|
All the important events from February 2009
'Secret' accounts of Kate and Gerry, 02 February 2009 |
Madeleine: The British have never shown them
João Mira Godinho
02 February 2009 - 00h30
The British authorities received two requests to provide financial information about the parents of Madeleine but the
answers never arrived to the PJ
The Judiciary Police never had access to the bank account details of Gerry and Kate McCann. This is because the British
authorities have never responded positively to both requests made by Portuguese investigators.
At the beginning of
the process, a first request was made regarding Madeleine's parents and the friends who spent their holidays with them at
the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. The intention was to obtain more information about who those nine people were.
If
data emerged about the seven friends, as to the place where they hold bank accounts and credit cards, then regarding Kate
and Gerry the UK authorities have said very little.
"No record of a current bank account is held," said the English about Madeleine's father, adding
that "there is no record of credit cards or loans." And the same for the mother of the girl who disappeared on May
3, 2007 at the Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz. The only information is about the bank where the mortgage of the McCann's
house is held. They also refer that there no arrears or defaults registered.
In the rogatory letter sent in November
2007 to England, various diligences [legal investigative actions] were asked of the British police, where, once again,
information was requested on the McCanns' bank accounts. And once again nothing arrived in Portugal.
The
British authorities refused the request and simply said, as a justification, that they would not provide financial information
on the couple. And the information never arrived.
"Ongoing investigation"
"The Home Office (British Ministry of Foreign Affairs) cannot confirm or deny" that the McCanns have had bank accounts
between the 25 of April 2007 and 12 September 2008.
This is the reply given, in January of this year, to British journalists
who tried to clarify this situation. Even stranger are the arguments used to justify the answer. The British say that "the
investigation is ongoing" and this information could "jeopardise the investigation, the international relations and endanger
the health and safety" of Madeleine. This when the case was officially archived in July last year.
"Given this, the
UK authorities are lying to their subjects," said Gonçalo Amaral to CM . "The Attorney General said that case is archived,"
added the former coordinator of the PJ.
*
This is the complete Home Office response to the request for information about the McCanns' bank
and credit card accounts, made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act):
Organised & International Crime Directorate 5th Floor Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London
SW1P 4DF Switchboard xxx Fax xxx Direct Line xxx E-mail xxx http://www.homeoffice.gov.ukMs xxx Our ref: xxx xxx@xxx Date:28th January 2009 Dear Ms xxx RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
HOME OFFICE MATERIAL RELATING TO MADELEINE MCCANN I am writing further to my correspondence on the 16th December
2008. We are now in a position to offer a full reply to your request. I would like to apologise for the length of time it
has taken to respond to your request. This delay has been due to giving full and due consideration to the public interest
test together with the necessity to consult with other agencies.
It is noted that your request was to essentially seek information for any record or document or extract
thereof reporting or evidencing that neither of the parents of Madeleine Beth McCann possessed any credit card or debit card
from any financial institution during the period 25th April 2007 and 12th September 2007. You additionally requested any record
or document or extract thereof reporting or evidencing that the alleged affirmation was made by any official of the Home Office
to any police officer in the Leicestershire Constabulary and failing the existence of any written record whether such affirmation
was made verbally the name of the official(s) and the recipient officer(s). The request was also seeking information of any
record or document or extract reporting or evidencing the credit card or debit transactions made by the parents of Madeleine
Beth McCann between the 4th May 2007 and 21st July 2008.
Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
and we are now able to provide you with a substantive response to your request.
Section 1 of the Act places two duties on public authorities when handling requests. The first of
these duties, provided at s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information requested is actually held by that authority.
The second duty is for that information to be disclosed where it has been confirmed that it exists. This is provided under
s1(1)(b).
The Home Office can neither confirm nor deny that we hold information relevant to your request as
our duty under s1(1)(a) does not apply by virtue of the following provisions of the Act:
* Section 27(4) – prejudice to International Relations;
* Section 31(3) – prejudice
to Law Enforcement activities; and
* Section 38(2) – endangering Health & Safety.
This letter therefore also serves as a refusal notice under s17(1) of the Act.
Furthermore, the Home Office will not comment on any of the information contained in Goncal Amaral's
book, 'A Verdade da Mentira' as it would potentially undermine ongoing investigations.
There are a number of sensitivities relevant to your request, given that Madeleine McCann is still
missing and the investigation is still ongoing. Confirming or denying whether any information is held could undermine the
investigation, prejudice international relations and could endanger the health and safety of members of the public.
