Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[ferryman]

How do you reach that conclusion Stephen?  The trial was concerned solely with amarals right to freedom of speech.

Together with the suggestion (I believe found by Carana, although certainly not suggested by her) that (apparently) while a police officer can't breach judicial secrecy, a civilian (as Amaral became after exiting service with the police) can.

Was it something like that?

[Mr Gray]

Some of you don't seem to have grasped what's happened, Amaral won his appeal, all the points raised by the first judge were refuted and the McCann's legal action against Amaral was deemed unfounded (without merit).

so who exactly hasn't understood that

[jassi]

It seems not so much a issue of understanding , more an issue of accepting the verdict

[G-Unit]

amarals appeal for funds was supported by lies... i think that is quite important

Amaral didn't appeal for funds. Leanne Baulch did it on his behalf, and very successfully too. There are those on both sides who haven't grasped the finer points of the case, but they all know who they believe in and support.

[slartibartfast]

Mod: Note, accusing GA of telling lies is libellous and will be removed.

[stephen25000]

Watch the Saturday night program.

[Mr Gray]

Watch the Saturday night program.

if you want to contradict what I am saying with evidence please do....my comments support my statements

[stephen25000]

if you want to contradict what I am saying with evidence please do....my comments support my statements

Let's start with a rather key point.

The mccanns said at the start the apartment was locked, which then became unlocked.

Now which is the lie ?

Typing in bold won't help.

[Carana]

Together with the suggestion (I believe found by Carana, although certainly not suggested by her) that (apparently) while a police officer can't breach judicial secrecy, a civilian (as Amaral became after exiting service with the police) can.

Was it something like that?

There are two issues, FM.

One is judicial secrecy, i.e. not divulging the contents of the investigation until they were formally made public (which he most certainly breached in the publishing process).

The other is the duty of confidentiality or "reserve". No serving PJ officer is allowed to comment on cases without official authorization (and even then it's normally the national PJ director). The issue is whether that rule still applies in retirement.

The current appeal ruling has said that it doesn't apply.

The a quo judge thought differently.

 Under the Disciplinary Regulation of the Judicial Police, the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of the members of the Judicial Police [cf. art 5-e of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of July 21]. ( 28 )

Alongside this general duty of confidentiality, the Organic Law of the Judicial Police requires from the civil servants working in the Judicial Police a duty of reserve, prescribing that

(...) they cannot make public disclosures related to lawsuits or matter of reserved nature other than what is provided for in this law on public information and preventive actions among the population and also the provisions of the criminal procedure law [art 12-2]. ( 29 )

Even so the statements, when admissible,
(…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [art 12-3]. ( 30 ) The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148-7 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.

It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of the administration of justice. The duty of reserve protects the purposes of the criminal action, but also the physical and moral integrity, the freedom and the dignity of those concerned by that action.
 
Page 43

The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].

The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that
the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity.

According to the notice of the Attorney General Department's advisory Council on February 16, 2006 (Esteves Remedio, in www.ministeriopublico.pt )
the legal relationship of retirement is, compared to the legal relationship of public employment, a relationship less intense where there is a blurring of the ties between the retired and the Administration, translated in the reduction of rights and duties. There is even so a "bond to the civil service", which materialises in conserving the titles and the position of the function exercised and the rights and duties that are not dependent on activity status "(emphasis added). The same note concluded that "the retired remains subject to duties of private conduct translated in particular in the abstention of practice of facts integrators of crimes that have a relevant connection with the functions previously carried out and thus affect actually the functioning of the service or in a serious way the dignity and the prestige of the function or of the Administration (idem).

Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to ?


It appears that the conflict should be solved with the fact data that are present from the outset and that reveal the special condition of the defendant in front of the criminal investigation, condition that he capitalises in the book, the interview and the documentary.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

[stephen25000]

if what amaral says is true then I would be calling for the arrest of the Mccanns...the fact is...it isn't..it is lies...but poeple have believed him and use these supposed facts...which are lies...to accuse the mccanns..

if my truly accurate posts are removed then the truth is being censored

Can you remind me when the accidental death scenario was ruled out ?

.....and as SY detectives and other officers have donated to Amaral, it brings to a close that all of SY support the abduction.

[Mr Gray]

John has suggested we have  a thread to discuss the book....i think this would be a very good idea

[stephen25000]

There are two issues, FM.

One is judicial secrecy, i.e. not divulging the contents of the investigation until they were formally made public (which he most certainly breached in the publishing process).

