The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Carana]

Its probably quite simple but we dont know in what situations the burden of proof is changed...that would perhaps give us the answer

As far as I can work out, the burden of proof can be reversed if there is a legal presumption. What that actually means in PT law and whether it would apply in the McCann case is anyone's guess.

I wasn't aware of this until the Murat judgement.

[Eleanor]

In some respect in the UK at least he would be in a stronger position than the others as it was his Opinion.

Libel is always only an opinion.

[Eleanor]

They are film-makers and publishers - of course they are out to make money. Do you think Corner's film making company didn't make money out of the work they did?

So you think that these companies have a right to make money from Libel, albeit committed by someone else?

[jassi]

So you think that these companies have a right to make money from Libel, albeit committed by someone else?

Not quite what I said.
If they have committed libel, then they will pay a price for it, just in the same way that some  newspapers have.
If, on the other hand, they have not committed libel, then they will  have pursued a legitimate commercial activity, irrespective of how distasteful you might find it.

[Montclair]

Amaral kicked it all off.  He made the accusations and the rest of them ran with it.

Gonçalo Amaral did not make the accusations, these accusations were the conclusions of the interim report. The McCanns and their team started this whole libel case off because of the insults made about Gonçalo Amaral, even after he was taken off the case. He wrote the book to defend his honour and that of the PJ and the judicial authorities since his superiors did nothing about the insults from the press.

[Eleanor]

As far as I can work out, the burden of proof can be reversed if there is a legal presumption. What that actually means in PT law and whether it would apply in the McCann case is anyone's guess.

I wasn't aware of this until the Murat judgement.

There is no Legal Presumption with The McCanns, beyond the fact that they are innocent in Law.  As there was no Legal Presumption with Robert Murat.
Although perhaps this is not what you meant.

[Eleanor]

Gonçalo Amaral did not make the accusations, these accusations were the conclusions of the interim report. The McCanns and their team started this whole libel case off because of the insults made about Gonçalo Amaral, even after he was taken off the case. He wrote the book to defend his honour and that of the PJ and the judicial authorities since his superiors did nothing about the insults from the press.

So The Investigation wrote the book, did it? 

Why did The PJ take him off The Case?  Why did The PJ refuse to allow him to defend his honour?  Some answers to these questions might be useful.

[ferryman]

So you think that these companies have a right to make money from Libel, albeit committed by someone else?

Ah.

I'm pretty sure Portuguese law and English law are the same in this respect.

To repeat a libel is to commit a libel, even if the primary source lies elsewhere.

[ferryman]

Gonçalo Amaral did not make the accusations, these accusations were the conclusions of the interim report. The McCanns and their team started this whole libel case off because of the insults made about Gonçalo Amaral, even after he was taken off the case. He wrote the book to defend his honour and that of the PJ and the judicial authorities since his superiors did nothing about the insults from the press.

So The Investigation wrote the book, did it?

Goncalo Amaral authored a book, littered with falsehoods that lower reputation, for which he has sole and exclusive (ir)responsibility. 

I've pointed out before and happily repeat that if Amaral had let everything lie within the process, he'd be fine.

Kate's father cannot touch Tavares Almeida for his falsehood that Mr Healey confirmed that the McCanns sedated their children, for example, because Almeida has never repeated that falsehood outside the process.

[Lyall]

Libel is always only an opinion.

Not according to Mr Tugendhat. You'll remember what he said I think.

[jassi]

Gonçalo Amaral did not make the accusations, these accusations were the conclusions of the interim report. The McCanns and their team started this whole libel case off because of the insults made about Gonçalo Amaral, even after he was taken off the case. He wrote the book to defend his honour and that of the PJ and the judicial authorities since his superiors did nothing about the insults from the press.

So The Investigation wrote the book, did it?

Goncalo Amaral authored a book, littered with falsehoods that lower reputation, for which he has sole and exclusive (ir)responsibility. 

I've pointed out before and happily repeat that if Amaral had let everything lie within the process, he'd be fine.

Kate's father cannot touch Tavares Almeida for his falsehood that Mr Healey confirmed that the McCanns sedated their children, for example, because Almeida has never repeated that falsehood outside the process.

Are these not only alleged falsehoods at this stage ?

[Estuarine]

My kick off comment was related to there being 4 defendants. It doesn't matter in this instance who did what with which and to whom and who profited from it. My point being that the four defendants having elected not to settle out of court would seem to indicate that all 4 and their legal teams think they are in with a chance. Not just "The Deluded Bogeyman".
All will be revealed in the fullness of time. Whichever way it goes the English press will make amusing reading. Dr. Amaral will in the famed words of Terry Downes "have to knock 'em out to get a draw".

[Carana]

There is no Legal Presumption with The McCanns, beyond the fact that they are innocent in Law.  As there was no Legal Presumption with Robert Murat.
Although perhaps this is not what you meant.

There was with Murat as far as I can work out.. Whether that was only admitted on appeal or not, I've no idea.

ETA: This "legal presumption" as applied in the Murat case seems to be about the duties of the press.

- None of the outlandish allegations were verified, beyond one statement of dubious veracity.
- He had a right to be considered innocent.
- The press villified him and seriously damaged his reputation at the time.
- Etc.

[Eleanor]

Not according to Mr Tugendhat. You'll remember what he said I think.

Oh, indeed I do remember what Judge Tugendhat said.  Anthony Bennett has a Suspended Prison Sentence.  And a colossal bill for Damages and Costs.

[Carana]

There are several parties being sued in this case.

Does Amaral count as "press/media" as an author, or as a private citizen expressing his views? Do his views count as a common citizen or as someone closely involved in the case at the time as coordinator of the investigation?

What legal differences may there be between his book, the documentary, his numerous interviews (audiovisual or written press)? Does he have the same responsibility in each or not?