UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Lisbon Libel Trial Daily Reports and Judgements => Topic started by: John on November 20, 2013, 10:19:00 PM
-
McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 9
Lisbon - Tuesday 19 Nov 2013
All lawyers are present. VCFilmes/Multimedia's lawyer is substituted by a lawyer who states that she took part in the Providência Cautelar (Injunction hearing). Witnesses due to testify today are dismissed by defendants TVI, VC and Gonçalo Amaral and will no longer be required to give evidence.
The Judge starts the session by raising the issue of documents requested by the plaintiffs evidencing the value of royalties paid to Gonçalo Amaral. She reminds the Court that G&P's position is that the request is extemporaneous and illegal and that no other payment was received beyond that previously declared to the Court. One such document relates to a request to Gonçalo Amaral to provide receipts X and Y specific to the period from 17 - 30 October 2008 and from 6 - 30 November 2009. The Judge adds that any others are of no consequence since G&P has proven that no other royalties were paid to Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge reminds the Court of the principle that when a Party declares to another Party that a requested document does not exist or is not in their possession, the legal remedy is not for the pursuer to make a further request but to prove through whatever means that the respondent is being untruthful. The Judge therefore grants a request by the plaintiffs that receipts be provided as previously requested since the defender has failed to produce the information sought.
TVI must provide an extract of accounts for the fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 related to VCFilmes and VCMultimédia. They are given 10 days to produce the relevant documents.
The Judge omits partially a request concerning the accounts of VCFilmes, which are limited to the the period from the 7 February 2012 onwards. VC Filmes is also given 10 days to produce the documents.
The Judge reminds the Court that the request by the plaintiffs is related to the search of material facts in order that justice is done. However, she adds that the lawyer representing G&P should consider that if any of the documents requested in the process contain information unrelated to Gonçalo Amaral then that should be maintained apart for commercial and/or fiscal reasons. The defence is therefore authorised to present said documents in the judicial section in order to protect any commercially sensitive information, making only available that which relates to the process concerming the relationship between G&P and Gonçalo Amaral. G&P is given 10 days to respond to the request.
The Judge adds that G&P has already provided indications about the financial aspect of the publication of the book and about the number of books that have been sold.
The Judge finally confirms that the date of the next hearing will be on Wednesday 27 November 2013. The date for the final allegations will then be fixed.
End of session.
Download pdf for full Report...
Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary.
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity. All reports are made in good faith.
-
Is that saying that the three defendants dismissed their own witnesses? Surely that is not the case. It is the prerogative of the judge to dismiss witnesses isn't it? Defendants can decide not to call witnesses or witnesses can fail to show up but only the judge can actually dismiss them, surely?
And in paragraph 3 is the defender who has failed to provide the documentation previously demanded actually Goncalo Amaral? Was any explanation given as to why this documentation/receipts had not been provided?
-
It sounds to me as though the Defendants no longer wish to call these witnesses, and that The Judge has agreed to dismiss them.
And Goncalo Amaral has failed to provide receipts that were previously requested.
As for the other two Defendants, it appears that further Royalties might have been paid to Goncalo Amaral that have not been declared.
All rather silly really as this does not look, and is so easily exposed.
Not a good day for Amaral at all.
-
It sounds to me as though the Defendants no longer wish to call these witnesses, and that The Judge has agreed to dismiss them.
And Goncalo Amaral has failed to provide receipts that were previously requested.
As for the other two Defendants, it appears that further Royalties might have been paid to Goncalo Amaral that have not been declared.
All rather silly really as this does not look, and is so easily exposed.
Not a good day for Amaral at all.
But you have to believe its going really well for amaral and really badly for the mccanns. You also have to believe that this case has already been decided in amarals favour
-
Many many thanks again for the update. Seems therefore there we NO witnesses heard today. I'm rather mystified why it is necessary to provide receipts\income etc from books & transmissions, if in the final hour the court didn't support the McCanns application to have said products banned, so what's the revalence?
Why? therefore is it necessary to find out financial matters. Do they wish to prove there was money paid during the period of suspension? \ or are they trying to assess his assets for a claim\settlement, should they win.
OK for the sake of good order, prove you received no money\income, but why?
There seems to be a preoccupation that monies were received, but sales & receipts will never be identical and over a small period would hardly prove anything, at all.
As Sr Amaral is not to be heard is that at this time, or all times and if so, how does that effect the McCanns applications to the court to be heard.
I'm sure all will be revealed in time.
Again, with thanks
-
It sounds to me as though the Defendants no longer wish to call these witnesses, and that The Judge has agreed to dismiss them.
