McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

So?

So they are related

[Benice]

If you read my post again you will see that I'm not giving my opinion nor that of a male judge, but that of the (female) judge of the first instance Maria Emília de Melo e Castro. Have you read her judgement yet Benice?

In the proven facts;

  (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

Your opinion of the book is not, it seems, shared by any of the judges in the case.

IMO it's not good enough -  especially for Judges  - to state that the facts in the book etc are MOSTLY facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such..      How much is 'MOSTLY in their opinion?    With no clarification It could be anything from 99% down to 51%.
   
AFAIAC this is the same as saying that as long as MOST of the book is factual  and documented as such  - then the fact that parts of it are  NOT factual and documented  doesn't matter  - even if those parts  have been presented to the public as if they were true documented facts and insodoing have damaged another person's reputation.

How anyone can agree that Judges using the 'MOSTLY.' criterion as proof that a book is not defamatory -  is a fair and acceptable method is inexplicable to me.

The book is either libellous or it isn't.   It can't be a little bit libellous.

I'm interested to hear your own opinion of the book G?

AIMHO

[stephen25000]

Any case, subject to it being accepted, and at the moment we do not know one was submitted, will be against the country of Portugal.

NOTHING AND NO ONE ELSE.

[stephen25000]

IMO it's not good enough -  especially for Judges  - to state that the facts in the book etc are MOSTLY facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such..      How much is 'MOSTLY in their opinion?    With no clarification It could be anything from 99% down to 51%.
   
AFAIAC this is the same as saying that as long as MOST of the book is factual  and documented as such  - then the fact that parts of it are  NOT factual and documented  doesn't matter  - even if those parts  have been presented to the public as if they were true documented facts and insodoing have damaged another person's reputation.

How anyone can agree that Judges using the 'MOSTLY.' criterion as proof that a book is not defamatory -  is a fair and acceptable method is inexplicable to me.

The book is either libellous or it isn't.   It can't be a little bit libellous.

I'm interested to hear your own opinion of the book G?

AIMHO

Have you forgotten that Amaral had a thesis, and that the PJ investigated the parents, A LOGICAL AND NORMAL STEP, especially with no evidence of abduction.

[Mr Gray]

Any case, subject to it being accepted, and at the moment we do not know one was submitted, will be against the country of Portugal.

NOTHING AND NO ONE ELSE.

and will consider the  balance of amarals right to free speech against the mccanns right to honour

[stephen25000]

and will consider the  balance of amarals right to free speech against the mccanns right to honour

You have no idea what the E.C.H.R. might consider.

We don't know a case has been submitted, let alone accepted.

[Mr Gray]

You have no idea what the E.C.H.R. might consider.

We don't know a case has been submitted, let alone accepted.

Its obvious from the SC judgement what will be considered...imo

[slartibartfast]

and will consider the  balance of amarals right to free speech against the mccanns right to honour

There is no right to honour.

[stephen25000]

Its obvious from the SC judgement what will be considered...imo

Have you seen the Mccann's hypothetical submissions to the E.C.H.R. ?

[Mr Gray]

Have you seen the Mccann's hypothetical submissions to the E.C.H.R. ?

We have already discussed that

[slartibartfast]

There is no right to honour.

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[Mr Gray]

There is no right to honour.

The SC judgement uses the word honour....semantics on your behalf...imo...the right to a good name .. honour....however you want to present it...

[Mr Gray]

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

If you do some more research you will find this article is now used re the right to a good name...defamation... whatever you want to call it

[slartibartfast]

The SC judgement uses the word honour....semantics on your behalf...imo...the right to a good name .. honour....however you want to present it...

There isn’t a right to a good name in the articles. They have to be working on Article 8, nothing else goes anywhere near. As above, that talks about respect for private life which the judgement said they had sacrificed by their eagerness to engage with the media.

[Mr Gray]

There isn’t a right to a good name in the articles. They have to be working on Article 8, nothing else goes anywhere near. As above, that talks about respect for private life which the judgement said they had sacrificed by their eagerness to engage with the media.

Google article 8 and defemation