Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[G-Unit]

From a totally impartial point of view, what do you think of a system which allows the appeal court to overrule almost every decision on supposed points of law made by a judge in a lower court?

The first ruling was based on the judge's interpretation of the law. The three (senior) Appeal Court judges interpreted it differently.

[misty]

The first ruling was based on the judge's interpretation of the law. The three (senior) Appeal Court judges interpreted it differently.

The first ruling was based on the judge's interpretation of the evidence & then the application of law.
The Supreme Court will only consider if the application of the law was correct.

[Eleanor]

The point of whether Amaral should be held criminally accountable for his (unquestioned) breach of Portuguese secrecy laws is separate and distinct from the impact it has on the civil matter of the McCanns' action in libel against Amaral.

The fact that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book annuls the defence invoked on his behalf by the judges in the latest court ruling.

You might be hard pushed In Law to prove this absolutely.

[stephen25000]

The first ruling was based on the judge's interpretation of the evidence & then the application of law.
The Supreme Court will only consider if the application of the law was correct.

The Portuguese Supreme Court Misty rarely deals with civil matters.

Last time the mccanns went to the Supreme Court, they lost.

[Alice Purjorick]

Senior authorities can make public statements when warranted (e.g., to keep the peace).

Interminable leaks by the PJ or any other odd-bod in officialdom, which led to a media blitz of insinuated guilt  throughout the investigation wouldn't be covered by that, as far as I'm aware.

Exactly the point I am making.
Transpose this trial into the UK and the equivalent is it is now being referred to The House of Lords in effect. How many people on here know enough about UK law to have an informed debate about the finer points of law which would be discussed by the senior advocates in the land on which the case's outcome would turn ?
So extending that argument how many on here know enough about Romanesque law as applied in Portugal to have an informed debate if in Portugal it needs to be ruled on by their top advocates ?
Puerile answers like the Portuguese are tossers and don't know what they are doing are indicative of how the maker of such comments would be incapable of making a valid judgement on much.

[ferryman]

You might be hard pushed In Law to prove this absolutely.

I'm not sure about that.  Contracts will have been signed; copies of the manuscript proof-read.  That's all likely to be documented.

[misty]

The Portuguese Supreme Court Misty rarely deals with civil matters.

Last time the mccanns went to the Supreme Court, they lost.

You are wrong on the first point.

[jassi]

You are wrong on the first point.

Didn't the Supreme Court decline to  even hear them?

[Eleanor]

I'm not sure about that.  Contracts will have been signed; copies of the manuscript proof-read.  That's all likely to be documented.

No, I'm not sure either.  That is the point.

[stephen25000]

You are wrong on the first point.

Wrong.

[stephen25000]

people only see/hear/read  what they want too  stephen

I know.

Several McCann supporters have tried to deny it even when presented with Kate mccanns words.

[misty]

Wrong.

Really?
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.stj.pt/&prev=search

I'll leave you to do the Maths.

[Carana]

All a matter of interpretation, don't you think. Truth is in the eye of the beholder, or something like that.

As far as I'm aware , no court in any country has yet declared the book to be libel .

In PT, it seems to be a no-man's land: the potential veracity of the facts hadn't been tested in court, but some were made public (others appear to be a hearsay understanding by an investigator who didn't understand English and who, by his own admission, appeared to have been in a bar at various crucial times).

For the moment, in the UK, it is not deemed wise to promote the idea that someone committed crimes without solid proof...

[Angelo222]

The judge who determined the original case must be feeling somewhat undermined given the decision by three of Portugal's most senior judges to rubbish her ruling.

Seems she got it totally wrong.

[jassi]

The judge who determined the original case must be feeling somewhat undermined given the decision by three of Portugal's most senior judges to rubbish her ruling.

That must be the same for any judge who's decision was overruled. As I recall, she was quite a junior judge, so maybe needs to gain a bit more experience at this judging lark.