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

[jassi]

As I said, I don't worry about it. The Court will decide.

[Carana]

As I said, I don't worry about it. The Court will decide.

No doubt, but I hope that any final decision is based on more than flipping a few pages and making judgements on a partial perusal.

[Alice Purjorick]

The same could be said of the "perfect parent" brigade. ;)

I am not disputing that.
I am fascinated by the way lines get drawn, sides form up, a uniform is devised and anything to do with the other side is dodgy by definition. A bit like Man U and Liverpool really where, for a Kop man, the next best thing to a Liverpool victory is a Man U loss. Frightfully tribal.

[G-Unit]

It remains to be seen if the appeal is allowed as the judge was quite clear on the breaches of the law as applicable to a former police officer, which dictated her ruling.

If Goncalo Amaral's defence team are sanguine about that being overruled by another court and the appeal is allowed, contributors to the fund will have to continue to dig long and deep.

Who has to give permission for an appeal, does anyone know?

8. Appeal
 
 
8.1 Grounds for appeal
The general rule is that a party may appeal to the court of second instance (“Tribunal da Relação”) when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR5,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR2,500.01 (Cf. Article 629 of the CPC). The court of second instance decides both on legal and factual issues.

A party may appeal to the Supreme Court when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR30,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR15,000.01.

The Supreme Court only rules on legal issues and, in most cases, cannot revoke the second instance judgment concerning the proven facts.

In most cases the parties cannot move to the Supreme Court if the first and the second instance courts have issued identical decisions with similar grounds.

The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200#questiongroup_299

[Carana]

I am not disputing that.
I am fascinated by the way lines get drawn, sides form up, a uniform is devised and anything to do with the other side is dodgy by definition. A bit like Man U and Liverpool really where, for a Kop man, the next best thing to a Liverpool victory is a Man U loss. Frightfully tribal.

None of which advances what actually happened to a little missing child who somehow became a "football".

[Mr Gray]

None of which advances what actually happened to a little missing child who somehow became a "football".

the only advance we might see will be due to SY...and many posters seem to want the investigation to stop

[Brietta]

And some folk are racked off that other folk have happily contributed nine grand so far and sneer at them for doing so.
"everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on someone to be better than anytime at all"
K.Kristofferson.

You really should get out of the habit of making global statements tailored to suit your agenda ... I have seen no "racked offedness" of people using their money as they see fit ... how you interpret comment on that, is your affair.

[Jean-Pierre]

I didn't mention specifics in my post but now you bring it up:
The judge dispensed justice on a point of law as she saw it giving the defendants the right of appeal to a higher court. According to justice the defendants are allowed their day in court if the higher court deems there are grounds for appeal. One defendant has limited resources and folk are raising money to assist him have his day in court. What happens beyond that is yet to be revealed.

I agree with you on this Alice.  It is vital that both sides be represented properly, and have their day in court.  For reasons which have been rehearsed elsewhere the two parties are unequal in resource.   Therefore I am personally happy to put my money where my mouth is and support a fund to pay for proper representation for Amaral.

[Carana]

I agree with you on this Alice.  It is vital that both sides be represented properly, and have their day in court.  For reasons which have been rehearsed elsewhere the two parties are unequal in resource.   Therefore I am personally happy to put my money where my mouth is and support a fund to pay for proper representation for Amaral.

Subjectively, if I had more spare cash, I can think of many causes that I would support and Amaral doesn't make it into my list of the top 1,000.

Objectively, I think I understand your perspective.

[Brietta]

I agree with you on this Alice.  It is vital that both sides be represented properly, and have their day in court.  For reasons which have been rehearsed elsewhere the two parties are unequal in resource.   Therefore I am personally happy to put my money where my mouth is and support a fund to pay for proper representation for Amaral.

What you seem to be saying JP is that justice is available only to those with the means to afford it.

The McCanns were in the position to have their legal fees underwritten in the civil case they took out against Goncalo Amaral ... had they been poor Portuguese peasants who would have set up a fund to help?

[G-Unit]

Transparency and openness;

Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral's Legal Defence account has received in the past week

 € 3222,10
and
$ 90,57

through Paypal

and

£ 9,155

through the GoFundMe page created by Leanne Baulch.

There are no words to adequately express our gratitude for your support and solidarity. Thank you all.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/

[Jean-Pierre]

What you seem to be saying JP is that justice is available only to those with the means to afford it.

The McCanns were in the position to have their legal fees underwritten in the civil case they took out against Goncalo Amaral ... had they been poor Portuguese peasants who would have set up a fund to help?

In general, yes.  It is the reality but that does not make it fair.  In the UK, Legal Aid is (was) available in certain cases, and some household insurance policies will cover some legal expenses to defend ones rights.  Many firms have a pro bono scheme to handle a limited number of cases.  If these routes are not available then it is a case of pay up or surrender. 

In Portugal the legal aid scheme exists but is being reduced in scope.  And many lawyers do offer pro bono schemes.  But Amaral is in a bind (maybe of his own making but that is not my concern).  His main assets have been frozen, and he does not have access to them to cover legal fees.  He is without question entitled to his day in court if an appeal is granted, and in the interests of justice he must have access to proper representation. 

So In a sense Amaral is in the position of a poor Portuguese peasant, but is receiving some help. 

 
 

[Brietta]

In general, yes.  It is the reality but that does not make it fair.  In the UK, Legal Aid is (was) available in certain cases, and some household insurance policies will cover some legal expenses to defend ones rights.  Many firms have a pro bono scheme to handle a limited number of cases.  If these routes are not available then it is a case of pay up or surrender. 

In Portugal the legal aid scheme exists but is being reduced in scope.  And many lawyers do offer pro bono schemes.  But Amaral is in a bind (maybe of his own making but that is not my concern).  His main assets have been frozen, and he does not have access to them to cover legal fees.  He is without question entitled to his day in court if an appeal is granted, and in the interests of justice he must have access to proper representation. 

So In a sense Amaral is in the position of a poor Portuguese peasant, but is receiving some help.

I am not sure exactly what principle is being defended here, particularly as this civil case could have been arbitrated some time ago.
If it had been I doubt we would ever have seen Goncalo Amaral being confirmed in a Portuguese Court in another two breaches of Law.  That might have long term repercussions for him?

The McCanns didn't entirely sweep the board as far as the judgement went.  Indeed if Goncalo Amaral had not, in the judge's opinion been guilty of two serious breaches they would have walked empty handed from the Court with arguably their reputations still in tatters.

One recognises the right of people to appeal decisions against them, if the law accepts grounds. 

If there are those willing to finance such appeals in this case, what they do with their money is of no concern to me.

I applaud the universal principle you uphold ... I am more selective or judgemental in my approach.

[Alice Purjorick]

You really should get out of the habit of making global statements tailored to suit your agenda ... I have seen no "racked offedness" of people using their money as they see fit ... how you interpret comment on that, is your affair.

You need to erase from your memory banks the notion I have an "agenda". If you feel strongly I have an "agenda" please be good enough to let me know what it is then I can behave accordingly.

[Montclair]

Who has to give permission for an appeal, does anyone know?

8. Appeal
 
 
8.1 Grounds for appeal
The general rule is that a party may appeal to the court of second instance (“Tribunal da Relação”) when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR5,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR2,500.01 (Cf. Article 629 of the CPC). The court of second instance decides both on legal and factual issues.

A party may appeal to the Supreme Court when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR30,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR15,000.01.

The Supreme Court only rules on legal issues and, in most cases, cannot revoke the second instance judgment concerning the proven facts.

In most cases the parties cannot move to the Supreme Court if the first and the second instance courts have issued identical decisions with similar grounds.

The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200#questiongroup_299

In Portugal, defendants always have the right to appeal and do not need to ask for permission to do so. The right to appeal is inscribed in the law as a protection. The defendant sends his arguments and the upper court makes its decision accordingly. The defendant can keep appealing up to the Supreme Court.