McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial#:~:text=Madeleine%20McCann's%20parents%20win%20libel%20damages%20in%20trial%20of%20police%20chief,-This%20article%20is&text=In%20a%20lengthy%20ruling%20on,the%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie.

That was the initial finding, therefore it stands to reason that both appeal courts found him not guilty of libelling the pair.

Thats your rather odd opinion. If you read the SC judgement you will see that they think it's whos rights should take precedence.. Free speech or honour. They are therefore accepting the McCanns have been defamed but feel the right to free speech should take precedence

[Eleanor]

In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial#:~:text=Madeleine%20McCann's%20parents%20win%20libel%20damages%20in%20trial%20of%20police%20chief,-This%20article%20is&text=In%20a%20lengthy%20ruling%20on,the%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie.

That was the initial finding, therefore it stands to reason that both appeal courts found him not guilty of libelling the pair.

This is a very flawed reasoning.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Thats your rather odd opinion. If you read the SC judgement you will see that they think it's whos rights should take precedence.. Free speech or honour. They are therefore accepting the McCanns have been defamed but feel the right to free speech should take precedence

Is it really an odd opinion?
You are found guilty of an offence in a court of first instance. You are guilty of that offence. In a higher appeal court the verdict is overturned. You are no longer guilty, you are deemed to be not guilty. It then goes to the highest court in the land and the appeal verdict is upheld. This confirms finally that you are not guilty of the offence.
Whether you agree with the final verdict or not, that’s how it works.

[Mr Gray]

Del

[Mr Gray]

Is it really an odd opinion?
You are found guilty of an offence in a court of first instance. You are guilty of that offence. In a higher appeal court the verdict is overturned. You are no longer guilty, you are deemed to be not guilty. It then goes to the highest court in the land and the appeal verdict is upheld. This confirms finally that you are not guilty of the offence.
Whether you agree with the final verdict or not, that’s how it works.

Have you read the SC judgement...it confirms defamation

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Have you read the SC judgement...it confirms defamation

Does it? Please provide the bit where the Supreme Court confirms explicitly that the McCanns were defamed. I know it states that there was no intention to defame by the publication of the book, documentary and interview.

[Venturi Swirl]

Is it really an odd opinion?
You are found guilty of an offence in a court of first instance. You are guilty of that offence. In a higher appeal court the verdict is overturned. You are no longer guilty, you are deemed to be not guilty. It then goes to the highest court in the land and the appeal verdict is upheld. This confirms finally that you are not guilty of the offence.
Whether you agree with the final verdict or not, that’s how it works.

So in your opinion the courts specifically found Amaral not guilty of libel?   How did they arrive at this conclusion?  How was the evidence tested?  Did the court decide based on evidence that actually the McCanns probably did stage an abduction and dispose of their child's body as concluded in Amaral's book?  Because if they didn't and the McCanns surely should enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, then how could any court claim they had not been libelled?  I would like to see the actual ruling that stated no libel had been committed by the defendant.

[Mr Gray]

Does it? Please provide the bit where the Supreme Court confirms explicitly that the McCanns were defamed. I know it states that there was no intention to defame by the publication of the book, documentary and interview.

It discusses the balance between the right to honour, reputation against the right to free speech. If there is no defamation there is nothing to balance... Hence an acceptance of defamation

[Icanhandlethetruth]

It discusses the balance between the right to honour, reputation against the right to free speech. If there is no defamation there is nothing to balance... Hence an acceptance of defamation

So there is no explicit declaration that Amaral defamed the McCanns. In every single libel action there is the balance between freedom of speech and defamation. It always exists, not only in this case. I was after a direct quote that they were defamed rather than your conclusion that that were

[Icanhandlethetruth]

So in your opinion the courts specifically found Amaral not guilty of libel?   How did they arrive at this conclusion?  How was the evidence tested?  Did the court decide based on evidence that actually the McCanns probably did stage an abduction and dispose of their child's body as concluded in Amaral's book?  Because if they didn't and the McCanns surely should enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, then how could any court claim they had not been libelled?  I would like to see the actual ruling that stated no libel had been committed by the defendant.

My opinion is meaningless, the facts are the court of 1st instance found him guilty, the higher authorities of the appeal court overturned this verdict so rendering his legal status as not guilty and the ultimate authority agreed with this verdict. So he is not guilty of libel. If you read the Supreme court report it states several times that the McCanns do have the presumption of innocence.

[kizzy]

So in your opinion the courts specifically found Amaral not guilty of libel?   How did they arrive at this conclusion?  How was the evidence tested?  Did the court decide based on evidence that actually the McCanns probably did stage an abduction and dispose of their child's body as concluded in Amaral's book?  Because if they didn't and the McCanns surely should enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, then how could any court claim they had not been libelled?  I would like to see the actual ruling that stated no libel had been committed by the defendant.

Because if they didn't and the McCanns surely should enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty,

The mccs are enjoying the rights to be considered innocent.

It's just the fact they were not cleared of any involvement of what happened to Maddie - when the case was shelved.

[Mr Gray]

So there is no explicit declaration that Amaral defamed the McCanns. In every single libel action there is the balance between freedom of speech and defamation. It always exists, not only in this case. I was after a direct quote that they were defamed rather than your conclusion that that were

There is no direct quote that he is not guilty of libel... Gunit claims he was found not guilty.

[Mr Gray]

My opinion is meaningless, the facts are the court of 1st instance found him guilty, the higher authorities of the appeal court overturned this verdict so rendering his legal status as not guilty and the ultimate authority agreed with this verdict. So he is not guilty of libel. If you read the Supreme court report it states several times that the McCanns do have the presumption of innocence.

it actually states incorrectly that the presumption of innocence does not apply to  a civil case

[kizzy]

There is no direct quote that he is not guilty of libel... Gunit claims he was found not guilty.

Isn't there a clue in the decision the mccs lost. GA won.

3 - Decision.

Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.

Costs for the appellants.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

There is no direct quote that he is not guilty of libel... Gunit claims he was found not guilty.

In the verdict of the first appeal he was “acquitted of the totality of the requests( charge of libel)”
To acquit means to “free (someone) from a charge by a verdict of not guilty”
The SC judgement was only to confirm or overturn the verdict of the first appeal.
Or are we just playing semantics?