UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on April 28, 2015, 01:47:04 PM
-
Madeleine McCann's parents win libel damages in trial of police chief
Gonçalo Amaral, who led investigation for missing girl in Portugal in 2007, is found guilty of libelling Gerry and Kate McCann and ordered to pay €500,000
Judgement (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239337#msg239337)
(http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/4/28/1430233083300/9509020e-16b4-4c01-9f73-b4e89ca8106c-620x372.jpeg)
Kate and Gerry McCann in Lisbon last July after delivering statements in their case against Gonçalo Amaral.
A former Portuguese police chief has been ordered to pay the parents of Madeleine McCann €500,000 (£357,953) in libel damages after accusing them of faking their daughter’s abduction.
Gonçalo Amaral, who led the botched police search for the three-year-old in 2007, has been on trial at Lisbon’s Palace of Justice over claims he made in a book about Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry and Kate McCann told the trial last year of their “devastation, desperation, anxiety and pain” at being accused by Amaral of hiding their daughter’s body.
In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair and ordered to pay them €250,000 (£179,170) each in damages, plus €106,000 (£76,000) in interest. The judge also banned further sale of his book, the Truth of the Lie.
The ruling comes days before the eighth anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance on Sunday. She vanished from her parents’ holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on the evening of Thursday 3 May 2007, triggering the biggest missing persons investigation for decades.
The McCanns said after Tuesday’s verdict that they were delighted with the judge’s ruling and stressed that the action was never about money.
In a statement issued by their family spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, they said: “We are delighted with the judge’s verdict today. We want to emphasise the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine.
“A lot has changed in the six years since we launched the action and we are pleased that there is still an active investigation in both Portugal and the UK. We would like to remind people that there is still an innocent little girl who is missing and that those responsible for her abduction remain at large.”
A renewed Scotland Yard inquiry, launched in 2011, has so far failed to make a significant breakthrough. In the past year, detectives have carried out fresh ground searches and interviews with witnesses in the Algarve resort.
Kate and Gerry, who were originally seeking €1.25m (almost £900,000) in compensation from Amaral, said the damage caused by the retired officer’s book was exacerbated because it could stop people coming forward with information if they believed his assertion that Madeleine was dead. However, the judge’s 52-page ruling said €500,000 compensation was “adequate and proportional” to the damage caused by the allegations.
Amaral’s book, which was a bestseller in Portugal, was particularly controversial because it was released just three days after the Portuguese attorney general’s office decided to shelve the search in July 2008.
The court said it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “contributed to hindering, in any way, the course of the investigation” into Madeleine’s disappearance.
Isabel Duarte, the McCanns’ lawyer, declined to comment on the libel result but said she had sent Kate and Gerry a copy of the ruling.
Giving evidence in the libel trial last year, Kate McCann told how her son asked if she had hidden his missing sister’s body after hearing Amaral’s claims. She said she and Gerry had taken advice from a child psychologist on how to answer questions asked by Sean, nine, and his twin sister Amelie.
Kate added: “They know Mr Amaral has written a book and about the documentary. They obviously don’t know the detail. We had advice from a child psychologist. He told us to let the twins lead the conversation so if they ask a question try to answer it honestly. I believe what’s in Mr Amaral’s book and the documentary is very distressing to adults. To a child it could be very, very damaging.”
Describing the moment Sean asked her about Amaral’s claims, Kate said: “Sean asked me: ‘Mr Amaral said you hid Madeleine, didn’t he?’ It was October last year. I just said: ‘He did. He said a lot of silly things.’”
She told the judge, Maria de Melo e Castro, that Amaral’s claims were even more damaging because they could prevent potential witnesses from coming forward with information if they believed his insistence that Madeleine is dead.
Amaral, who was dropped from the Madeleine investigation after several blunders, vowed earlier last year to countersue the McCanns. Writing on Facebook, he said he would launch “a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others to be compensated for enormous damage they caused me – moral, professional and financial”.
He added: “The time to judicially react to those who put my privacy, intimacy, freedom of expression and opinion and survival at stake is approaching. They have tried to assassinate me civilly. But due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.”
In October last year, the McCanns were awarded £55,000 in libel damages from the publisher of the Sunday Times over an article which alleged that the couple deliberately hindered the search for their daughter.
That settlement came six years after the couple negotiated a £550,000 payment to Madeleine’s fund from Express Newspapers over a series of defamatory articles in the Daily Express, Sunday Express and the Daily Star.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
426
-
Brunt goes live to announce court awards McCanns 500,000 euros (plus interest)
Sky News website says 106,000.
He never learns &%&£(+
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11568725/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-awarded-357k-in-Portuguese-libel-case.html
Goncalo Amaral, the police chief who led the initial investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, has been ordered to pay her parents £357,000 in damages because of hurt caused to them following the publication of his book “The Truth of the Lie”.
The Civil Court of Lisbon also banned further sale of the book in which Mr Amaral claimed Madeleine had not been abducted, but had died in an accident in Praia da Luz.
Kate and Gerry McCann launched a libel action against Mr Amaral, who was sacked from the investigation after several months of blunders, claiming they and their family had suffered emotional and psychological harm as a result of the claims made in the book.
Mr Amaral’s legal team have leave to appeal the award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Now Sky live is reporting 350 000 damages
-
just remmeebr with your spiteful bragging maddie has never been found in all this time sueing GA wont undo what caused this in the first pplace
-
how many posters on here..Montclair was one...were claiming that the supreme court had ruled the book not libellous and claimed that this court could not overturn the decision...a lot of people have been just plain wrong
-
just remmeebr with your spiteful bragging maddie has never been found in all this time sueing GA wont undo what caused this in the first pplace
trying to deflect...people like amaral need to be put in their place..and he has been by his own countries court
-
The BBC has 357 000
Madeleine McCann's parents win libel payout
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32501647
Breaking news
A Portuguese court has awarded the parents of missing Madeleine McCann damages of £357,000 after a libel trial.
Kate and Gerry McCann sued ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral, who led the search for their daughter, following claims he made about them in his book.
He has been ordered to pay damages, plus interest in excess of £70,000.
Madeleine went missing in the Portuguese holiday resort of Praia da Luz in 2007, aged three.
-
Considering how posters were telling us how hard it is to win a libel trial in Portugal and how small the damages would be this is a massive victory for Kate and Gerry....I imagine he will have to pay all the costs as well
-
Now Sky live is reporting 350 000 damages
Looks like it. But this might be spin.
I'll wait for something official.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11568725/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-awarded-357k-in-Portuguese-libel-case.html
Goncalo Amaral, the police chief who led the initial investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, has been ordered to pay her parents £357,000 in damages because of hurt caused to them following the publication of his book “The Truth of the Lie”.
The Civil Court of Lisbon also banned further sale of the book in which Mr Amaral claimed Madeleine had not been abducted, but had died in an accident in Praia da Luz.
Kate and Gerry McCann launched a libel action against Mr Amaral, who was sacked from the investigation after several months of blunders, claiming they and their family had suffered emotional and psychological harm as a result of the claims made in the book.
Mr Amaral’s legal team have leave to appeal the award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOW!! Good news for the McCanns after years of distress. Probably tempered by reflection of the harm inflicted by this petty and vindictive episode on the search for Madeleine.
-
Madeleine McCann's parents win libel payout
6 minutes ago
From the section UK
Madeleine went missing in the Portuguese holiday resort of Praia da Luz in 2007, aged three
A Portuguese court has awarded the parents of missing Madeleine McCann damages of £357,000 after a libel trial.
Kate and Gerry McCann sued ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral, who led the search for their daughter, following claims he made about them in his book.
Mr Amaral has also been ordered to pay interest in excess of £70,000.
Madeleine went missing in the Portuguese holiday resort of Praia da Luz in 2007, aged three.
The former police officer can appeal the ruling.
In his book - The Truth Of The Lie - Mr Amaral wrote that the McCann's had hidden their daughter's body and faked an abduction after she died in an accident.
The McCanns said the claims exacerbated their anguish and discouraged people from coming forward with information after Madeleine disappeared.
Kate and Gerry McCann pictured at the libel trial in Lisbon last year
The book, published in 2008, has been a bestseller in Portugal.
The McCanns were originally seeking 1.25m euros (almost £900,000) in damages from Mr Amaral, his publisher and a company that produced a documentary based on his book.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32501647
-
Considering how posters were telling us how hard it is to win a libel trial in Portugal and how small the damages would be this is a massive victory for Kate and Gerry....I imagine he will have to pay all the costs as well
I think that is how it goes in Portugal, Davel, I believe it was Goncalo Amaral's last adventure into the libel courts which almost bankrupted him when he had to pay his and the person he had sued court costs.
-
Looks like it. But this might be spin.
I'll wait for something official.
