Would the libel case had a different result if pecuniary damages weren't sought?

[Carana]

A bit of bedtime reading on Article 8.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf

I'm not sure that any of the summaries of rulings on cases cited in pp. 30-31 correspond to the circumstances of this one.

On the other hand, if accepted, it might be an interplay between Articles 6, 8 and 10 (IMO).

Whatever the outcome - if any - may be, I don't see why Amaral wouldn't have had his dosh released by now unless there are claimants unrelated to this case. 

[Mr Gray]

All the talk of him writing another book... Suing the McCanns... Getting his money returned have come to nothing... What's going on

[Mr Gray]

A bit of bedtime reading on Article 8.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf

I'm not sure that any of the summaries of rulings on cases cited in pp. 30-31 correspond to the circumstances of this one.

On the other hand, if accepted, it might be an interplay between Articles 6, 8 and 10 (IMO).

Whatever the outcome - if any - may be, I don't see why Amaral wouldn't have had his dosh released by now unless there are claimants unrelated to this case.

125. In Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, a well-known figure in Iceland had been the subject of an offensive
comment on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application, in which he had been called a “rapist”
alongside a photograph. The Court held that a comment of this kind was capable of constituting
interference with the applicant’s private life in so far as it had attained a certain level of seriousness
(§ 52). It pointed out that Article 8 was to be interpreted to mean that even where they had
prompted heated debate on account of their behaviour and public comments, public figures should
not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being
supported by facts (§ 52).




from everything I have read accusations not supported by evidence contravene article 8...the archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the McCanns

[Angelo222]

125. In Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, a well-known figure in Iceland had been the subject of an offensive
comment on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application, in which he had been called a “rapist”
alongside a photograph. The Court held that a comment of this kind was capable of constituting
interference with the applicant’s private life in so far as it had attained a certain level of seriousness
(§ 52). It pointed out that Article 8 was to be interpreted to mean that even where they had
prompted heated debate on account of their behaviour and public comments, public figures should
not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being
supported by facts (§ 52).




from everything I have read accusations not supported by evidence contravene article 8...the archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the McCanns

Yet the SC saw it differently.

[Mr Gray]

Yet the SC saw it differently.

Correct.... And the ECHR can correct the SC.... as they have done twice in the past few months

[Angelo222]

Correct.... And the ECHR can correct the SC.... as they have done twice in the past few months

They can but I doubt they will uphold the human rights of parents who flagrantly violated their own children's right to be properly cared for.  Maddie had her most basic right as a child violated by those who had a duty of care to properly look after her.

As for the thread theme, I think the upper courts might have viewed the case differently had the McCanns not been so greedy for money.

[slartibartfast]

125. In Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, a well-known figure in Iceland had been the subject of an offensive
comment on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application, in which he had been called a “rapist”
alongside a photograph. The Court held that a comment of this kind was capable of constituting
interference with the applicant’s private life in so far as it had attained a certain level of seriousness
(§ 52). It pointed out that Article 8 was to be interpreted to mean that even where they had
prompted heated debate on account of their behaviour and public comments, public figures should
not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being
supported by facts (§ 52).




from everything I have read accusations not supported by evidence contravene article 8...the archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the McCanns

As GA was writing about what the investigation thought, the facts are not to do with the case but the investigation. IMO

[Gertrude]

125. In Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, a well-known figure in Iceland had been the subject of an offensive
comment on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application, in which he had been called a “rapist”
alongside a photograph. The Court held that a comment of this kind was capable of constituting
interference with the applicant’s private life in so far as it had attained a certain level of seriousness
(§ 52). It pointed out that Article 8 was to be interpreted to mean that even where they had
prompted heated debate on account of their behaviour and public comments, public figures should
not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being
supported by facts (§ 52).

 

from everything I have read accusations not supported by evidence contravene article 8...the archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the McCanns

The accusers in that case were not investigating officers in the case against the man were they? So it seems to be based on something different, a member of the public accusing someone of being a rapist. Amaral has a police investigation to base his claims on and his experience of working within it. He also never accused anyone of a violent criminal act either.

[faithlilly]

You may have noticed faith tried to lecture me insisting that Brexit might affect the McCann's appeal to the, ECHR..... not realising that this, would, have no effect at, all as, the case, was, against portugal...

Shall we wait and see ?

[Mr Gray]

As GA was writing about what the investigation thought, the facts are not to do with the case but the investigation. IMO

nowhere in the investigation did it say there was proof maddie died in the apartmernt and the parents staged an abduction

[Mr Gray]

They can but I doubt they will uphold the human rights of parents who flagrantly violated their own children's right to be properly cared for.  Maddie had her most basic right as a child violated by those who had a duty of care to properly look after her.

As for the thread theme, I think the upper courts might have viewed the case differently had the McCanns not been so greedy for money.

then you doubt wrong imo...the ECHR will apply the law as it applies to the case in question

[Mr Gray]

The accusers in that case were not investigating officers in the case against the man were they? So it seems to be based on something different, a member of the public accusing someone of being a rapist. Amaral has a police investigation to base his claims on and his experience of working within it. He also never accused anyone of a violent criminal act either.

its defamation pure and simple IMO....I have posted other cases...

[Mr Gray]

Shall we wait and see ?

You mean how brexit affects th case....you have already shown your lack of understanding

[Mr Gray]

Egill Einarsson v. Iceland
7 November 2017
This case concerned the complaint by a well-known blogger about a Supreme Court
ruling, which found that he had not been defamed by the words “f..k you rapist
b........” used in an Instagram post about him. Prosecutors had just before dismissed
rape and sexual offence accusations against him. The applicant complained that the
Supreme Court judgment meant that he could be called a rapist without being charged
or convicted of such a crime and without being able to defend himself.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8

Here is another one showing that the ECHR do not agree with someone being labelled as a criminal...as amaral has done

[faithlilly]

Egill Einarsson v. Iceland
7 November 2017
This case concerned the complaint by a well-known blogger about a Supreme Court
ruling, which found that he had not been defamed by the words “f..k you rapist
b........” used in an Instagram post about him. Prosecutors had just before dismissed
rape and sexual offence accusations against him. The applicant complained that the
Supreme Court judgment meant that he could be called a rapist without being charged
or convicted of such a crime and without being able to defend himself.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8

Here is another one showing that the ECHR do not agree with someone being labelled as a criminal...as amaral has done

Have you any evidence at all that the McCanns have even lodged their case with the ECHR ?