Civil Libel Laws in Portugal and the McCann V Amaral trial.

[Admin]

BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages.

"BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages."

Another interesting sentence.

The word damages here is used as meaning "harm" whereas others have described this case more generally as a "damages case" in order to hide the libel issue. In legal terms 'damages' is often also used to refer to the monies (or other goods/services) paid in reparation to one who has been 'damaged/harmed'.

But your comment is significant in that it states that the trial is all about proving that the book (or to be more accurate, the content of the book and the documentary) have caused the McCann family some harm.

What you and others seem to forget is that the McCanns are dealing with the libellous content of the book (as they see it) and the effects of that libellous content. What you and others seem to forget is that the Judge in Portugal has to initially make a decision as to the content of the book in order to then proceed to make a further decision about any damage done and any damages due. If there is only absolute truth in the book it would seem highly unlikely that the Judge would have progressed the case thus far, knowing that the McCanns cannot receive any damages as Amaral had only told complete truth. The reality is that this trial relates to defamation and what effect that defamation may or may not have had on the McCanns and on the search for Madeleine.

[Montclair]

"BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages."

Another interesting sentence.

The word damages here is used as meaning "harm" whereas others have described this case more generally as a "damages case" in order to hide the libel issue. In legal terms 'damages' is often also used to refer to the monies (or other goods/services) paid in reparation to one who has been 'damaged/harmed'.

But your comment is significant in that it states that the trial is all about proving that the book (or to be more accurate, the content of the book and the documentary) have caused the McCann family some harm.

What you and others seem to forget is that the McCanns are dealing with the libellous content of the book (as they see it) and the effects of that libellous content. What you and others seem to forget is that the Judge in Portugal has to initially make a decision as to the content of the book in order to then proceed to make a further decision about any damage done and any damages due. If there is only absolute truth in the book it would seem highly unlikely that the Judge would have progressed the case thus far, knowing that the McCanns cannot receive any damages as Amaral had only told complete truth. The reality is that this trial relates to defamation and what effect that defamation may or may not have had on the McCanns and on the search for Madeleine.

You seem to have forgotten what the judge told Gerry McCann at the end of his statement. She told him that the trial was not about whether the contents of the book were true or false. It was only and uniquely about damages caused by the book and its existence.

[Mr Gray]

"BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages."

Another interesting sentence.

The word damages here is used as meaning "harm" whereas others have described this case more generally as a "damages case" in order to hide the libel issue. In legal terms 'damages' is often also used to refer to the monies (or other goods/services) paid in reparation to one who has been 'damaged/harmed'.

But your comment is significant in that it states that the trial is all about proving that the book (or to be more accurate, the content of the book and the documentary) have caused the McCann family some harm.

What you and others seem to forget is that the McCanns are dealing with the libellous content of the book (as they see it) and the effects of that libellous content. What you and others seem to forget is that the Judge in Portugal has to initially make a decision as to the content of the book in order to then proceed to make a further decision about any damage done and any damages due. If there is only absolute truth in the book it would seem highly unlikely that the Judge would have progressed the case thus far, knowing that the McCanns cannot receive any damages as Amaral had only told complete truth. The reality is that this trial relates to defamation and what effect that defamation may or may not have had on the McCanns and on the search for Madeleine.


You seem to have forgotten what the judge told Gerry McCann at the end of his statement. She told him that the trial was not about whether the contents of the book were true or false. It was only and uniquely about damages caused by the book and its existence.

it doesn't matter if the book is true or false because none of it has been proven

[ferryman]

You seem to have forgotten what the judge told Gerry McCann at the end of his statement. She told him that the trial was not about whether the contents of the book were true or false. It was only and uniquely about damages caused by the book and its existence.

The surely absurd inference from that is that if Amaral had written a book of absolute truth that severely damaged the McCanns, the judge would find in favour of the McCanns, because the McCanns had been damaged.

That can't be right ...

[Brietta]

You seem to have forgotten what the judge told Gerry McCann at the end of his statement. She told him that the trial was not about whether the contents of the book were true or false. It was only and uniquely about damages caused by the book and its existence.

The surely absurd inference from that is that if Amaral had written a book of absolute truth that severely damaged the McCanns, the judge would find in favour of the McCanns, because the McCanns had been damaged.

That can't be right ...

Certainly can't be right.

The judge doesn’t seem to be too impressed with the content of the book, which she has noted does not live up to the hype. 

