I was actually interested in the ECtHR thread in terms of legal arguments, but it's gone so off course. Again. Never mind.
ive summed it up many times but no one sinterested.
The deciision of both the SC and the ECHR was how to balance the conficting rights of article 8 vs article 10...article 8 with respect to the right to reputation.
One of the important factors and in this case the deciding factor was the veracity of the claim. It seems quite fair in as much that you can say what you like about someone as long as it has a reasonable basis in fact .
the proven facts...which of course were never proven or facts was the basis of the SC judgement. They gave amaral the legitimite right to his freedom of expression.....they gave his thesis veracity.
Unfortunately for the McCannns the ECHR do not question the facts from the initial trial so ruled that Amarals thesis was based on true facts....they werent....and has sufficient factual basis for article 10 to prevail.
The McCanns lawyers should have insisted on questioning the facts but initially it was not really a libel trial ...it was whether the book had caused damage to the mCCann family.......i could go into more detail but its complex
