McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

Its the claim he thought it was, so he never lied in that respect.

You need to explain that to gunit...lol
She doesn't know what lie means

[Mr Gray]

September 2022

McCann and Healy v. Portugal - 57195/17

Judgment 20.9.2022 [Section IV]

Article 8

Positive obligations

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Refusal of a civil claim by the applicants, accused of criminal conduct in respect of their missing daughter by a former police officer who had been responsible for the extensively publicised investigation, which was discontinued for lack of evidence: no violation

Facts – Following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in the night of 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal, her parents (the applicants) had been placed under investigation.

On 2 October 2007 the police inspector in charge of the investigation (G.A.) was removed from those duties.

On 21 July 2008 the prosecutor’s office issued a decision to discontinue the investigation on account of a lack of evidence against the applicants.

On 24 July 2008 G.A. published a book, based on the public investigation file, in which he accused the parents of having been involved in their daughter’s disappearance. G.A. gave a newspaper interview which was published on the day that the book was issued. The book was also adapted as a documentary, which was broadcast on television before being made available for commercialisation.

The proceedings brought by the applicants were unsuccessful.

They accused the national courts of having failed in their positive obligation to protect their right to the presumption of innocence and to their reputation.

Law – Article 8:

1. Applicability – The impugned statements made by G.A. in the book, documentary programme and interview concerned the applicants’ alleged involvement in hiding their daughter’s body, based on a theory that they had staged an abduction and on a presumed acts of negligence towards her. These statements were sufficiently serious to attract the application of Article 8.

Conclusion: Article 8 applicable.

2. Merits –

The domestic courts had correctly identified the interests at stake, namely, on the one hand, G.A.’s right to freedom of expression and the right to hold opinions and, on the other, the applicants’ right to respect for their reputation, which was linked to their right to be presumed innocent, and had taken the view that G.A.’s rights should prevail over those of the applicants. They had also observed that these rights deserved equal protection and that, in those circumstances, a balancing exercise had to be carried out. Thus, the question which arose was whether the domestic courts had undertaken this balancing exercise in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law.

(a) Contribution to a debate of general interest

In the Court’s view, as the Supreme Court had concluded, G.A.’s book, the related documentary and the interview given by him to a daily newspaper concerned a debate of public interest. The extensive media coverage given to the case clearly showed the interest that it had aroused both nationally and internationally.

(b) The applicants’ previous conduct and the extent to which they were well known

The Court understood that, in seeking media attention, the applicants had wished to use every possible avenue in order to find their daughter. It remained the case that although they had been unknown to the public before the incident, through their media exposure they had ended up acquiring a certain notoriety and becoming public figures. In consequence, they had inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed.

(c) The subject matter of the book, documentary and interview, and how the information was obtained

In the Court’s view, the information contained in the book, documentary and interview had come from the criminal investigation case file, which was in the public domain.

(d) The content of the contested statements and their impact

Having regard to the context of the case and similarly to the findings of the domestic courts, the contested statements constituted value judgments which had a sufficient factual basis, namely the elements which had been gathered during the investigation and brought to the public’s attention. Additionally, this theory had been entertained in the context of the criminal investigation and had even led to the applicants being placed under investigation in September 2007.

Moreover, the criminal case had attracted impassioned public interest both nationally and internationally and had given rise to considerable discussion and controversy. As the court of appeal and the Supreme Court had noted, the disputed statements had undeniably formed part of a debate of public interest, and G.A.’s theory had accordingly been one of several opinions.

The criminal case had been discontinued by the prosecutor’s office. In this connection, had the book been published before the decision by the prosecutor’s office to discontinue the proceedings, the statements in question could potentially have undermined the applicants’ right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, by prejudging that entity’s assessment of the facts. Given that the statements were in fact made after the case had been discontinued, it had been the applicants’ reputation, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and the public’s perception of them, which had been at stake. Public confidence in the functioning of the judiciary had also been a relevant issue.

Even supposing that the applicants’ reputation had been damaged, this had not been on account of the hypothesis put forward by G.A., but as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the proceedings and had given rise to extensive media attention and much controversy. The information had been thus brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file had been made available to the media and the book in question had been published.

The book had been published three days after the proceedings had been discontinued, which implied that it had been written, then printed, while the investigation had still been underway. G.A. could, as a matter of prudence, have added a note informing the reader about the outcome of the proceedings. However, the failure to insert any such note could not, in itself, prove bad faith on his part. Furthermore, the documentary did refer to the fact that the case had been discontinued.

The applicants had continued their media campaign after the book’s publication. In particular, they had cooperated in a documentary programme about their daughter’s disappearance and continued to give interviews to the international media. While the Court understood that the book’s publication had undeniably caused anger, anguish and distress to the applicants, it did not appear that the book, or the broadcasting of the documentary, had had a serious impact on the applicants’ social relations or on their legitimate and ongoing attempts to find their daughter.

(e) The particular circumstances of the case

The Court could agree with the analysis of the court of appeal and the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the statements in question were based on G.A.’s in-depth knowledge of the case file as a result of his role. However, their content had already been known to the public, given the extensive media coverage of the case and the fact that the investigation file had been subsequently made available to the media after the investigation had been closed. Thus, the contested statements were merely the expression of G.A.’s interpretation of a high-profile case which had already been widely discussed. In addition, it did not appear that G.A. had been motivated by personal animosity towards the applicants.

Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, a ruling against G.A. would have had a chilling effect in terms of freedom of expression with regard to matters of public interest.

