McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

The title of the thread is McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Please stay within the topic

some posters seem to think that because the SC make a ruling then it must be correct. Its right to point out poor judgeemnts in portugues courts in light of that

[G-Unit]

some posters seem to think that because the SC make a ruling then it must be correct. Its right to point out poor judgeemnts in portugues courts in light of that

Criticising unrelated judgements of the Portuguese courts doesn't mean that the courts were wrong in the McCann case. Six senior judges were involved in the two appeals against the ruling of the one judge in the court of the first instance. I expect they were aware that the case was high profile and took great care to ensure their work was reliable.

[jassi]

Right or wrong the judgement stands and won't be reversed.
Dependent upon the ECHR ruling, if any, these findings will be taken into account in future judgments.

[Mr Gray]

Criticising unrelated judgements of the Portuguese courts doesn't mean that the courts were wrong in the McCann case. Six senior judges were involved in the two appeals against the ruling of the one judge in the court of the first instance. I expect they were aware that the case was high profile and took great care to ensure their work was reliable.

You are aware the SC have got things wrong before.. It's quite possible.. Imo probable... They are wrong again

[Mr Gray]

Right or wrong the judgement stands and won't be reversed.
Dependent upon the ECHR ruling, if any, these findings will be taken into account in future judgments.

If amaral repeats his claims... Even now... And the McCanns win at the ECHR... Amaral could then find himself back in court

[jassi]

That would mean the McCanns having to go before a Portuguese court with new evidence.
They may not have the appetite to do so

[Mr Gray]

That would mean the McCanns having to go before a Portuguese court with new evidence.
They may not have the appetite to do so

Not with new evidence... With a ruling from the ECHR That the book is defamatory

[G-Unit]

You are aware the SC have got things wrong before.. It's quite possible.. Imo probable... They are wrong again

How many times have the Portuguese been ruled wrong by the ECHR? I'll tell you, it's three hundred and nine times between 1959 & 2015. For Art 8 they have been found wrong just 10 times and 20 times for article 10. Their biggest problem has been length of proceedings, for which they have been penalised 131 times.

Switzerland, with a slightly smaller population has been penalised 22 times over Art 8 and 16 times over Art 10.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2015_ENG.pdf

[Mr Gray]

How many times have the Portuguese been ruled wrong by the ECHR? I'll tell you, it's three hundred and nine times between 1959 & 2015. For Art 8 they have been found wrong just 10 times and 20 times for article 10. Their biggest problem has been length of proceedings, for which they have been penalised 131 times.

Switzerland, with a slightly smaller population has been penalised 22 times over Art 8 and 16 times over Art 10.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2015_ENG.pdf

So you confirm that the highest court in the land can be wrong

Wrong 30 times Re articles 8 and 10....I wonder what that represents as a percentage of complaints under article 8 and 10

[Mr Gray]

Criticising unrelated judgements of the Portuguese courts doesn't mean that the courts were wrong in the McCann case. Six senior judges were involved in the two appeals against the ruling of the one judge in the court of the first instance. I expect they were aware that the case was high profile and took great care to ensure their work was reliable.

according to the link you have provided there were 309 judgements involving portugal and of these only 13 were found to have no violation........that means portugals court was correct in only 4% of the judgements....that gives portugal one of the poorest records at teh ECHR......looks as though the SC need to take much more care

[Mr Gray]

How many times have the Portuguese been ruled wrong by the ECHR? I'll tell you, it's three hundred and nine times between 1959 & 2015. For Art 8 they have been found wrong just 10 times and 20 times for article 10. Their biggest problem has been length of proceedings, for which they have been penalised 131 times.

Switzerland, with a slightly smaller population has been penalised 22 times over Art 8 and 16 times over Art 10.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_1959_2015_ENG.pdf

Youve managed to get just about everything wrong there so I will correct you and it makes interesting reading.

first 309 is not the amount of times proved wrong...its the total number of judgements

Of 309 judgeemnts only 13 found portugal to have made no violation...thats 13 out of 309...what a pathetic record portugal has...one of the worst in the table and less tahn Russia.

What that indicates is that portugals SC are routinely not administering ECHR law correctly...their record is appalling. Claims that the SC understand ECHR Law are therefore not backed by evidence...in gact the evidence shows the reverse.

[barrier]

Its still sat there in an in tray "Application requiring a decision".

[Mr Gray]

Its still sat there in an in tray "Application requiring a decision".

And i think...based on the evidence...we can predict what the decision will be.
Its interesting that three years ago sceptics were saying teh Mcccanns would not go to the ECHR...that they had no grounds....realistically another year and there may well be some action

[barrier]

And i think...based on the evidence...we can predict what the decision will be.
Its interesting that three years ago sceptics were saying teh Mcccanns would not go to the ECHR...that they had no grounds....realistically another year and there may well be some action

Then again there may well not be.

[barrier]

And i think...based on the evidence...we can predict what the decision will be.
Its interesting that three years ago sceptics were saying teh Mcccanns would not go to the ECHR...that they had no grounds....realistically another year and there may well be some action

Leap of faith there,is it admissible?