Neither does she appear to agree with the hypothesis of the parents’ guilt as laid out in the book.
On day one of the libel trial … in response to answers received from a witness … the judge stated ... “The fact that they are innocent didn’t suppress this feeling?”
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Emma_Loach_12_09_2013.htm   

 - SNIP - The Judge at the 1st Civil Court of Lisbon who is presiding the McCann couple's lawsuit against the former PJ inspector - who defends the thesis of the parents' responsibility in their daughter Madeleine's death - suggested that Gonçalo Amaral's book may have “misleading advertising”, because contrary to what is announced on its back cover it does not contain “unique revelations” about the case of the disappearance of the little girl in 2007, in Praia da Luz.
http://goncaloamaral.webs.com/inthenews.htm

If she follows that line of reasoning when forming her judgement, I think she will rule against Dr Amaral. It stands to reason that if she considers the Drs McCann innocent, a book written to state otherwise must have damaged them. 
If that isn't libel ... I have no idea what is.

[Montclair]

You seem to have forgotten what the judge told Gerry McCann at the end of his statement. She told him that the trial was not about whether the contents of the book were true or false. It was only and uniquely about damages caused by the book and its existence.

The surely absurd inference from that is that if Amaral had written a book of absolute truth that severely damaged the McCanns, the judge would find in favour of the McCanns, because the McCanns had been damaged.

That can't be right ...

As absurd as it sounds, it has happened here. A long time ago, a prominent citizen sued a journalist for writing, in an article, that he had been convicted of a crime, which was true and in the public domain. Surprisingly enough, the judge found in the plaintiff's favour. Fortunately, the decision was later overturned by the appeals court. So, you see, anything can happen. The problem, however, with the McCanns' case, is that, in the opinion of many, they have failed to prove that they have suffered any damages from the book.

[Montclair]

No matter what you can always appeal! Whatever the verdict that will be, there will be appeals and it will continue on and on.

How do you know anything about the WOC issue? The McCanns must provide the court with proof that they had been authorised by the court in the UK that they could bring the case in Madeleine's name and they had 30 days counting from the date of the final allegations.

[ferryman]

Returning to the central theme of what is libel? the suggestion that that present proceedings is about damage is accurate -- now!!

[Montclair]

Returning to the central theme of what is libel? the suggestion that that present proceedings is about damage is accurate -- now!!

The judge told Gerry that the trial was not about establishing the truth of the book but only the damages. People can sue for damages even if someone has told the truth and this does happen in Portugal.

[Alfred R Jones]

The judge told Gerry that the trial was not about establishing the truth of the book but only the damages. People can sue for damages even if someone has told the truth and this does happen in Portugal.

Damage caused by what?

[Carana]

The judge told Gerry that the trial was not about establishing the truth of the book but only the damages. People can sue for damages even if someone has told the truth and this does happen in Portugal.

PT law does seem to act in mysterious ways sometimes.

- You referred earlier to a journalist being sued by someone guilty of a crime... do you have any links to that out of interest? Was it a civil or a criminal defamation case?

I'd be interested as that can actually also happen in the UK, apparently, if the conviction was old and the inference (years later) was that the person in question was dishonest in an unrelated affair.

- There was also a woman in PT who wrote a scathing letter to a regulatory authority about a solicitor and found herself landed with a criminal libel suit for having done so. If she had just made a complaint, then that would seem rather odd. IFF she had also had articles published in the press at the time of her complaint, then I could see a reason as to why that might be considered defamatory action. As yet, I haven't found anything in the press that dates back to the actual complaint, however.

[ferryman]

Jean Pierre doesn't seem to think that this ward-of-court nonsense will delay anything for long.

And if Isabele's demolition of Amaral's defence has been root-and-branch, there just may be no basis of appeal.

Indeed, I suspect the truth of the lie of this business about the action not being about libel is that the action is about determining damage arising from admitted libel.

We'll see ...

[faithlilly]

Jean Pierre doesn't seem to think that this ward-of-court nonsense will delay anything for long.

And if Isabele's demolition of Amaral's defence has been root-and-branch, there just may be no basis of appeal.

Indeed, I suspect the truth of the lie of this business about the action not being about libel is that the action is about determining damage arising from admitted libel.

We'll see ...

The problem the judge will have is whether the damage to reputation, health etc suffered by the McCanns, as detailed in the libel writ, were already established before Amaral's book or whether the book was actually to blame.