We have considered public interest considerations in making our decision and we have attached these
to this letter. We believe that, at this time, the public interest strongly favours neither confirming nor denying that the
information you have requested is or is not held by the Home Office.
This response should not be taken as conclusive
evidence that the information you have requested either does or does not exist.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling
of your request by submitting your complaint within two months to the below address quoting reference xxx
Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor,
Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Or email: xxx
During the independent review the department's handling of your information request will be reassessed
by an official that was not involved in providing you with this response. Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal
review, you will have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act.
I realise that you may be disappointed with this response. However we have considered your request
with great care, and the Home Office always seeks to provide as much information as it is able to.
Thank you for your interest in the Home Office.
Yours sincerely
xxx
Team Leader
UK Central Authority
Public Interest Considerations
s.17
– Refusal of request
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any
extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section1(1), give the applicant
a notice which -
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would
not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
s.27 – International Relations
(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to,
prejudice,
(a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other state,
(b) relations between the United
Kingdom and any international organisation or international court
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section
1(1)(a) – (a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)
s.31
– Law Enforcement
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its
disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c)
the administration of justice,
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section
1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)
s.38 – Health & Safety
(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to-
(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any
individual.
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section
1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)
Harm and prejudice
The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is still ongoing. There are significant
unknowns in relation to her disappearance. Leicestershire Constabulary are the lead force in the UK dealing with this investigation
but the principle investigation agency is Policia Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal. We believe that significant harm to the investigation
could result from either confirming or denying that we hold the information you have asked for.
Should this investigation lead to a prosecution, saying whether or not this information is or is not
held by the Home Office would risk undermining the human rights of any suspect to a fair trial and the rights of a victim,
particularly if the prosecution would fail due to such an announcement.
If the Home Office was to either confirm or deny that it did or did not hold any information that
was gathered in the course of this investigation, it might risk compromising the conduct of this investigation. This could
ultimately prejudice the administration of justice. In any event, to confirm or deny that any such information that was or
was not obtained in the course of a criminal investigation, either voluntarily or through compulsory powers, ought not to
be generally disclosed, save as far as it is necessary for the purposes of establishing or defending rights in litigation.
There is consequently a strong public interest in ensuring that evidence is not contaminated for any
future trial. In addition there is a strong public interest to preserve relations with the Policia Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal
whilst Madeleine remains missing.
Two of the Home Office's objectives are to support the efficient and effective delivery of justice,
and to lead visible, responsive and accountable policing. The manner in which the Home Office works to support the Police
Service as a whole is one of our core business functions.
If the Home Office prejudiced such a high-profile and sensitive investigation by confirming or denying
that we either do or do not hold any of the information that you have requested, we would be seen as working against the efforts
of both UK and Portuguese policing authorities, undermining their determined efforts to locate Madeline McCann and her assailants.
This would not be in the best interests of the public.
Any prejudicial effects to these ongoing investigations could jeopardise the health & safety,
of Madeline McCann, in that it might significantly affect the chances of her being found. There is no actual public interest
served in releasing information that may jeopardise the health & safety of any individual.
There is a strong public interest in the UK maintaining the arrangements it currently enjoys with
other States in matters of judicial and mutual legal cooperation in criminal and other matters. Any act that would prejudice
this investigation may discourage other States with complying with reasonable requests issued by the UK or from pursuing legitimate
investigations in the UK for fear that the product of such requests or investigations may be disclosed to private citizens.
|
Center Parcs boosts security after Madeleine case, 03 February
2009
|
By Victoria Ashford
7:50am Tuesday 3rd February 2009
HIGH-TECH number plate recognition systems have been installed in a holiday village near
Warminster to help improve security in the wake of the Madeleine McCann abduction case.
Management and security personnel at Center Parcs, in Longleat Forest, said the £40,000 system, put in place on Friday,
will offer more protection to its guests and help police to solve crimes.
Andy De'Ath, general manager of the 400-acre holiday park, said: "We sat round a table a long, long time ago when it
happened (the Madeline McCann case) and thought out what measures we can put in place for our guests to minimise the chance
of that ever happening here."
Madeline was three-years-old when she was taken from her holiday apartment in the resort of Praia da Luz in the Algarve,
Portugal, in May 2007.
The Vehicle Number Plate Recognition system uses an infrared camera to capture every car going in and out of the complex.
It can also be used to help the police with their inquiries.
With nearly 1,500 people working at the resort, Center Parcs is one of the largest employers in the area.
