Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[faithlilly]

cyeah, who needs Waterstones when you can get Amaral's book for free on the internet!

Free, gratis and for nothing Alfie. Even the great unwashed without a penny to bless themselves with can read it. Ain't the Internet a wonderful invention ?

[Alfie]

Free, gratis and for nothing Alfie. Even the great unwashed without a penny to bless themselves with can read it. Ain't the Internet a wonderful invention ?

I'm sure authors who rely on sales of their books for their livings are less chuffed than you appear to be when their work is given away for free on the net without their permission.

[Alfie]

If Amaral all is so unbothered about his book being available for the entire world to read for free on the internet why was he so keen to see it back in the "oh so last year" bookshops?

[faithlilly]

If Amaral all is so unbothered about his book being available for the entire world to read for free on the internet why was he so keen to see it back in the "oh so last year" bookshops?

Was he ? It has never struck me that Amaral's primary reason for writing his book was to make money but then perhaps you know him better than me.

[stephen25000]

Wasn't in Waterstone's yesterday.  Unless it is kept in a discrete bin under the counter.  Is a password needed to get sight?

It's called the internet .

This has been explained to you before.

[mercury]

If Amaral all is so unbothered about his book being available for the entire world to read for free on the internet why was he so keen to see it back in the "oh so last year" bookshops?

It doesnt matter much as hes won his case and the mccanns are on a hiding to nowhere

[G-Unit]

It would be interesting to know what the McCann's appeal is based on. Their lawyer commented on the Appeal decision that it;

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#ixzz49pyL6vFJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

As the Supreme Court rules (afaik) only on points of law, I don't understand why Duarte mentioned facts as they won't be looked at.

 The Supreme Court only rules regarding the interpretation of law and does not examine the facts established by the lower courts.
http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/litigation-and-dispute-resolution/litigation-and-dispute-resolution-2016/portugal

The laws used by the judge in the lower court both related to the duties imposed on a retired police officer. She ruled that he was obliged to uphold the presumption of innocence and to observe judicial secrecy.

Only those two legal points will be considered by the Supreme Court as far as I can see, unless new legal arguments can be introduced by the lawyers.

[stephen25000]

It would be interesting to know what the McCann's appeal is based on. Their lawyer commented on the Appeal decision that it;

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#ixzz49pyL6vFJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

As the Supreme Court rules (afaik) only on points of law, I don't understand why Duarte mentioned facts as they won't be looked at.

 The Supreme Court only rules regarding the interpretation of law and does not examine the facts established by the lower courts.
http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/litigation-and-dispute-resolution/litigation-and-dispute-resolution-2016/portugal

The laws used by the judge in the lower court both related to the duties imposed on a retired police officer. She ruled that he was obliged to uphold the presumption of innocence and to observe judicial secrecy.

Only those two legal points will be considered by the Supreme Court as far as I can see, unless new legal arguments can be introduced by the lawyers.

Perhaps Duarte is more than aware of that, but mainly due to the mccanns stubbornness, and/or the fact, that to go to the ECHR, they have to pursue all other legal options first.

[G-Unit]

Perhaps Duarte is more than aware of that, but mainly due to the mccanns stubbornness, and/or the fact, that to go to the ECHR, they have to pursue all other legal options first.

Lawyers, of course, don't just accept their client's instructions, they also advise them. She may truly believe there's a chance they will win in the Supreme Court and she understands Portuguese law better than I do, but it's difficult to understand what grounds she sees for appealing.

[stephen25000]

Lawyers, of course, don't just accept their client's instructions, they also advise them. She may truly believe there's a chance they will win in the Supreme Court and she understands Portuguese law better than I do, but it's difficult to understand what grounds she sees for appealing.

I understand that.

Duarte was clearly not expecting the award made to the mccanns in the first place.

Obviously , she will still have to be paid, regardless of the outcome..

I also agree that I can see no clear grounds to appeal, other than for it being necessary in order to go to the ECHR.

[ferryman]

It would be interesting to know what the McCann's appeal is based on. Their lawyer commented on the Appeal decision that it;

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#ixzz49pyL6vFJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

As the Supreme Court rules (afaik) only on points of law, I don't understand why Duarte mentioned facts as they won't be looked at.