And Goncalo Amaral has failed to provide receipts their were previously requested.
As for the other two Defendants, it appears that further Royalties might have been paid to Goncalo Amaral that have not been declared.
All rather silly really as this does not look, and is so easily exposed.
Not a good day for Amaral at all.
Not quite Eleanor, the witnesses weren't in court. The defendants merely advised the court that it was no longer their intention to call these witnesses so they were effectively dismissed.
-
Hi Meadow. You are right when you say that there is a preoccupation with monies.
What Isabel Duarte is attempting to do is to establish Amaral's assets ahead of a decision which might fall in her favour. Considering she and the McCanns have failed miserably to prove any of their claims I think Duarte is being a bit premature.
No wonder she is fast becoming (by her own admission) a hate figure in Portugal.
-
Not quite Eleanor, the witnesses weren't in court. The defendants merely advised the court that it was no longer their intention to call these witnesses so they were effectively dismissed.
Exactly.
-
Hi Meadow. You are right when you say that there is a preoccupation with monies.
What Isabel Duarte is attempting to do is to establish Amaral's assets ahead of a decision which might fall in her favour. Considering she and the McCanns have failed miserably to prove any of their claims I think Duarte is being a bit premature.
No wonder she is fast becoming (by her own admission) a hate figure in Portugal.
Exactly.
G&P, TVI, and VC are the only ones who have to produce documents for specified periods. GA has nothing to produce.
ID seems to have knowledge of much more money. She's trying to prove it and it's coherent with the enormous amount of damages she required.
I don't think she's becoming a hate figure, nobody bothers, but she might fear they would and actually behaves low profile.
-
Not quite Eleanor, the witnesses weren't in court. The defendants merely advised the court that it was no longer their intention to call these witnesses so they were effectively dismissed.
That's what I said. The Defence no longer wished to call them so they didn't appear in Court. Heaven forbid that the witnesses didn't wish to appear.
-
Exactly.
G&P, TVI, and VC are the only ones who have to produce documents for specified periods. GA has nothing to produce.
ID seems to have knowledge of much more money. She's trying to prove it and it's coherent with the enormous amount of damages she required.
I don't think she's becoming a hate figure, nobody bothers, but she might fear they would and actually behaves low profile.
So what exactly has The Judge ordered Goncalo Amaral to produce within 10 days?
-
Hi Eleanor, basically it would seem that the publishers & production company have to show receipts of money paid to Sr Amaral,
''The Judge starts the session by raising the issue of documents requested by the plaintiffs evidencing the value of royalties paid to Gonçalo Amaral. She reminds the Court that G&P's position is that the request is extemporaneous and illegal and that no other payment was received beyond that previously declared to the Court.''
''The Judge therefore grants a request by the plaintiffs that receipts be provided as previously requested since the defender has failed to produce the information sought.''
OK I can see the judge, thinking cut to chase here, stop the quarrelsome Durate and let them have their way, since there (should hopefully) be nothing hidden\not declared. And so it all goes on in the merry-go-round of everything that is McCanns.
Goncalo Amaral seems always between a rock and hard place. Durate sat on the books long after the decision of the courts to release them. She wants her pound of flesh, the shirt off his back and now it would seem playing a legal footsie!!
This strange case seems to be based on hate and vengeance, rather than legal values. I just hope the judge reflects on this.
What if this case goes against Goncalo Amaral? Have the books ever gone back (metaphorically) speaking on the shelves?
Sometimes I've lost the plot, the book & programmes were the physical forum for his opinion, THEY lost that. So now they sue his brain! ;)
But whilst I wanted just to keep to the tight agenda of the Lisbon hearing todate, one does have to look out at the case and the 'wider agenda' it's all gone deathly silent, is this the usual pre-christmas back to normal for the McCanns, or are all eyes on the Lisbon outcome?
Again thanks to the forum & those who are here 'thinking' discussing & advising.
-
Hi Eleanor, basically it would seem that the publishers & production company have to show receipts of money paid to Sr Amaral,
''The Judge starts the session by raising the issue of documents requested by the plaintiffs evidencing the value of royalties paid to Gonçalo Amaral. She reminds the Court that G&P's position is that the request is extemporaneous and illegal and that no other payment was received beyond that previously declared to the Court.''
''The Judge therefore grants a request by the plaintiffs that receipts be provided as previously requested since the defender has failed to produce the information sought.''
OK I can see the judge, thinking cut to chase here, stop the quarrelsome Durate and let them have their way, since there (should hopefully) be nothing hidden\not declared. And so it all goes on in the merry-go-round of everything that is McCanns.
