Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[stephen25000]

How on earth do you get away with spouting this crap?

Corte-Real was full-square with the FSS's interpretation of the forensic results and said nothing about a 'preliminary report' (unsurprisingly, because there wasn't one, just an explanatory email from John Lowe to Stuart Prior about a result from the, one-and-only, report)

Spouting rubbish about abduction as fact.

That is your mantra.

[Eleanor]

Deleting Insulting Comments Now.

[Jean-Pierre]

I will let this post stand as it represents your own personal view ferryman.  It must however be pointed out that the judgement was made by some of the most qualified and senior judges in Portugal who are familiar with the law.

I think you may need to be careful in making statements like that John.  The court of second instance is still a constitutional court, and therefore most of the judges are not career judges, but co-opted or appointed by the assembly. 

The most senior judges in Portugal are members of Higher Council of Magistracy, and work in the senior courts of which the Supreme Court is one.

That is not to say that the three judges in this case, were not highly experienced and good at what they do - it is not possible to tell without knowing their background and career path.   

There is a fundamental difference between English Law, which founded on common law and where Judges have much more freedom to interpret and "make" the law, and most continental systems which are rules based and judges main function is to determine which of a narrow set of rules to follow in a particular case.  In that sense they are more akin to civil servants or administrators. 

This is not being in any sense derogatory - both systems have their merits and disadvantages - but it is important not to confuse the two.

[ShiningInLuz]

For the judges to adjudicate that Amaral could write his book and get it onto the streets for sale so soon after the archiving without breaching judicial...

If you can show that was germane in a civil trial of McCanns v Amaral, kindly do so.

A breach of judicial secrecy would have been a disciplinary matter or a criminal matter, not a civil one.

[ferryman]

If you can show that was germane in a civil trial of McCanns v Amaral, kindly do so.

A breach of judicial secrecy would have been a disciplinary matter or a criminal matter, not a civil one.

Whether the breach of judicial secrecy leads to (separate) criminal charges, or whether it doesn't, is a separate issue (to the germane topic of this conversation).

The defence invoked on Amaral's behalf (to overturn the decision of the first-instance court) rests on the supposition that Amaral did not breach judicial secrecy in writing his book which (if true, it isn't true!) would mean (by Portuguese law) that Amaral wrote his book, and Kate hers.

Under ordinary circumstances (by Portuguese law) that would bring about an annulment of the usual rules of libel: an effective free-for-all where each is free to trade any accusations, insults, falsehoods, lies (etc) free of fear of legal repercussion (a position summarised in the maxim: to s/he who is willing, no harm can come.)

By analogy, it's a bit like two blokes (we'll call them Fred and Joe) climbing into a boxing-ring (knowingly and willingly)  Fred turns out the better boxer and, obeying all the usual rules of boxing, knocks Joe to the canvas to win the boxing bout.

Joe  has no legal recourse against Fred.

But if Fred assaults Joe in the street, Fred is guilty of assault, and if the police catch him, he will be guilty of assault.

By the defence invoked on Amaral's behalf the defence (of Amaral and Kate each writing their own memoirs) absolutely cancels out the McCanns' right to sue Amaral.

But because Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, that defence ought never to have been invoked

[slartibartfast]

Whether the breach of judicial secrecy leads to (separate) criminal charges, or whether it doesn't, is a separate issue (to the germane topic of this conversation).

The defence invoked on Amaral's behalf (to overturn the decision of the first-instance court) rests on the supposition that Amaral did not breach judicial secrecy in writing his book which (if true, it isn't true!) would mean (by Portuguese law) that Amaral wrote his book, and Kate hers.

Under ordinary circumstances (by Portuguese law) that would bring about an annulment of the usual rules of libel: an effective free-for-all where each is free to trade any accusations, insults, falsehoods, lies (etc) free of fear of legal repercussion (a position summarised in the maxim: to s/he who is willing, no harm can come.)

By analogy, it's a bit like two blokes (we'll call them Fred and Joe) climbing into a boxing-ring (knowingly and willingly)  Fred turns out the better boxer and, obeying all the usual rules of boxing, knocks Joe to the canvas to win the boxing bout.

Joe  has no legal recourse against Fred.

But if Fred assaults Joe in the street, Fred is guilty of assault, and if the police catch him, he will be guilty of assault.

By the defence invoked on Amaral's behalf the defence (of Amaral and Kate each writing their own memoirs) absolutely cancels out the McCanns' right to sue Amaral.

But because Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, that defence ought never to have been invoked

But he has never been charged or tried with breaching judicial secrecy so he must be innocent of it.

