McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Icanhandlethetruth]

#first i dont calim to know more re portuguese law than the Judges...thats an absurd suggestion by you...but I know judges make mistakes. portugalls success rate at teh ECHR compares very poorly to other developed countries.

As to what that line means...imo it doesnt maen taht the POI is not relavent on a civil case.
It means taht in a civil case subsequent to a criminal case where compensation is claimed...the POI doesn not apply. How clever of me to work taht out. So Barry George cant use the POI to claim compensation for his criminal case. that is not the situation here....so why did they refer to it.

If you look at the link I posted yesterday from the ECHR it mentions the POI in relation to defamation and article 8.

If the McCanns win...then armed with that judgement if amaral says the same again they can sue and pretty well be guaranteed of success. they may well evn be able to get thebook banned again with a new action

That IMO is why hes stopped hs defamation lately

How clever of you to work it out ?? You literally just took what I posted (below)and repeated it !

 “It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply.”

To me it is relevant as it shows that in law the presumption of innocence does not override all other principles of law, in some cases it is invalid. This is pertinent in this case. It is not sacrosanct.

The link you supplied doesn’t cover the principle of presumption of innocence in cases of defamation but in cases of criminal conduct.

You say if they win but you are aware that the ECHR rules quite frequently on breaches of Article 10. They tend to lean to the freedom of speech side rather than the protection of reputation. Article 8 really covers the right to a private life rather than purely defamation, not sure that applies in the McCann case. I am not sure it will ever reach the ECHR but time will tell. IMO

[kizzy]

I think you beleive a total load of rubbish. All the evidence amaral used to reach his conclusions are discredited. Hes  a convicted liar who didnt understand d the evidence...and was sacked. The thread is re the ECHR. Ive looked at lots of ECHR law... regulations...and past cases balancing articles 10 and 8. Thats what I base my opinions on. Have you looked at anything.

You can describe yourself as a simple poster...
I'm a very well read and well informed poster

I'm a very well read and well informed poster

Where have you got with it all know where.... And you are not going to, you don't know what happened.


And will have no bearing on the outcome of the ECHR.

It doesn't matter how well read and informed you are, what you post is only your opinion you know more than anyone else. .. Simple

[Mr Gray]

How clever of you to work it out ?? You literally just took what I posted (below)and repeated it !

 “It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply.”

To me it is relevant as it shows that in law the presumption of innocence does not override all other principles of law, in some cases it is invalid. This is pertinent in this case. It is not sacrosanct.

The link you supplied doesn’t cover the principle of presumption of innocence in cases of defamation but in cases of criminal conduct.

You say if they win but you are aware that the ECHR rules quite frequently on breaches of Article 10. They tend to lean to the freedom of speech side rather than the protection of reputation. Article 8 really covers the right to a private life rather than purely defamation, not sure that applies in the McCann case. I am not sure it will ever reach the ECHR but time will tell. IMO

Gunit has repeatedly claimed POI doesn't apply in civil cases based on this quote... Thanks for confirming she's wrong and I'm right.

I think you are wrong re defamation and article 8. I posted a whole list of past cases last year which supports my view. I posted one yesterday which shows an important point is the veracity of the claim Amarals claims are not supported by evidence. I can see no reason why it is not admissible.. The criteria are quite easy to understand.... And I dee every reason to think the McCanns will be successful.. Not just on blind faith but based on past cases

[Eleanor]

The courts were not asked to judge his past conduct or his character. They were asked to decide if he defamed the McCanns and their children in his book, the DVD narrative or his interview with Correio da Manhă, published in the edition of July 24, 2008.

What does that mean?

He did defame The McCanns, but his rights were deemed to be more important than theirs.

But one has to wonder why the decisions of The Court of the First Instance are so often overturned.  I might ask why they bother to go there in the first place.

If you want my opinion, which I doubt, then I believe that it all goes back to the days of Salazar who was a Dictator when no one had the right to Free Speech.  So those who reinvented themselves after the Two Revolutions decided that this was the way to go.

[jassi]

It all seems pretty pointless claiming that the McCanns have a good case when it hasn't even got to the stage where it is selected to be heard by the Court .

[kizzy]

Why do you need to continually make pathetic personal attacks... What is your problem. What business is it of yours how much time I have on my hands.. I quite like having lots of time on my hands.. Your continued personal ad homs are making you looked a little obsessed

Obsessed lol what with ....why not just ignore what I have to say instead of saying you are not interested in what I say ...that really upset me.