The holiday village has a 23-strong team of security personnel patrolling the resort, three security managers and 24-hour
CCTV surveillance, working to create a safe haven without intruding on holidaymakers.
Center Parcs can cater for almost 4,000 guests at one time and was named Best UK Holiday Provider for the fifth year
running in the Tommy’s Parent Friendly Awards 2008.
The complex, which opened in July 1994, includes an archery centre, leisure bowl, 11 restaurants and bars, six shops,
a subtropical swimming pool and nearly 1,000 holiday cabins.
Celebrity chef Aldo Zilli will be at the resort this weekend to launch his own cafe/restaurant in the Romanesque-style
Aqua Sana Spa facility.
|
Economy 'threatens' news accuracy, 09 February 2009 |
|
| The Madeleine McCann case was cited |
Economy 'threatens' news accuracy BBC News
Page last updated at 01:02 GMT, Monday, 9 February 2009
Press intrusion and inaccurate reporting are getting worse because the recession has forced newspapers
to make cutbacks, a report suggests.
The report from the Media Standards Trust says some papers are sacrificing standards to maintain sales.
A YouGov survey found only 7% of 2,024 people questioned trust UK national newspapers to behave responsibly.
It says the system of self-regulation overseen by the Press Complaints Commission needs urgent reform.
The report was conducted by senior editors and lawyers for the Media Standards Trust, which aims to foster high standards
in the news media.
These included the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf and editor in chief of the Independent, Simon Kelner.
Cost cutting
The publication comes as the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee starts an inquiry into press standards and as
Baroness Buscombe prepares to takes over from Sir Christopher Meyer as chair of the Press Complaints Commission.
The report says the public's already low trust in national newspapers is getting worse as newsrooms cut costs, putting
journalists under greater pressure and increasing inaccuracy.
As an example, it cited "inaccurate and in some cases defamatory reporting" of the case of missing British girl Madeleine
McCann.
Questions over how to regulate content that is increasingly being produced in multimedia environments had not yet been
addressed by the PCC, it added.
Of those interviewed by YouGov, 75% said newspapers frequently published stories they knew to be inaccurate, while 70%
said there were too many invasions of privacy by newspapers.
The 7% level of people who trusted newspapers to behave responsibly was lower than that for banks.
A further 60% called for greater government intervention to protect privacy, while 73% said they would like the government
to do more to correct inaccuracies in the media.
Sir David Bell, chairman of the Media Standards Trust said the current system of press self-regulation was "fundamentally
flawed" and in urgent need of reform.
"The system needs to be brought into the 21st century or it runs the risk of greater government intervention and a further
accumulation of legal privacy protection," he said.
"This is not in the interests of the public or the press and has the potential to constrain press freedom."
Lack of confidence in self-regulation is encouraging some people to go to the courts, creating a precedent-based privacy
law, the report says.
This threatens to marginalise self-regulation and has the potential to constrain press freedom, it says.
Martin Moore, director of the MST added: "Without urgent reform we believe that self-regulation of the press will become
increasingly ineffective at protecting the public or promoting good journalism and, without prompt action, there is real danger
that it will become increasingly irrelevant."
A Press Complaints Commission spokesman said it helped hundreds of people every year, and could point to high customer
satisfaction.
|
Cleaning up the press, 10 February 2009 |
If journalists wish to counter 'a privacy law by stealth', they must shine a light on the Press Complaints Commission
Helena Kennedy
Tuesday 10 February 2009 15:00 GMT
The powerful newspaper editor Paul Dacre recently railed against unelected judges for creating "a privacy law by stealth". Though the UK has not, historically, had such a law, increased court intervention has led to the emergence of a makeshift
precedent-based privacy law, which Dacre feels will undermine democracy and shackle an otherwise free press. However, it has
developed at least partially because of the inadequacy of alternative processes for those that feel aggrieved.
There is no doubt trust in the media is at an all-time low. Journalists are in the dock and media standards are being
called into question. We have seen tabloid newspapers sacrifice standards to increase sales; newsrooms are cutting staff in
these difficult economic times, and journalists are being required to produce more copy in less time.
It is precisely at this time that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) should be inspiring public confidence, but it fails
to do so.
Recent figures indicate that the PCC only adjudicates on less than 1% of complaints it receives, and of that 1% approximately only 1 in every 250
complaints is currently upheld. While no doubt there are many vexatious complaints, that statistic seems worryingly low. It
is impossible to thoroughly analyse these figures because we have no access to details of the processes or methodology used
by the commission. Its annual report is such a scant document that even the financial contributions of the major newspapers
are clothed in secrecy.
