McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

And you need to answer questions asked of you.

ask away  ...and provide a cite for kate saying she felt...a little down...its total rubbish and shows how ignorant of the true facts you are

[faithlilly]

ask away  ...and provide a cite for kate saying she felt...a little down...its total rubbish and shows how ignorant of the true facts you are

Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.

So she wasn’t clinically depressed simply a bit down. These are her words not mine.

And the evidence for the window being open before Kate raised the alarm ?

[Mr Gray]

Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?
Kate Healy (McCann) No. Depression is an over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.

So she wasn’t clinically depressed simply a bit down. These are her words not mine.

And the evidence for the window being open before Kate raised the alarm ?

depression is an overused word to describe those feeling a bit down...what makes you think kate was referring to herself......you are making an assumption...

evidence of open window...kates uncorroborated statement

[Venturi Swirl]

It’s at the top of the homepage.

Homepage of what?  Just post the link please.

[faithlilly]

Homepage of what?  Just post the link please.

This forum.

[Mr Gray]

Homepage of what?  Just post the link please.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4760.0

where it also states

Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary. 
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity.  All reports are made in good faith.


kate never described herself as feeling a bit down...to say she did is a total lie

[G-Unit]

I did not misquote, please don't lie.  I copied verbatim an excerpt from the judgement.

Please don't accuse me of lying!!!!

The text is correct, but it wasn't said by the judge, it was part of the McCann's claims. The judge rejected the claim that Amaral's statements had caused these problems;

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

Please don't accuse me of lying!!!!

The text is correct, but it wasn't said by the judge, it was part of the McCann's claims. The judge rejected the claim that Amaral's statements had caused these problems;

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.

I apologise.  It was a genuine mistake on my part, the way the quote was c & p'ed I thought that that part of the post was attributed to the judge.  Please accept my apologies/

[G-Unit]

I apologise.  It was a genuine mistake on my part, the way the quote was c & p'ed I thought that that part of the post was attributed to the judge.  Please accept my apologies/

Thank you. It's not always easy to be sure of who said what. Better luck next time lol.

[Brietta]

I forgot to mention the statute of limitations for civil cases but defamation laws are a bit more complicated in Portugal.
Some interesting facts in this https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf

I've not had time as yet to give the linked document an in-depth read, Misty.  "Briefing:Criminal Defamation in Portugal"  It looks informative.
For example: one of the two reasons given for holding the working visit (Conference?) in Portugal is outlined as
Quote
2. An unusually high number of condemnations of Portugal at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violations of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, many of which concerned the application of defamation laws.
https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf

Interestingly the IPI ( International Press Institute) notes that defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal which carries with it jail terms.
Certainly bound to be of interest and concern to a body which bills itself as "IPI: Defending Press Freedom for 65 Years"

I've only had a cursory glance but I've picked up on the fact that what we have considered a civil matter might actually have been a criminal one.
Quote
In Portugal, as in other continental European countries, the system of “private prosecution” appears to resemble
civil action, and is even often referred to informally as such.
 
However, there are important differences.

First, regardless of whether prosecutions are public or private, punishments (including imprisonment) will still be criminal in nature, i.e., backed by the state.

This is in contrast with civil damage awards, which involve exchanges between private parties.

Second, criminal defamation cases in Portugal offer the plaintiff a financial advantage, as numerous lawyers and journalists pointed out during IPI’s visit.

A plaintiff in a Portuguese civil court, in addition to paying his or her lawyer, must pay two rounds of expensive court fees before proceedings begin, thus offering a certain degree of protection against unfounded suits.

In a criminal court, by contrast, a plaintiff is liable for a fee after proceedings but only if he or she loses the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is necessary to point out here that Portuguese courts have been condemned by the ECHR for violating freedom of expression in 12 criminal defamation cases since 2005.
https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf

Might the weight of that knowledge have influenced the appeal court judges to rule in favour of the freedom of expression which has brought Portugal back to the ECHR?

[jassi]

I've not had time as yet to give the linked document an in-depth read, Misty.  "Briefing:Criminal Defamation in Portugal"  It looks informative.
For example: one of the two reasons given for holding the working visit (Conference?) in Portugal is outlined as
Quote
2. An unusually high number of condemnations of Portugal at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violations of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, many of which concerned the application of defamation laws.
https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf

Interestingly the IPI ( International Press Institute) notes that defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal which carries with it jail terms.
Certainly bound to be of interest and concern to a body which bills itself as "IPI: Defending Press Freedom for 65 Years"

I've only had a cursory glance but I've picked up on the fact that what we have considered a civil matter might actually have been a criminal one.
Quote
In Portugal, as in other continental European countries, the system of “private prosecution” appears to resemble
civil action, and is even often referred to informally as such.
 
