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