Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[Alice Purjorick]

Amaral is basically bankrupt...both financially and morally. He has been humiliated totally by the court in his own country. He has a choice of handing all his money to the McCanns or appealing. The appeal won't cost him apenny because he has nothing. He can count on the financial support of a handful of misguided supporters and who knows...if an appeal is allowed he just may get a better result next time...and if he doesn't...he has lost nothing

Whatever one's bias in real terms that is gamble worth taking. Risking someone elses money to get out from under is a heaven sent opportunity. Cutting out all the moral and legal claptrap it is a good deal; when push comes to shove I don't see many people turning that down. With the possible exception of the Amish and The We Free of course

[G-Unit]

to promote someones guilt when the evidence does not support it

Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion. Others have expressed doubts about the happenings of 3rd may 2007. John Stalker thought those involved were hiding something, but he didn't know what. Prof. Barclay mentioned 'staging' of the abduction scenario. Amaral and his colleagues were and are not alone in drawing different conclusions from yours. That doesn't make them wrong and you right, it just means they are drawing conclusions which you disagree with.

[Montclair]

I believe that Gonçalo Amaral has plenty of reasons to appeal the dog's dinner of a ruling which repeated most of the arguments from February 2010 and which was overturned by the Tribunal de Relação.

How can this judge in a civil case decide that GA is guilty of abusing his position as a policeman, 7 years after the fact, when he has never been censured by the PJ hierarchy, even after the book came out? Furthermore, her verdict has totally contradicted and overturned rulings made by a higher court which is legally unsustainable.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion. Others have expressed doubts about the happenings of 3rd may 2007. John Stalker thought those involved were hiding something, but he didn't know what. Prof. Barclay mentioned 'staging' of the abduction scenario. Amaral and his colleagues were and are not alone in drawing different conclusions from yours. That doesn't make them wrong and you right, it just means they are drawing conclusions which you disagree with.

amaral and his colleagues misunderstood the evidence...that's  a crime in itself....when the PJ had the results of the dna they realised there was no case against the mccanns.....amaral still thinks there is

professor Barclay made his statements having heard the false leaked dna reports and before hearing the correct results. he also only discussed parental involvement as one possibility and did not accuse the mccanns of anything..
amaral directly accused the mccanns of being involved in maddies death..he si a disgrace and deserves his punishment

[OxfordBloo]

I believe that Gonçalo Amaral has plenty of reasons to appeal the dog's dinner of a ruling which repeated most of the arguments from February 2010 and which was overturned by the Tribunal de Relação.

How can this judge in a civil case decide that GA is guilty of abusing his position as a policeman, 7 years after the fact, when he has never been censured by the PJ hierarchy, even after the book came out? Furthermore, her verdict has totally contradicted and overturned rulings made by a higher court which is legally unsustainable.

He has not been found "guilty", he has been found liable - it is a tort not a crime. It has been found that his abuse of his duties as an officer of the legal system (even though retired) led to harm (both reputational and psychological)  to the McCanns and consequently he must pay them damages to compensate.

The judgement does not overrule the SC judgement which concerned the clash of rights between ordinary citizens- hence why the Publishers and TV company were not sanctioned, but Amaral was.

[OxfordBloo]

amaral and his colleagues misunderstood the evidence...that's  a crime in itself....when the PJ had the results of the dna they realised there was no case against the mccanns.....amaral still thinks there is

professor Barclay made his statements having heard the false leaked dna reports and before hearing the correct results. he also only discussed parental involvement as one possibility and did not accuse the mccanns of anything..
amaral directly accused the mccanns of being involved in maddies death..he si a disgrace and deserves his punishment

Misunderstanding the evidence is neither a crime nor a tort. Investigators have a privileged position and protection for their statements when working within that role.

What Amaral did was to continue to abuse his privilege after he had lost the protection.

[Mr Gray]

Whatever one's bias in real terms that is gamble worth taking. Risking someone elses money to get out from under is a heaven sent opportunity. Cutting out all the moral and legal claptrap it is a good deal; when push comes to shove I don't see many people turning that down. With the possible exception of the Amish and The We Free of course

I agree..it's a no brainer...nothing brave about it...he has no alternative

[Brietta]

Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion. Others have expressed doubts about the happenings of 3rd may 2007. John Stalker thought those involved were hiding something, but he didn't know what. Prof. Barclay mentioned 'staging' of the abduction scenario. Amaral and his colleagues were and are not alone in drawing different conclusions from yours. That doesn't make them wrong and you right, it just means they are drawing conclusions which you disagree with.

Goncalo Amaral was in a privileged position as co-ordinator of the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance which was what gave his 'opinion' considerable weight and led to a lucrative career as a media pundit.

The judge has ruled that it was exactly that access to privileged information allowed by his official position which debarred him from publicly expressing an opinion by using it.

I have the impression that fact in combination with the total disregard for the McCanns' right to a presumption of innocence which has determined her ruling and I am told what is the unprecedented amount awarded to the McCanns.

