Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[Alice Purjorick]

Wrong, on all counts.

The issue is whether Amaral breached judicial secrecy (in writing his book)

Amaral breached judicial secrecy (in writing his book).

Therefore the likelihood is that the supreme court will re-instate the decision of the first-instance court.

You believe that if you wish.
The trial was about damage caused by the content of the book not breaking judicial secrecy.
The damages have been ruled as zilch, nada, fa to steal your expressions.
What do suppose the mechanism is for someone being found guilty of an offence with which he hasn't been charged while defending another charge. One of which is criminal and one of which is civil ?
Try to think about it without names attached.
As for your prediction well you are one nil down at present so there is no good track record there.

[Alice Purjorick]

It's a civil case, so he wasn't actually "charged" with anything.

How on earth the entire publishing process (from initial writing to manuscript editing to "line drawings" of file photos, to layout, proof-reading, printing and distribution) could have been completed with a book for sale on the shelves within a few days without violating judicial secrecy is beyond my comprehension.

Look up "Delay" in construction contract law. That may give you a clue how these things work.

[Mr Gray]

You believe that if you wish.
The trial was about damage caused by the content of the book not breaking judicial secrecy.
The damages have been ruled as zilch, nada, fa to steal your expressions.
What do suppose the mechanism is for someone being found guilty of an offence with which he hasn't been charged while defending another charge. One of which is criminal and one of which is civil ?
Try to think about it without names attached.
As for your prediction well you are one nil down at present so there is no good track record there.

with respect in the circumstances one nil down is not statistically significant

[ferryman]

They've been saying that since 2010. They reported him to the PJ who didn't want to know. The Appeal Court threw it out this time too. The facts he used to support his theory were in the public domain, so were not secrets.

In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/

Perhaps you can provide a cite to refute mine?

The question of whether the Portuguese authorities choose to pursue (separate) criminal proceedings in respect of Amaral's breach of judicial secrecy is incidental to the key question of how Amaral's (undisputed) breach of judicial secrecy (in writing his book) affects the civil libel action brought by the McCanns.

If Amaral had, indeed, managed to write his book without breaching judicial secrecy (he did not!) chances are Amaral would have been outright winner at first instance and would be free to pile the commercial market with his book of lies.

Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

That is what makes a nonsense of this (latest) ruling, and why the McCanns are likely to win on (further) appeal to the Supreme Court.

[ferryman]

You believe that if you wish.
The trial was about damage caused by the content of the book not breaking judicial secrecy.
The damages have been ruled as zilch, nada, fa to steal your expressions.
What do suppose the mechanism is for someone being found guilty of an offence with which he hasn't been charged while defending another charge. One of which is criminal and one of which is civil ?
Try to think about it without names attached.
As for your prediction well you are one nil down at present so there is no good track record there.

Amaral's breach (of judicial secrecy) is the key to (the nonsense) of the present ruling.

The question (of whether the Portuguese authorities choose to pursue separate criminal proceedings in respect of that breach, or whether they don't) we can ignore (here).

The key question is how the (proven and undisputed) breach affects the civil proceedings brought by the McCanns.

It affects those proceedings by meaning that Amaral breached his obligation to keep his mouth shut about confidential matters (in spreading his lies in his book).

Seems as if Amaral would have had carte blanche (to spread his lies) if only he hadn't breached judicial secrecy.

He breached judicial secrecy. 

He didn't have that freedom.

[jassi]

It's a civil case, so he wasn't actually "charged" with anything.

How on earth the entire publishing process (from initial writing to manuscript editing to "line drawings" of file photos, to layout, proof-reading, printing and distribution) could have been completed with a book for sale on the shelves within a few days without violating judicial secrecy is beyond my comprehension.

Presumably it wasn't considered relevant.

[jassi]

Amaral's breach (of judicial secrecy) is the key to (the nonsense) of the present ruling.

The question (of whether the Portuguese authorities choose to pursue separate criminal proceedings in respect of that breach, or whether they don't) we can ignore (here).

The key question is how the (proven and undisputed) breach affects the civil proceedings brought by the McCanns.

It affects those proceedings by meaning that Amaral breached his obligation to keep his mouth shut about confidential matters (in spreading his lies in his book).

Seems as if Amaral would have had carte blanche (to spread his lies) if only he hadn't breached judicial secrecy.

He breached judicial secrecy. 

He didn't have that freedom.

You'd be better telling the judges rather than us.

[Carana]

The question of whether the Portuguese authorities choose to pursue (separate) criminal proceedings in respect of Amaral's breach of judicial secrecy is incidental to the key question of how Amaral's (undisputed) breach of judicial secrecy (in writing his book) affects the civil libel action brought by the McCanns.

If Amaral had, indeed, managed to write his book without breaching judicial secrecy (he did not!) chances are Amaral would have been outright winner at first instance and would be free to pile the commercial market with his book of lies.

Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

That is what makes a nonsense of this (latest) ruling, and why the McCanns are likely to win on (further) appeal to the Supreme Court.

Thinking about it, breaking judicial secrecy might not come under the civil appeal remit. If a complaint about that had indeed been filed (as a criminal offence), it might still be somewhere in the chain and not resolved at this time.

[G-Unit]

The question of whether the Portuguese authorities choose to pursue (separate) criminal proceedings in respect of Amaral's breach of judicial secrecy is incidental to the key question of how  (in writing his book) affects the civil libel action brought by the McCanns.

If Amaral had, indeed, managed to write his book without breaching judicial secrecy (he did not!) chances are Amaral would have been outright winner at first instance and would be free to pile the commercial market with his book of lies.

Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

That is what makes a nonsense of this (latest) ruling, and why the McCanns are likely to win on (further) appeal to the Supreme Court.

You are unable to provide a cite to support your assertion I take it? If so, you should not post it as a fact.

[Carana]

Presumably it wasn't considered relevant.

Hmmm, not sure about that.

[Montclair]

The question of whether the Portuguese authorities choose to pursue (separate) criminal proceedings in respect of Amaral's breach of judicial secrecy is incidental to the key question of how Amaral's (undisputed) breach of judicial secrecy (in writing his book) affects the civil libel action brought by the McCanns.

If Amaral had, indeed, managed to write his book without breaching judicial secrecy (he did not!) chances are Amaral would have been outright winner at first instance and would be free to pile the commercial market with his book of lies.

Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

That is what makes a nonsense of this (latest) ruling, and why the McCanns are likely to win on (further) appeal to the Supreme Court.

This has already been pointed out by another poster. Gonçalo Amaral cannot be convicted of a "crime" for which he has not been charged. His hierarchy in the PJ never raised the issue of breach of judicial secrecy, so bringing this issue up in a civil hearing is irrelevant.

[Carana]

This has already been pointed out by another poster. Gonçalo Amaral cannot be convicted of a "crime" for which he has not been charged. His hierarchy in the PJ never raised the issue of breach of judicial secrecy, so bringing this issue up in a civil hearing is irrelevant.

Was it filed? Even if it was, with everything going on in PT at the moment, the issue may not be on the top of the pile.

[ferryman]

This has already been pointed out by another poster. Gonçalo Amaral cannot be convicted of a "crime" for which he has not been charged. His hierarchy in the PJ never raised the issue of breach of judicial secrecy, so bringing this issue up in a civil hearing is irrelevant.

Nothing has been pointed out.

A non-sequitur (or red-herring) has been raised.

Because Amaral breached judicial secrecy, he does not have the freedom (to issue forth lies and traducement) he would otherwise have.

He may (or may not) be prosecuted in separate criminal proceedings.

That is irrelevant (to this discussion).

Because he breached judicial secrecy, he is accountable for the lies he issued forth in his book and in interviews.

[G-Unit]

Thinking about it, breaking judicial secrecy might not come under the civil appeal remit. If a complaint about that had indeed been filed (as a criminal offence), it might still be somewhere in the chain and not resolved at this time.

It's six years since Duarte said she was going to file a complaint but I don't know if she did, they may have decided it would be more lucrative to sue, like they did with the UK newspapers.

[Mr Gray]

This has already been pointed out by another poster. Gonçalo Amaral cannot be convicted of a "crime" for which he has not been charged. His hierarchy in the PJ never raised the issue of breach of judicial secrecy, so bringing this issue up in a civil hearing is irrelevant.

no it isn't...just because you have not been found guilty in a criminal court for an offence does not mean a claim cannot be made in a civil court...as OJ Simpson found out