To ensure public confidence, an industry's regulatory body must be transparent, accountable and sufficiently resourced.
If the medical profession was jolted into regulatory reform by the Harold Shipman case, perhaps it is time the PCC was knocked
into shape following the blatantly inaccurate reporting of the Madeleine McCann case – something that only served to
further reduce public confidence in the media.
Even the legal profession has embraced regulatory reform and become more open and accountable – engendering increased
public confidence and protecting the interests of those working in the sector. Take the Advertising Standards Authority, a
body originally modelled on the PCC. This invests in public awareness, regularly releases reports concerning how far the industry
is complying with its codes, and ensures strong public confidence in advertising standards. The PCC, in contrast, has a low
public profile, only reports on cases resolved and does not even have performance indicators by which to judge its own success.
In its current state the PCC lacks the accountability, transparency and resources of equivalent organisations to effectively
protect the interests of the public and promote good journalism. It is in danger of jeopardising press freedom in favour of
government-controlled regulation or precedent-based legal rulings. PCC staff are disillusioned and even the outgoing chair
has expressed concern for the future of the regulator.
If Paul Dacre and others in the media want to prevent the development of a privacy law by stealth, the best thing they
can do is shine some light on the processes of the PCC and help introduce the transparency and accountability it is currently
lacking. Without a complete overhaul of the system, the press will continue to lose public confidence. Dacre and other editors
are in the best position to instigate change.
|
UK police spent £548,000 in hunt for Madeleine, 13 February 2009 |
By Sam Marsden and Tim Walsh, Press Association
Friday, 13 February 2009
British police spent more than half a million pounds assisting the Portuguese investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance,
it was revealed today.
Leicestershire Police's part in the search for the missing little girl cost £548,477 in 2007-08, the force said.
But it was reimbursed for most of this amount thanks to a Home Office grant of £525,069.
The Policia Judiciaria - Portugal's CID - led the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance from the Algarve village
of Praia da Luz on May 3 2007.
Leicestershire Police became involved in the case as the home force of the child's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
British officers, headed by Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, conducted interviews of witnesses in the UK and passed
possible sightings of Madeleine on to their Portuguese colleagues.
After a lengthy delay Leicestershire Police responded today to a Freedom of Information request for information about
its role in the case.
It said: "The total additional expenditure incurred for 07-08 was £548,477 and Leicestershire Constabulary received a
Home Office grant of £525,069."
The force refused to provide a breakdown of where the money was spent because this would reveal "operational, investigative
and law enforcement techniques.
Madeleine was nearly four when she went missing from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz while her parents
dined with friends nearby.
Despite a massive police operation and huge publicity worldwide, she has not been found.
Four months after she disappeared, on September 7 2007, Portuguese police made both Mr and Mrs McCann "arguidos", or
formal suspects, in the case.
Two days later the couple flew back to their home in Rothley, Leicestershire, with their two other children, twins Sean
and Amelie.
Last July the Portuguese attorney-general shelved the investigation and lifted the McCanns' arguido status.
The following month, thousands of pages from the official Portuguese police files were made public, revealing the many
different lines officers pursued in their 14-month inquiry.
Mr and Mrs McCann, who say they will believe Madeleine is alive until given clear evidence to the contrary, have had
the documents translated into English to help them search for their daughter.
It is understood they are being assisted by a small team that includes retired senior British police officers and former
security service officials.
|
Teenagers pocketed Madeleine McCann collection cash, 14 February 2009 |
Feb 14 2009
TWO teenagers who carried out a door-to-door collection for missing Madeleine McCann pocketed the cash.
Gareth Trainer, 19, and Dale Armstrong, 16, managed to get hold of just £4 before police were called in.
Trainer, of Hawick, Roxburghshire, was given 80 hours' community service at Jedburgh Sheriff Court after admitting obtaining
money by fraud on September 13.
Armstrong got a similar sentence at a previous hearing where sheriff Kevin Drummond described the offence as "despicable".
Madeleine, three, disappeared on May 3, 2007, on a family holiday in the Algarve.
|
£548,000 Madeleine bill, 14 February 2009 |
This article is based on the previous Press Association release but with an additional quote from
a Home Office spokesman regarding the award of a grant to Leicestershire Constabulary:
Saturday, February 14, 2009, 09:30
British police spent almost £550,000 assisting the Portuguese investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
Leicestershire police's part in the search for the missing girl cost £548,477 in 2007/08, the force said.
