Author Topic: Would the libel case had a different result if pecuniary damages weren't sought?  (Read 21197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

An interesting question has arisen elsewhere.  Do members think the Kate & Gerry McCann v Amaral & Others libel case would have had a different outcome if pecuniary damages in the sum of €1.2 millioon hadn't been sought?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Brietta

An interesting question has arisen elsewhere.  Do members think the Kate & Gerry McCann v Amaral & Others libel case would have had a different outcome if pecuniary damages in the sum of €1.2 millioon hadn't been sought?

They won their case.

The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline John

They won their case.

The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.

If I recall correctly, Portuguese courts had never previously considered awarding such a high amount in damages which calls into question the basic competency of the court of first instance imo.  And especially so given, as you have correctly pointed out, that both the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court found the decision wanting and so overturned it.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Gray

If I recall correctly, Portuguese courts had never previously considered awarding such a high amount in damages which calls into question the basic competency of the court of first instance imo.  And especially so given, as you have correctly pointed out, that both the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court found the decision wanting and so overturned it.

Or more likely  IMO the competency of the appeal and SCcourts


Offline John

Or more likely  IMO the competency of the appeal and SCcourts

Hardly Dave, the upper courts are supposed to be the superior courts and as such harmonize rulings by setting uniform jurisprudence.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 03:31:34 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline jassi

They won their case.

The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.

Yeah, that's why they were lumbered  with those legal costs
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Mr Gray

Hardly Dave, the upper courts are supposed to be the superior courts and as such determine precedences.

There have been two cases in the last month where the ECHR ruled against Portugal... The SC may well have got it wrong... From what I have read Re other cases... They did
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 03:34:46 PM by Davel »

Offline slartibartfast

They won their case.

The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.

They lost their case....are you myth making?
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Sunny

I think the fact that McCanns were demanding such significant damages which would be enough to bankrupt their oppsition, probably annoyed the court but it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome as judges use facts and legal precidents not their own opinions.

Davel the McCanns lost the case.  To claim otherwise is to be sadly mistaken.

This is all in my own opinion of course.

Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Mr Gray

I think the fact that McCanns were demanding such significant damages which would be enough to bankrupt their oppsition, probably annoyed the court but it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome as judges use facts and legal precidents not their own opinions.

Davel the McCanns lost the case.  To claim otherwise is to be sadly mistaken.

This is all in my own opinion of course.
Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal  but may well win in Europe

Offline faithlilly

Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal  but may well win in Europe

I think it will depend on how our access to the ECHR is affected by Brexit.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Robittybob1

Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal  but may well win in Europe
Who pays the court fees?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

I think it will depend on how our access to the ECHR is affected by Brexit.
You need to do a bit more research.....the ECHR is not limited to the EU

Offline Sunny

Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal  but may well win in Europe

If they win at the EHCR that wouldn't be against Amaral though would it so they would still need to pay the court fees for all the portuguese legal action I am sure.

I thought they had already lost at the highest court in Portugal so they lost and that cant be reversed. They are trying to take Portugals courts to court arent they and this is on technical points not any book banning reasons AFAIK
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Mr Gray

If they win at the EHCR that wouldn't be against Amaral though would it so they would still need to pay the court fees for all the portuguese legal action I am sure.

I thought they had already lost at the highest court in Portugal so they lost and that cant be reversed. They are trying to take Portugals courts to court arent they and this is on technical points not any book banning reasons AFAIK

Looks like you don't understand it....imo the case wil hinge on Portugal allowing amaral to defame the McCann s and perhaps the presumption of innocence...the ECHR may well rule amarals accusations are defamatory and cannot be re peated