McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[slartibartfast]

the claim under article 8 is defamation...not privacy..

He shoots, he misses...

“Right to respect for private and family life”

[Mr Gray]

He shoots, he misses...

“Right to respect for private and family life”

it covers defamation too...more egg on your face...i will provide the cite

When examining the necessity of an interference in a democratic society in the interests
of the ‘protection of the reputation or rights of others’, the Court may be required to
verify whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance when protecting two values
guaranteed by the Convention which may come into conflict with each other in certain
cases, namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression protected by Article 10 and, on
the other, the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8” (Axel Sp

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf

[Mr Gray]

Before proceeding with the case, a brief overview of the evolution concerning the right to reputation is in order. Art. 8 ECHR does not explicitly mention a right to honour or reputation, unlike for instance art. 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Art. 10 ECHR does refer to reputation as one of the legitimate aims that might justify interference with freedom of expression. However, it does not do so by granting rights status to reputation, instead speaking of “protection of the reputation or rights of others”. Thus, it is not surprising that in the first defamation case brought under art. 10 ECHR, Lingens v. Austria (8 July 1986), the Court denied the Government’s argument that the case concerned a conflict between Convention rights, holding that “there is … no need in this instance to read Article 10 (art. 10) in the light of Article 8 (art. 8)”. However, over the following decades, matters slowly changed and with the art. 10 case of Chauvy and others v. France (29 June 2004) and the art. 8 case of Pfeifer v. Austria, the right to protection of reputation was established as a Convention right under art. 8 ECHR. From Pfeifer: “a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to respect for private life”.

https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

[Mr Gray]

He shoots, he misses...

“Right to respect for private and family life”

if you do not realise article 8 covers defamation you really shouldnt be on the pitch

[slartibartfast]

if you do not realise article 8 covers defamation you really shouldnt be on the pitch

Article 8 is about private life and hence any judgement based on article 8 has to take that into account as the SC did.

[Mr Gray]

Article 8 is about private life and hence any judgement based on article 8 has to take that into account as the SC did.

You are, absolutely  wrong... As previous rulings have shown

Those in the public eye still have the right to reputation

[Miss Taken Identity]

You are, absolutely  wrong... As previous rulings have shown

Those in the public eye still have the right to reputation

What reputation would this be then? I mean you must have evidence of their reputation being 'damaged' by Sr Amaral in his book? So a nice wee cite will suffice. And SC would be bothered much about their reputation because...?

You do not have  the right to privacy when being investigated by the police- so let us go back to remind ourselves what this is about.

Sr Amaral wrote a book with a THESIS on the investigation which was being carried out- the parents were suspected of not telling the truth about certain aspects of their statements.

 Being investigated with in a 'public media circus' whom the MCANNS contacted that night! was difficult to blame  Amaral/PJ or SC.  They were instructed NOT to talk to the press- they ignored that advice and now, well.... spitting dummies out of prams is a bit pathetic.

So just for the record; Sr Amaral and the SC did not deny the McCanns anything. HENCE why they lost!

[jassi]

I think it fair to say that McCanns certainly have a reputation , even if it's not one of their own choosing 

[Alice Purjorick]

When a poster makes claims which are proven wrong with cites it generally means they are losing the argument.

You are forgetting the 37.0909° N, 8.7591° W factor. 

[Mr Gray]

What reputation would this be then? I mean you must have evidence of their reputation being 'damaged' by Sr Amaral in his book? So a nice wee cite will suffice. And SC would be bothered much about their reputation because...?

You do not have  the right to privacy when being investigated by the police- so let us go back to remind ourselves what this is about.

Sr Amaral wrote a book with a THESIS on the investigation which was being carried out- the parents were suspected of not telling the truth about certain aspects of their statements.

 Being investigated with in a 'public media circus' whom the MCANNS contacted that night! was difficult to blame  Amaral/PJ or SC.  They were instructed NOT to talk to the press- they ignored that advice and now, well.... spitting dummies out of prams is a bit pathetic.

So just for the record; Sr Amaral and the SC did not deny the McCanns anything. HENCE why they lost!

Have a look at some of the other ECHR cases ...accusing someone of a criminal act is damaging to reputation

[Miss Taken Identity]

Have a look at some of the other ECHR cases ...accusing someone of a criminal act is damaging to reputation

They were being investigated! They were suspects. They invited the media.  They were told not to contact the media or talk about the case.

 They shot themselves in the foot, and now hobble along complaining someone gave them a loaded gun.

This is to do with SC ruling. You need to cite exactly the bits in that SC ruling which the ECHR will find in McCann favour.

No point in citing other cases, as they are not this case. Stick to this case and keep it simple.

[slartibartfast]

Have a look at some of the other ECHR cases ...accusing someone of a criminal act is damaging to reputation

But of course that isn’t what the book did.

You have to ask yourself a question.

Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.

[Snowgirl]

But of course that isn’t what the book did.

You have to ask yourself a question.

Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.

It’s not for the ECHR to determine that tho?
Isn’t it that the complaint is against the SC of Portugal  for not understanding where they went wrong ?

[Brietta]

But of course that isn’t what the book did.

You have to ask yourself a question.

Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.

When did democratic Portugal revert to being a fascist police state wherein a group of policeman assume the power to decide the type of crime ... the status of a victim whether dead or alive ... and who the perpetrators of the crime they have decided upon are.

All of that without an iota of evidence ... all of that without an iota of proof.

In effect that is exactly what Goncalo Amaral did and more when he penned his vindictive book to defend his honour at the expense of attempting to destroy a family already well on its way to being destroyed by the loss of their dearly loved little girl.

In my opinion some of the Portuguese judiciary have condoned that.

It will be of interest to see which side of the Portuguese fence the European Court of Human Rights comes down on, whether the police state or the democracy.

[Venturi Swirl]

But of course that isn’t what the book did.

You have to ask yourself a question.

Did the police at a certain point in the investigation believe that Madeleine had accidentally died and K&G has hidden her body?
If you believe that then a book stating that is factual and not libellous.

The job of investigating police officers is to collect enough evidence with which to make a charge against a suspect stick, not to decide who dunnit and then publicise their thoughts on the matter in the media.