in domestic law (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], § 66; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], § 44) could all be regarded as being “charged with a criminal offence” and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf
and from reading more this guide, it appears to me that HCW has been very careful with his wording and that surely CB and FF could have talked to the BKA within the legal protection of the ongoing criminal proceedings.
Eta: that FF considers his client to have been formally charged and therefore claim the protection of article 6 could also potentially be seen by the allegations that there were British lawyers combing the British newspapers and tabloids to see if CB's rights had been violated. What has come out of that?
Last edited:
