It would be interesting to know what the McCann's appeal is based on. Their lawyer commented on the Appeal decision that it;
was an appreciation of the law and not the facts.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547951/Portuguese-detective-WINS-appeal-against-libel-defeat-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-NOT-pay-500-000-damages.html#ixzz49pyL6vFJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
As the Supreme Court rules (afaik) only on points of law, I don't understand why Duarte mentioned facts as they won't be looked at.
The Supreme Court only rules regarding the interpretation of law and does not examine the facts established by the lower courts.
http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/litigation-and-dispute-resolution/litigation-and-dispute-resolution-2016/portugal
The laws used by the judge in the lower court both related to the duties imposed on a retired police officer. She ruled that he was obliged to uphold the presumption of innocence and to observe judicial secrecy.
Only those two legal points will be considered by the Supreme Court as far as I can see, unless new legal arguments can be introduced by the lawyers.
The (appeal court) ruling doesn't seem to dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in preparing material for his book.
It rather argues that because he quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held
accountable (for breaching judicial secrecy) thus restoring this perverse principle
to s/he who is willing, no harm can come, a libel-free zone, in which anything goes.
If any of the (numerous) leaks from the enquiry
while the enquiry was running can be pinned, personally and directly, on Amaral, then (I reckon) Amaral will, once more, be toast.
(In my opinion)
Gerry not Madeleine's father is a prime candidate.
There might be others.
We'll see.
One thing Portuguese libel-law is sorely in need of reviewing is this perverse provision that contrasting accounts of one event can somehow cancel out the right (of the victim) to compensation for traducement of reputation (what Amaral's book does).
ETA: Even if they can't be pinned, directly, on Amaral, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of
accountability, then Amaral can be held accountable for the leaks (as the person in charge).
Should make the same difference.
Annulment of this
to s/he who is willing, no harm can come maxim and restoration of the proper rules of libel, which would assuredly see Amaral fully accountable for his lies and traducement.