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

[pegasus]

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

The sum of 500 euros is obviously far to small to be a fine for breach of secrecy. For example, in another case the same amount is is simply the total of the fee for lawyer to file as assistant and a fine for doing it late. Translated of Correio Da Manha 25 10 2008  "The Lawyers’ Order was fined over approximately 200 euros because it failed to pay the amount of judicial expenses to become an assistant in the process, within the deadlines. According to what CM was able to establish with a judicial source, it wasn’t until yesterday morning, when the trial was scheduled to begin, that the payment was made. Thus, the constitution as an assistant cost the double amount: almost 500 euros, including the fine"

[Carana]

The sum of 500 euros is obviously far to small to be a fine for breach of secrecy. For example, in another case the same amount is is simply the total of the fee for lawyer to file as assistant and a fine for doing it late. Translated of Correio Da Manha 25 10 2008  "The Lawyers’ Order was fined over approximately 200 euros because it failed to pay the amount of judicial expenses to become an assistant in the process, within the deadlines. According to what CM was able to establish with a judicial source, it wasn’t until yesterday morning, when the trial was scheduled to begin, that the payment was made. Thus, the constitution as an assistant cost the double amount: almost 500 euros, including the fine"

This fine appears to have been the result of a partially successful appeal against - presumably a higher sanction - based on one issued by the PJ.

How could this be the result of a fine imposed in a civil case?

It also mentions a "suspension in the execution..." - I can't work out whether that relates to a suspension in the sense of a staggered payment of the fine or to a suspension in the sense of a different sanction (PJ sanctions can seemingly carry on through the legal process for years after the officer in question has left service - cf Cristóvão)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6269.msg314616#msg314616

[Carana]

@ Pegasus,

There is a confusing issue.

I find it highly unlikely that there would have been a "regular" court case concerning the breach of judicial secrecy. There is, however, a system for dealing with offences relating to the PJ.

There is a whole hierarchy involved in PJ sanctions depending on the gravity, and the sanctions have an escalating range of consequences.

This one appears to have been issued by the deputy head of the PJ (which corresponds to one of the lower levels of santions). The more serious the offence, the higher the decision-making body - which makes sense.

This one was decreed by the deputy national director, whereas booting Amaral off the case was a decision by the national director (Ribeiro, at the time).

However, a sanction decreed by the PJ isn't necessarily the end of the legal process. Again, see Cristóvão re the Joana case in which he got a 120-day suspension from the PJ disciplinary unit, but which appears to have been a separate issue to the torture trial.

[pegasus]

@ Pegasus,

There is a confusing issue.

I find it highly unlikely that there would have been a "regular" court case concerning the breach of judicial secrecy. There is, however, a system for dealing with offences relating to the PJ.

There is a whole hierarchy involved in PJ sanctions depending on the gravity, and the sanctions have an escalating range of consequences.

This one appears to have been issued by the deputy head of the PJ (which corresponds to one of the lower levels of santions). The more serious the offence, the higher the decision-making body - which makes sense.

This one was decreed by the deputy national director, whereas booting Amaral off the case was a decision by the national director (Ribeiro, at the time).

However, a sanction decreed by the PJ isn't necessarily the end of the legal process. Again, see Cristóvão re the Joana case in which he got a 120-day suspension from the PJ disciplinary unit, but which appears to have been a separate issue to the torture trial.

Here is law 196/94, in which the relevant part is article 25 item 3
http://dre.tretas.org/dre/60685/
Much too complicated for me. More interesting is why political figures were still involved in the PDL investigation during the early arguido period from 7 Sept to 2 Oct.

[Carana]

Here is law 196/94, in which the relevant part is article 25 item 3
http://dre.tretas.org/dre/60685/
Much too complicated for me. More interesting is why political figures were still involved in the PDL investigation during the early arguido period from 7 Sept to 2 Oct.

Thanks for that link to the PJ disciplinary regulations, as I'd only had a jpeg version of it.

25 item 3 only appears to concern the process in the event that there is no clear means of personally delivering a judicial notice to someone.

3 - No caso de impossibilidade confirmada de notificação pessoal, a decisão punitiva é publicada, por extracto, no Diário da República, 2.ª série, começando a produzir efeitos decorridos 15 dias após essa publicação.

[pegasus]

Thanks for that link to the PJ disciplinary regulations, as I'd only had a jpeg version of it.

25 item 3 only appears to concern the process in the event that there is no clear means of personally delivering a judicial notice to someone.

3 - No caso de impossibilidade confirmada de notificação pessoal, a decisão punitiva é publicada, por extracto, no Diário da República, 2.ª série, começando a produzir efeitos decorridos 15 dias após essa publicação.

So publishing a decision in DdaR legally has the same effect as notifying the person directly.

[Brietta]

Thanks for that link to the PJ disciplinary regulations, as I'd only had a jpeg version of it.

25 item 3 only appears to concern the process in the event that there is no clear means of personally delivering a judicial notice to someone.

3 - No caso de impossibilidade confirmada de notificação pessoal, a decisão punitiva é publicada, por extracto, no Diário da República, 2.ª série, começando a produzir efeitos decorridos 15 dias após essa publicação.

Don't know if this is relevant or not ... I remember reading that at one stage Mr Amaral had no fixed abode, probably before he moved back into his father's house after his marriage break-up. 

[stephen25000]

Don't know if this is relevant or not ... I remember reading that at one stage Mr Amaral had no fixed abode, probably before he moved back into his father's house after his marriage break-up.

b....r all to do with this case.

[pegasus]

Don't know if this is relevant or not ... I remember reading that at one stage Mr Amaral had no fixed abode, probably before he moved back into his father's house after his marriage break-up.

That may be the solution Brietta - no response to a letter sent old address? But do the dates match?

[Brietta]

That may be the solution Brietta - no response to a letter sent old address? But do the dates match?

No idea of the date, Pegasus or even where I read it and what the context was.

[Carana]

No idea of the date, Pegasus or even where I read it and what the context was.

Are you thinking of the Amaral v Aragão saga? If so, that was in 2012.


Lusa News Agency, April 18, 2012
According to the Court, Gonçalo Amaral refused to give his current address, giving as his residence the address of the PSP of Olivais headquarters in Lisbon.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/04/defamation-of-goncalo-amaral-by-marcos.html

That doesn't seem to fit datewise (the PJ deputy national director's despatch dates back to 30 June 2010). The other issue is that, AFAIK, if this fine related to a regular court process, the notice would have been issued by the court, not the MoJ concerning an appeal against a PJ sanction.

ETA: And re the Aragão case, he did give an address: the PSP HQ in Lisbon.

[Carana]

Reading those regulations again, I think what happened is that the fine had been suspended for three years and upon appeal he got it reduced to one year.

... 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.

If this does indeed relate to the breach concerning the publication of the book, then yes, it does seem quite light, but then in the interest of proportionality, it would have been considered less serious than the reasons that led to getting booted if that is what this means: "Criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights..."

[ferryman]

So yesterday marked the 11th month since the decision of the court of first instance.

What news of Amaral's appeal?

What news of gofundme justice goncalo?

[Alice Purjorick]

So yesterday marked the 11th month since the decision of the court of first instance.

What news of Amaral's appeal?

What news of gofundme justice goncalo?

On the basis that neither side is turning handsprings and a whoopin' an' a hollerin' I  would lay my purse on there being no news on either score at present

[ferryman]

On the basis that neither side is turning handsprings and a whoopin' an' a hollerin' I  would lay my purse on there being no news on either score at present

The McCanns have declared themselves very pleased with the result (of the court of first-instance).

That Amaral has appealed would tend to indicate he is less pleased ....