I don't think there are grounds for appeal there as I am sure she knows exactly what she is talking about and another Portuguese Court is hardly going to undermine Portuguese Law laid out so clearly in Judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro's ruling.

In another post you gave a link which suggested what I think that may be his only avenue for appeal, which is the amount of the award.
If so … hardly worth the bother since it was his good name and honour which he said motivated him in the past.
I think both of those are irretrievably shredded.

[Mr Gray]

Misunderstanding the evidence is neither a crime nor a tort. Investigators have a privileged position and protection for their statements when working within that role.

What Amaral did was to continue to abuse his privilege after he had lost the protection.

"that's a crime" was a figure of speech...a play on words in the context of the discussion

[G-Unit]

@ Brietta

You said;

"In another post you gave a link which suggested what I think that may be his only avenue for appeal, which is the amount of the award.
If so … hardly worth the bother since it was his good name and honour which he said motivated him in the past.
I think both of those are irretrievably shredded"

You think that his good name and honour are 'shredded', but others don't. Donations to his legal fees are continuing.

[Brietta]

@ Brietta

You said;

"In another post you gave a link which suggested what I think that may be his only avenue for appeal, which is the amount of the award.
If so … hardly worth the bother since it was his good name and honour which he said motivated him in the past.
I think both of those are irretrievably shredded"

You think that his good name and honour are 'shredded', but others don't. Donations to his legal fees are continuing.

I am sure that those making donations to his legal fees are content to do so but it could be a long running thing for them if an appeal is allowed and he takes the process to exhaustion, which in theory could be several years down the line.

Sometimes it is better all round to accept defeat gracefully and allow everyone ~ including Mr Amaral ~ to get on with the important things in life.

Yes, I do believe the ruling of the Portuguese Court leaves his reputation in tatters; as a matter of interest what is the ratio of Portuguese doners to the cause in relation to British ones?

[Montclair]

He has not been found "guilty", he has been found liable - it is a tort not a crime. It has been found that his abuse of his duties as an officer of the legal system (even though retired) led to harm (both reputational and psychological)  to the McCanns and consequently he must pay them damages to compensate.

The judgement does not overrule the SC judgement which concerned the clash of rights between ordinary citizens- hence why the Publishers and TV company were not sanctioned, but Amaral was.

The judgement does overrule the SC ruling because the judgement by the Tribunal de Relação (which was upheld by the SC) does make reference to the fact that although Gonçalo Amaral was a retired public servant he still enjoyed the rights to freedom of speech as any other citizen.

[OxfordBloo]

The judgement does overrule the SC ruling because it does take into consideration the fact that Gonçalo Amaral was a retired public servant.

It does not overrule the SC decision. In law it could not.

The SC only considered whether straightforward possible defamation was counter balanced by a right to Freedom of Expression. It decided in favour of the latter if what was being expressed was an honest opinion. So there was no libel.

This judgement has decided that unlawful actions by a public servant can harm individuals, and those individuals are due damages for such a tort. That is nothing to do with libel, but to do with a duty of confidentiality.

Libel requires that the assertion be false. This judgement applies whatever the truth status of the material.


Let me give you an example:

Celebrity X visits a doctor and tests positive for HIV.
The doctor shares this with the press.
The information is true but still causes harm.
Because the information was privileged, the celebrity could sue for damages to counter the harm done.

[Montclair]

It does not overrule the SC decision. In law it could not.

The SC only considered whether straightforward possible defamation was counter balanced by a right to Freedom of Expression. It decided in favour of the latter if what was being expressed was an honest opinion. So there was no libel.

This judgement has decided that unlawful actions by a public servant can harm individuals, and those individuals are due damages for such a tort. That is nothing to do with libel, but to do with a duty of confidentiality.

Libel requires that the assertion be false. This judgement applies whatever the truth status of the material.


Let me give you an example:

Celebrity X visits a doctor and tests positive for HIV.
The doctor shares this with the press.
The information is true but still causes harm.
Because the information was privileged, the celebrity could sue for damages to counter the harm done.

So the judge, in a civil case, has decided that Gonçalo Amaral's actions were unlawful?

[slartibartfast]

It does not overrule the SC decision. In law it could not.

The SC only considered whether straightforward possible defamation was counter balanced by a right to Freedom of Expression. It decided in favour of the latter if what was being expressed was an honest opinion. So there was no libel.

This judgement has decided that unlawful actions by a public servant can harm individuals, and those individuals are due damages for such a tort. That is nothing to do with libel, but to do with a duty of confidentiality.

Libel requires that the assertion be false. This judgement applies whatever the truth status of the material.


Let me give you an example:

Celebrity X visits a doctor and tests positive for HIV.
The doctor shares this with the press.
The information is true but still causes harm.
Because the information was privileged, the celebrity could sue for damages to counter the harm done.

You seem to be suggesting that no public servant (At least in PT) can write their memoirs?