Don't think it is 'spin' ... things have been too quiet in the defendants' camp for that. I wonder how long the main parties have known the verdict?
-
Brunt goes live to announce court awards McCanns 500,000 euros (plus interest)
Sky News website says 106,000.
He never learns &%&£(+
Ex-Detective To Pay McCanns £357,000 For Libel
Former detective Goncalo Amaral is ordered to pay Kate and Gerry McCann 250,000 euros each in libel damages.
http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/ex-detective-to-pay-mccanns-357000-for-libel
-
The most significant thing to me is that the book has now been banned, which was not the objective of this trial.
Arrests imminent?
-
The most significant thing to me is that the book has now been banned, which was not the objective of this trial.
Arrests imminent?
There's little in the book. I expect if the figures are true it's mainly for the film, and newspaper articles/TV appearances (where more was said than is actually in the book).
-
I wonder will the publishers and the tv company have to pay damages on top of these...
-
It is also 8 years to the day that the McCanns flew to Portugal for the ill-fated holiday.
Perhaps this coming week will bring some sort of closure.
-
Ex-Detective To Pay McCanns £357,000 For Libel
Former detective Goncalo Amaral is ordered to pay Kate and Gerry McCann 250,000 euros each in libel damages.
http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/ex-detective-to-pay-mccanns-357000-for-libel
The Judge hasn't missed him and hit the wall as they say in my neck of the woods.
-
The most significant thing to me is that the book has now been banned, which was not the objective of this trial.
Arrests imminent?
&%+((£ For what?
-
Ex-Detective To Pay McCanns £357,000 For Libel
Former detective Goncalo Amaral is ordered to pay Kate and Gerry McCann 250,000 euros each in libel damages.
http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/ex-detective-to-pay-mccanns-357000-for-libel
I'd wait until you see it officially %£&)**#
-
I'd wait until you see it officially %£&)**#
we don't need to wait...it was obvious to anyone with intelligence what the result would be...you only have to look at amarals demeanor in the past few years
-
I think this is where the confusion lies, re: 357,953 and 500,000
A former Portuguese police chief has been ordered to pay the parents of Madeleine McCann €500,000 (£357,953) in libel damages after accusing them of faking their daughter’s abduction.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
-
The most significant thing to me is that the book has now been banned, which was not the objective of this trial.
Arrests imminent?
"The Civil Court of Lisbon also banned further sale of the book in which Mr Amaral claimed Madeleine had not been abducted, but had died in an accident in Praia da Luz."
It seems very clear that the sceptics are going to have to think long and hard about prejudices which have just been thrown out of the equation by the Portuguese judiciary.
-
we don't need to wait...it was obvious to anyone with intelligence what the result would be...you only have to look at amarals demeanor in the past few years
So why did the TV company, film producers and book publishers not bail out?
The book and film will have been checked by lawyers. It's not as simple as you wish it to be, it was not a one man vendetta.
Obviously that film would never have been broadcast with that script on UK TV, but it was presumably cleared by the station's lawyers in Portugal.
-
It is also 8 years to the day that the McCanns flew to Portugal for the ill-fated holiday.
Perhaps this coming week will bring some sort of closure.
Maybe the last part of the jigsaw is ready to fall into place, I certainly hope so.
-
So why did the TV company, film producers and book publishers not bail out?
The book and film will have been checked by lawyers. It's not as simple as you wish it to be, it was not a one man vendetta.
Obviously that film would never have been broadcast with that script on UK TV, but it was presumably cleared by the station's lawyers in Portugal.
no one expected the mccanns to sue...The Sunday Times settled out of court....their story was no doubt checked by their lawyers.
-
no one expected the mccanns to sue...The Sunday Times settled out of court....their story was no doubt checked by their lawyers.
They can be insured against the possibility of being sued. That might be true.
-
I wonder will the publishers and the tv company have to pay damages on top of these...
Hadn't thought of that ... I certainly hope they do if for nothing more than Kate McCann saying she thought the documentary based on the book had caused her more distress and was more damaging than the book had been.
-
So why did the TV company, film producers and book publishers not bail out?
The book and film will have been checked by lawyers. It's not as simple as you wish it to be, it was not a one man vendetta.
Obviously that film would never have been broadcast with that script on UK TV, but it was presumably cleared by the station's lawyers in Portugal.
I think they thought they were bomb proof, L, but the judge has proved they are not.
Mr Amaral was riding high and had public opinion with him and he had certainly worked hard on bolstering his image at the expense of the McCanns and ultimately at the expense of the Madeleine investigation.
-
I think they thought they were bomb proof, L, but the judge has proved they are not.
Mr Amaral was riding high and had public opinion with him and he had certainly worked hard on bolstering his image at the expense of the McCanns and ultimately at the expense of the Madeleine investigation.
There was no investigation at the time the book was published.
If they felt "bomb proof" it may be because they were insured.
-
Does this mean that the online version of the book, translated to English, is illegal?
-
BBC Radio News reporter in Lisbon has just said damages of 500000Euros awarded equally to Kate & Gerry, nothing for the children. The TV company is also banned from redistributing & selling the rights to the documentary.
-
how many posters on here..Montclair was one...were claiming that the supreme court had ruled the book not libellous and claimed that this court could not overturn the decision...a lot of people have been just plain wrong
Yes, and how many claimed there were only 37 proved, none proved on the libel info. I knew there were 58, till it was altered. Someone wasnt quick enough, to remove them.
-
Does this mean that the online version of the book, translated to English, is illegal?
It's certainly Libellous, Anna.
-
It's not over because all the defendants will appeal. This decision is not final and will not be enforced until all appeals have been exhausted. The McCanns will not be receiving any money at this time and this will drag on for another year or two. So, don't celebrate too soon.
How is it possible that one lawyer for the plaintiffs has been informed and Gonçalo Amaral's is still waiting for the official notification of the verdict. This stinks to high heaven.
€ 500.000,-- ! No one has ever been given such a compensation in Portugal. Just today, I read that an ex-minister was convicted of defamation for saying that the step father of his ex-wife had sexually abused her and he only has to pay € 25.000,00!
Once again, no one has won the case yet until it gets to the Supreme Court. However, I have to say that I am totally gobsmacked by this decision, especially after the decision of the judge considering the proven and unproven facts and I suppose that the other lawyers are too.
-
It's certainly Libellous, Anna.
Thanks Eleanor,
It will have to be removed then, I would have thought.
There is no point in having distribution/sale of the book banned in other countries, if it can be read online here and the twins can read it too, eventually.
-
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/cm_ao_minuto/detalhe/ex_inspetor_da_pj_goncalo_amaral_condenado_a_pagar_500_mil_euros_ao_casal_mccann.html (http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/cm_ao_minuto/detalhe/ex_inspetor_da_pj_goncalo_amaral_condenado_a_pagar_500_mil_euros_ao_casal_mccann.html)
The former inspector of the Judicial Police (PJ) Gonçalo Amaral was ordered to pay 500,000 euros to the parents of Madeleine McCann, for damage caused by the publication of a book entitled 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie', said Tuesday the agency Lusa the lawyer of British couple.
The civil court sentenced Gonçalo Amaral "payable to each of the first [Kate McCann and McCann Gearald] the indemnity amount of 250 thousand euros plus default interest at the legal rate of interest civilians, since January 5, 2010, until full payment ". Interest for late payment, according to the lawyer of the McCanns, are located at the moment in 106,000 euros.
In addition to this payment, the court also ordered the ban on the sale and new editions of the book, even prohibiting new editions of the DVD, as well as the sale of the book's copyright and DVD. This process creeps in court for more than five years, with successive postponements of trial sessions and an attempted extrajudicial settlement between the parties, which was never realized
-
There was no investigation at the time the book was published.
If they felt "bomb proof" it may be because they were insured.
Oh, sorry, I was told that 'archived' meant that the case would be activated if and when fresh evidence justified it; certainly explains why Ricardo Paiva disregarded incoming evidence as "irrelevant" if there was no case.
The way to 'insure' against libel action ... might be not to defame people in the first instance to make a quick buck, then that takes honour.
-
It's not over because all the defendants will appeal. This decision is not final and will not be enforced until all appeals have been exhausted. The McCanns will not be receiving any money at this time and this will drag on for another year or two. So, don't celebrate too soon.
How is it possible that one lawyer for the plaintiffs has been informed and Gonçalo Amaral's is still waiting for the official notification of the verdict. This stinks to high heaven.
€ 500.000,-- ! No one has ever been given such a compensation in Portugal. Just today, I read that an ex-minister was convicted of defamation for saying that the step father of his ex-wife had sexually abused her and he only has to pay € 25.000,00!
Once again, no one has won the case yet until it gets to the Supreme Court. However, I have to say that I am totally gobsmacked by this decision, especially after the decision of the judge considering the proven and unproven facts and I suppose that the other lawyers are too.