However, it was reimbursed for most of this amount, thanks to a Home Office grant of £525,069.
The Policia Judiciaria – Portugal's CID – led the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance from the Algarve
resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.
Leicestershire became involved as the home force of Madeleine and her parents, Kate and Gerry, who live in Rothley.
An incident room was set up to take calls from around the world.
Detectives flew out to assist Portuguese offices with the investigation, while family support officers from Leicestershire
helped the couple through their ordeal.
British officers, led by Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, interviewed witnesses in the UK and passed possible sightings
of Madeleine on to their Portuguese colleagues.
Following a lengthy delay, Leicestershire police responded yesterday to a Freedom of Information Act request for further
details about their role in the case.
It said: "The total additional expenditure incurred for 2007/08 was £548,477 and Leicestershire Constabulary received
a Home Office grant of £525,069.''
The force refused to provide a breakdown of where the money was spent because this would reveal "operational, investigative
and law enforcement techniques".
Madeleine was nearly four when she went missing from her family's holiday apartment while her parents dined with friends
nearby.
Despite publicity around the world, she has not been found.
Four months after she disappeared, on September 7, 2007, Portuguese police made Mr and Mrs McCann "arguidos'' –
formal suspects – in the case.
Two days later, the couple flew back to their home in Rothley with their two other children, twins Sean and Amelie.
In July last year, the Portuguese attorney-general shelved the investigation and lifted the McCanns' arguido status.
The following month, thousands of pages from the Portuguese police files were made public, revealing the many different
lines officers pursued in their 14-month inquiry.
Mr and Mrs McCann, who said they would believe Madeleine was alive until given clear evidence to the contrary, have had
the documents translated into English to help them search for their daughter.
It is understood they are being assisted by a small team that includes retired senior British police officers and former
security service officials.
A Home Office spokesman said it was standard procedure for forces to apply to the Home Secretary for a grant in special
cases.
He said: "This is a discretionary grant and the level of support depends on the relative size of the authority's reserves
and the force's capability to deal with major incidents.
"Any support granted is based on the independent advice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary."
|
Who was listening to Kate and Gerry McCann?, 18 February 2009 |
By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 18, 09 02:55 PM
A few days ago I received an interesting letter from Leicestershire police about the Madeleine McCann investigation.
I had asked them, in July, if they had got any warrants (under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to use surveillance
powers - such as phone tapping and email interception on behalf of the Portuguese police.
The force initially stalled saying it needed to "consult other Agencies" before replying.
After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due
to "national security".
I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security"
is a new one on me.
To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate
to "the Security bodies".
A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the
SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Hmm.
Despite claiming these exemptions, Leicestershire seem at pains to neither confirm nor deny they hold any information
relevant to my request anyway.
Check out (slowly I suggest) the tortuous conclusion to the three page letter explaining their stance.
"It is our decision that the Leicestershire Constabulary must maintain a position of neither confirming nor denying that
any relevant information is held and that this response, which neither confirms nor denies that information is held, should
not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or does not exist".
Thanks, but I think that is a rather long-winded way of saying Foxtrot Oscar.
However, it does beg the question just who was bugging the McCanns after they returned from Praia da Luz?
And what has the answer got to do with national security?
|
Kate and Gerry McCann, and national security - update, 18 February 2009 |
Kate and Gerry McCann, and national security - update Daily Mirror
By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 18, 09 03:39 PM
I've just spoken to the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell who has declined to comment.
Quite sensible, really.
After all, you never know who's listening do you?
|
The McCann national security documents, 20 February 2009 |
By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 20, 09 10:45 AM
Thanks for taking so much interest in my post about the McCanns and "national security".
I have to say I'm a bit surprised that some of you think this proves that much about what happened to Madeleine, though.
From my point of view, it suggests Kate and Gerry may, I stress may, have been subjected to an unusual - perhaps unprecedented
- degree of surveillance after the returned to the UK.
I'm not sure it indicates that much about what has happened to her and where she may be now.
I've made some more inquiries and it it would appear that the most likely agency involved in any bugging would be the
Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca).
They provide a lot of "technical assistance" to small police forces who don't have the skills or equipment to mount a
major surveillance operation.
As some of you have pointed out, they work closely with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (CEOP) who
carry out some very complicated and delicate operations against paedophiles.
If you click below you can see the letter from Leicestershire police.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
With thanks
to Nigel at
McCann Files
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