 The Supreme Court only rules regarding the interpretation of law and does not examine the facts established by the lower courts.
http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/litigation-and-dispute-resolution/litigation-and-dispute-resolution-2016/portugal

The laws used by the judge in the lower court both related to the duties imposed on a retired police officer. She ruled that he was obliged to uphold the presumption of innocence and to observe judicial secrecy.

Only those two legal points will be considered by the Supreme Court as far as I can see, unless new legal arguments can be introduced by the lawyers.

The (appeal court) ruling doesn't seem to dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in preparing material for his book.

It rather argues that because he quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held accountable (for breaching judicial secrecy) thus restoring this perverse principle to s/he who is willing, no harm can come, a libel-free zone, in which anything goes.

If any of the (numerous) leaks from the enquiry while the enquiry was running can be pinned, personally and directly, on Amaral, then (I reckon) Amaral will, once more, be toast.

(In my opinion) Gerry not Madeleine's father is a prime candidate.

There might be others.

We'll see.

One thing Portuguese libel-law is sorely in need of reviewing is this perverse provision that contrasting accounts of one event can somehow cancel out the right (of the victim) to compensation for traducement of reputation (what Amaral's book does).

ETA: Even if they can't be pinned, directly, on Amaral, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral can be held accountable for the leaks (as the person in charge).

Should make the same difference.

Annulment of this to s/he who is willing, no harm can come maxim and restoration of the proper rules of libel, which would assuredly see Amaral fully accountable for his lies and traducement.

[G-Unit]

The (appeal court) ruling doesn't seem to dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in preparing material for his book.

It rather argues that because he quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held accountable (for breaching judicial secrecy) thus restoring this perverse principle to s/he who is willing, no harm can come, a libel-free zone, in which anything goes.

If any of the (numerous) leaks from the enquiry while the enquiry was running can be pinned, personally and directly, on Amaral, then (I reckon) Amaral will, once more, be toast.

(In my opinion) Gerry not Madeleine's father is a prime candidate.

There might be others.

We'll see.

One thing Portuguese libel-law is sorely in need of reviewing is this perverse provision that contrasting accounts of one event can somehow cancel out the right (of the victim) to compensation for traducement of reputation (what Amaral's book does).

ETA: Even if they can't be pinned, directly, on Amaral, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral can be held accountable for the leaks (as the person in charge).

Should make the same difference.

Annulment of this to s/he who is willing, no harm can come maxim and restoration of the proper rules of libel, which would assuredly see Amaral fully accountable for his lies and traducement.

Most of what you have written is irrelevant to the Supreme Court appeal. It will only consider points of law.

[ferryman]

Most of what you have written is irrelevant to the Supreme Court appeal. It will only consider points of law.

Everything I have written is pertinent to points of law.

[stephen25000]

Everything I have written is pertinent to points of law.

No, that is the problem.

You are ignoring the law in Portugal.

[G-Unit]

The (appeal court) ruling doesn't seem to dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in preparing material for his book.

It rather argues that because he quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held accountable (for breaching judicial secrecy) thus restoring this perverse principle to s/he who is willing, no harm can come, a libel-free zone, in which anything goes.

If any of the (numerous) leaks from the enquiry while the enquiry was running can be pinned, personally and directly, on Amaral, then (I reckon) Amaral will, once more, be toast.

(In my opinion) Gerry not Madeleine's father is a prime candidate.

There might be others.

We'll see.

One thing Portuguese libel-law is sorely in need of reviewing is this perverse provision that contrasting accounts of one event can somehow cancel out the right (of the victim) to compensation for traducement of reputation (what Amaral's book does).

ETA: Even if they can't be pinned, directly, on Amaral, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral can be held accountable for the leaks (as the person in charge).

Should make the same difference.

Annulment of this to s/he who is willing, no harm can come maxim and restoration of the proper rules of libel, which would assuredly see Amaral fully accountable for his lies and traducement.

That principle you have found is a common law principle used in the UK and other associated countries. Portugal uses civil law, which is different.

Therefore it has no bearing on the ruling of the Appeal Court.