Good, there aren't so many bent judges in Portugal, these days. I'm sure an appeal fund will be set up to pay Amarals.
Perhaps he didn't have a lawyer, to tell him. He must be the only person in Portugal, not to have heard.
Yes the judge has gone by all those 58 proven and unproven facts.
-
Thanks Eleanor,
It will have to be removed then, I would have thought.
There is no point in having distribution/sale of the book banned in other countries, if it can be read online here and the twins can read it too, eventually.
Wonder what that might mean for the translator? She certainly ate into the royalties which would have been due, with impunity ... who will be able to take it down? the service provider?
-
It's not over because all the defendants will appeal. This decision is not final and will not be enforced until all appeals have been exhausted. The McCanns will not be receiving any money at this time and this will drag on for another year or two. So, don't celebrate too soon.
How is it possible that one lawyer for the plaintiffs has been informed and Gonçalo Amaral's is still waiting for the official notification of the verdict. This stinks to high heaven.
€ 500.000,-- ! No one has ever been given such a compensation in Portugal. Just today, I read that an ex-minister was convicted of defamation for saying that the step father of his ex-wife had sexually abused her and he only has to pay € 25.000,00!
Once again, no one has won the case yet until it gets to the Supreme Court. However, I have to say that I am totally gobsmacked by this decision, especially after the decision of the judge considering the proven and unproven facts and I suppose that the other lawyers are too.
The judgement is enough to be delighted about...never mind the appeal. amaral has been put firmly in his place by a Portuguese court...does amaral have the funds to appeal... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
So as the book was based on the PJ files...what does that make the pj files... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
The judgement is enough to be delighted about...never mind the appeal. amaral has been put firmly in his place by a Portuguese court...does amaral have the funds to appeal... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Can he afford to pay the ongoing Interest after he loses the appeal?
-
Wonder what that might mean for the translator? She certainly ate into the royalties which would have been due, with impunity ... who will be able to take it down? the service provider?
I would have thought that the site owner would have to remove it, but it is everywhere it seems, even Youtube and McCannfiles.
-
Good, there aren't so many bent judges in Portugal, these days. I'm sure an appeal fund will be set up to pay Amarals.
Perhaps he didn't have a lawyer, to tell him. He must be the only person in Portugal, not to have heard.
Yes the judge has gone by all those 58 proven and unproven facts.
Can you list them for us?
-
It's not over because all the defendants will appeal. This decision is not final and will not be enforced until all appeals have been exhausted. The McCanns will not be receiving any money at this time and this will drag on for another year or two. So, don't celebrate too soon.
How is it possible that one lawyer for the plaintiffs has been informed and Gonçalo Amaral's is still waiting for the official notification of the verdict. This stinks to high heaven.
€ 500.000,-- ! No one has ever been given such a compensation in Portugal. Just today, I read that an ex-minister was convicted of defamation for saying that the step father of his ex-wife had sexually abused her and he only has to pay € 25.000,00!
Once again, no one has won the case yet until it gets to the Supreme Court. However, I have to say that I am totally gobsmacked by this decision, especially after the decision of the judge considering the proven and unproven facts and I suppose that the other lawyers are too.
Supporters should get ready to dig deep to contribute to the appeal fund ... I expect if not acting pro bono the lawyer will expect to be paid up front.
I think the amount of damages awarded reflects the amount of harm that the judge considers to have been inflicted on the whole McCann family ~ starting with Madeleine.
-
The judgement is enough to be delighted about...never mind the appeal. amaral has been put firmly in his place by a Portuguese court...does amaral have the funds to appeal... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
He made a lot of money from that book and his assets which were frozen, must have generated a lot of interest, so I don't believe he is short of money. He just likes us to think he is.
-
He made a lot of money from that book and his assets which were frozen, must have generated a lot of interest, so I don't believe he is short of money. He just likes us to think he is.
How right you are, Anna. Never mind He has Sofia's shoulder to cry on 8)><(
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11568725/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-awarded-357k-in-Portuguese-libel-case.html
Goncalo Amaral, the police chief who led the initial investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, has been ordered to pay her parents £357,000 in damages because of hurt caused to them following the publication of his book “The Truth of the Lie”.
The Civil Court of Lisbon also banned further sale of the book in which Mr Amaral claimed Madeleine had not been abducted, but had died in an accident in Praia da Luz.
Kate and Gerry McCann launched a libel action against Mr Amaral, who was sacked from the investigation after several months of blunders, claiming they and their family had suffered emotional and psychological harm as a result of the claims made in the book.
Mr Amaral’s legal team have leave to appeal the award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooh. I am rather looking forward to Blacksmith's views on this one. 8(0(*
-
Don't think it is 'spin' ... things have been too quiet in the defendants' camp for that. I wonder how long the main parties have known the verdict?
When Joana Morais was asked for latest news of the verdict on twitter yesterday she replied "don't know, don't care" - now we know why. Maximum LOLage. @)(++(*
-
He made a lot of money from that book and his assets which were frozen, must have generated a lot of interest, so I don't believe he is short of money. He just likes us to think he is.
No, sorry, Anna. The McCanns are getting the interest. Ongoing, by the way, until The Llibel Damages are paid in full.
-
BBC Radio News reporter in Lisbon has just said damages of 500000Euros awarded equally to Kate & Gerry, nothing for the children. The TV company is also banned from redistributing & selling the rights to the documentary.
That's a shame, I thought they would be the most likely to be awarded.
-
No, sorry, Anna. The McCanns are getting the interest. Ongoing, by the way, until The Llibel Damages are paid in full.
The McCanns are getting the interest from his assets, in his bank account? or did you mean the book proceeds, Eleanor?
-
Just had a look at the JH forum, and the negative response to this ruling is embarrassing.
On here too, I thought i would find evidence of the other side - the positive reaction. Not quite as 'extreme' but the fawning is equally as embarrassing.
Hope the McCanns make a big donation to a Children's Charity that can do some real good. As I've stated before -- it is sad that this book was written. Profit from misery.
-
Very pleased with the recent news, Amaral will have to hand over a considerable amount of money. Glad he can't sell any more of his books.
-
Just had a look at the JH forum, and the negative response to this ruling is embarrassing.
On here too, I thought i would find evidence of the other side - the positive reaction. Not quite as 'extreme' but the fawning is equally as embarrassing.
Hope the McCanns make a big donation to a Children's Charity that can do some real good. As I've stated before -- it is sad that this book was written. Profit from misery.
That's exactly what amaral tried to do.....great to see him totally humiliated
-
The McCanns are getting the interest from his assets, in his bank account? or did you mean the book proceeds, Eleanor?
The Book Proceeds and all of his other assets are all frozen, Anna.
-
Lisbon court orders McCanns be paid €500,000 in damages by former PJ detective
BY BRENDAN DE BEER, IN NEWS · 28-04-2015 17:17:00 · 0 COMMENTS
A Lisbon Civil Court on Tuesday issued a ruling in which former PJ police detective Gonçalo Amaral is to pay the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann a sum of 250,000 euros each plus a large sum in interest. Amaral can still challenge the decision with the Lisbon Appeal Court.
Calculations provided by the McCanns' legal team currently place the total amount of interest at €106,246. This interest plus damages amount to just under half the €1.2 million requested by Kate and Gerry McCann at the start of legal proceedings more than five years ago.
The decision comes five days before what will be marking of the eighth year of Madeleine’s disappearance from the holiday apartment she had been staying in with her parents in Praia da Luz.
In its ruling, the court also prohibited the sale of the book written by Amaral with regards to Madeleine’s disappearance. In the book, Amaral ruled out the widespread belief that she had been abducted. Instead he argued that she had died in an accident in the apartment on 3 May 2007.
The book’s publisher has also been banned from releasing any new editions and has to hand over all unsold copies.
Isabel Duarte, the lawyer acting on behalf of the McCanns, opted not to comment on the decision.
In the 52-page document, seen by The Portugal News shortly after the ruling was released, repeated references are made to the fact that the date of the release of Amaral’s book (24 July 2008), took place only three days after the Portuguese Attorney-General’s office decided to shelve the case.
Isabel Duarte had argued that Amaral used privileged information in the book, with the court ruling that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by his position as a former police detective and lead investigator in the case.
But the court also found that it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “in any way contributed to the hindering of the course of the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann.”
The court further rejected libel claims made by Kate and Gerry on behalf Madeleine and her twin siblings Sean and Amelie.
In comments to Portuguese newspaper Expresso on Tuesday evening, Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, legal counsel for Gonçalo Amaral, said he knew nothing of the court’s ruling.
“I have not yet been notified by the court”, he was quoted as saying, adding that he found it “very strange” that only one of the parties was aware of the verdict.
