That seems to be a difference in that system - whether what is said is true or not doesn't appear to matter; what does is the damange caused by what is said.
I was going to post an extract from something to that effect the other day and promptly lost it.
IIRC, he also sued the so-called witness and won. At least one of those allegations defies the imagination. Well mine, anyway. lol
I wonder what happened in the cases he brought against other Portuguese media outlets?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id218.htmThe lawyer tells how the PJ's attitude changed Publico
by Idalio Revez
05 March 2010
snipped
Concerning the British media, his position is very critical: "The press was biased. The news was broken in the following way: "This man is guilty, we have already caught him and it was even us who turned him over to the police"," he says, alluding to the journalist who said she had noted "strange" signs in Murat during his contact with the media. But there is a difference in the way that these cases are handled in Portugal and in England. The lawsuits that were filed against the British press were swiftly settled with a "deal" concerning the amount of the compensation. In our country, "there is no evolution"
concerning the five lawsuits that have been filed almost one year ago."The sensationalist newspapers are sensationalist by nature. The others just did their job," he says.
and
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/robert-murat-sues-jornal-do-barlavento.htmlRobert Murat, an arguido that was cleared in the Maddie case stated that he is to start judicial proceedings over defamation against Portuguese media. He claims compensation amounting 140 thousand euros.
Articles and contents that were allegedly published and broadcast by Jornal do Barlavento, Jornal de Notícias and TVI are at stake.
source: Diário de Notícias, 22.05.2009