McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

It's true that there is no Appeal against thr SC judgement. That's nothing to do with the ECHR,

The SC judgement is precisely what the ECHR will look at... They can't overturn it... But they can declare that it breached the mccanns Human Rights and that the book did too... Could that result in the book being banned and prevent amaral making any further comments?... I think it could

[barrier]

The SC judgement is precisely what the ECHR will look at... They can't overturn it... But they can declare that it breached the mccanns Human Rights and that the book did too... Could that result in the book being banned and prevent amaral making any further comments?... I think it could

That will do what exactly in the supposed ongoing search into what happened to Madeline McCann?

[Venturi Swirl]

That will do what exactly in the supposed ongoing search into what happened to Madeline McCann?

Goalpost shifting.

[Mr Gray]

That will do what exactly in the supposed ongoing search into what happened to Madeline McCann?

The thread is about theECHR... not the search... Why do feel the need to deflect...

[G-Unit]

If someone is charged with a criminal offense they are entitled to be presumed innocent until the prosecution has proved them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This legal protection isn't needed in civil cases because no-one is charged with a criminal offense.

Sometimes defamation consists of stating as a fact that someone is guilty of a crime. Not only does this damage their reputation, it can breach the person's right to the presumption of innocence because only a court can declare someone is guilty and it must be as the result of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court judges didn't say the McCanns were guilty of a crime, so they didn't damage the McCann's right to be presumed innocent.

[Venturi Swirl]

The thread is about theECHR... not the search... Why do feel the need to deflect...

Run out of argument I expect.

[Venturi Swirl]

If someone is charged with a criminal offense they are entitled to be presumed innocent until the prosecution has proved them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This legal protection isn't needed in civil cases because no-one is charged with a criminal offense.

Sometimes defamation consists of stating as a fact that someone is guilty of a crime. Not only does this damage their reputation, it can breach the person's right to the presumption of innocence because only a court can declare someone is guilty and it must be as the result of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court judges didn't say the McCanns were guilty of a crime, so they didn't damage the McCann's right to be presumed innocent.

The SC said they cannot be considered cleared which implies doubtfulness regarding their innocence IMO.

[Mr Gray]

If someone is charged with a criminal offense they are entitled to be presumed innocent until the prosecution has proved them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This legal protection isn't needed in civil cases because no-one is charged with a criminal offense.

Sometimes defamation consists of stating as a fact that someone is guilty of a crime. Not only does this damage their reputation, it can breach the person's right to the presumption of innocence because only a court can declare someone is guilty and it must be as the result of a fair trial.

The Supreme Court judges didn't say the McCanns were guilty of a crime, so they didn't damage the McCann's right to be presumed innocent.

The presumption of innocence applies to those suspected of a crime not just those charged ...amaral implied the mccanns were guilty if a crime... He claimed he could prove Maddie died in the apartment and the death was covered up... The SC supported his right to say that... Defamation.. Denial of the right to presumption of inocence... It couldn't be any clearer

[Mr Gray]

The SC said they cannot be considered cleared which implies doubtfulness regarding their innocence IMO.

Precisely... Why should the SC comment in this when the mccanns have the right to POI... they don't need to be cleared of anything..

[G-Unit]

The SC said they cannot be considered cleared which implies doubtfulness regarding their innocence IMO.

The SC said that in reply to the McCann's lawyer who claimed that they had been cleared. She was wrong.

[Mr Gray]

The SC said that in reply to the McCann's lawyer who claimed that they had been cleared. She was wrong.

The SC had no right to question the mccanns innocence... Which they did

[barrier]

Run out of argument I expect.

There is no argument Mark Saunokonoko of 9News who in another thread was accused of producing absolute rubbish brought up a copied page from the ECHR with a redacted case number telling us absolutley nothing,all of a sudden the the one who accused him of producing rubbish is adamant of what he produced now is spot on,go figure.

[barrier]

The thread is about theECHR... not the search... Why do feel the need to deflect...

It was a genuine question which you can't answer.

[Venturi Swirl]

It was a genuine question which you can't answer.

LOL, you wanna bet?  It seems you want to provoke Davel to take this thread off topic again, any reason for that?

[barrier]

The SC had no right to question the mccanns innocence... Which they did

They questioned the McCanns lawyers interpretation.