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

[Eleanor]

Me neither.

Whatever the outcome of the appeal, it will only be about whether he had the legal right to write / narrate what he did (and even then in only his book, "documentary" and one article).

Even if the case is overturned and he wins the appeal, it would not mean that whatever he said / wrote is accurate in terms of what happened to the child... just that he had the right to express his view, however garbled his understanding appears to be.

I think it will be simply down to how much money was awarded.  The Judge didn't leave much room for anything else.

If Portuguese Law allows for any old person to say what they like, then the only other redress is against the person who said it, and from where they got their information, and under what circumstances.
I thought that The Judge made that quite plain.

[Eleanor]

If the appeal-court decision precisely replicates the decision of the court of first-instance, that's it.

The decision of the court of first instance will be final and binding and will be irrevocably enforced.

The McCanns will have won.

And Amaral will have lost.

And GofundmeGocalo?

Heaven only knows.

Will quietly implode, I guess ....

Thank You for that.  I have almost lost the plot on this one.

But what happens if The Court of Appeal reduces the amount of Damages?

[Carana]

Thank You for that.  I have almost lost the plot on this one.

But what happens if The Court of Appeal reduces the amount of Damages?

If the finding is identical that would seem to be the end of the road.

If the findings are different, there may be an avenue to send the case up to the Supreme Court.

[ferryman]

Thank You for that.  I have almost lost the plot on this one.

But what happens if The Court of Appeal reduces the amount of Damages?

Logically, if the level of damage is reduced, the McCanns would have the option of appealing the reduction.

Conversely, if they are increased, I suppose Amaral could appeal the increase.

Scope for (potential) extension of court proceedings on either side, I suppose .....

My guess is maintenance of the status quo is what the McCanns will be hoping for.

They have already indicated they are more than happy with the verdict of first-instance.

[Carana]

I think it will be simply down to how much money was awarded.  The Judge didn't leave much room for anything else.

If Portuguese Law allows for any old person to say what they like, then the only other redress is against the person who said it, and from where they got their information, and under what circumstances.
I thought that The Judge made that quite plain.

AFAIK, it will be about whether he had the legal right, in view of his former position, to state what he did, when he did, and present it as fact.

His appeal is likely to be that he was technically free from any former professional obligations to shut up. There does seem to be a grey area over when this shut up period may be considered to have ended.

On the other hand, it's impossible to launch a book, ready to go on sale, 3 days after the archiving despatch had been made public without those involved in the publishing industry being aware of the contents. *

That is likely to be part of the issue... and if there are no precedents, it may be complicated.

* ETA: he therefore breached the confidentiality regulation while he was still a serving officer.

His objection is likely to be that this breach is of a lower order (an administrative offence) than his constitutional right to full freedom of speech.

[Eleanor]

If the finding is identical that would seem to be the end of the road.

If the findings are different, there may be an avenue to send the case up to the Supreme Court.

Sh*t.  I did think so.  Although hardly really important.  But it might suggest a different level culpability.

[Carana]

Sh*t.  I did think so.  Although hardly really important.  But it might suggest a different level culpability.

Normally, an appeal to the SC would be about interpretations of law.

An exception to a regular appeal (prior to an SC review) would be a criminal trial involving a jury, which is not the case here. The reasoning being that a jury trial is supposed to provide an additional layer of "objectivity".

[Carana]

Sh*t.  I did think so.  Although hardly really important.  But it might suggest a different level culpability.

As it's a civil case, there may be some latitude over the extent of the damages awarded.

Even if the damages end up amounting to a token €10k (as opposed to the much higher amount), it still doesn't mean that he was 90% correct, although I expect that that is how it would be portrayed to the gullible.

[Eleanor]

Normally, an appeal to the SC would be about interpretations of law.

An exception to a regular appeal (prior to an SC review) would be a criminal trial involving a jury, which is not the case here. The reasoning being that a jury trial is supposed to provide an additional layer of "objectivity".

Don't know what to say about that.  I understand perfectly an Interpretation of Law, albeit always only an Opinion.

But did Amaral, or did he not abuse his role?

[Carana]

Don't know what to say about that.  I understand perfectly an Interpretation of Law, albeit always only an Opinion.

But did Amaral, or did he not abuse his role?

AFAIK, that is what the case is about.

[Carana]

Reading back, what I said isn't quite clear.

AFAIK, In a criminal trial, involving a jury, the process skips the simple appeal to jump straight over to the SC.

It appears irrelevant in this case in any event.

[G-Unit]

AFAIK, it will be about whether he had the legal right, in view of his former position, to state what he did, when he did, and present it as fact.

His appeal is likely to be that he was technically free from any former professional obligations to shut up. There does seem to be a grey area over when this shut up period may be considered to have ended.