He opted not to comment further until he had seen the actual judgment.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/lisbon-court-orders-mccanns-be-paid-500000-in-damages-by-former-pj-detective/34612
-
That's exactly what amaral tried to do.....great to see him totally humiliated
You've given a little bit away about yourself there. It's never good to see anyone 'humiliated'.
-
Well what a great day for justice is all I can say. The Portuguese justice system is a marvellous thing after all. 8)--))
-
You've given a little bit away about yourself there. It's never good to see anyone 'humiliated'.
I think it is very good to see some people humiliated...and I am happy to say it
-
The McCanns are probably not celebrating as much as you are because they know from experience that this decision could very well be overturned as the decision in February 2010 was by the Tribunal da Relação in October 2010. God 5 years ago already! Who know how long this is going to last.
Even if the judge had decided in favour of the defendents the plaintiffs would have appealed and we would continue waiting for the end of this drama.
I would like to clarify that no money will be changing hands at this time.
-
It's only a great day if the money is redistributed from GA to a genuinely worthwhile charity which I'm sure the McCanns will do. One man profiting from a situation such as Madeleine's is terrible. So hopefully, they will use that revenue for a good cause.
-
The McCanns are probably not celebrating as much as you are because they know from experience that this decision could very well be overturned as the decision in February 2010 was by the Tribunal da Relação in October 2010. God 5 years ago already! Who know how long this is going to last.
Even if the judge had decided in favour of the defendents the plaintiffs would have appealed and we would continue waiting for the end of this drama.
I would like to clarify that no money will be changing hands at this time.
Why should we listen to anything you have to say when you have demonstrated that your earlier pronoucements count for little as far as this legal action is concerned?
-
BBC Radio News reporter in Lisbon has just said damages of 500000Euros awarded equally to Kate & Gerry, nothing for the children. The TV company is also banned from redistributing & selling the rights to the documentary.
The book publisher, TVI et al have got off? Book sales and the documentary were done and dusted long ago, revenue-wise.
-
The McCanns are probably not celebrating as much as you are because they know from experience that this decision could very well be overturned as the decision in February 2010 was by the Tribunal da Relação in October 2010. God 5 years ago already! Who know how long this is going to last.
Even if the judge had decided in favour of the defendents the plaintiffs would have appealed and we would continue waiting for the end of this drama.
I would like to clarify that no money will be changing hands at this time.
I think you have shown how little you understand the trial so don't imagine you can tell us anything...we have more knowledge of the system than you... I won't list the things you have got wrong.
We are quite aware no money will change hands before the appeal(s) are exhausted...doesn't matter...this is a terrific victory for the McCannns
-
It's only a great day if the money is redistributed from GA to a genuinely worthwhile charity which I'm sure the McCanns will do. One man profiting from a situation such as Madeleine's is terrible. So hopefully, they will use that revenue for a good cause.
We're led to believe that Gonc is going to fight tooth and nail to cling on to his dirty money, by throwing yet more supporters' cash at the lawyers. Shouldn't he do the honourable thing now and concede defeat?
-
Yes but Davel, Alfred, rather than thinking about a victory for the McCanns - why don't we all start thinking about how that money should be redistributed.
Which charity would you hand it all over to - so that a real difference can be made?
-
We're led to believe that Gonc is going to fight tooth and nail to cling on to his dirty money, by throwing yet more supporters' cash at the lawyers. Shouldn't he do the honourable thing now and concede defeat?
Yes! Declare defeat... and let's get that money to a charity that can make a difference.
-
It's only a great day if the money is redistributed from GA to a genuinely worthwhile charity which I'm sure the McCanns will do. One man profiting from a situation such as Madeleine's is terrible. So hopefully, they will use that revenue for a good cause.
I expect that they will, once Madeleine has been found (alive or not) and whoever took her is brought to justice.
-
Yes but Davel, Alfred, rather than thinking about a victory for the McCanns - why don't we all start thinking about how that money should be redistributed.
Which charity would you hand it all over to - so that a real difference can be made?
It's non of your business what they do with the money..and off topic...but I can understand you wanting to deflect what is a totally humiliating defeat for amaral and also for posters on here who were convinced that the mcCanns would lose
-
It's only a great day if the money is redistributed from GA to a genuinely worthwhile charity which I'm sure the McCanns will do. One man profiting from a situation such as Madeleine's is terrible. So hopefully, they will use that revenue for a good cause.
I don't think it has anything to do with money, which will no doubt go back into the fund. It has to do with the author of that awful book being shown for what he is and the book being prohibited from sale.
Hopefully the aftershock of the book will not affect the twins too much, later on.
-
It's non of your business what they do with the money..and off topic...but I can understand you wanting to deflect what is a totally humiliating defeat for amaral and also for posters on here who were convinced that the mcCanns would lose
Davel - look up my archive. I've been more critical of GA than most. You seem a bit excited about all of this. Are you not excited about the prospect of 500K Euros being used to help people via a charitable donation?
-
I don't think it has anything to do with money, which will no doubt go back into the fund. It has to do with the author of that awful book being shown for what he is and the book being prohibited from sale.
Hopefully the aftershock of the book will not affect the twins too much, later on.
I agree Anna that money is not the motivation here. And as such, I'm sure it'll be used charitably.
-
04/28/2015 17:16 Court considers "fair and adequate" compensation for McCanns Gonçalo Amaral will have to pay for damage caused by the publication of "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie". The Civil Court of Lisbon considered "appropriate and proportionate" compensation of 500,000 euros, the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral will have to pay the couple McCann, for damage caused by the publication of "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie". The 1st Civil Chamber of the Central Instance of Lisbon decided to ban Gonçalo Amaral and the War and Peace publisher to sell that book, condemning them to the collection, for delivery to the authors, within 60 days after the final judgment, copies of that still remain in bookstores, retail outlets, warehouses and stores, reads the sentence that the Lusa agency had access. By decision of the court, Gonçalo Amaral and the publisher shall also be prohibited to come up with new editions of the book, as well as Carvalho Movies Valentine is prevented from conducting new editions of the DVD "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie". Gonçalo Amaral, War and Peace Editors and Carvalho Movies Valentine are still forbidden to assign, reward or free of charge, in any form, copyright and editing of the book and DVD. If it would be contempt of the court stipulated now, each of the defendants is liable to pay a fine of 50,000 euros for each violation of the prohibitions.
Ler mais em: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcorreia%2Bda%2Bmanha%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D669&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=pt-BR&u=http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/tribunal_considera_justa_e_adequada_a_compensacao_para_casal_mccann.html&usg=ALkJrhikmoNoVZ6JAlOWuQ2acHLxOg14vw
-
Good to know you support the money being used for charitable purposes Alfred.
-
Davel - look up my archive. I've been more critical of GA than most. You seem a bit excited about all of this. Are you not excited about the prospect of 500K Euros being used to help people via a charitable donation?
not in the slightest....charities waste millions...I rarely donate
-
Good to know you support the money being used for charitable purposes Alfred.
I honestly don't care what happens to the money - if Kate and Gerry decide to spend it on a yacht and sail around the world in it that would be absolutely fine by me. Similarly if they decide to build a bonfire with £5 notes and stick an effigy of Amaral on the top that would be money well spent too IMO. @)(++(*
-
This is a very good charity Davel - maybe you can look into it: https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/ .
-
A Lisbon Civil Court on Tuesday issued a ruling in which former PJ police detective Gonçalo Amaral is to pay the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann a sum of 250,000 euros each plus a large sum in interest. Amaral can still challenge the decision with the Lisbon Appeal Court.
But the court also found that it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “in any way contributed to the hindering of the course of the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann.”
The court further rejected libel claims made by Kate and Gerry on behalf Madeleine and her twin siblings Sean and Amelie.
Does anyone know for certain how costs have been apportioned?
-
I honestly don't care what happens to the money - if Kate and Gerry decide to spend it on a yacht and sail around the world in it that would be absolutely fine by me. Similarly if they decide to build a bonfire with £5 notes and stick an effigy of Amaral on the top that would be money well spent too IMO. @)(++(*
Fair enough. Guess we have a fundamentally different approach to the point of having money / being comfortable.
-
04/28/2015 17:16 Court considers "fair and adequate" compensation for McCanns Gonçalo Amaral will have to pay for damage caused by the publication of "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie". The Civil Court of Lisbon considered "appropriate and proportionate" compensation of 500,000 euros, the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral will have to pay the couple McCann, for damage caused by the publication of "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie". The 1st Civil Chamber of the Central Instance of Lisbon decided to ban Gonçalo Amaral and the War and Peace publisher to sell that book, condemning them to the collection, for delivery to the authors, within 60 days after the final judgment, copies of that still remain in bookstores, retail outlets, warehouses and stores, reads the sentence that the Lusa agency had access. By decision of the court, Gonçalo Amaral and the publisher shall also be prohibited to come up with new editions of the book, as well as Carvalho Movies Valentine is prevented from conducting new editions of the DVD "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie". Gonçalo Amaral, War and Peace Editors and Carvalho Movies Valentine are still forbidden to assign, reward or free of charge, in any form, copyright and editing of the book and DVD. If it would be contempt of the court stipulated now, each of the defendants is liable to pay a fine of 50,000 euros for each violation of the prohibitions.
