I did not expect for one second that it would.
Your view on whether the ECtHR caveat stands up is irrelevant; it is what the judges at the ECtHR decide that will count. Sr Amaral has naff all to do with it much as you might wish differently.
The clue is in why judge in the court of first instance made the decision she did. She went to great lengths to explain her reasoning which suppporters appear signally to have failed to understand.The Court of Appeal ruled she erred on a point of law. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the The Court of Appeal. End of the line.
And I did not expect you to agre with me. As Montclair pointed out the domestic courts, were not concerned with the veracity of the statements... From what I have seen the, ECHR will be... and that makes some, sense. It's no good saying the domestic court got it right.... That's why they've gone to the ECHR... the complaint to the ECHR isn't the, same as, was made at the first instance... It can't be..
It's what was ruled by the SC on presumption of innocence and right to reputation ..
Amaral has nothing to do with the action but what he, has, said has a, lot to do with the action