The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[ferryman]

not important ...depends solely on Portuguese law...amaral accuses the mccanns of covering up an accident and disposing of the body...he has no proof...that is libel in uk courts ..is it libel in Portugal..perhaps...as I have said amaral has been hiding so perhaps it is

In what sense is it not important whether the investigation was competent or incompetent?

The McCanns have to disprove, or prove untrue, the claims of Amaral.  If they can show that key aspects of the investigation were incompetently conducted, then they can show that there is no basis for believing true what Amaral claims.

[Mr Gray]

In what sense is it not important whether the investigation was competent or incompetent?

The McCanns have to disprove, or prove untrue, the claims of Amaral.  If they can show that key aspects of the investigation were incompetently conducted, then they can show that there is no basis for believing true what Amaral claims.

do the mccanns have to prove anything?...are you sure?

[Redblossom]

In what sense is it not important whether the investigation was competent or incompetent?

The McCanns have to disprove, or prove untrue, the claims of Amaral.  If they can show that key aspects of the investigation were incompetently conducted, then they can show that there is no basis for believing true what Amaral claims.

Too late for those pointless shenanigans

[ferryman]

do the mccanns have to prove anything?...are you sure?

That is my understanding of the basis of Portuguese civil libel -- the reverse of the position in English libel law -- that the onus is on the party bringing an action to prove untrue statements they consider to be libel.

[Mr Gray]

That is my understanding of the basis of Portuguese civil libel -- the reverse of the position in English libel law -- that the onus is on the party bringing an action to prove untrue statements they consider to be libel.

 and where did you get this understanding

[ferryman]

Too late for those pointless shenanigans

On the contrary -- this is at the heart of the present proceedings.

[Redblossom]

On the contrary -- this is at the heart of the present proceedings.

not at all..Ive no  idea where you got that erroneous thinking from

You should reread my post 1288 with the link in...this is not a libel trial....at least not from everythng ive read

[Mr Gray]

I think the idea that the mccanns have to prove anything is a forum myth...no one really seems to known

[ferryman]

and where did you get this understanding

I can't find my sources just at the moment.

But it is the case that in most of the rest of the world, the onus in libel trials is the reverse of that in the UK.

No, I don't think it's a forum myth, Dave.

[ferryman]

On the contrary -- this is at the heart of the present proceedings.

not at all..Ive no  idea where you got that erroneous thinking from

You should reread my post 1288 with the link in...this is not a libel trial....at least not from everythng ive read

Re-read it.

You are fundamentally awry.

[Mr Gray]

I can't find my sources just at the moment.

But it is the case that in most of the rest of the world, the onus in libel trials is the reverse of that in the UK.

No, I don't think it's a forum myth, Dave.

 I think this has been overstated and has anyone supplied a source...no... murat recently won  a case ...amaral has been running...things may well go the McCanns way..unfortunately amaral may well just be able to appeal. theres a portuguese poster on another forumwho is a devoted amaral supporter...shes been very quiet

[Redblossom]

Re-read it.

You are fundamentally awry.

We shall see

If your attacks on mr gime and him being fundamentally awry are anything to go by by your example, its a slam dunk!

Now would you like to repeat your accusations thathe made some office  police employee doctor his cv? i didnt think so....


 

[Mr Gray]

quote author=ferryman link=topic=2202.msg117234#msg117234 date=1388783656]
On the contrary -- this is at the heart of the present proceedings.


not at all..Ive no  idea where you got that erroneous thinking from

You should reread my post 1288 with the link in...this is not a libel trial....at least not from everythng ive read

 

[Mr Gray]

That is my understanding of the basis of Portuguese civil libel -- the reverse of the position in English libel law -- that the onus is on the party bringing an action to prove untrue statements they consider to be libel.

 Amaral has had his assets frozen...if he has such a strong case why has he run away from court so many times... I think he has delayed hoping the McCannns would drop the case

[ferryman]

I think this has been overstated and has anyone supplied a source...no... murat recently won  a case ...amaral has been running...things may well go the McCanns way..unfortunately amaral may well just be able to appeal. theres a portuguese poster on another forumwho is a devoted amaral supporter...shes been very quiet

This is US libel law, which I think Portuguese libel law pretty closely follows:

Abstract:     
When the United States of America declared its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain on July 4, 1776, the fledgling country looked to distance itself from certain practices of the English Crown, particularly by rejecting a monarchical system. Problematically for this endeavor, though, the English common law tradition had been widely respected in the colonies. So, among the first legislative acts taken by many of the newly independent states was to adopt the already established, predictable, and structured body of English common law by way of a “reception statute,” which gave legal effect to the existing laws to the extent that they had not been rejected by the new government.The Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783, marking the end of the American Revolutionary War, with the United States of America officially and formally gaining its sovereignty and independence from Great Britain. Despite this separation, the legal traditions of the two countries remain very similar to this day. However, with respect to the common law of defamation, U.S. laws have evolved on a drastically different path.

In recent years, England’s centuries-old (and arguably antiquated) libel statute has caused significant hardship for those trying to exercise their right to free speech because of an increase in “libel tourism” — the practice of international forum shopping for defamation cases. Under English law, a libel defendant is guilty until proven innocent. This presumption has resulted in a disproportionate number of libel cases both from British citizens and “libel tourists” who sue their critics in London. Much of American law is derived from the English common law tradition. One primary subject upon which the laws of England and the United States markedly diverge is defamation and, most interestingly, the burden of proof in such cases. The [current] amendments to [England's] defamation statute include defenses for truth, for matters of public interest, for “honest opinion,” and for privilege. The reformers’ efforts, however, are lacking as they have rejected amending the most obvious and troublesome cause of libel tourism — the “burden of proof” that rests on the defendant in libel cases in England.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 14

Keywords: Defamation, Libel, United Kingdom, common law, reputation, burden of proof, slander, plaintiff, defendant, Reynolds Defense