Ler mais em: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcorreia%2Bda%2Bmanha%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D669&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=pt-BR&u=http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/tribunal_considera_justa_e_adequada_a_compensacao_para_casal_mccann.html&usg=ALkJrhikmoNoVZ6JAlOWuQ2acHLxOg14vw
That doesn't spout his (admittedly waning) career spouting the same theory in chat shows, though.
-
A Lisbon Civil Court on Tuesday issued a ruling in which former PJ police detective Gonçalo Amaral is to pay the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann a sum of 250,000 euros each plus a large sum in interest. Amaral can still challenge the decision with the Lisbon Appeal Court.
But the court also found that it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “in any way contributed to the hindering of the course of the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann.”
The court further rejected libel claims made by Kate and Gerry on behalf Madeleine and her twin siblings Sean and Amelie.
Does anyone know for certain how costs have been apportioned?
Nobody knows owt yet Alice.
-
Fair enough. Guess we have a fundamentally different approach to the point of having money / being comfortable.
You'll get no sense out of them today Gadly, they'll be singing madly like the folk at the end of The Wicker Man.
-
WOW!! Good news for the McCanns after years of distress. Probably tempered by reflection of the harm inflicted by this petty and vindictive episode on the search for Madeleine.
I believe in the 52 page judgement harm to the search was judged to be not proven.
-
You'll get no sense out of them today Gadly, they'll be singing madly like the folk at the end of The Wicker Man.
Tsk, tsk, don't belike that Lyall. Which of my posts are making no sense to you?
-
You'll get no sense out of them today Gadly, they'll be singing madly like the folk at the end of The Wicker Man.
There are possibly too many words in that sentence Lyall 8(0(*
-
You'll get no sense out of them today Gadly, they'll be singing madly like the folk at the end of The Wicker Man.
@)(++(*
-
You've given a little bit away about yourself there. It's never good to see anyone 'humiliated'.
There can be nothing more 'humiliating' than to be unjustly accused of harming your daughter by a person strutting through every television studio and media outlet to reinforce the accusation with even more outrageous assertions.
They will be spared that now and will be able to direct all their energies to Madeleine's case and caring for her siblings as that investigation progresses.
-
Tsk, tsk, don't belike that Lyall. Which of my posts are making no sense to you?
You (or davel) just said I think an hour or so that people expected no award of damages when in fact most people did expect something. Obviously not this much but most people did not expect total defeat for their claims.
-
The McCanns are probably not celebrating as much as you are because they know from experience that this decision could very well be overturned as the decision in February 2010 was by the Tribunal da Relação in October 2010. God 5 years ago already! Who know how long this is going to last.
Even if the judge had decided in favour of the defendents the plaintiffs would have appealed and we would continue waiting for the end of this drama.
I would like to clarify that no money will be changing hands at this time.
The problem is, Montclair, people like you assume this is about money as far as the McCanns are concerned. It is not.
I think you are correct in your assessment that they will not be leaping about for joy ... they are approaching the anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance ... I imagine they will be drained as they concentrate on that and the progress of of the investigation.
They are creatures of flesh and blood and they have suffered more than flesh and blood should be asked to.
The verdict of the Portuguese court is the correct one and the fact that it was a long time coming just prolonged the inevitable.
-
You (or davel) just said I think an hour or so that people expected no award of damages when in fact most people did expect something. Obviously not this much but most people did not expect total defeat for their claims.
I know you've said you'll not get much sense out of me but frankly that post was fairly nonsensical itself - I'm baffled. I said nothing of the sort. I think the poll that was run on this forum suggest that the majority felt that the McCanns would win but that damages would be token. An almost equal number of people believed that Amaral would win. A small minority believed that the McCanns would win large damages. It seems on this occasion the minority won it!
-
There can be nothing more 'humiliating' than to be unjustly accused of harming your daughter by a person strutting through every television studio and media outlet to reinforce the accusation with even more outrageous assertions.
They will be spared that now and will be able to direct all their energies to Madeleine's case and caring for her siblings as that investigation progresses.
Well said. 8((()*/
-
The problem is, Montclair, people like you assume this is about money as far as the McCanns are concerned. It is not.
I think you are correct in your assessment that they will not be leaping about for joy ... they are approaching the anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance ... I imagine they will be drained as they concentrate on that and the progress of of the investigation.
They are creatures of flesh and blood and they have suffered more than flesh and blood should be asked to.
The verdict of the Portuguese court is the correct one and the fact that it was a long time coming just prolonged the inevitable.
A compassionate and well presented post, Brietta.
-
Yes but Davel, Alfred, rather than thinking about a victory for the McCanns - why don't we all start thinking about how that money should be redistributed.
Which charity would you hand it all over to - so that a real difference can be made?
Do not be so ridiculous!
If the boot had been on the other foot your demands would not be being aired ... I do not know what the McCanns intend to do with the money they have been awarded for the deliberate distress caused to them ... and what is more I care even less.
The antipathy you post reflects badly ... get over it ... the Portuguese courts have found in favour of Madeleine McCann's parents, petty prejudice won't change that.
-
I know you've said you'll not get much sense out of me but frankly that post was fairly nonsensical itself - I'm baffled. I said nothing of the sort. I think the poll that was run on this forum suggest that the majority felt that the McCanns would win but that damages would be token. An almost equal number of people believed that Amaral would win. A small minority believed that the McCanns would win large damages. It seems on this occasion the minority won it!
Must have been davel who said it then.
(somebody said it %£&)**#)
-
Must have been davel who said it then.
(somebody said it %£&)**#)
Apology accepted. @)(++(*
-
Must have been davel who said it then.
(somebody said it %£&)**#)
well it wasn't me either...so apologies please
-
Do not be so ridiculous!
If the boot had been on the other foot your demands would not be being aired ... I do not know what the McCanns intend to do with the money they have been awarded for the deliberate distress caused to them ... and what is more I care even less.
The antipathy you post reflects badly ... get over it ... the Portuguese courts have found in favour of Madeleine McCann's parents, petty prejudice won't change that.
You seem a bit rattled Brietta. Are you ok? Is all that praise from Anna affecting you?
I've been the biggest critic of GA's book there is. I think it is a good thing that this money - made off the back of a family tragedy - can now be used for good deeds. Parents who have lost a child will surely use it for a good cause - especially given their Catholicism. People in a position to do good, should do. Kate McCann would be the first to support me on that point.
-
The problem is, Montclair, people like you assume this is about money as far as the McCanns are concerned. It is not.
I think you are correct in your assessment that they will not be leaping about for joy ... they are approaching the anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance ... I imagine they will be drained as they concentrate on that and the progress of of the investigation.
They are creatures of flesh and blood and they have suffered more than flesh and blood should be asked to.
The verdict of the Portuguese court is the correct one and the fact that it was a long time coming just prolonged the inevitable.
Brietta, well said!! Some seem to forget that the McCann's have a missing daughter that takes first place in their thoughts and lives. 8@??)(
-
Yes but Davel, Alfred, rather than thinking about a victory for the McCanns - why don't we all start thinking about how that money should be redistributed.
Which charity would you hand it all over to - so that a real difference can be made?
Maybe the McCann's will put the money away for Madeleine, Sean and Amelie.
-
Yes but Davel, Alfred, rather than thinking about a victory for the McCanns - why don't we all start thinking about how that money should be redistributed.
Which charity would you hand it all over to - so that a real difference can be made?
Amaral is likely to appeal. If the decision is revoked on appeal and he recoups his gains, which charity do you think he should donate it all to?
-
Maybe the McCann's will put the money away for Madeleine, Sean and Amelie.
I hope you're right. I really hope money generated in Portugal in an immoral way is used in a moral way.
-
Amaral is likely to appeal. If the decision is revoked on appeal and he recoups his gains, which charity do you think he should donate it all to?
Carana - do you not understand what I've said. Nobody should be making money from this case. GA should donate it all to: https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/ .
Beautiful charity. Needs as much support as it can get.
-
Carana - do you not understand what I've said. Nobody should be making money from this case. GA should donate it all to: https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/ .
Beautiful charity. Needs as much support as it can get.
could you tell me exactly how much in the pound donated actually goes to finding missing poeple
-
Amaral is likely to appeal. If the decision is revoked on appeal and he recoups his gains, which charity do you think he should donate it all to?
