McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

I thought it looked familiar; it's taken from the first instance judgement. Not everything in that document is the opinion of the SC judges; their bit doesn't begin until page 48 onwards;

Pages 1-39/40 Taken from the first judgement.
Pages 40, 2.2-44 Duartes arguments.
Pages 45, 2.3-48 Guerra & Paz response.
Page 48 onwards; the judges findings.

Just to prove my point, here's where it originated; on page 35 in the first judgement;

II. At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right  to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

It proves that the point was raised during the trial which is the pre requisite for ECHR action

[Mr Gray]

I thought it looked familiar; it's taken from the first instance judgement. Not everything in that document is the opinion of the SC judges; their bit doesn't begin until page 48 onwards;

Pages 1-39/40 Taken from the first judgement.
Pages 40, 2.2-44 Duartes arguments.
Pages 45, 2.3-48 Guerra & Paz response.
Page 48 onwards; the judges findings.

Just to prove my point, here's where it originated; on page 35 in the first judgement;

II. At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right  to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

This is from page 74 and is clearly the judges findings...





What is at stake, fundamentally, is to identify the legal good that will be, concretely, prevailing, taking into account that, in each conflict resolution, the balance pans, to begin with, are in a position of equilibrium, since freedom of expression and honour must start from a position of equality.

For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce the respective evaluation criteria in the pan of freedom of expression or in the pan of honour.

And it is playing with weights and counterweights that, in the end, it will appear which of the pans weighs more.

Well, in the present case, as it results from the foregoing, the pan that weighs more and is the freedom of expression one.


Ive quoted this several times too over the past 2 years......a balance between articles 8 and 10....something else ive posted over the past 2 years...a clear case for the ECHr

[G-Unit]

It proves that the point was raised during the trial which is the pre requisite for ECHR action

We shall see............one day.

[Mr Gray]

We shall see............one day.

looks like you have finally understood my point

[G-Unit]

looks like you have finally understood my point

I've made my point; Amaral lost in the lowest court because he was an ex policeman, according to the judge. Take that reason away as the Appeal Court did and her judgement is dead in the water.

[Mr Gray]

I've made my point; Amaral lost in the lowest court because he was an ex policeman, according to the judge. Take that reason away as the Appeal Court did and her judgement is dead in the water.

amaral lost in the lower court for the reason you have said...fact
therefore the balance between articles 8 and 10 were not even considered..
tHey were considered by the Sc and the SC ruled in favour of amarals rights under article 10
all that is fact
My opinion based on past case law is that the SC got it wrong...as they have done before

That is  a well reasoned opinion based on fact.

[Mr Gray]

I've made my point; Amaral lost in the lowest court because he was an ex policeman, according to the judge. Take that reason away as the Appeal Court did and her judgement is dead in the water.

more opinion presented as fact...that seriously questions your credibility...IMO

[Robittybob1]

I've made my point; Amaral lost in the lowest court because he was an ex policeman, according to the judge. Take that reason away as the Appeal Court did and her judgement is dead in the water.

How can they take that away?  He will always be an ex-policeman.

[G-Unit]

amaral lost in the lower court for the reason you have said...fact
therefore the balance between articles 8 and 10 were not even considered..
tHey were considered by the Sc and the SC ruled in favour of amarals rights under article 10
all that is fact
My opinion based on past case law is that the SC got it wrong...as they have done before

That is  a well reasoned opinion based on fact.

Of course the first judge considered the balance between articles 8 and 10;

"Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to?"

The judge is well aware that Amaral is saying nothing new. Others have said the same, as did the released files. So she turns to his former occupation and says he acted illegally;

"This form of resolving the conflict between the rights reveals the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral in respect of the effects of article 484 of the Civil Code."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

The Appeal court rejected her claim that he acted illegally, therefore her judgement is overturned. She relied on the 'illegality' of Amaral's actions because without that she couldn't find a reason to rule in the McCann's favour.

Neither could the SC judges, which is why they ruled as they did.

[Mr Gray]

Of course the first judge considered the balance between articles 8 and 10;

"Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to?"

The judge is well aware that Amaral is saying nothing new. Others have said the same, as did the released files. So she turns to his former occupation and says he acted illegally;

"This form of resolving the conflict between the rights reveals the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral in respect of the effects of article 484 of the Civil Code."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

The Appeal court rejected her claim that he acted illegally, therefore her judgement is overturned. She relied on the 'illegality' of Amaral's actions because without that she couldn't find a reason to rule in the McCann's favour.

Neither could the SC judges, which is why they ruled as they did.

You continue to post your opinion as fact

[G-Unit]

You continue to post your opinion as fact

I was demonstrating the error of your opinion;

snip/

"therefore the balance between articles 8 and 10 were not even considered.."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg554443#msg554443

[Mr Gray]

I was demonstrating the error of your opinion;

snip/

"therefore the balance between articles 8 and 10 were not even considered.."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg554443#msg554443

It seems the judge in the, first instance didn't need to consider it as, she made a ruling based on the duty of reserve

[G-Unit]

It seems the judge in the, first instance didn't need to consider it as, she made a ruling based on the duty of reserve

Of course she considered it, that was the whole point of the hearing. Unfortunately she seems to have chosen the wrong way to solve it.

[Mr Gray]

Of course she considered it, that was the whole point of the hearing. Unfortunately she seems to have chosen the wrong way to solve it.

She may have chosen the wrong way to solve it... But imo the SC were, also wrong and that's why the case is now with the, ECHR...

[G-Unit]

She may have chosen the wrong way to solve it... But imo the SC were, also wrong and that's why the case is now with the, ECHR...

Take away Amaral's alleged 'illegality' and his right to freedom of expression outweighs the McCann's right to reputation.