However, there are important differences.

First, regardless of whether prosecutions are public or private, punishments (including imprisonment) will still be criminal in nature, i.e., backed by the state.

This is in contrast with civil damage awards, which involve exchanges between private parties.

Second, criminal defamation cases in Portugal offer the plaintiff a financial advantage, as numerous lawyers and journalists pointed out during IPI’s visit.

A plaintiff in a Portuguese civil court, in addition to paying his or her lawyer, must pay two rounds of expensive court fees before proceedings begin, thus offering a certain degree of protection against unfounded suits.

In a criminal court, by contrast, a plaintiff is liable for a fee after proceedings but only if he or she loses the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is necessary to point out here that Portuguese courts have been condemned by the ECHR for violating freedom of expression in 12 criminal defamation cases since 2005.
https://ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PortugalCriminalDef_IPI_ENG.pdf

Might the weight of that knowledge have influenced the appeal court judges to rule in favour of the freedom of expression which has brought Portugal back to the ECHR?

An average of 1 a year doesn't sound a bad record.
Have you got comparable figures for other countries, or is this just a 'criticize Portugal' post?

[Mr Gray]

An average of 1 a year doesn't sound a bad record.
Have you got comparable figures for other countries, or is this just a 'criticize Portugal' post?

You mean as opposed to criticizing the UK... SY... or the McCanns post

[Carana]

Hmmm. Although the general concept exists in the PT Civil Code, couched in terms of rights, the actual term of "defamation" only appears to exist in the criminal one, for some reason.

There does appear to have been a crackdown towards greater freedom of expression in criminal actions for defamation, as - at least from what I can gather - they appear to be a remnant from a different era, largely brought by politicians, public servants / professionals against journalists / press editors. (One a few years ago was against a journalist who described a politician as a "clown" - from memory that got chucked out.)

That makes sense to me as otherwise there would be no investigative journalism into corruption or professional malpractice. If the politician (or whoever) won the case, there was a prospect of a jail sentence, although rarely enforced, and usually replaced by a fine or presumably even a suspended sentence. From memory, the laws changed to increase the maximum sentence for which someone could be convicted (on any charge) before a custodial sentence was a real possibility (from memory it went from 3 to 5, in line with sentencing in several other countries).

However, the McCann v Amaral et al. one took place in a civil court.

 Tuesday January 12, 2010
8:40       jondipaolo:
Good morning, i’m outside the palacio da justica in lisbon where the mcann libel trial will take place
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Twitter_jondipaolo_12_01_2010.htm

... Which is a civil courts building:
http://www.trienaldelisboa.com/ohl2017/en/places/palacio-da-justica/

[Robittybob1]

I had appreciated it was a civil case.

[Brietta]

Hmmm. Although the general concept exists in the PT Civil Code, couched in terms of rights, the actual term of "defamation" only appears to exist in the criminal one, for some reason.

There does appear to have been a crackdown towards greater freedom of expression in criminal actions for defamation, as - at least from what I can gather - they appear to be a remnant from a different era, largely brought by politicians, public servants / professionals against journalists / press editors. (One a few years ago was against a journalist who described a politician as a "clown" - from memory that got chucked out.)

That makes sense to me as otherwise there would be no investigative journalism into corruption or professional malpractice. If the politician (or whoever) won the case, there was a prospect of a jail sentence, although rarely enforced, and usually replaced by a fine or presumably even a suspended sentence. From memory, the laws changed to increase the maximum sentence for which someone could be convicted (on any charge) before a custodial sentence was a real possibility (from memory it went from 3 to 5, in line with sentencing in several other countries).

However, the McCann v Amaral et al. one took place in a civil court.

 Tuesday January 12, 2010
8:40       jondipaolo:
Good morning, i’m outside the palacio da justica in lisbon where the mcann libel trial will take place
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Twitter_jondipaolo_12_01_2010.htm

... Which is a civil courts building:
http://www.trienaldelisboa.com/ohl2017/en/places/palacio-da-justica/

I think the document Misty linked to will take a bit of study to enable a full understanding and not just a cursory read which I've only had time to do so far (LOL not even 'cursory' I'm not past page one yet plus a quick skim!).

I don't even know if there will be anything bearing any relevance to the McCann appeal to the ECHR;  I thought it is written well - bearing in mind the above caveat - with some promising detail which hpefully might be worth proper discussion.