I doubt he'll appeal. It's more likely he'll play victim & write another book about how the justice system, which he served so diligently & honourably, stitched him up.
-
This is old news, but it seems he wanted to sue them for defamation. If this article is true
“No date has been set for a verdict but it is thought to be more than two months away. Even when it comes, the verdict will probably not be the end of the matter. An appeal is likely.”
The veteran journalist concluded: “Amaral has let it be known that he is considering instigating a counter defamation lawsuit against the McCanns to seek compensation for the enormous damages on different levels he claims they have caused him”.
Natasha Donn
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic24321.html
-
I doubt he'll appeal. It's more likely he'll play victim & write another book about how the justice system, which he served so diligently & honourably, stitched him up.
would not surprise me if he does appeal...he has become a master at wasting court time...he is a master of nothing else...if he can drag it on for years he will.
-
I doubt he'll appeal. It's more likely he'll play victim & write another book about how the justice system, which he served so diligently & honourably, stitched him up.
He'll appeal... The final outcome could be another 5 years down the line.
-
I doubt he'll appeal. It's more likely he'll play victim & write another book about how the justice system, which he served so diligently & honourably, stitched him up.
A second book would certainly sell well, and there would be a market in UK too.
Probably better if he gets someone else to write it for him though (maybe he already has done).
-
A second book would certainly sell well, and there would be a market in UK too.
Probably better if he gets someone else to write it for him though (maybe he already has done).
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
you do realise he has already written a second book...a miserable failure
-
A second book would certainly sell well, and there would be a market in UK too.
Probably better if he gets someone else to write it for him though (maybe he already has done).
Whatever happened to the second book he publiished? I haven't seen it on any best-seller list.
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
you do realise he has already written a second book...a miserable failure
&%+((£ The Gag one? That wasn't a proper book was it?
He does have a story to tell.
-
&%+((£ The Gag one? That wasn't a proper book was it?
He does have a story to tell.
Has he ever written a proper book?
-
A second book would certainly sell well, and there would be a market in UK too.
Probably better if he gets someone else to write it for him though (maybe he already has done).
Why on earth do you imagine there would be a market in the UK for a book by that discredited no-mark? It may well sell a thousand copies to the die-hard "sceptic" community but beyond that I don't see its appeal... &%+((£
-
Why on earth do you imagine there would be a market in the UK for a book by that discredited no-mark? It may well sell a thousand copies to the die-hard "sceptic" community but beyond that I don't see its appeal... &%+((£
That's because you choose to see only the tip of the iceberg of those with doubts about this case.
The rest may not be on forums every day but they're still wondering what actually happened to Madeleine.
Whatever mistakes he made (and also whatever his character) he was the only one who didn't fold in 2008. In the right hands that's a powerful story.
-
That's because you choose to see only the tip of the iceberg of those with doubts about this case.
The rest may not be on forums every day but they're still wondering what actually happened to Madeleine.
I think you are dreaming
-
I think you are dreaming
I'm not saying it would be book of the week and a bestseller, but it would sell I'm sure.
-
I very much doubt he will be expressing any more opinions on what he thinks happened to Madeleine.
-
I very much doubt he will be expressing any more opinions on what he thinks happened to Madeleine.
No, but it wouldn't need to be a controversial book, just the story of the past 6 years or so.
-
I've been the biggest critic of GA's book there is. I think it is a good thing that this money - made off the back of a family tragedy - can now be used for good deeds. Parents who have lost a child will surely use it for a good cause - especially given their Catholicism. People in a position to do good, should do. Kate McCann would be the first to support me on that point.
I know that you are a critic, who was against the book in question Gadfly.
It is good to donate money to a good cause, if you are in a position to do so, I totally agree with that statement, as I'm sure Kate and Gerry would also.
However, I think the fact that the book has been banned, because the author of the book has lost in the libel case, is uppermost in the minds of a lot of people right now.
After all, we can be pretty sure, that the money will be put to some good charitable use. I would be very surprised if this was not the case.
Being a Catholic does not make you a better person. Compassion, kindness, consideration for others, caring and love, do that, nicely.
-
No, but it wouldn't need to be a controversial book, just the story of the past 6 years or so.
He has actually written another book but not yet had it published. It may well be that the ending needs re-writing.
-
No, but it wouldn't need to be a controversial book, just the story of the past 6 years or so.
What? A Pity Story do you mean? It wouldn't be a good idea to knock The Portuguese Justice System. He's in enough trouble with that already.
-
What? A Pity Story do you mean? It wouldn't be a good idea to knock The Portuguese Justice System. He's in enough trouble with that already.
Maybe a "Truth of a Truth" Book then?
-
What? A Pity Story do you mean? It wouldn't be a good idea to knock The Portuguese Justice System. He's in enough trouble with that already.
No, not a pity story. History. The story of the court case. That's all it would need to be.
-
No, not a pity story. History. The story of the court case. That's all it would need to be.
Wont that all be in the court files soon?
-
McCanns 'Delighted' With £433k Libel Victory
Kate and Gerry McCann say their legal action "was never about money" after winning a two-year libel trial in Portugal.
18:37, UK,
Tuesday 28 April 2015
A former Portuguese detective has been ordered to pay 606,000 euros (£433,000) to the parents of missing Madeleine McCann as their two-year libel trial comes to an end.
Goncalo Amaral, who led the search for the little girl, was accused of making defamatory statements about Kate and Gerry McCann in a book he wrote.
His 2008 book The Truth Of The Lie claimed the McCanns hid her body and faked an abduction after she died in an accident.
The two doctors said the book, which was a bestseller in Portugal, damaged the search for their daughter and added to their anguish.
A civil court in Lisbon ruled against Mr Amaral, and ordered him to pay 500,000 euros (£357,000) in damages and 106,000 euros (£76,000) in interest to the McCanns.
The McCanns had asked for £1m compensation when the trial began in 2012.
The court also prohibited any more sales of the book, and gave the publisher 60 days to return all existing copies.
It also ordered Valentim de Carvalho, who produced a TV documentary based on the book, not to sell any more copies of the film.
The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, said they are "delighted" with the judge's verdict.
"We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It has always been focused on the effects of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine," they said in a statement.
"A lot has changed in the last six years since we started the action and we are pleased that there is an active investigation in both Portugal and the UK.
"We would like to remind people that there is still an innocent little girl who is missing and that those responsible for her abduction remain at large."
went missing from the couple's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve, Portugal, on 3 May 2007, as her parents dined at a nearby restaurant with friends.
Despite a worldwide hunt, the little girl has never been found.
Last year, British and Portuguese police examined patches of ground in the resort, but had no success.
In October 2013, Mr McCann's sister Trish Cameron told the libel trial the couple's pain was "multiplied 100 times" by the book.
The McCanns said they launched the libel action to stop the suffering the theories in the book have caused them.
Mr Amaral can appeal the court's ruling.
http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/mccanns-delighted-with-433k-libel-victory (http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/mccanns-delighted-with-433k-libel-victory)
-
Wont that all be in the court files soon?
That's the legal black and white. I mean the personal stories behind the headlines.
-
After all, we can be pretty sure, that the money will be put to some good charitable use. I would be very surprised if this was not the case.
The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, said they are "delighted" with the judge's verdict.
"We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It has always been focused on the effects of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine," they said in a statement.
This is promising. I hope their actions will match their words.
-
That's the legal black and white. I mean the personal stories behind the headlines.
You mean his side of the story. How can he possibly know any other side? He doesn't even speak English ....apparently.
Behind the headlines? which ones, the true or false. No I think it would have to be someone neutral to write such a story.
Oops! I think we are off topic now and to be honest the subject of Mr Amaral losing the libel trial, or indeed the Drs McCann winning, could do with being on another thread.
-
That's because you choose to see only the tip of the iceberg of those with doubts about this case.
The rest may not be on forums every day but they're still wondering what actually happened to Madeleine.
Whatever mistakes he made (and also whatever his character) he was the only one who didn't fold in 2008. In the right hands that's a powerful story.
Please don't be utterly absurd. What book do you think Amaral could write now that would shed light on what happened to Madeleine? And what do you mean he was the only one who didn't fold? Did the McCanns?!
-
Please don't be utterly absurd. What book do you think Amaral could write now that would shed light on what happened to Madeleine? And what do you mean he was the only one who didn't fold? Did the McCanns?!
There's more than one book to be written on what they did.
One consequence of the court action against him and the other parties is that his name is still well known when otherwise it may have not have been by now. That's why a book with his name on it would I'm sure sell. Not hugely but profitably. It doesn't have to touch what happened to Madeleine although I do think it is possible to write one that mentions many possibilities that isn't libellous.
-
There's more than one book to be written on what they did.