[Mr Gray]

But he has never been charged or tried with breaching judicial secrecy so he must be innocent of it.

why...your post makes no sense

[ferryman]

But he has never been charged or tried with breaching judicial secrecy so he must be innocent of it.

The Portuguese chose to ignore Amaral's crime, irrelevant to the principle invoked on Amaral's behalf to overrule the court of first-instance, which, itself ought not to have been invoked because Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

[Mr Gray]

The Portuguese chose to ignore Amaral's crime, irrelevant to the principle invoked on Amaral's behalf to overrule the court of first-instance, which, itself ought not to have been invoked because Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

according to sil the police enjoy preferential treatment when it comes to the courts

[ferryman]

according to sil the police enjoy preferential treatment when it comes to the courts

She may have a point.

Convicted bastinado-torturer Almeida received (I think) a suspended sentence and was allowed to continue serving as a police officer despite his conviction.

Would that same level of preferential treatment extend to an ex-police officer who breached judicial secrecy (in writing a book of falsehood, calumny and traducement) to enable him to invoke a defence (that would otherwise be annulled) to overturn a judgement (of first instance) in favour of the other party?

[Eleanor]

But he has never been charged or tried with breaching judicial secrecy so he must be innocent of it.

As must The McCanns be Innocent.

[ShiningInLuz]

Whether the breach of judicial secrecy leads to (separate) criminal charges, or whether it doesn't, is a separate issue (to the germane topic of this conversation).

The defence invoked on Amaral's behalf (to overturn the decision of the first-instance court) rests on the supposition that Amaral did not breach judicial secrecy in writing his book which (if true, it isn't true!) would mean (by Portuguese law) that Amaral wrote his book, and Kate hers.

Under ordinary circumstances (by Portuguese law) that would bring about an annulment of the usual rules of libel: an effective free-for-all where each is free to trade any accusations, insults, falsehoods, lies (etc) free of fear of legal repercussion (a position summarised in the maxim: to s/he who is willing, no harm can come.)

By analogy, it's a bit like two blokes (we'll call them Fred and Joe) climbing into a boxing-ring (knowingly and willingly)  Fred turns out the better boxer and, obeying all the usual rules of boxing, knocks Joe to the canvas to win the boxing bout.

Joe  has no legal recourse against Fred.

But if Fred assaults Joe in the street, Fred is guilty of assault, and if the police catch him, he will be guilty of assault.

By the defence invoked on Amaral's behalf the defence (of Amaral and Kate each writing their own memoirs) absolutely cancels out the McCanns' right to sue Amaral.

But because Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, that defence ought never to have been invoked

Sorry, you've lost me on this one.

And I don't remember anything in the last judgement re breach of judicial secrecy, so if you could dig out the relevant section of the judgement, I would be grateful.

To cover off the other points raised in ther earlier posts, police do not get preferential treatment in a case like McCanns v Amaral.  It's the other way round.  If a policeman (and other categories) brought a case for libel, and won it, damages would be awarded as normal, then increased by 50% due to the fact it was a policeman who was libelled.  I have no idea if it applies to ex-policemen, and I presume it only applies in their professional life, not their private one.  But there is no special treatment in reaching the judgement itself.

[ferryman]

Sorry, you've lost me on this one.

And I don't remember anything in the last judgement re breach of judicial secrecy, so if you could dig out the relevant section of the judgement, I would be grateful.

To cover off the other points raised in ther earlier posts, police do not get preferential treatment in a case like McCanns v Amaral.  It's the other way round.  If a policeman (and other categories) brought a case for libel, and won it, damages would be awarded as normal, then increased by 50% due to the fact it was a policeman who was libelled.  I have no idea if it applies to ex-policemen, and I presume it only applies in their professional life, not their private one.  But there is no special treatment in reaching the judgement itself.

That Amaral breached judicial secrecy was ignored (in the appeal-court ruling). 

It shouldn't have been.

Had Amaral not breached judicial secrecy, the first-instance judge would have handed down, at least a roughly similar judgement as the appeal-court judges (certainly in favour of Amaral rather than the McCanns).

[stephen25000]

That Amaral breached judicial secrecy was ignored (in the appeal-court ruling). 

It shouldn't have been.

Had Amaral not breached judicial secrecy, the first-instance judge would have handed down, at least a roughly similar judgement as the appeal-court judges (certainly in favour of Amaral rather than the McCanns).

Your ability to ignore the reality of the Portuguese judgement is startling.

[Eleanor]

Your ability to ignore the reality of the regulations entry judgement is startling.

And so is yours.