McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

tbh I think John’s comment was simply him taking the piss.

I'm aware of that so in response to his post he won't mind me saying it shows he knows b*****r all about the ECHR case

[barrier]

Next week ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11215227/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-finally-Tuesday-won-14-YEAR-libel-battle.html

EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance

[barrier]

Tuesday 20 September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)
The applicants, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, are British nationals, born in 1968.
They live in Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom.
The case concerns statements made by Mr Gonçalo Amaral – a former detective inspector – in a
book, a documentary adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’
alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing
on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements
damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain
that they were unable to obtain redress before the domestic civil courts. They also argue that the
reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close
of an action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.

[Mr Gray]

Tuesday 20 September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)
The applicants, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, are British nationals, born in 1968.
They live in Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom.
The case concerns statements made by Mr Gonçalo Amaral – a former detective inspector – in a
book, a documentary adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’
alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing
on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements
damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain
that they were unable to obtain redress before the domestic civil courts. They also argue that the
reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close
of an action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.

interesting....whilst sceptics were saying it would be found inadmissible I and others ..Eleanor particularly.....predicted the exact grounds the appeal would be based on

[Eleanor]

interesting....whilst sceptics were saying it would be found inadmissible I and others ..Eleanor particularly.....predicted the exact grounds the appeal would be based on

Obviously The Case has been considered.

[kizzy]

interesting....whilst sceptics were saying it would be found inadmissible I and others ..Eleanor particularly.....predicted the exact grounds the appeal would be based on

IMO seems DM  got the wrong end of the stick...as usual

[Mr Gray]

IMO seems DM  got the wrong end of the stick...as usual

I've said all along the Mcs have a very strong case and would win..gunit said they would lose..
We will find out soon whos right

[Eleanor]

IMO seems DM  got the wrong end of the stick...as usual

No they haven't.

[Brietta]

IMO seems DM  got the wrong end of the stick...as usual

Nope.  I am afraid it seems it is you who have got the wrong end of the stick.  It looks very much as though the Daily Mail is merely reporting when the court in Strasbourg will deal with
"McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)"



"Tuesday 20 September 2022
McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)

The applicants, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, are British nationals, born in 1968.

They live in Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom.

The case concerns statements made by Mr Gonçalo Amaral – a former detective inspector – in a book, a documentary adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’ alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal.

Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing),

8 (right to respect for private and family life)

and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain that they were unable to obtain redress before the domestic civil courts.

They also argue that the reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close of an action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg690791#msg690791

[kizzy]

I've said all along the Mcs have a very strong case and would win..gunit said they would lose..
We will find out soon whos right

Nit picking really but ...its a good job it is not up to the public

2 comments

They need to leave the cop alone thumbs up - 967...thumbs down - 153

Hope they win ....thumbs up - 204....thumbs down - 1038

[Mr Gray]

Nit picking really but ...its a good job it is not up to the public

2 comments

They need to leave the cop alone thumbs up - 967...thumbs down - 153

Hope they win ....thumbs up - 204....thumbs down - 1038

I'm afraid that sceptics are going to be very disappointed next week...I don't think the figures give a true reflection of public opinion......more the sceptic rent a mob brigade who have been fooled by the propaganda and lies put out by some idiots

[Eleanor]

Nit picking really but ...its a good job it is not up to the public

2 comments

They need to leave the cop alone thumbs up - 967...thumbs down - 153

Hope they win ....thumbs up - 204....thumbs down - 1038

The Daily Mail haven't printed my Comment.  If they ever do.

[Eleanor]

So, there will be a decision very shortly.  And I have no idea of the way in which it will go.

The Court of the First Instance said that because Amaral was involved in The Investigation then he should not be allowed to use his knowledge.  And I agreed with that.  The rest of it then became Freedom of Speech, which I wouldn't give you tuppence happeny for.  Freedom of Speech carries responsibilities and I personally don't need Freedom of Speech.  It is of no use to me because I have no inherent desire to accuse anyone.

Fifteen years of accusing The McCanns.  What an utter waste of time that has been.  I am more concerned with with the sick minds who have done this. Presuming that I actually care.

[Venturi Swirl]

So what's new in the McCann v Portugal case at the ECHR?

Any updates or has it been quietly dropped?

It would appear that it has not been “quietly dropped”, no.

[Eleanor]

It would appear that it has not been “quietly dropped”, no.

It never was going to be quietly dropped, which ever way it might go.  Silly John.  We would all have known about it.  Or will know, which ever way it might go.

I truly do not have any speculations.  And it is no longer of any importance to me.

Somedebody slagged someone off without just cause.  Is Freedom of Speech more important than a Right to the Presumption of Innocence?  I no longer have any idea.  And and I don't actually care anyway.

The McCanns will never be indicted for this. So this is just point scoring now, amongst  ourselves.

I mostly have no idea of what I am doing Moderating this Forum, beyond the obvious, but that the need for that doesn't happen much anymore.  Unless I should want get really shirty, which I always might.  You never can tell with me.