One consequence of the court action against him and the other parties is that his name is still well known when otherwise it may have not have been by now. That's why a book with his name on it would I'm sure sell. Not hugely but profitably. It doesn't have to touch what happened to Madeleine although I do think it is possible to write one that mentions many posibilities that isn't libellous.
Amaral is a proven liar, twice over. He might have a career as a fiction writer, but that is all. No one is going to believe another word he writes, well no one with any sense anyway.
-
There's more than one book to be written on what they did.
One consequence of the court action against him and the other parties is that his name is still well known when otherwise it may have not have been by now. That's why a book with his name on it would I'm sure sell. Not hugely but profitably. It doesn't have to touch what happened to Madeleine although I do think it is possible to write one that mentions many possibilities that isn't libellous.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Amaral is a proven liar, twice over. He might have a career as a fiction writer, but that is all. No one is going to believe another word he writes, well no one with any sense anyway.
Have a look at the book market. People buy books that have anything to do with true crime cases or personalities.
-
Have a look at the book market. People buy books that have anything to do with true crime cases or personalities.
like the Summers & Swann book you mean?
-
like the Summers & Swann book you mean?
Yes. Somewhat like that one, only with evidence in it ?{)(**
-
Yes. Somewhat like that one, only with evidence in it ?{)(**
And you think Amaral is a good source of that do you?
-
Yes. Somewhat like that one, only with evidence in it ?{)(**
you really don't understand do you...all the UK papers trashing amaral and showing the McCanns as innocent victims
-
you really don't understand do you...all the UK papers trashing amaral and showing the McCanns as innocent victims
I understand that's all they've done since late 2008. Today's no different. What's your point?
-
I understand that's all they've done since late 2008. Today's no different. What's your point?
the point is that now the Portuguese court has humiliated amaral and favoured the McCanns
-
the point is that now the Portuguese court has humiliated amaral and favoured the McCanns
But you've no idea why the decision was made today have you. Wait for the official document(s).
-
And you think Amaral is a good source of that do you?
I'd reached my opinion in 2007 before I'd ever heard of him. A full year or so before he published the book.
-
But you've no idea why the decision was made today have you. Wait for the official document(s).
no idea...I've been predicting this result for the last 12 months ...it is patently obvious.....as I have said for the last 12 months,...it's libel per se and basically indefensible
-
no idea...I've been predicting this result for the last 12 months ...it is patently obvious.....as I have said for the last 12 months,...it's libel per se and basically indefensible
You can win libel cases and only be awarded £1. How and why did the judge reach that award figure? You won't know until you read the official document.
-
I would think so, Davel. Were the cases seperate?
http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/ex-detective-to-pay-mccanns-75000-for-libel (http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/ex-detective-to-pay-mccanns-75000-for-libel)
Ex-Detective To Pay McCanns £75,000 For Libel
Former detective Goncalo Amaral is ordered to pay 106,000 euros (£75,000) to Kate and Gerry McCann in libel damages.
A former Portuguese detective has been ordered to pay 106,000 euros (£75,000) to the parents of missing Madeleine McCann as their long-running libel trial comes to an end.
Goncalo Amaral was accused of making defamatory statements about Kate and Gerry McCann in a book he wrote.
The couple claimed his 2008 book The Truth Of The Lie damaged the search for their missing daughter and added to their anguish.
A civil court in Lisbon ruled against Mr Amaral, and ordered him to pay a total of 106,000 euros in damages to the McCanns.
-snip-
Great news.
Not as much as they tried for, but still a substantial amount.
Not enough tho, IMO, for all the grief they have suffered.
BUT, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is that the Judge agrees about the book NOT being FACT
Time some of you guys at the back, woke up to what keeps happening.
How Amaral keeps losing when it comes to the crunch.
And what that means.
How many legal cases has he now lost ?
-
Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry urge public to continue search for missing daughter after damages victory
19:56, 28 April 2015
By David Collins
Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral was ordered to pay the family a total of £434,000 after his book claimed the parents covered up her death
Kate and Gerry McCann urged the public to continue searching for daughter Madeleine after the hunt received a huge cash boost when they won £358,000 in libel damages.
Goncalo Amaral, the police chief who led the initial investigation into the youngster’s disappearance, wrote a book claiming the McCanns covered up their daughter’s death.
He was ordered to pay the family damages of €500,000 (£358,000) along with an extra £76,000 to be paid in interest dating back to January 2010.
Kate McCann said: “We’re absolutely delighted and so very happy.”
PA
And she and Gerry added in a statement: “We would like to remind people that there is still a little innocent girl who is missing and that those responsible for her abduction remain at large.
“We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the libels on our other children and the damage that was done in the search for Madeleine.”
Kate and Gerry, who have 10-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, went on: “A lot has changed in the six years since we launched the action and we are pleased that there is still an active investigation in both Portugal and the UK.”
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Obviously this was the right verdict.
"It has been far too long but I am very pleased for Kate and Gerry, Sean and Amelie, that morally the right has been reached.”
Amaral’s book “The Truth of the Lie” accuses the McCanns of faking their daughter’s abduction to cover up her death in the apartment.
The McCanns launched a libel action in 2009 claiming their family had suffered emotional and psychological harm as a result of the claims made in the book.
Kate and Gerry, once named arguidos - a Portuguese term similar to formal suspect, but without being arrested or charged - were finally cleared in July 2008 after being interviewed several times by Portuguese detectives.
Three days later Amaral’s book was published in Portugal.
Kate and Gerry lodged a 36-page writ in June 2009 describing Amaral as a “self -obsessed, manipulative money-grabber” and accused him of libel and breaching their human rights.
Speaking today, their Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte said: “It was never about the money. It was about stopping awful lies being printed, which hindered the search for Madeleine.”
As the couple prepare for the agonising eighth anniversary of Maddie’s disappearancethis Sunday, Isabel said: “This verdict could not have come at a better time for them.
“I informed them immediately by email and Kate wrote back to say they were absolutely delighted and so very happy.
“Those were her words. She really believes it can help the chance of finding Madeleine alive because their accuser suggested the little girl was dead.
“This is the news we have been waiting for after six long years.
“We were always confident of a victory but in recent months had a few doubts. But the fact that Mr Amaral has now been silenced is very good news.
“He has to hand all copies of his book and the DVD to Kate and Gerry. Nothing he has produced about Madeleine can ever be on the shelves again. There is a total ban and that is all my clients ever wanted.”
She added: “I now hope and pray that they can find their daughter. That was always our goal and with Mr Amaral being silenced there is now more of a chance.
“They want the money to go into the fund to find Madeleine.
“The case has been very hard work but worthwhile and an important victory for my clients.
“I think they expected this decision. Mr Amaral’s book which was available across the world was very harmful to the search for Madeleine.
“I am happy and relieved for Kate and Gerry. They never deserved to be put through this extra agony.”
Maddie, who would now be aged 11, vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007. She was aged three and just days away from her fourth birthday.
Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro announced her decision in a 52-page document today.
She ruled 84 facts had been proven, including that Amaral’s book caused the McCanns “rage, desperation, anguish and worry and insomnia” by claiming Madeleine had died in their Algarve holiday apartment and they had faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy.
She concluded 14 facts had not been proven, ruling Amaral’s statement in his book had not led to Portuguese police halting their search for Madeleine.
Amaral and publishers Guerra & Paz have been given 60 days to hand over any remaining copies of the book.
The judgement also bans them from publishing new editions of the book.
Kate, 47, from Rothley, Leics, said Madeleine’s twin siblings Sean and Amelie, now ten, knew about Amaral’s allegations, which also formed the basis for a subsequent TV documentary.
Asked by the judge how she felt after reading the book, she said: “I was devastated. It made me feel quite desperate because of the injustice I felt towards my daughter and our family as a whole.
“It was very painful to read and I felt sad for Madeleine. I also felt anxious and fearful because of the damage I felt it was doing in Portugal.”
She went on to accuse Amaral, thrown off the Madeleine McCann investigation in 2007 for criticising British police, of “consistently smearing” her and Gerry.
She believes the book may have stopped people coming forward with information about their daughter’s whereabouts.
Amaral, 56, earned around £286,000 from his book and a TV documentary.
He always denied defamation, insisting what he wrote was based on case files which had already been made public.
Julian Hamilton / Daily MirrorGoncalo AmaralDamages: Amaral made money out of book
His lawyer Miguel Cruz Rodrigues claimed in the last open court hearing in December the McCanns had taken legal action against his client “to rid themselves of guilt for their negligent conduct” in leaving Madeleine and her siblings alone.
He also claimed their lack of cooperation with the Portuguese police authorities had led to the archiving of the investigation in 2008.
In that hearing Ricardo Correia Afonso, representing the McCanns, told the court: "What he published distorted the facts, and as a result the parents were judged and sentenced by public opinion.
