Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[Jean-Pierre]

Not correct, sorry.

An injunction was filed, there were then the court hearings. The judge in that case upheld the injunction. Gonçalo Amaral appealed and won when the Tribunal da Relação overturned the injunction and the book ban. The McCanns then appealed to the Supreme Court and lost.

Partially correct, Montclair. 

They lost on a part of the initial ex parte injunction - i.e. the an on sales of his book.

The remaining parts remained intact - i.e the sequestration of funds.. 

[Carana]

Not correct, sorry.

An injunction was filed, there were then the court hearings. The judge in that case upheld the injunction. Gonçalo Amaral appealed and won when the Tribunal da Relação overturned the injunction and the book ban. The McCanns then appealed to the Supreme Court and lost.

Was Kate mistaken, then, in her account of the process?

P. 341 Madeleine. Hardcover. According to her, the initial application for an injunction was rejected, but they were granted the right to appeal and they initially won on appeal (Sept 2009).

"The injunction against Amaral's book and DVD was initially rejected on the basis that any damage had already been done (decision 1)."

[ferryman]

So Amaral is guilty of libel.

By English libel law, Amaral is guilty of libel.

By Portuguese libel law (more exacting in terms of what must be shown before libel is taken as proved) Amaral is guilty of libel.

Amaral himself does not dispute the fact.

Amaral's dispute is that damage awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) is too high.

How much of the money in the fund will be needed to mount that defence?

[stephen25000]

So Amaral is guilty of libel.

By English libel law, Amaral is guilty of libel.

By Portuguese libel law (more exacting in terms of what must be shown before libel is taken as proved) Amaral is guilty of libel.

Amaral himself does not dispute the fact.

Amaral's dispute is that damage awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) is too high.

How much of the money in the fund will be needed to mount that defence?

Can you remind us ferryman of what the trial was about and what the mccanns failed to prove ?

[ferryman]

Can you remind us ferryman of what the trial was about and what the mccanns failed to prove ?

The McCanns proved that Amaral libelled them.

[stephen25000]

The McCanns proved that Amaral libelled them.

It wasn't a libel trial ferryman.

Likewise the accidental death thesis has not been disproved, but you know that.

[ferryman]

It wasn't a libel trial ferryman.

Likewise the accidental death thesis has not been disproved, but you know that.

Oh dear.

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.


Portuguese prosecutors.

[ferryman]

To be clear, the prosecutors said that Kate and Gerry could not, reasonably, have been expected to foresee abduction ....

[ferryman]

I see the money in the defence fund has now topped £30,000 (thirty thousand pounds) ....

[stephen25000]

I see the money in the defence fund has now topped £30,000 (thirty thousand pounds) ....

Excellent.

[stephen25000]

I see the Cybermen have been out again witheir latest phrase. *&*%£

[ferryman]

I don't know how much of that money would be needed to mount such a defence.

But if enough (I would have thought so) why is the appeal still running?

[pegasus]

I don't know how much of that money would be needed to mount such a defence.

But if enough (I would have thought so) why is the appeal still running?

£30K is less than the initial estimated cost of appealing.
I predict GFM will go over £100K when the GBP really hear about it.
Its important that it does, so the GBP can stick their fingers in the air at a couple of billionaires who pay the other side's legal expenses

[Carana]

It wasn't a libel trial ferryman.

Likewise the accidental death thesis has not been disproved, but you know that.

My understanding is that whatever happened to the child hasn't been proven in a criminal court, and is therefore not applicable to this civil case.

And that goes both ways, but IMO that decision (which was also the case in the Murat appeal) has made it more difficult for the McCanns.

I don't see how this case would have seen the light of day in a UK court if Amaral had had to actually substantiate anything beyond waving a police record in the air.   

[ferryman]

£30K is less than the initial estimated cost of appealing.
I predict GFM will go over £100K when the GBP really hear about it.
Its important that it does, so the GBP can stick their fingers in the air at a couple of billionaires who pay the other side's legal expenses

How were the estimated costs of appealing arrived at?