McCanns seek to have Supreme Court judgement annulled in libel damages case.

[G-Unit]

The judges say he can say what he likes provided the McCanns were not innocent, and there was insufficient evidence of innocence to say they were innocent.  It is complex.

Please don't try to explain it in a single sentence which lacks any factual basis.

[Alfie]

Basically what the Supreme Judges are saying is - it doesn't matter if the McCanns were innocent or not, Amaral had the right to say they covered up the death of their daughter,  and in writing about his opinion in a best selling book he did them no harm, or any harm that he did do them was of secondary importance to his right to an opinion.  Furthermore he has the right to profit from his opinion and the right to sue the McCanns for daring to bring a case against him in the first place, even if the McCanns had no hand whatsoever in covering up Madeleine's death.

I'm sure that's all very just. 

[Eleanor]

Basically what the Supreme Judges are saying is - it doesn't matter if the McCanns were innocent or not, Amaral had the right to say they covered up the death of their daughter,  and in writing about his opinion in a best selling book he did them no harm, or any harm that he did do them was of secondary importance to his right to an opinion.  Furthermore he has the right to profit from his opinion and the right to sue the McCanns for daring to bring a case against him in the first place, even if the McCanns had no hand whatsoever in covering up Madeleine's death.

I'm sure that's all very just.

But his opinion doesn't actually count, does it.

[G-Unit]

But she wasn't asking for a verdict on that.

She said;

Page 40
It shakes also the honour, the good name and the image of any innocent person, and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation (the conclusion of which is that there is no element of proof nor evidence that the person committed any crime),

The judges reply was that the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' the McCanns.

[Eleanor]

She said;

Page 40
It shakes also the honour, the good name and the image of any innocent person, and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation (the conclusion of which is that there is no element of proof nor evidence that the person committed any crime),

The judges reply was that the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' the McCanns.

But it didn't find them guilty either.

[Mr Gray]

A very clear and simple explanation Slarti. Why so many (including, it seems, the McCanns and their libel lawyers) cannot understand escapes me. I suppose it could be that they don't want to understand.

As you mistakenly introduced the argument from ignorance and then made a rambling post it is you who is mistaken and refuse to accept reality
The SC talks of evidence of innocence
The words are NOT in quotes so the SC are legitimising them
The question is not one of innocence but one of evidence of innocence
You and others can't see the subtle difference
Whether the court will admit to this glaring error is another question

[G-Unit]

But it didn't find them guilty either.

It's not the job of a prosecutor to declare anyone guilty (or not guilty); that's the job of the courts. The public prosecutor's job is to examine the evidence collected, decide if a crime has been committed and if there's sufficient evidence to charge anyone. In this case there was not sufficient evidence, so the case was archived.

[Eleanor]

It's not the job of a prosecutor to declare anyone guilty (or not guilty); that's the job of the courts. The public prosecutor's job is to examine the evidence collected, decide if a crime has been committed and if there's sufficient evidence to charge anyone. In this case there was not sufficient evidence, so the case was archived.

Nor did the courts who passed judgement on the libel case find them guilty.

[G-Unit]

As you mistakenly introduced the argument from ignorance and then made a rambling post it is you who is mistaken and refuse to accept reality
The SC talks of evidence of innocence
The words are NOT in quotes so the SC are legitimising them
The question is not one of innocence but one of evidence of innocence
You and others can't see the subtle difference
Whether the court will admit to this glaring error is another question

They discuss it only in answer to Duarte, who argued that the archiving dispatch cleared the McCanns. They replied that it didn't, it can't be used as evidence of innocence;

Page 70
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

That seems to me quite clear and unambiguous.

[Mr Gray]

It's not the job of a prosecutor to declare anyone guilty (or not guilty); that's the job of the courts. The public prosecutor's job is to examine the evidence collected, decide if a crime has been committed and if there's sufficient evidence to charge anyone. In this case there was not sufficient evidence, so the case was archived.

And the fact they do not have the evidence to charge them would suggest they are innocent

[Robittybob1]

Please don't try to explain it in a single sentence which lacks any factual basis.

That is my opinion of it.

[Montclair]

Nor did the courts who passed judgement on the libel case find them guilty.

That is not the remit of a court in a civil case.

[Eleanor]

That is not the remit of a court in a civil case.

They aren't very good at Defamation either.  Or The Presumption of Innocence.  I wonder if they understand The Constitution.

[G-Unit]

Nor did the courts who passed judgement on the libel case find them guilty.

Why would they? The question they were answering was whether Amaral was entitled to express his opinion or not.

[Mr Gray]

They discuss it only in answer to Duarte, who argued that the archiving dispatch cleared the McCanns. They replied that it didn't, it can't be used as evidence of innocence;

Page 70
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

That seems to me quite clear and unambiguous.

Evidence of innocence is not in quotation marks so can be taken as the judges own words
It is quite clear the judges are wrong