On the other hand, it's impossible to launch a book, ready to go on sale, 3 days after the archiving despatch had been made public without those involved in the publishing industry being aware of the contents. *

That is likely to be part of the issue... and if there are no precedents, it may be complicated.

* ETA: he therefore breached the confidentiality regulation while he was still a serving officer.

His objection is likely to be that this breach is of a lower order (an administrative offence) than his constitutional right to full freedom of speech.

It was said at the time of the preliminary injunction five years ago that the McCanns intended to file a criminal complaint against Amaral for breaking Judicial secrecy.  I read somewhere that the PJ interviewed him about it, but nothing seems to have come of it.

Madeleine McCann's parents are to lodge a complaint with Portuguese police claiming that former detective Goncalo Amaral broke his country's strict judicial secrecy laws.
http://news.sky.com/story/752000/mccanns-to-claim-ex-cop-broke-secrecy-laws

I suppose the question arising is if a judge in a civil case can issue a judgement on a criminal matter.

[Carana]

It was said at the time of the preliminary injunction five years ago that the McCanns intended to file a criminal complaint against Amaral for breaking Judicial secrecy.  I read somewhere that the PJ interviewed him about it, but nothing seems to have come of it.

Madeleine McCann's parents are to lodge a complaint with Portuguese police claiming that former detective Goncalo Amaral broke his country's strict judicial secrecy laws.
http://news.sky.com/story/752000/mccanns-to-claim-ex-cop-broke-secrecy-laws

I suppose the question arising is if a judge in a civil case can issue a judgement on a criminal matter.

No idea whether such a complaint was ever actually filed, nor if so by whom, nor what the result was.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this from the ruling:


Criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].

The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that
the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

That sounds as if he'd been "encouraged to explore other career opportunities", but it's not quite clear. If so, that would pre-date the issue over the publication of his book.

But there's also this (below) and I can't work out what it's about as it doesn't actually say. He seems to have won a partial appeal against PJ disciplinary measures and something concerning a €500 fine.


Polícia Judiciária
Aviso (extrato) n.o 11666/2013
Nos termos e para os efeitos do disposto no n.o 3 do artigo 25 do Regulamento Disciplinar da Polícia Judiciária publicado no Decreto-Lei n.o 196/94 de 21 de julho, na impossibilidade, confirmada, de proceder à notificação pessoal, por ausência, em parte incerta, notifica-se o Coordenador de Investigação Criminal, na situação de aposentado, Licenciado Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, que por despacho da Ministra da Justiça, de 26 de agosto de 2013, foi concedido provimento parcial do recurso hierárquico por si interposto do ato recorrido consubstanciado no despacho do Diretor Nacional Adjunto, de 30 de junho de 2010, tendo a pena disciplinar de multa no montante de 500,00 € sido mantida e a suspensão na sua execução sido reduzida de dois para o período mínimo de um ano, começando esta a produzir efeitos decorridos 15 dias após a publicação deste aviso no Diário da República.
6 de setembro de 2013. — Pela Diretora da Unidade, João Prata Augusto.
207241913

Google gibberish I'm afraid.
Judiciary Police
Notice (extract) No 11666/2013
Under the terms and for the purposes of paragraph 3 of Article 25 of the Judicial Police Disciplinary Regulations published in Decree-Law 196/94 of July 21, the impossibility, confirmed, proceeding to personal service, by absence, in part uncertain, notify the Coordinator of Criminal Investigation, the retired situation, Licensed Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, who by order of the Minister of Justice of 26 August 2013, was granted partial approval of the administrative appeal brought by the defendant itself act embodied in the order of the Deputy National Director of 30 June 2010, having the disciplinary penalty fine in the amount of € 500.00 been maintained and the suspension in its execution been reduced to two for the minimum period of one year, starting this to take effect after 15 days after publication of this notice in the Official Gazette.
September 6, 2013 - For the Director of the Unit, John Silver Augustus.

Not sure if this is the correct link or not:

http://legislacaoportuguesa.com/aviso-extrato-n-o-116662013-d-r-n-o-180-parte-c-serie-ii-de-2013-09-18/

[mercury]

It was said at the time of the preliminary injunction five years ago that the McCanns intended to file a criminal complaint against Amaral for breaking Judicial secrecy.  I read somewhere that the PJ interviewed him about it, but nothing seems to have come of it.

Madeleine McCann's parents are to lodge a complaint with Portuguese police claiming that former detective Goncalo Amaral broke his country's strict judicial secrecy laws.
http://news.sky.com/story/752000/mccanns-to-claim-ex-cop-broke-secrecy-laws

I suppose the question arising is if a judge in a civil case can issue a judgement on a criminal matter.

Iirc it was thrown out of court

[Carana]

Iirc it was thrown out of court

Not sure about that. I can't think what else a PJ disciplinary measure dating back to 30 June 2010 could be about (if indeed that's the starting date and not some mid-point concerning something else).