Goncalo Amaral seems always between a rock and hard place. Durate sat on the books long after the decision of the courts to release them. She wants her pound of flesh, the shirt off his back and now it would seem playing a legal footsie!!
This strange case seems to be based on hate and vengeance, rather than legal values. I just hope the judge reflects on this.
What if this case goes against Goncalo Amaral? Have the books ever gone back (metaphorically) speaking on the shelves?
Sometimes I've lost the plot, the book & programmes were the physical forum for his opinion, THEY lost that. So now they sue his brain! ;)
But whilst I wanted just to keep to the tight agenda of the Lisbon hearing todate, one does have to look out at the case and the 'wider agenda' it's all gone deathly silent, is this the usual pre-christmas back to normal for the McCanns, or are all eyes on the Lisbon outcome?
Again thanks to the forum & those who are here 'thinking' discussing & advising.
Thanks for trying to explain.
But how can the request be Extemporaneous and Illegal if The Judge has granted this request? It doesn't make sense.
-
Who were these witnesses who failed to be called by the defendants? Was their identity referred to in court? If that is the case why are their names not being given in the report? If not, how does that work? We seem to have known the names of future witnesses in other sessions so why not in this case?
I find it very odd that an entire defence (not just a single defendant) should suddenly decide that all their witnesses are no longer going to be called.
Would that be because they are certain that their defence is 100% solide without witnesses? Unlikely as no defence is ever that certain in advance of a ruling.
Would it be because they simply don't think that the witnesses could help them any more? Possible.
Or might it be because the witnesses themselves have suggested to the defence that they would prefer not to appear? Again, possible.
My original second question appears to have been ignored. I presume that no explanation was given as to why Goncalo Amaral had previously failed to provide the information which had been requested from him and which the Judge has now ordered him to produce within a period of ten days.
-
Hi Eleanor, basically it would seem that the publishers & production company have to show receipts of money paid to Sr Amaral,
''The Judge starts the session by raising the issue of documents requested by the plaintiffs evidencing the value of royalties paid to Gonçalo Amaral. She reminds the Court that G&P's position is that the request is extemporaneous and illegal and that no other payment was received beyond that previously declared to the Court.''
''The Judge therefore grants a request by the plaintiffs that receipts be provided as previously requested since the defender has failed to produce the information sought.''
OK I can see the judge, thinking cut to chase here, stop the quarrelsome Durate and let them have their way, since there (should hopefully) be nothing hidden\not declared. And so it all goes on in the merry-go-round of everything that is McCanns.
Goncalo Amaral seems always between a rock and hard place. Durate sat on the books long after the decision of the courts to release them. She wants her pound of flesh, the shirt off his back and now it would seem playing a legal footsie!!
This strange case seems to be based on hate and vengeance, rather than legal values. I just hope the judge reflects on this.
What if this case goes against Goncalo Amaral? Have the books ever gone back (metaphorically) speaking on the shelves?
Sometimes I've lost the plot, the book & programmes were the physical forum for his opinion, THEY lost that. So now they sue his brain! ;)
But whilst I wanted just to keep to the tight agenda of the Lisbon hearing todate, one does have to look out at the case and the 'wider agenda' it's all gone deathly silent, is this the usual pre-christmas back to normal for the McCanns, or are all eyes on the Lisbon outcome?
Again thanks to the forum & those who are here 'thinking' discussing & advising.
Thank you for taking the time to comment on these issues Meadow.
One point you raised about the books. My understanding is that any books or DVD's which were the subject of the injunction were returned to the publishers and put back on sale where there was a demand.
I am sure Anne can clarify this?
-
I'm I right in thinking the TM fielded a defence based on hearsay, emotion and oh.... well that's how it was at the time. The few professionals, gave almost non-professional opinions, occasionally outside their expertise, i.e. the consultant \ counsellor who wasn't a psychologist, making psychological assessment etc. And others, rather like the T9 timeline, prompted notes didn't help their cause.
GA team, was more factual and pragmatic and was able to draw conclusions between what was\is official documentation and GAs opinion.
Importantly, GA has demonstrated no malice.
Knowing nothing about the law, either here in the UK or anywhere else. One thing is apparent, the LAW is the law and there exists laid down criteria. Just maybe at this point in time with witnesses not being heard, NO decision made with regard to hearing in person the McCanns or Goncalo Amaral, the judge has sufficient information & documentation within the NEEDS OF THE LAW, to make a decision.
The call for paperwork has been peppered throughout this hearing & the judgement has to show it's evidence and well as deliver a verdict.
