McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

Was anyones personal reputation attacked.. Was anyone accused of committing a criminal offence

These are the sort of things you need to look at

Yes indeed, breaching judicial secrecy;

"They obtain documents concerning judicial cases for journalists to publish, exchange these documents at cafés, in the open; … breach[ing] the duty of judicial confidentiality [segredo de justiça], they really will share the documents."

[Mr Gray]

Yes indeed, breaching judicial secrecy;

"They obtain documents concerning judicial cases for journalists to publish, exchange these documents at cafés, in the open; … breach[ing] the duty of judicial confidentiality [segredo de justiça], they really will share the documents."

Did you read my question... Who's personal reputation was attacked

[G-Unit]

Did you read my question... Who's personal reputation was attacked

The ASJP and the SMMP, which are public bodies. This was a criminal case, not a civil one. 

In mid-2010 the Professional Association of Judges (Associação Sindical de Juízes Portugueses – “the
ASJP”) and the Professional Association of Public Prosecutors (Sindicato dos Magistrados do
Ministério Público – “the SMMP”) separately lodged criminal complaints against Mr Freitas Rangel
for “insulting a legal entity”

[Mr Gray]

The ASJP and the SMMP, which are public bodies. This was a criminal case, not a civil one. 

In mid-2010 the Professional Association of Judges (Associação Sindical de Juízes Portugueses – “the
ASJP”) and the Professional Association of Public Prosecutors (Sindicato dos Magistrados do
Ministério Público – “the SMMP”) separately lodged criminal complaints against Mr Freitas Rangel
for “insulting a legal entity”

I understand it's a criminal case... How bizarre. Insulting a legal entity... So if a Portuguese journalist said the PJ was institutionally racist... He could expect to be convicted of a criminal offence.  No wonder the ECHR found against Portugal..

He did not insult any individual.. That would have been totally different.  A legal entity has no rights under article 8..

The mccanns do

[misty]

I notice that the ECHR had no trouble with an opinion being expressed;

"Most of the statements had been the applicant’s opinions, rather than statements of fact. While the wording may have been unfortunate, the comments could be interpreted as an illustration of a broader societal critique regarding the inappropriate intervention of the judiciary as a whole in politics and the media, which was a subject
of public interest and which he had believed to be true."

In this case his opinions seem to have been acceptable because he believed them to be true.

Rangel was expressing his opinion on a public body, rather than an individual who has a greater right to privacy/protection from defamation. That he should have been fined for expressing views akin to UK press reporting stories about institutional racism within the Met. Police demonstrates Portugal's attitude towards suppression of free speech when those maligned are in public office/positions of authority. This ECHR decision imo once again shows that it's not what you are but who you are when it comes to appeals in the Supreme Court.

[G-Unit]

Rangel was expressing his opinion on a public body, rather than an individual who has a greater right to privacy/protection from defamation. That he should have been fined for expressing views akin to UK press reporting stories about institutional racism within the Met. Police demonstrates Portugal's attitude towards suppression of free speech when those maligned are in public office/positions of authority. This ECHR decision imo once again shows that it's not what you are but who you are when it comes to appeals in the Supreme Court.

The cases are very different. Defaming an individual is a civil matter but insulting a public body is a criminal matter. Most European countries have a similar law and offenders can be jailed.

[barrier]

Rangel was expressing his opinion on a public body, rather than an individual who has a greater right to privacy/protection from defamation. That he should have been fined for expressing views akin to UK press reporting stories about institutional racism within the Met. Police demonstrates Portugal's attitude towards suppression of free speech when those maligned are in public office/positions of authority. This ECHR decision imo once again shows that it's not what you are but who you are when it comes to appeals in the Supreme Court.

Big difference, that was said as a result of an inquiry and the head of that released papers into the public domain.

[Mr Gray]

The cases are very different. Defaming an individual is a civil matter but insulting a public body is a criminal matter. Most European countries have a similar law and offenders can be jailed.

The important point is that the SC of Portugal made, a mistake in it's, judgement

[Eleanor]

The important point is that the SC of Portugal made, a mistake in it's, judgement

Very True.  I just wish The ECHR would get a move on.  Or are they bogged down with cases from Portugal?

[G-Unit]

The important point is that the SC of Portugal made, a mistake in it's, judgement

Only one judgement interests me. No result on that one as yet.

[barrier]

Very True.  I just wish The ECHR would get a move on.  Or are they bogged down with cases from Portugal?

The case being talked about was communicated in 2017, meaning 5 yrs on, just take that as a starter then the McCann/Healey jobby was communicated in 2021, awhile to wait yet.

[Eleanor]

Has The McCann Complaint been thrown out yet?  Or are we now accepting that there is a case?

[Mr Gray]

Only one judgement interests me. No result on that one as yet.

If you looked at other cases as I've done I think you would see that the SC were wrong in the McCann case too

[barrier]

Has The McCann Complaint been thrown out yet?  Or are we now accepting that there is a case?

Seems like a state of limbo, reading the gumpf.

[Eleanor]

The case being talked about was communicated in 2017, meaning 5 yrs on, just take that as a starter then the McCann/Healey jobby was communicated in 2021, awhile to wait yet.

It's a good job that I intend to live long and prosper.