(g) Conclusion

The Supreme Court had carried out a detailed analysis of the balance to be struck between the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and G.A.’s right to freedom of expression, assessing them in the light of the criteria identified in its case-law and referring at length to the Court’s case-law. Having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities in the present case, the Court saw no strong reason to substitute its own view for that of the Supreme Court. The national authorities had not therefore failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

what your post shows is that the echr decision is based on the fact that it is proven a cadaver had been in 5a....how could they reach any other decision

[G-Unit]

Try the wastepaper bin in Amaral’s old office (it might not yet have been emptied).

Typically facetious answer to a serious point. I would like to know who leaked the story about the email tip-off to the press, whether the UK police were involved, and if the PJ knew anthing about it before the story was leaked.

[Mr Gray]

Typically facetious answer to a serious point. I would like to know who leaked the story about the email tip-off to the press, whether the UK police were involved, and if the PJ knew anthing about it before the story was leaked.

what does it matter ..CB is guilty...its a proven fact

[Venturi Swirl]

Typically facetious answer to a serious point. I would like to know who leaked the story about the email tip-off to the press, whether the UK police were involved, and if the PJ knew anthing about it before the story was leaked.

Well you’d better put on your deerstalker, get out your magnifying glass and do some serious investigating because you ain’t going to get the answers you so urgently seek chatting to anyone on here.  Good luck!

[barrier]

what does it matter ..CB is guilty...its a proven fact

Of what ? he's guilty of being accused of suspicion of killing Madeleine not of the actual fact

[Mr Gray]

Of what ? he's guilty of being accused of suspicion of killing Madeleine not of the actual fact

Guilty of murder..the evidence is overwhelming

[barrier]

Guilty of murder..the evidence is overwhelming

I'm sure you'll explain the relevance to the McCanns appeal to the ECHR.

[Mr Gray]

I'm sure you'll explain the relevance to the McCanns appeal to the ECHR.

Are you

[barrier]

Are you

Always.

[Wonderfulspam]

what your post shows is that the echr decision is based on the fact that it is proven a cadaver had been in 5a....how could they reach any other decision

But the ECHR also agreed that Madeleine was abducted. How they reached that decision isn't entirely clear.

[Wonderfulspam]

Guilty of murder..the evidence is overwhelming

Never has a truer statement of truth or proven fact been spoken.

[Brietta]

The UK police had a tip-off about an ex OC employee. They were unable to investigate in Portugal, the PJ would have to do that. I can find no record of them being informed or asked to help to investigate this tip-off. Can you?

Do you have any knowledge of this case whatsoever?  If you claim you do ... why is it you get it so consistently wrong.

Snip
Gonçalo Amaral revealed that the "statement" he gave to Diarios de Noticias – and was the reason for his removal, according to the PJ director – was not correctly reproduced and it was not a statement to a newspaper, but just an informal talk with a journalist from Faro, "very close to the family, a friend of my wife", who called him to ask about the email sent to the web site of Prince Charles, denouncing a former employee of Ocean Club as the kidnapper. "What I said, talking not to a journalist, but with a friend,

Gonçalo Amaral and Madeleine's case: "There was more politics than police"
04/07/2008
Paulo Reis, Transcription with help from Claudia

When is a secret no longer a secret?
Amaral confessed on interview by the Portuguese press that he had discussed Madeleine's case with a journalist.
The breach of confidence resulted in him being sacked from Madeleine's case.  And however you attempt to sanitise it, by discussing the case outwith the investigation Amaral Broke the Law and should not only have been sacked from the case he should have been prosecuted.

[Brietta]

Madeleine detective kicked off case after blasting British police
3 October 2007
The Daily Express
David Pilditch and Martin Evans in Praia da Luz

THE Portuguese detective leading the Madeleine McCann case was sacked last night.

Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral was booted off the inquiry hours after launching an astonishing public attack on British police – claiming they had been duped by Kate and Gerry McCann.

Disgraced Amaral has been removed from the case, demoted to the rank of inspector, and stripped of his role as regional head of the Policia Judiciaria.

He was ordered to clear his desk at police headquarters in Portimao and will begin work in a new role at nearby Faro.

A Portuguese police spokesman said last night: "We cannot make any comment on the reasons for his dismissal.

"But we can confirm that he did not resign. He was removed from his post. The decision was taken by the national leadership of the Judicial Police." Amaral, who turned 48 yesterday, was taken off the case by his boss Alipio Ribeiro.
...

The bombshell came after Amaral accused British police of shielding the McCanns.

He claimed they were only pursuing leads that could help clear the couple, and were hampering his investigation into the four-year-old's disappearance from her family's holiday apartment in the the Algarve.

The explosive outburst led to the first intervention by the Portuguese government, in a very public reprimand by the Justice Minister Alberto Costa.

Last night a Portuguese police source described Amaral's remarks as "the straw that broke the camel's back".

He had breached Portuguese law and broken his silence over the Madeleine case, claiming:

"The British police have only been working on what the McCann couple want them to and what suits them most." The McCanns have been warned they face jail if they speak about the case – but Amaral appeared unconcerned by the secrecy laws as he sneered at a line of inquiry being followed by Leicestershire Police.

Amaral said a tip-off sent to Prince Charles's website that Madeleine may have been snatched by a former employee at the Ocean Club complex had "no credibility whatsoever".

He told Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias: "The Ocean Club is in Praia da Luz, not in London.

"That means that anything in respect to the complex and the employees – current or ex – has been or is being investigated by the Policia Judiciaria.

"It won't be an email, and an anonymous one at that, which will distract our line of investigation." He even claimed the tipoff was created by the McCanns.

https://newsoutlines.blogspot.com/2007/10/madeleine-detective-kicked-off-case.html

[G-Unit]

Well you’d better put on your deerstalker, get out your magnifying glass and do some serious investigating because you ain’t going to get the answers you so urgently seek chatting to anyone on here.  Good luck!

Knowing there are questions about this story is a start. It beats accepting tabloid stories without giving them some thought imo.