The judgement runs to over fifty pages, much of which refers to previous European Court decisions in respect of human rights. Ultimately, the honourable Lady Judge had to take a stand but in the end it was her decision and interpretation of the evidence which was submitted to and given in the Court.
A higher Court could very well take a different view as was seen already in the original book ban.
Always possible.
I did find that judgement odd when it said that
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.With all due respect to the honourable Supreme Court judges, I'm not convinced that they actually compared the book to the files in detail... as if they had, they may have noticed that not all the "facts" are recorded in the files. I'm not convinced, either, that they considered his experience in the field of missing children... of which there appears to be only one other.
If the ruling is based on an incorrect appreciation of facts, is that ruling absolute?