https://inforrm.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mccanns-v-amaral-judgment.pdf
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_Site.htm Click on link STJ - 1454 / 09.5TVLSB.L1.S1
The McCanns were, of course, successful in the first instance court.
The judge said "The protection of the rights of the claimants to their good name and reputation (Article 8) is, in this case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.(Article 6)
"In this case, the claimants Kate and Gerald MacCann never ceased to benefit from this presumption of innocence (Article 6) and from the imperative of behaviour that this presumption places on national judicial and justice authorities and all the civil servants and agents (Article 10)."
She ruled that Amaral was not allowed to say he thought the McCanns were guilty because he was a retired member of the Policia Judiciaria (Article 10). Not only did this damage their reputation (Article 8), it also affected their right to be presumed innocent by the authorities (Article 6).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0So Amaral lost because he was a retired Inspector of the Policia Judiciaria. Had he not been, he wouldn't have lost. The Appeal court judges completely rejected this; "no reserve duty can be imposed on the defendant about facts that have been disclosed and made public, particularly the whole investigation process. Once the duty of reserve is non-existent, freedom of expression of the defendant comes first and prevails over the rights asserted by the claimants, as the sentence has observed before introducing the unusual duty of reserve.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htmSo the case appears to rest on whether Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted or not.
