The Lisbon Libel Trial

[G-Unit]

Having read the opening post I consider your thread is merely a disingenuous opportunity to revisit the libels which caused the libel trial in the first instance.

I find revisiting such an obsession vaguely disturbing when repercussions from the libel trial will be finalised in the near future by the ECHR.

The first judge didn't order Amaral to pay the McCanns because she decided he libelled them imo. If she judged the book and DVD to be libellous why didn't she order those who published and produced them to pay damages?
She said;

"It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents."
Page 48 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

[G-Unit]

Just to keep the record straight regarding why the McCanns and their friends maintained silence, please note -

Snip
A friend of Madeleine McCann's parents has publicly criticised the Portuguese police for leaking information about the inquiry into the missing child.

Rachael Oldfield, who was with Kate and Gerry McCann, of Rothley, Leics, when their daughter disappeared last May, said there had been "double standards".

Witnesses had to remain silent, while Portuguese newspapers carried stories sourced to police, she told the BBC.

The McCanns remain arguidos - suspects - but deny any wrongdoing.
Mrs Oldfield is a member of the so-called "Tapas Seven" - friends of the McCanns who dined with them in a tapas restaurant on the night their three-year-old daughter disappeared during a family holiday on the Algarve.

In her first interview since Madeleine went missing, she said: "We were made to understand we could face two years in prison for speaking out, so as a group we've not said anything from day one.

"And there have been all these rumours flying around and leaks from sources close to the PJ [the Policia Judiciaria - Portuguese police]."

Asked to characterise police actions, she replied: "Well, double standards. They leaked information and these rumours which have flown around for the past year...
"We would have loved to have put the record straight."

'No communication'

Mrs Oldfield said it had been "agonising" to watch the McCanns' reaction when Madeleine went missing from a ground floor apartment in Praia da Luz on 3 May 2007.

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense would be able to see they couldn't have done it," she said.

She added that lifting the arguido status on Mr and Mrs McCann would "enable the investigation to move forward and certainly it would enable [them] to work more closely with the PJ".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7364181.stm

Your sensitivity is noted, but I have to point out that the quote I posted was to remind Wonderfulspam that the McCanns did indeed issue a denial of their involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. My post wasn't about them maintaining silence.

[Mr Gray]

The first judge didn't order Amaral to pay the McCanns because she decided he libelled them imo. If she judged the book and DVD to be libellous why didn't she order those who published and produced them to pay damages?
She said;

"It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents."
Page 48 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

What do you think she meant by illegal... Contrary to criminal law. I cant understand how she could decree it was not against civil law... Even the SC agreed the book damaged the mccanns reputation... Which implies libel.. As I expect the ECHR to agree

[Mr Gray]

The first judge didn't order Amaral to pay the McCanns because she decided he libelled them imo. If she judged the book and DVD to be libellous why didn't she order those who published and produced them to pay damages?
She said;

"It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents."
Page 48 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

I think I understand what she meant and it shows you have taken this line out of context.. The full paragraph being..


action and are disproportionate. It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents. The scope of the lawsuit is the affirmation, by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and the documentary, in the concrete terms that he used, of the same thesis


So she accepted it as a thesis but was concerned that GA spoke of his thesis in concrete terms

[Venturi Swirl]

The first judge didn't order Amaral to pay the McCanns because she decided he libelled them imo. If she judged the book and DVD to be libellous why didn't she order those who published and produced them to pay damages?
She said;

"It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents."
Page 48 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

You missed out the next sentence:
“The scope of the lawsuit is the affirmation, by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and the documentary, in the concrete terms that he used, of the same thesis”.
What do you think that means?

[Mr Gray]

You missed out the next sentence:
“The scope of the lawsuit is the affirmation, by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and the documentary, in the concrete terms that he used, of the same thesis”.
What do you think that means?

Yes... What does concrete mean

[Brietta]

Your sensitivity is noted, but I have to point out that the quote I posted was to remind Wonderfulspam that the McCanns did indeed issue a denial of their involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. My post wasn't about them maintaining silence.

There is something untoward in your insistence in trimming quotes to suit and promote your opinions. 

[G-Unit]

What do you think she meant by illegal... Contrary to criminal law. I cant understand how she could decree it was not against civil law... Even the SC agreed the book damaged the mccanns reputation... Which implies libel.. As I expect the ECHR to agree

Did they?

[Mr Gray]

Did they?

Yes.. Read the judgement

[G-Unit]

The defendants appealed against the judgement of the court of the first instance. It wasn't the first time the matter had been before the appeal court, it was examined and ruled on in 2010 when the injunction banning the book & DVD was overturned. The appeal court refer to that judgement, which was;

"As determined by the appeal ruling heard in this section regarding the appended injunction, the first appellant intended through (his book) to outline his vision of the facts, once the institution to which he belonged (the PJ) did not allow him, as a professional police officer in a criminal investigation, to respond to attacks against its expertise and honour. We must therefore consider the publication of the book as reflecting legitimately the practice of the right to opinion."
Page 15 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

In other words, the appeal judges were, unlike the judge of the first instance, not prepared to revisit/disagree with/overule that previous decision.

[G-Unit]

Yes.. Read the judgement

Page number please.

[Mr Gray]

Page number please.

You shouldn't need it if youve read the judgement. The SC said they had to balance the McCanns right to reputation with Amarals right to free speech. There would be nothing to bslance if there was no damage to reputation.. Do you still need thr page number

[G-Unit]

The appeal court judges also examined the claim by the judge of the first instance that Amaral's freedom of speech was limited by his previous employment as a police officer.

"The appealed decision, however, reckons that the first (here) appellant, Gonçalo Amaral, because he coordinated the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann until 2/10/2007, remained, even after his retirement on 1/07/2008, subject to the duties of silence and reserve, regularly imposed on officials of the Judicial Police in activity."
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

"Indeed, irrespective of the reasons given by the appellant for publication, it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media.
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

Therefore;

"Given what has been discussed above, it is judged appropriate, in agreement with both appeals, to revoke the decision on appeal and, considering the action against them unjustified, to acquit the defendants-appellants of all the requests. Costs for both instances are to be paid by the claimants- respondent party."
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

[Mr Gray]

The appeal court judges also examined the claim by the judge of the first instance that Amaral's freedom of speech was limited by his previous employment as a police officer.

"The appealed decision, however, reckons that the first (here) appellant, Gonçalo Amaral, because he coordinated the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann until 2/10/2007, remained, even after his retirement on 1/07/2008, subject to the duties of silence and reserve, regularly imposed on officials of the Judicial Police in activity."
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

"Indeed, irrespective of the reasons given by the appellant for publication, it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media.
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

Therefore;

"Given what has been discussed above, it is judged appropriate, in agreement with both appeals, to revoke the decision on appeal and, considering the action against them unjustified, to acquit the defendants-appellants of all the requests. Costs for both instances are to be paid by the claimants- respondent party."
Page 16 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Decision_19_04_2016.htm

So according to the law a retired officer was subject to the duty of reserve but the SC thought that was unfair so said it should be ignored

[G-Unit]

You shouldn't need it if youve read the judgement. The SC said they had to balance the McCanns right to reputation with Amarals right to free speech. There would be nothing to bslance if there was no damage to reputation.. Do you still need thr page number

That's not quite the same as your claim, is it?

snip/

"Even the SC agreed the book damaged the mccanns reputation."