So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?

[ferryman]

The 'Portuguese' as in Amaral, the judges or the whole nation?

No-one won anything. The McCanns made accusations against Amaral but were unable to prove them in court. Unlike the UK newspapers he refused to back off and settle out of court. Perhaps because he knew the law and knew he hadn't done anything wrong?

The McCanns set the record straight (according to known facts, including those known by the McCanns) about the disappearance of their daughter.

And might, in passing, have it plain that they had a not particularly high opinion of the person who (first) led the (flawed) initial investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

Scarcely a preface that justified the wholesale and unwarranted onslaught against the couple, unleashed by Amaral in his book.

[Robittybob1]

What didn't?

That he was allowed to break the Code of Reserve even if he was retired.

[G-Unit]

That he was allowed to break the Code of Reserve even if he was retired.

The case wasn't covered by Judicial Secrecy once archived;

 it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

[Robittybob1]

The case wasn't covered by Judicial Secrecy once archived;

 it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

All of that is debatable
I don't think the duty of reserve expires.
The facts had not been disclosed at the time the book was published. (for sufficient time at least).
These issues had not been widely debated in the media.

[stephen25000]

All of that is debatable
I don't think the duty of reserve expires.
The facts had not been disclosed at the time the book was published. (for sufficient time at least).
These issues had not been widely debated in the media.

Yes, the facts had been disclosed.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, the facts had been disclosed.

A matter of days?

[jassi]

A matter of days?

Would it have made a difference if it had been  weeks rather than days?

[stephen25000]

A matter of days?

You aren't that naive.

[Robittybob1]

You aren't that naive.

I might be ignorant.  Is ignorance an excuse?
  Well how long had the files been released when he wrote is book?

[jassi]

I might be ignorant.  Is ignorance an excuse?
  Well how long had the files been released when he wrote is book?

Is it of any importance ?

[Robittybob1]

Is it of any importance ?

Does it make a mockery of the SC judgement?  "it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority,and widely debated    (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0"

If they were just released they can't  be widely debated.

[jassi]

Does it make a mockery of the SC judgement? "it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority,and widely debated    (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0"

If they were just released they can't  be widely debated.

It's all over - done and dusted  - cannot be reversed.  Accept and move on,

[ferryman]

The case wasn't covered by Judicial Secrecy once archived;

 it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

Except that your commentary on the passage misses the point of the passage.

As far as I can see, the point being made by the judges, there, is not so much to dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy; rather that he was under no obligation to keep it (because he quit the PJ before he wrote his book)

[Robittybob1]

It's all over - done and dusted  - cannot be reversed.  Accept and move on,

So you say I'm right, but I should move on.

[ferryman]

It's all over - done and dusted  - cannot be reversed.  Accept and move on,

Justice is always worth fighting for, particularly when a patent injustice has been done.