The other is the duty of confidentiality or "reserve". No serving PJ officer is allowed to comment on cases without official authorization (and even then it's normally the national PJ director). The issue is whether that rule still applies in retirement.

The current appeal ruling has said that it doesn't apply.

The a quo judge thought differently.

 Under the Disciplinary Regulation of the Judicial Police, the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of the members of the Judicial Police [cf. art 5-e of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of July 21]. ( 28 )

Alongside this general duty of confidentiality, the Organic Law of the Judicial Police requires from the civil servants working in the Judicial Police a duty of reserve, prescribing that

(...) they cannot make public disclosures related to lawsuits or matter of reserved nature other than what is provided for in this law on public information and preventive actions among the population and also the provisions of the criminal procedure law [art 12-2]. ( 29 )

Even so the statements, when admissible,
(…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [art 12-3]. ( 30 ) The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148-7 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.

It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of the administration of justice. The duty of reserve protects the purposes of the criminal action, but also the physical and moral integrity, the freedom and the dignity of those concerned by that action.
 
Page 43

The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].

The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that
the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity.

According to the notice of the Attorney General Department's advisory Council on February 16, 2006 (Esteves Remedio, in www.ministeriopublico.pt )
the legal relationship of retirement is, compared to the legal relationship of public employment, a relationship less intense where there is a blurring of the ties between the retired and the Administration, translated in the reduction of rights and duties. There is even so a "bond to the civil service", which materialises in conserving the titles and the position of the function exercised and the rights and duties that are not dependent on activity status "(emphasis added). The same note concluded that "the retired remains subject to duties of private conduct translated in particular in the abstention of practice of facts integrators of crimes that have a relevant connection with the functions previously carried out and thus affect actually the functioning of the service or in a serious way the dignity and the prestige of the function or of the Administration (idem).

Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to ?


It appears that the conflict should be solved with the fact data that are present from the outset and that reveal the special condition of the defendant in front of the criminal investigation, condition that he capitalises in the book, the interview and the documentary.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

A good place to start is last weeks court judgement.

[G-Unit]

There are two issues, FM.

One is judicial secrecy, i.e. not divulging the contents of the investigation until they were formally made public (which he most certainly breached in the publishing process).

The other is the duty of confidentiality or "reserve". No serving PJ officer is allowed to comment on cases without official authorization (and even then it's normally the national PJ director). The issue is whether that rule still applies in retirement.

The current appeal ruling has said that it doesn't apply.

The a quo judge thought differently.

 Under the Disciplinary Regulation of the Judicial Police, the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of the members of the Judicial Police [cf. art 5-e of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of July 21]. ( 28 )

Alongside this general duty of confidentiality, the Organic Law of the Judicial Police requires from the civil servants working in the Judicial Police a duty of reserve, prescribing that

(...) they cannot make public disclosures related to lawsuits or matter of reserved nature other than what is provided for in this law on public information and preventive actions among the population and also the provisions of the criminal procedure law [art 12-2]. ( 29 )

Even so the statements, when admissible,
(…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [art 12-3]. ( 30 ) The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148-7 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.

It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of the administration of justice. The duty of reserve protects the purposes of the criminal action, but also the physical and moral integrity, the freedom and the dignity of those concerned by that action.
 
Page 43

The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].

The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that
the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity.

According to the notice of the Attorney General Department's advisory Council on February 16, 2006 (Esteves Remedio, in www.ministeriopublico.pt )
the legal relationship of retirement is, compared to the legal relationship of public employment, a relationship less intense where there is a blurring of the ties between the retired and the Administration, translated in the reduction of rights and duties. There is even so a "bond to the civil service", which materialises in conserving the titles and the position of the function exercised and the rights and duties that are not dependent on activity status "(emphasis added). The same note concluded that "the retired remains subject to duties of private conduct translated in particular in the abstention of practice of facts integrators of crimes that have a relevant connection with the functions previously carried out and thus affect actually the functioning of the service or in a serious way the dignity and the prestige of the function or of the Administration (idem).

Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to ?


It appears that the conflict should be solved with the fact data that are present from the outset and that reveal the special condition of the defendant in front of the criminal investigation, condition that he capitalises in the book, the interview and the documentary.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

Overturned.

[Carana]

Overturned.

Does the appeal ruling mention the breach of judicial secrecy issue? I can't find it.

[stephen25000]

Does the appeal ruling mention the breach of judicial secrecy issue? I can't find it.

If the material was already out there Carana in the media and on the internet, there was no breach.