Author Topic: Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.  (Read 853189 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline pegasus

not that good because at half time they change ends
Precisely, and I have orange slices ready

Offline Mr Gray

I thought the general consensus was that Duarte was rubbish....perhaps its  a case of Ipso factor loqui...or something like that

Offline Carana

I don't understand.

All that needs to be assured for the appeal is the correct procedure and relevant facts /  legal arguments to dispute.

What's so complicated?

It's not about bringing in foreign ballistics experts.

Offline Carana

He'll argue his rights as a free citizen.

He'll no doubt dispute that the infringement of his duty to maintain confidentiality once retired was of a lower nature than his right to freedom of speech.

Other media were discussing whether the McCanns were involved or not. Facilitated by the leaks during his tenure *cough*, but that would seem to be inadmissible in this civil trial.


The amount... well the amount does seem to be a little above what he actually earned during 2008-2009 according to the tax office, but it isn't clear when fees for TV broadcast right -  initially suspended - were negotiated, and whether those fees were reimbursed pending the overturning of the injunction.

He could also argue the extent of the distress caused by his book / documentary and the quantifiable aspect of that.


Anything else?

Offline G-Unit

He'll argue his rights as a free citizen.

He'll no doubt dispute that the infringement of his duty to maintain confidentiality once retired was of a lower nature than his right to freedom of speech.

Other media were discussing whether the McCanns were involved or not. Facilitated by the leaks during his tenure *cough*, but that would seem to be inadmissible in this civil trial.


The amount... well the amount does seem to be a little above what he actually earned during 2008-2009 according to the tax office, but it isn't clear when fees for TV broadcast right -  initially suspended - were negotiated, and whether those fees were reimbursed pending the overturning of the injunction.

He could also argue the extent of the distress caused by his book / documentary and the quantifiable aspect of that.


Anything else?

I'm not 100% sure, but the law which the judge used for the 'presumption of innocence' argument seemed to refer to 'suspects' and to the judiciary. The McCanns and the UK media claimed they were no longer suspects following the archiving of the investigation. Could Amaral still be seen as part of the judicial process I wonder?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Carana

I'm not 100% sure, but the law which the judge used for the 'presumption of innocence' argument seemed to refer to 'suspects' and to the judiciary. The McCanns and the UK media claimed they were no longer suspects following the archiving of the investigation. Could Amaral still be seen as part of the judicial process I wonder?

The judge said that they'd never stopped benefiting from the presumption of innocence and were therefore entiled to that presumption.

However, who by? Is that presumption seriously only applicable to acting or former civil servants? 

If so, we could all accuse our neighbours of being serial killers... where does it stop?

Offline Jean-Pierre

I'm not 100% sure, but the law which the judge used for the 'presumption of innocence' argument seemed to refer to 'suspects' and to the judiciary. The McCanns and the UK media claimed they were no longer suspects following the archiving of the investigation. Could Amaral still be seen as part of the judicial process I wonder?

The relevant text is here:

1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Offline G-Unit

The relevant text is here:

1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Thank you, Jean-Pierre. Everyone charged then? How did she apply this in this case I wonder.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Jean-Pierre

Thank you, Jean-Pierre. Everyone charged then? How did she apply this in this case I wonder.

OK - for the hard of thinking I will have to translate.

Everyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent.  So if the McCanns had reached the stage of being charged, then they would still be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law.

It follows that everyone else (i.e all those who have not be charged with any offence) are also presumed innocent. 

Complicated, eh?


Offline G-Unit

OK - for the hard of thinking I will have to translate.

Everyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent.  So if the McCanns had reached the stage of being charged, then they would still be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law.

It follows that everyone else (i.e all those who have not be charged with any offence) are also presumed innocent. 

Complicated, eh?

Yes! Why didn't she just say that.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Jean-Pierre

Yes! Why didn't she just say that.

She did.  Excerpt from the translation below. 

Also the bit highlighted is key in demonstrating that police officers (among other officials) will be held to higher standards, for obvious reasons.

______________


"The protection of the rights of the claimants to their good name and reputation is, in this case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.

 The claimants Gerald and Kate McCann were made arguidos (formal suspects) in the criminal investigation, a status that had the function to guarantee their rights (though not being interpreted this way by the general public) and ceased with the closure of the investigation having the dispatch (AG) report concluded :

it has not been possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a average man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

 (…) Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined: (…) The archiving of the process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
 (No. 15).
 
 
Page 41


 

In the European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence, the principle of presumption of innocence imposes a standard of conduct for all agents, public servants and magistrates involved in the administration of criminal justice.

 The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these decisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.


 Accordingly in the Karaman vs Germany case, the decision claims that

The Court has previously held in this context that Art 6-2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC (  26 )].

 In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR   emphasized the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal. (  27   ) Likewise, the presumption of innocence requires that the absence of guilt that emanates from it is respected, after the acquittal or dismissal, in all legal proceedings of any kind and by any authority that comes into contact with these facts [idem Allen vs United Kingdom].

 In this case, the claimants Kate and Gerald MacCann never ceased to benefit from this presumption of innocence and from the behaviour imperative that this presumption places on national judicial and justice authorities and on all the civil servants and agents.

 The defendant Goncalo Amaral was the coordinator of criminal investigation from the date of the crime breaking news and October 2nd, 2007 (No. 12)
 

Offline sadie

Of course you do.

How many people donated by the way to her recent charity cycling event, and how many to Amaral ?

Do you share Sadie's viewpoint that Amaral has got a lot of PR companies on his side ?
You are misrepresenting me stephen.

I have never said that Amaral has PR Companies on his side.



Offline pegasus

You are misrepresenting me stephen.

I have never said that Amaral has PR Companies on his side.
It would be most unusual in a missing child case to hire PR companies IMO.


Offline Mr Justice K

It would be most unusual in a missing child case to hire PR companies IMO.

Unless you had a reputation and a career to protect of course.  Another issue which bothered me greatly was why the McCanns felt it expedient to have a secrecy clause in their contract with Halligen and Oakley International when they promised total transparency from the outset?
Law without justice is a wound without a cure.  (William Scott Downey)

Offline Mr Gray

Unless you had a reputation and a career to protect of course.  Another issue which bothered me greatly was why the McCanns felt it expedient to have a secrecy clause in their contract with Halligen and Oakley International when they promised total transparency from the outset?

the answer is obvious and in no way sinister