McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

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.

You can write such a book as long as its based on solid evidence.. That's what sceptics are missing.
 Amarals book isn't and that's one of the things the ECHR will look at... The veracity of the claims

[G-Unit]

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.

True, denial of the truth is your prerogative.

The court of the first instance had to decide between two rights and it did so by restricting Amaral's right to freedom of expression. The judge said;

Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
Page 44 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

Amaral appealed, and the Appeal court judges said;

it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media.
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

[Eleanor]

True, denial of the truth is your prerogative.

The court of the first instance had to decide between two rights and it did so by restricting Amaral's right to freedom of expression. The judge said;

Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
Page 44 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

Amaral appealed, and the Appeal court judges said;

it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media.
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

Truth is not yours to decide upon.  Nor do you have a right to tell me what I should think.

Amaral used information that he supposedly coordinated and then twisted to suit his agenda.  His Mate wrote a book so he decided to write a book.  Both of them were and are crooks.  And this is who you want to believe.  This is indeed a sorry tale.

[misty]

A reminder of the restrictions placed on Freedom of Expression, as per ECHR Article 10:-

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression#:~:text=Article%2010%20of%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Act%3A%20Freedom%20of%20expression&text=Everyone%20has%20the%20right%20to,authority%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers.

*snipped*
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
---------------------------------------

I'm not sure which part of this the SCP failed to understand & appreciate.

[barrier]

A reminder of the restrictions placed on Freedom of Expression, as per ECHR Article 10:-

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression#:~:text=Article%2010%20of%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Act%3A%20Freedom%20of%20expression&text=Everyone%20has%20the%20right%20to,authority%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers.

*snipped*
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
---------------------------------------

I'm not sure which part of this the SCP failed to understand & appreciate.

When the ECHR rule we'll know if you are right.

[barrier]

I can't believe that we are still arguing about this.  Amaral was on the radar as being a dishonourable man way back in 2002 when he cheated his brother.  Case proven in Court.

And then he was made Arguido on The 4th of May 2007 in the case of another missing child.  A Case that he lost.  He was convicted of Perjury.
How can anyone believe a word he says?

Then his book is not to be believed and the search would not be hindered.

[G-Unit]

Truth is not yours to decide upon.  Nor do you have a right to tell me what I should think.

Amaral used information that he supposedly coordinated and then twisted to suit his agenda.  His Mate wrote a book so he decided to write a book.  Both of them were and are crooks.  And this is who you want to believe.  This is indeed a sorry tale.

Amaral used information from the publicly available case files, including the conclusions of the investigation up until September 2007. The courts decided that the facts he used in his book were indeed mostly present in the files.

Using those facts he offered his opinion about what happened. It doesn't matter whether people believe his opinion, what the case was about was whether he libelled the McCanns or not by publishing his opinion.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral used information from the publicly available case files, including the conclusions of the investigation up until September 2007. The courts decided that the facts he used in his book were indeed mostly present in the files.

Using those facts he offered his opinion about what happened. It doesn't matter whether people believe his opinion, what the case was about was whether he libelled the McCanns or not by publishing his opinion.

The case was about whether amarals right to free speech outweighed the McCanns right to reputation

[Robittybob1]

The case was about whether amarals right to free speech outweighed the McCanns right to reputation

Are you saying the ECHR will be using the same criteria?  It seems to me to be a bad precedent if the case is not overturned.  Will the police officers involved have the right to write a book about the suspects in an unproven case suggesting if the investigation went on, the suspects would have been found guilty, in their opinion, and that a guilty verdict would be the outcome?

[G-Unit]

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

These Articles were used in the case;

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 12, Article 16 (6)

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Article 10 (1) & (2), Article 6 (2)

Afaik other Articles can't be used in an application to the ECHR because they weren't raised in the national courts.

[Venturi Swirl]

Are you saying the ECHR will be using the same criteria?  It seems to me to be a bad precedent if the case is not overturned.  Will the police officers involved have the right to write a book about the suspects in an unproven case suggesting if the investigation went on, the suspects would have been found guilty, in their opinion, and that a guilty verdict would be the outcome?

It would seem that in Portugal at least that is precisely what any ex-cop could do.  Trial by paperback.

[Mr Gray]

Are you saying the ECHR will be using the same criteria?  It seems to me to be a bad precedent if the case is not overturned.  Will the police officers involved have the right to write a book about the suspects in an unproven case suggesting if the investigation went on, the suspects would have been found guilty, in their opinion, and that a guilty verdict would be the outcome?

The ECHR will be looking at what they think is more important and from what I've read it will be right to reputation in this case because Amaral claims are not based on evidence.
In the past 55 yrs or so there have been 309 judgements re Portugal and of those in only 13 cases have there been no violation... The Portuguese seem to get it wrong regularly

[Mr Gray]

These Articles were used in the case;

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 12, Article 16 (6)

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Article 10 (1) & (2), Article 6 (2)

Afaik other Articles can't be used in an application to the ECHR because they weren't raised in the national courts.

Thats why the McCanns highlighted POI and right to reputation at the SC

[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

I provided a link to an ECHR publication on article 8. It has a section on defamation which raises the importance of the POI in defemation cases involving accusations of criminal behaviour

[G-Unit]

I provided a link to an ECHR publication on article 8. It has a section on defamation which raises the importance of the POI in defemation cases involving accusations of criminal behaviour

Article 8 wasn't used in the national case so can't be raised in the application to the ECHR imo.