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

[Anna]

You still don't or don't want to understand! His appeal was sent to the higher court because the process complied with the 4 bureaucratic conditions: the crime or whatever can be appealed according to the law, the fees are paid, the person who files the appeal is the one concerned and the appeal is filed within the time limit. That is ALL!!! No one decides whether the arguments given are valid enough to go to a higher court. It is just not done like this in Portugal. The right to appeal is automatic and it is the higher court which will judge the arguments or grounds. There is no intermediary phase as you state. This is not England.

Thanks, Montclair.
So the question " Will the appeal be accepted" as discussed by many, a short time ago, was a waste of time, really?
If these basic conditions(as your post) are met, then it would automatically to be accepted by Portuguese law. It is now up to the court, to decide and rule on its findings. Is that correct?

[G-Unit]

However, the appeal must have substance, and challenge either proven facts or specific points of law.

(Jean-Pierre)

Just my opinion, but I find this 'proven fact' quite strange;

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio  da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

       Proved.

      The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.

Firstly, there is no medical evidence as to the McCann's state of mind. Insomnia? Do they need sleeping pills? Anxiety? Are they on medication for that? How can the judge say that these conditions existed when there was no expert evidence given? She assumes they existed, and says they weren't caused by Amaral. The best she can say is that what he did 'had an effect' (she believes?). That all seems quite imprecise to me.

[ferryman]

Just my opinion, but I find this 'proven fact' quite strange;

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio  da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

       Proved.

      The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.

Firstly, there is no medical evidence as to the McCann's state of mind. Insomnia? Do they need sleeping pills? Anxiety? Are they on medication for that? How can the judge say that these conditions existed when there was no expert evidence given? She assumes they existed, and says they weren't caused by Amaral. The best she can say is that what he did 'had an effect' (she believes?). That all seems quite imprecise to me.

It all seems plain common sense to me.

I guess that's where we differ.

[Mr Gray]

i know that the much admired (by some) OxfordBloo thought there were no grounds for an appeal, but I can't find where Jean-Pierre said what you are alleging. i'm sure you can find the post you're referring to though.

accuracy please..oxford bloo said the only grounds for appeal as far as he could see was on the level of damages...amaral has stated he is appealing the sentence........so that seems to fit

[G-Unit]

It all seems plain common sense to me.

I guess that's where we differ.

Well it would, wouldn't it. Most courts don't rely on 'common sense', they insist on evidence before they say something is proved.

[G-Unit]

accuracy please..oxford bloo said the only grounds for appeal as far as he could see was on the level of damages...amaral has stated he is appealing the sentence........so that seems to fit

OxfordBloo said so very much;


OxfordBloo
Guest

Re: Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2015, 02:00:50 PM »
Quote
Quote from: davel on May 01, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
so you think his request for appeal will be refused

I cannot see what his grounds for appeal could possibly be. *&*%£ *&*%£

[Mr Gray]

OxfordBloo said so very much;


OxfordBloo
Guest

Re: Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2015, 02:00:50 PM »
Quote
Quote from: davel on May 01, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
so you think his request for appeal will be refused

I cannot see what his grounds for appeal could possibly be. *&*%£ *&*%£

You sceptics are very good at taking things out of context

[Alice Purjorick]

You sceptics are very good at taking things out of context

Aw goo on then, give us the full quote so we can see the full context then revise our views if we think it is appropriate.

[ferryman]

OxfordBloo said so very much;


OxfordBloo
Guest

Re: Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2015, 02:00:50 PM »
Quote
Quote from: davel on May 01, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
so you think his request for appeal will be refused

I cannot see what his grounds for appeal could possibly be. *&*%£ *&*%£

Quote from: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 08:31:58 AM
One can only appeal if one has grounds.

One can only appeal to the ECHR if it is a matter of Human Rights- it is not a Supreme Court, only a Tribunal interpreting the European Convention.

Legal Costs also build on each side. In Portugal I understand that lawyers fees are paid by each side and there are rarely costs awarded against one side alone.

I can see no easy grounds for appeal- appeals are not automatic and require permission.

I understand that the McCanns are indemnified for their legal costs a d Amaral is not.

I think it may be over bar the shouting.

Oxford Blue .....

[G-Unit]

Oxford Blue .....

Wrong again then.

[ferryman]

Wrong again then.

Bodes ill for Amaral's chances in the appeal.

[G-Unit]

Bodes ill for Amaral's chances in the appeal.

Rubbish. OxfordBloo got it wrong.

[jassi]

Bodes ill for Amaral's chances in the appeal.

I do  hope he wins his appeal - it'll make you so cross 

[Carana]

Just my opinion, but I find this 'proven fact' quite strange;

13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio  da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?

       Proved.

      The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.

Firstly, there is no medical evidence as to the McCann's state of mind. Insomnia? Do they need sleeping pills? Anxiety? Are they on medication for that? How can the judge say that these conditions existed when there was no expert evidence given? She assumes they existed, and says they weren't caused by Amaral. The best she can say is that what he did 'had an effect' (she believes?). That all seems quite imprecise to me.

The bit that I've highlighted in blue is the "common experience" leeway in PT law.

[Carana]

I find that Oxford Bloo correctly drilled down to the basic issues in the a quo court ruling.

On the other hand, I agree with Montclair that an appeal process was likely to be accepted.

It's simply not the same system.