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

[Jean-Pierre]

It really is quite simple.

By saying in his book that Madeleine died in the apartment and the McCanns covered it up by hiding her body, Amaral was accusing the McCanns of committing a criminal offence and the McCanns brought an action for libel.

Had he not been a former police officer and coordinator of the investigation, he may have been able to use the defence of honestly held opinion.  (but had he not been a police officer nobody would have taken any notice of his book).

However, he was, and the court quite rightly found against him as far as the McCanns claim was concerned.  And awarded money compensation in respect of their claim, and has also prevented further sales of distribution of the book and video. 

For those who ask how a claim for defamation can succeed until Madeleine's fate is known - under law (and this applies to Portugal and to England) everyone is innocent until proven to be guilty, and you cannot accuse someone of committing a crime without facing consequences.  Amaral did so, and breached their rights to a good name.   

The case in question is quite separate from the case of the ex parte injunction, and subsequent appeals.  Therefore this is not a case of a lower court overturning the judgement of a higher court - it is a different case.

For those who say, well its the opinion of one judge  - it is the opinion of a Portuguese Court.  This cannot be shrugged off lightly by those who are disappointed with the verdict.

We shall, of course, have to see what the verdict of the appeal is.   My opinion is we are entering the end game for Amaral.  But who knows.

[Mr Gray]

It really is quite simple.

By saying in his book that Madeleine died in the apartment and the McCanns covered it up by hiding her body, Amaral was accusing the McCanns of committing a criminal offence and the McCanns brought an action for libel.

Had he not been a former police officer and coordinator of the investigation, he may have been able to use the defence of honestly held opinion.  (but had he not been a police officer nobody would have taken any notice of his book).

However, he was, and the court quite rightly found against him as far as the McCanns claim was concerned.  And awarded money compensation in respect of their claim, and has also prevented further sales of distribution of the book and video. 

For those who ask how a claim for defamation can succeed until Madeleine's fate is known - under law (and this applies to Portugal and to England) everyone is innocent until proven to be guilty, and you cannot accuse someone of committing a crime without facing consequences.  Amaral did so, and breached their rights to a good name.   

The case in question is quite separate from the case of the ex parte injunction, and subsequent appeals.  Therefore this is not a case of a lower court overturning the judgement of a higher court - it is a different case.

For those who say, well its the opinion of one judge  - it is the opinion of a Portuguese Court.  This cannot be shrugged off lightly by those who are disappointed with the verdict.

We shall, of course, have to see what the verdict of the appeal is.   My opinion is we are entering the end game for Amaral.  But who knows.

A very good explanation of the libel trial

[stephen25000]

A very good explanation of the libel trial

I suggest you wait for the result of the appeal.

[Mr Gray]

I suggest you wait for the result of the appeal.

you can suggest all you like...makes no difference to me

[stephen25000]

you can suggest all you like...makes no difference to me

That reply makes no sense.

You regularly comment on his appeal.

So you are clearly concerned.

[Alice Purjorick]

Why did the judge say ?:
"A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"

Why did she dismiss all claims except that which applied to Sr Amaral's former office and obligations that went with it even after he ceased to hold that office?

[Mr Gray]

That reply makes no sense.

You regularly comment on his appeal.

So you are clearly concerned.

it makes perfect sense but you don't understand..I'm not concerned...another false assumption by you...I am interested

[G-Unit]

Why did the judge say ?:
"A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"

Why did she dismiss all claims except that which applied to Sr Amaral's former office and obligations that went with it even after he ceased to hold that office?

She couldn't prove he lied. He couldn't prove he spoke the truth. We will find out in due course whether her interpretation of the obligations of a retired detective were correct or not.

[Jean-Pierre]

Why did the judge say ?:
"A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"

Why did she dismiss all claims except that which applied to Sr Amaral's former office and obligations that went with it even after he ceased to hold that office?

She struck out the claims which related to Madeleine, and the twins, as they did not suffer damage to reputation.

She admitted the claims in respect of KM and GM, as they had suffered damage

As I said above, under Portuguese Law, an honestly held belief may be a valid defense against an action for libel as can right to freedom of expression.  However, by virtue of his position as a former police officer, Amaral was obliged to keep his mouth shut.

 
Amaral based his defense on his right to freedom of expression, (art 37, 1 and 2) forgetting both (art 37, 3 and 4) 

If you want to get technical about it, this was resolving the tension between Article 484 of the civil code (Article 484 - Who affirms or spreads a fact capable of harming the credit or good name of any individual or collective person, is liable for damages.) and article 37 of the constitution paragraphs 1 and 2.

And yes Stephen, we will see what the appeal holds. 

[Alice Purjorick]

She struck out the claims which related to Madeleine, and the twins, as they did not suffer damage to reputation.

She admitted the claims in respect of KM and GM, as they had suffered damage

As I said above, under Portuguese Law, an honestly held belief may be a valid defense against an action for libel as can right to freedom of expression.  However, by virtue of his position as a former police officer, Amaral was obliged to keep his mouth shut.

 
Amaral based his defense on his right to freedom of expression, (art 37, 1 and 2) forgetting both (art 37, 3 and 4) 

If you want to get technical about it, this was resolving the tension between Article 484 of the civil code (Article 484 - Who affirms or spreads a fact capable of harming the credit or good name of any individual or collective person, is liable for damages.) and article 37 of the constitution paragraphs 1 and 2.

And yes Stephen, we will see what the appeal holds.

The judge also dismissed the claims against the other three defendants.
She also said with specific reference to Sr Amaral:
 "The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context".

[Jean-Pierre]

The judge also dismissed the claims against the other three defendants.
She also said with specific reference to Sr Amaral:
 "The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context".

Did she?  You might want to check your facts on this one. 

[Brietta]

The judge also dismissed the claims against the other three defendants.
She also said with specific reference to Sr Amaral:
 "The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context".

Might I suggest you go to the original Portuguese source for material for your posts and place no reliance at all on the interpretations you are using. Google translate might not be perfect ... but it does give a fairly reasonable idea which at least enables information right from the horse's mouth.

[Alice Purjorick]

Might I suggest you go to the original Portuguese source for material for your posts and place no reliance at all on the interpretations you are using. Google translate might not be perfect ... but it does give a fairly reasonable idea which at least enables information right from the horse's mouth.

I am looking at both.

[Mr Gray]

I am looking at both.

but you are only quoting from one

[Alice Purjorick]

Did she?  You might want to check your facts on this one.

Well you can always post a translated version of the judgement that meets with your approval so we can see.
I have asked others to do so but they have failed dismally to do so.