The McCanns lawyer said this about the appeal;
'This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts.
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547951/Portuguese-detective-WINS-appeal-against-libel-defeat-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-NOT-pay-500-000-damages.html#ixzz46P9CNi8H Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
That's interesting because the Lower Court judgement was based on an appreciation of the law and not the facts. It stands to reason, therefore, that the Appeal Court followed the same path and rejected the lower court judge's 'appreciation of the law'.
If a Supreme Court appeal is lodged it looks like she will base it on the facts, then. I assume by that she means the proven and unproven facts listed by the first judge.
Some of those facts were rejected by the Supreme Court when they overturned the interim ban on Amaral's book in 2010, so it will be interesting to see what they decide if they are asked to reconsider them. This is what they said in 2010;
The McCann couple alleges that Gonçalo Amaral's book, as well as the interviews that he gave about it, prompt "a serious and hardly reparable damage" to their family, especially to the twins, Sean and Amelie. They invoked damages to the protection of their private and family life and damages to their good name and their image rights.
"the contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights. The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are ensured to everyone by the European Convention of Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution"
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.htmlI think the lady may have her work cut out trying to persuade the Supreme Court that they were mistaken, but you never know.
