Your questions answered
Blimey!
“No charges for MI5 officer.”
“'No evidence' that MI5 officer colluded in mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed.”
“MI5 officer escapes charges over Binyam Mohamed torture case.
”
“CPS finds insufficient evidence to charge MI5 officer who interviewed Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan.”
They are yesterday’s headlines after English prosecutors did exactly what their Portuguese opposite numbers did in July 2008.
“The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, said the Crown Prosecution Service had advised the Metropolitan police service that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the officer, known as Witness B, "for any criminal offence arising from the interview of Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan on 17 May 2002".
Not one “MI5 officer cleared.” No “MI5 officer innocent.” And, funnily enough, no “prosecutor mocks efforts of the Metropolitan police.”
Why the difference between the headlines and the ones that greeted us in 2008?
Because the MI5 officer didn’t have a team of liars and spinners to misrepresent the facts and threaten the media with libel writs, that’s why. But then, unlike the McCanns, he probably had a clear conscience.
Always here to help
Now let’s kill off the remnants of those lies that the McCanns and their supporters – not their lawyers, they know that particular game is up – are still scrabbling to hang on to.
We’re sorry if it’s boring repetition – unfortunately one of the McCann Team’s beliefs is that if a subject is dealt with exhaustively the public can’t concentrate and lose interest before the facts are established. So here’s a last quiz on the saga.
What does “cleared” mean?
Primarily exoneration. It is the presentation of positive evidence, normally in a court or tribunal, demonstrating conclusively that an accused person is innocent of that accusation.
And the other meaning?
Much weaker but widely used as a shorthand by the media, meaning freed from suspicion, or considered free of involvement in some matter. It is weaker since there is no tribunal or court: a football referee can “clear” a player of cheating, a boxing board of control – don’t laugh – can “clear” a boxer of betting on himself, like they did the other day in the UK.
OK. Did the parents claim that the report exonerated them? Or was it the weaker, looser, meaning?
Mitchell, speaking directly for the parents, clearly meant “exoneration”. When the report was released he said,“they should never have been arguidos. This [the archiving report] shows them to be the wronged couple they are.”
So it’s unambiguous?
Yes, and he followed it up with threats to sue the police, as in a UK wrongful arrest case following an establishment of innocence.
And the media?
They used it in both senses, depending on their relationship with Clarence Mitchell.
So in what sense did the archiving report use it?
Neither. There is no mention whatever of “clearance” or exoneration of any sort, either in translation or the original Portuguese. It is an invention.
Oh. Right then, what about the Attorney-General’s statement that the McCanns and their friends bang on about? Surely that cleared them?
No, not at all. First of all the Attorney-General cannot clear anyone, just as – to show the absurdity of the claim – he cannot convict anyone. He gave a press statement on what the archiving report said, nothing more.
And cleared them?
No. His words were: “The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates [prosecutors] in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos,” helpfully adding, by the way, “if they appeal against the decision it can be reopened.”
Why did they claim it then? Just PR? Smethurst’s battle to “expunge the idea of their guilt from the public mind”?
Originally, yes. But, as we have described before, their libel lawyers have attempted to portray the archiving report as a legal decision exonerating them. Cute. Such a decision – an acquittal – is accepted in law as the final word and thus can be used as an unchallengeable statement of fact to win libel cases.
Is the little Bureau suggesting that Carter Ruck try and win libel cases by attempting to stretch the law?
Yes, exactly. Their claims in the recent Trafigura case were dismissed. They had stretched the law.
Apart from the libel implications, why does it matter so much?
The absence of clearance from the Portuguese reflects the reality that the case is not closed, only shelved. As we know.
“No charges for MI5 officer.”
“'No evidence' that MI5 officer colluded in mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed.”
“MI5 officer escapes charges over Binyam Mohamed torture case.
”
“CPS finds insufficient evidence to charge MI5 officer who interviewed Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan.”
They are yesterday’s headlines after English prosecutors did exactly what their Portuguese opposite numbers did in July 2008.
“The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, said the Crown Prosecution Service had advised the Metropolitan police service that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the officer, known as Witness B, "for any criminal offence arising from the interview of Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan on 17 May 2002".
Not one “MI5 officer cleared.” No “MI5 officer innocent.” And, funnily enough, no “prosecutor mocks efforts of the Metropolitan police.”
Why the difference between the headlines and the ones that greeted us in 2008?
Because the MI5 officer didn’t have a team of liars and spinners to misrepresent the facts and threaten the media with libel writs, that’s why. But then, unlike the McCanns, he probably had a clear conscience.
Always here to help
Now let’s kill off the remnants of those lies that the McCanns and their supporters – not their lawyers, they know that particular game is up – are still scrabbling to hang on to.
We’re sorry if it’s boring repetition – unfortunately one of the McCann Team’s beliefs is that if a subject is dealt with exhaustively the public can’t concentrate and lose interest before the facts are established. So here’s a last quiz on the saga.
What does “cleared” mean?
Primarily exoneration. It is the presentation of positive evidence, normally in a court or tribunal, demonstrating conclusively that an accused person is innocent of that accusation.
And the other meaning?
Much weaker but widely used as a shorthand by the media, meaning freed from suspicion, or considered free of involvement in some matter. It is weaker since there is no tribunal or court: a football referee can “clear” a player of cheating, a boxing board of control – don’t laugh – can “clear” a boxer of betting on himself, like they did the other day in the UK.
OK. Did the parents claim that the report exonerated them? Or was it the weaker, looser, meaning?
Mitchell, speaking directly for the parents, clearly meant “exoneration”. When the report was released he said,“they should never have been arguidos. This [the archiving report] shows them to be the wronged couple they are.”
So it’s unambiguous?
Yes, and he followed it up with threats to sue the police, as in a UK wrongful arrest case following an establishment of innocence.
And the media?
They used it in both senses, depending on their relationship with Clarence Mitchell.
So in what sense did the archiving report use it?
Neither. There is no mention whatever of “clearance” or exoneration of any sort, either in translation or the original Portuguese. It is an invention.
Oh. Right then, what about the Attorney-General’s statement that the McCanns and their friends bang on about? Surely that cleared them?
No, not at all. First of all the Attorney-General cannot clear anyone, just as – to show the absurdity of the claim – he cannot convict anyone. He gave a press statement on what the archiving report said, nothing more.
And cleared them?
No. His words were: “The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates [prosecutors] in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos,” helpfully adding, by the way, “if they appeal against the decision it can be reopened.”
Why did they claim it then? Just PR? Smethurst’s battle to “expunge the idea of their guilt from the public mind”?
Originally, yes. But, as we have described before, their libel lawyers have attempted to portray the archiving report as a legal decision exonerating them. Cute. Such a decision – an acquittal – is accepted in law as the final word and thus can be used as an unchallengeable statement of fact to win libel cases.
Is the little Bureau suggesting that Carter Ruck try and win libel cases by attempting to stretch the law?
Yes, exactly. Their claims in the recent Trafigura case were dismissed. They had stretched the law.
Apart from the libel implications, why does it matter so much?
The absence of clearance from the Portuguese reflects the reality that the case is not closed, only shelved. As we know.