But it is indeed still very puzzling.
Again thanks to everyone who have cared to share.
-
Exactly.
G&P, TVI, and VC are the only ones who have to produce documents for specified periods. GA has nothing to produce.
ID seems to have knowledge of much more money. She's trying to prove it and it's coherent with the enormous amount of damages she required.
I don't think she's becoming a hate figure, nobody bothers, but she might fear they would and actually behaves low profile.
He made all this below in less than a year, just from G&P and VC. First payment to him of 22.500.00 was on the 16th July 2008, before his book was supposedly published, and before the files were released.
22.500.00
22.500.00
22.500.00
22.500.00
6.750.00
3.375.00
6.750.00
18.000.00
14.850.00
12.301.97
187.036.20
4.837.50
---------------
343.900.67 TOTAL
-
DCI thanks, so reading between the lines, metaphorically speaking
''First payment to him of 22.500.00 was on the 16th July 2008, before his book was supposedly published, and before the files were released.''
This has nothing at all to do with money, has it? But the technical position of legal niceties of dates, and ensuring said data is entered into evidence.
-
He made all this below in less than a year, just from G&P and VC. First payment to him of 22.500.00 was on the 16th July 2008, before his book was supposedly published, and before the files were released.
There are four payments of 22,500.00 which suggests to me that these were 'advances' from publisher to author, which is a common enough practice.
I do not see where the monies Amaral made from his book have any bearing on the case except, as has been said, for assessing how much could be claimed in damages.
-
There are four payments of 22,500.00 which suggests to me that these were 'advances' from publisher to author, which is a common enough practice.
I do not see where the monies Amaral made from his book have any bearing on the case except, as has been said, for assessing how much could be claimed in damages.
I don't understand why the amount of money made by Amaral is relevant to the case
I was of the understanding that any damages awarded would be commensurate with the level of damage suffered, regardless of the financial ability of the accused to pay it
Indeed, libel damages are frequently awarded which are not, and never will be, actually paid ... because the accused simply does not have it
The Judge in this case is being asked, by the McCanns, to award financial recompence equal to the level of damage suffered. If she finds that the McCanns have been libelled she will award damages in accordance with already established benchmarks
In law it makes no difference if Amaral is a pauper or a billionaire .. it is the level of damage suffered by the McCanns that is being judged, not Amaral's ability to financially meet any award made
That's why I don't understand why his personal wealth ( or lack thereof ) is being made an issue of at this point
-
It certainly flags up a rather ambiguous questions, why the need to know the wealth generated by the books & transmissions etc.
Whatever the criteria of assessment of financial compensation, very little point in awarding zillions, if the ability to pay is pennies.
Therefore, this IMHO is not about money. It's about timing. Yes, as previously pointed out there are 'usual' advances to authors, but I think Durate is no fool.
If she can't get Goncola Amaral for the substance of libel, she will try breach of secrecy - therefore it's not about income\s but dates.
The judge may well find in favour of the McCanns, but award only pennies!! There's nothing to prove they have suffered irretrievable damaged that can only be fixed with a boost to their bank account.
Likewise, should GA's team not inquire into the assets of the McCanns, as part of a counter claim for loss of income, costs and personal damage.
Wouldn't like to be in the judge's shoes.
-
I suspect that this might be more about monies made from Television and Newspaper Interviews, none of which are so far on record. And the people or organizations who aren't actually involved in The Trial proceedings.
-
When will the libel trial resume?
Does anyone know?
-
The 15th (working!) day for submission of documents required by the judge was up yesterday.
-
Just have to wait wont you like everyone else even i it gives you hernias lol
-
It certainly flags up a rather ambiguous questions, why the need to know the wealth generated by the books & transmissions etc.
Whatever the criteria of assessment of financial compensation, very little point in awarding zillions, if the ability to pay is pennies.
Therefore, this IMHO is not about money. It's about timing. Yes, as previously pointed out there are 'usual' advances to authors, but I think Durate is no fool.
If she can't get Goncola Amaral for the substance of libel, she will try breach of secrecy - therefore it's not about income\s but dates.
The judge may well find in favour of the McCanns, but award only pennies!! There's nothing to prove they have suffered irretrievable damaged that can only be fixed with a boost to their bank account.
Likewise, should GA's team not inquire into the assets of the McCanns, as part of a counter claim for loss of income, costs and personal damage.
Wouldn't like to be in the judge's shoes.
The judge may well find in favour of the McCanns, but award only pennies!!
Robert Murat's pay-out in his action against Correia de Manaha was much more substantial than that, and his daughter was not abducted.