Robert Murat wins libel case against national daily Correio da Manhã

[DCI]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

How extraordinary.

whilst I don't look at the place, who knows - it may appear on a certain Portuguese blog that Murat lost his case!

Not Morais again, surely?  Isn't she in enough trouble already today?

maybe someone could take a peek there - I only have a firewall on my computer - not resistant to more extreme attacks.

She doesn't seem to be at work 
Nothing since April.

[Eleanor]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

How extraordinary.

whilst I don't look at the place, who knows - it may appear on a certain Portuguese blog that Murat lost his case!

Not Morais again, surely?  Isn't she in enough trouble already today?

maybe someone could take a peek there - I only have a firewall on my computer - not resistant to more extreme attacks.

No, it doesn't seem to be her.  I wonder who else it could be?

[Rachel Granada]

The bottom line is that Murat fought back against the poisonous PT press and won. YAY ! 

[ferryman]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

How extraordinary.

whilst I don't look at the place, who knows - it may appear on a certain Portuguese blog that Murat lost his case!

Before today, I'd not read anything at all about Murat's civil action for libel.

That, in its own right, I would tend to interpret as "bad news" for those on a certain side of a certain fence ...

[amaraltheofficeboy]

there seems to have been "judicial secrecy"

[Eleanor]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

How extraordinary.

whilst I don't look at the place, who knows - it may appear on a certain Portuguese blog that Murat lost his case!

Before today, I'd not read anything at all about Murat's civil action for libel.

That, in its own right, I would tend to interpret as "bad news" for those on a certain side of a certain fence ...

The supreme courts judgement in the overturning of the Amaral book ban pretty much annuls any libel case claims

You keep telling yourself that Blossom.

[ferryman]

The supreme courts judgement in the overturning of the Amaral book ban pretty much annuls any libel case claims

No it doesn't

[Carana]

there seems to have been "judicial secrecy"

Which goes back to a different isse. In such a system, there can be no official crime-related journalism. So everyone has their (possibly lucrative) fans blowing out of windows. Whether they are accurate or overheard as vague ruminations in the PJ coffee shop.

[AnneGuedes]

Well, Redblossom, not really ! If you can prove that divulged informations, either false or true, focused the interest of the public without being, on a normative point of view, of the interest of the public, that they forced you to change home, city, profession and go into the public space in disguise, then courts of justice have rightly to contemplate your case.

[Rachel Granada]

The supreme courts judgement in the overturning of the Amaral book ban pretty much annuls any libel case claims

No it doesn't

It certainly doesn't.  The main decider will come at the forthcoming libel trial (which Amaral has tried to delay time and time again with spurious excuses).

[ferryman]

The supreme courts judgement in the overturning of the Amaral book ban pretty much annuls any libel case claims

No it doesn't

Course it does I suggest you read the judgement again

Seemingly unlike you, I know what the judgment says.

Having read the court rulings in the action brought by Murat, I also know Portuguese courts accept that Madeleine was abducted.

If Portuguese courts accept that Madeleine was abducted, why on earth would they find in favour of a man who claims the McCanns know Madeleine is dead, know how she died and covered up the facts of her death ....

[Rachel Granada]

The supreme courts judgement in the overturning of the Amaral book ban pretty much annuls any libel case claims

No it doesn't

Course it does I suggest you read the judgement again

Seemingly unlike you, I know what the judgment says.

Having read the court rulings in the action brought by Murat, I also know Portuguese courts accept that Madeleine was abducted.

If Portuguese courts accept that Madeleine was abducted, why on earth would they find in favour of a man who claims the McCanns know Madeleine is dead, know how she died and covered up the facts of her death ....

    

[debunker]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

How extraordinary.

whilst I don't look at the place, who knows - it may appear on a certain Portuguese blog that Murat lost his case!

Before today, I'd not read anything at all about Murat's civil action for libel.

That, in its own right, I would tend to interpret as "bad news" for those on a certain side of a certain fence ...

The supreme courts judgement in the overturning of the Amaral book ban pretty much annuls any libel case claims

No it doesn't. That was merely a hearing on whether there should be what is called in US terms 'prior restraint'- that the book should be banned until the libel hearing itself took place.

[icabodcrane]

Murat is getting quite adept at litigation, it seems

Is there any chance he might seek redress from Kate McCann regarding her book  ?

I know that just five months ago, his mother was speaking of her bitter disappointment that Kate had added to their misery by repeating, in the book,  allegations made against her son

( I'm reading Kate's book, and I must say,  I can't really see what Jenny Murat is getting at   )

[Carana]

It was my understanding that in Portugal freedom of speech trumped the individual's right not to be slandered and libelled so my question was whether this recent decision in favour of Murat might be taken as a promising sign from the McCanns' point of view?

I think that the reversal of  the ban on the book led people to believe this when that is not the case. As I understand the ban was overturned because the book had not yet been shown to be libellous as the case had not been heard. That ruling did not show that the book was not libellous.

That makes perfect sense Davel. 

What I find incomprehensible is that the McCanns were apparently not legally represented at the court case when the ban was overturned.     Can anyone confirm whether that is actually true please?  If it is  - I find that to be quite astonishing.

Nobody was there, Benice, it's a judgement on a judgement... the Supreme Court considered there was no motive for a ban. Supreme Courts rarely lose an opportunity to show their superiority. But they don't have the last word. An appeal was possible. And was made.

Without the other party being aware?