So I have only been pointing out we are no different sorry D if that has upset you,

You should wait really rather than get upfront... to see if the mccs actually make it to the ECHR first before you predict what will happen,

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Gunit has repeatedly claimed POI doesn't apply in civil cases based on this quote... Thanks for confirming she's wrong and I'm right.

I think you are wrong re defamation and article 8. I posted a whole list of past cases last year which supports my view. I posted one yesterday which shows an important point is the veracity of the claim Amarals claims are not supported by evidence. I can see no reason why it is not admissible.. The criteria are quite easy to understand.... And I dee every reason to think the McCanns will be successful.. Not just on blind faith but based on past cases

I didn’t confirm anything, just pointed out that you misinterpreted the SC report in that you thought it said that, and I quote “it actually states incorrectly that the presumption of innocence does not apply to  a civil case”. It doesn’t say that. We have now clarified that, haven’t we.

There is a legal difference between civil and criminal law in the principle of presumption of Innocence in English law as you can read below.

“Under many civil law systems, including the English common law, in criminal proceedings the accused is presumed innocent unless the prosecution presents a high level of evidence as described above. In civil proceedings (like breach of contract) the defendant is initially presumed correct unless the plaintiff presents a moderate level of evidence and thus switches the burden of proof to the defendant.”

[G-Unit]

What does that mean?

He did defame The McCanns, but his rights were deemed to be more important than theirs.

But one has to wonder why the decisions of The Court of the First Instance are so often overturned.  I might ask why they bother to go there in the first place.

If you want my opinion, which I doubt, then I believe that it all goes back to the days of Salazar who was a Dictator when no one had the right to Free Speech.  So those who reinvented themselves after the Two Revolutions decided that this was the way to go.

I thought it was quite clear what it meant. You may hold the opinion that Amaral defamed the McCanns, but it's not a legal fact because the appropriate legal bodies didn't agree with your opinion. If they had he would have had to pay damages to the McCanns and court costs to the Portuguese courts. That's the reality you need to accept imo.

[misty]

If Brueckner is charged with Madeleine's murder before McCanns' appeal to ECHR is heard, what effect will that have, if any, on the judge's decision? Truth is an absolute defence.

[jassi]

If Brueckner is charged with Madeleine's murder before McCanns' appeal to ECHR is heard, what effect will that have, if any, on the judge's decision? Truth is an absolute defence.

None at all.  IMO . The case isn't about Madeleine.

[Mr Gray]

I didn’t confirm anything, just pointed out that you misinterpreted the SC report in that you thought it said that, and I quote “it actually states incorrectly that the presumption of innocence does not apply to  a civil case”. It doesn’t say that. We have now clarified that, haven’t we.

There is a legal difference between civil and criminal law in the principle of presumption of Innocence in English law as you can read below.

“Under many civil law systems, including the English common law, in criminal proceedings the accused is presumed innocent unless the prosecution presents a high level of evidence as described above. In civil proceedings (like breach of contract) the defendant is initially presumed correct unless the plaintiff presents a moderate level of evidence and thus switches the burden of proof to the defendant.”

Are you denying the McCanns were entitled to the POI during the libel case

[Mr Gray]

If Brueckner is charged with Madeleine's murder before McCanns' appeal to ECHR is heard, what effect will that have, if any, on the judge's decision? Truth is an absolute defence.

I agree none....amaral will be in just as much trouble whatever happens...imo

[Venturi Swirl]

If Brueckner is charged with Madeleine's murder before McCanns' appeal to ECHR is heard, what effect will that have, if any, on the judge's decision? Truth is an absolute defence.

none imo, though it would be rather ironic.  It seems to me from what is being said here today that you can legally write a book claiming it is your honestly held opinion that someone faked an abduction and disposed of their child's body even if it is subsequently proven to be untrue.  Which is nice.

[Eleanor]

I thought it was quite clear what it meant. You may hold the opinion that Amaral defamed the McCanns, but it's not a legal fact because the appropriate legal bodies didn't agree with your opinion. If they had he would have had to pay damages to the McCanns and court costs to the Portuguese courts. That's the reality you need to accept imo.

I don't need to accept anything.

But can you tell me why The Court of The First Instance ruled in favour of The McCanns?  All stupid, are they?  No real idea of Portuguese Law?  What a waste of time they appear to be.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Are you denying the McCanns were entitled to the POI during the libel case

No. Have I ever said that they weren't.
The SC report lays out several times that they had the the right to presumption of innocence.  Why do think that I have denied it?