"His book is written like a novel and that's exactly what it is. The book and the DVD were produced to convince whoever saw or read them that the parents are guilty."
Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz at the same hearing, said Amaral "appeared to have invented" large parts of the book but argued: "The fact is those children were left alone and because of that fact one of them disappeared. Anxiety and depression were caused by the disappearance of the child, not because of the book."
Portuguese prosecutors reopened their probe into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance last year and are conducting a separate investigation to one led by Scotland Yard.
-
I'm not saying it would be book of the week and a bestseller, but it would sell I'm sure.
It may even surpass the *cough* success of Summers book.
-
Nothing is ever straightforward is it?
1) How have the defence's lawyers not beeen advised of the verdict but the plaintiff's have
2) How is it possible that a lower court has decreed a ban on any further sales of G Amaral's book when a lower court had banned it a few years ago and a higher court reversed the ruling?
Must be all in the small print
-
How many legal cases has he now lost ?
Two
G Amaral sued Marcos Correia for defamation but lost because the law in Portugal allows people to get off with it if they say they truly believed it (a bit like uk law)
G Amaral was convicted for signing off his officers reports in the torture of L Cipriano, though he was not involved
pretty unlucky of him
He hasn't really lost versus the Mccanns, just yet, we shall hve to wait and see if he appeals, they lost their last legal battle with him
-
Nothing is ever straightforward is it?
1) How have the defence's lawyers not beeen advised of the verdict but the plaintiff's have
2) How is it possible that a lower court has decreed a ban on any further sales of G Amaral's book when a lower court had banned it a few years ago and a higher court reversed the ruling?
Must be all in the small print
A good point mercury. This latest judgement would appear to be in direct conflict with the previous Supreme Court ruling and consequently open to challenge. Lots more to come on this by the looks of it as Amaral is going to appeal the decison.
-
Nothing is ever straightforward is it?
1) How have the defence's lawyers not beeen advised of the verdict but the plaintiff's have
2) How is it possible that a lower court has decreed a ban on any further sales of G Amaral's book when a lower court had banned it a few years ago and a higher court reversed the ruling?
Must be all in the small print
I believe that Isabel Duarte has also not been advised officially because the copy of the verdict given by her to the press does not carry the official stamp from the Citius site.
-
Two
G Amaral sued Marcos Correia for defamation but lost because the law in Portugal allows people to get off with it if they say they truly believed it (a bit like uk law)
G Amaral was convicted for signing off his officers reports in the torture of L Cipriano, though he was not involved
-snip-
Again, I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought that Amaral lost a case against his brother, where he owed his brother a considerable amount of money? Please correct me if I am wrong.
And his book was blocked in the UK. Was that via the Courts? Dunno
So, if I am correct, at least 3 cases that Amaral has lost. Seems he gets things wrong.
-
A good point mercury. This latest judgement would appear to be in direct conflict with the previous Supreme Court ruling and consequently open to challenge. Lots more to come on this by the looks of it as Amaral is going to appeal the decison.
You have got it wrong all along John so it's not surprising you don't realise the significance of this result..........this is a resounding success for the McCanns but posters on here will try to pretend otherwise
-
A good point mercury. This latest judgement would appear to be in direct conflict with the previous Supreme Court ruling and consequently open to challenge. Lots more to come on this by the looks of it as Amaral is going to appeal the decison.
for those who still don't understand the supreme court judgement was ex parte...in simple terms a temporary ruling until all the full facts have been considered
-
Amaral will appeal, the case will drag on, and as to the mccanns getting any money in the near future, well that's another story.
The case is unresolved.
Abduction is still a belief, without an iota of factual evidence to back it up.
As to the book, it's too late to ban it, it's already on the internet.
So let's wait for the next chapter.......................
-
Amaral will appeal, the case will drag on, and as to the mccanns getting any money in the near future, well that's another story.
The case is unresolved.
Abduction is still a belief, without an iota of factual evidence to back it up.
As to the book, it's too late to ban it, it's already on the internet.
So let's wait for the next chapter.......................
The next chapter is already being written (METRO:Cop who tried to frame McCanns ...) and Mr Amaral can appeal about the verdict and hold up payment of his dues for as long as it takes ... but since it was his 'honour' that apparently was his motivation and what little he had is now irretrievably in shreds thanks to the Portuguese courts ... his conduct over the last six years has cost him dear and not just in monetary terms.
-
Why did Isabel Duarte leak the document before it had gone through the legal channels? There was nothing to gain from this and it is possible that she could get in trouble for it.
-
The next chapter is already being written (METRO:Cop who tried to frame McCanns ...) and Mr Amaral can appeal about the verdict and hold up payment of his dues for as long as it takes ... but since it was his 'honour' that apparently was his motivation and what little he had is now irretrievably in shreds thanks to the Portuguese courts ... his conduct over the last six years has cost him dear and not just in monetary terms.
Amaral never tried to frame the mccanns.
He was following a logical line of inquiry.
and in case you have forgotten, it was the UK police who suggested the Portuguese investigate the mccanns.
-
Amaral never tried to frame the mccanns.
He was following a logical line of inquiry.
and in case you have forgotten, it was the UK police who suggested the Portuguese investigate the mccanns.
I don't write the headlines for the press ... that is for them to do ... I doubt very much if the British police ever suggested that Mr Amaral write a book libelling the parents of a missing child ... as is the ruling of the Portuguese courts.
-
and the last time Amaral had an appeal, he won.
Let's see what happens in the appeal.
So when do you think the mccanns will get the money from Amaral then ? 8)--))
Appeal what? That he wrote his book whilst still a Police Officer? Using his position? Stating as FACT what he wrote in his book?
-
I don't write the headlines for the press ... that is for them to do ... I doubt very much if the British police ever suggested that Mr Amaral write a book libelling the parents of a missing child ... as is the ruling of the Portuguese courts.
Who said writing a book ?
You do have a vivid imagination.
-
Appeal what? That he wrote his book whilst still a Police Officer? Using his position? Stating as FACT what he wrote in his book?
Appeal the verdict.
and it will be interesting if he instigates proceedings against the mccanns.
8((()*/
-
Who said writing a book ?
You do have a vivid imagination.
%&5%£ Whoops!!
One of us must be on the wrong thread and since we appear to be discussing Madeleine McCann's parents winning libel damages for a book written by Mr Amaral which has defamed and lied about them ... I think it may be you.
-
From what I have been told the ruling has stated that the book was not libelous, so I cannot understand how the judge could have awarded the parents that much money.
-
You have got it wrong all along John so it's not surprising you don't realise the significance of this result..........this is a resounding success for the McCanns but posters on here will try to pretend otherwise
A mediocre result at best? They failed to win £1 million which was their aim, they failed to prove libel on behalf of the twins and they failed in their claim that Amaral's book damaged the search.
Amaral intends to appeal this judgement to the Portuguese Supreme Court so no surprises there and given past decisions...well. let's wait another five years and see.
In the meantime no money will be paid to anyone.
It is also worth mentioning the little fact which you clearly don't wish to acknowledge and that is that it is still unknown what happened to Madeleine and whether Amaral was correct in his thesis.
-
%&5%£ Whoops!!
One of us must be on the wrong thread and since we appear to be discussing Madeleine McCann's parents winning libel damages for a book written by Mr Amaral which has defamed and lied about them ... I think it may be you.
I was referring the point that UK police pointed the Portuguese in the mccanns direction.
As to the book, let's see what happens next.
Also, very clear cut.
The mccanns were unable to prove that had any impact on the search.
Do keep up.
-
Anyway ... who really cares a button for all this diversion which should never have happened in the first place; I think Goncalo Amaral was always morally wrong in what he did and the judge has confirmed that he was legally wrong as well, and hers is the opinion that counts.
The important issue here is that another hurdle and impediment to investigating what happened to Madeleine has been pushed aside. The people in the area where it happened who have been fed a diet of lies and misinformation via this man might look on things with a different perspective now and someone might remember something of significance.
The pity is it didn't happen years ago when the trail was fresher, but the waters are no longer as muddied as they were ... so all efforts now will be concentrated on finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
That is what we all want ... isn't it???
-
Are any of the UK papers carrying this story yet? I've had a quick look through some of their websites, but haven't seen anything.
-
Anyway ... who really cares a button for all this diversion which should never have happened in the first place; I think Goncalo Amaral was always morally wrong in what he did and the judge has confirmed that he was legally wrong as well, and hers is the opinion that counts.
The important issue here is that another hurdle and impediment to investigating what happened to Madeleine has been pushed aside. The people in the area where it happened who have been fed a diet of lies and misinformation via this man might look on things with a different perspective now and someone might remember something of significance.
The pity is it didn't happen years ago when the trail was fresher, but the waters are no longer as muddied as they were ... so all efforts now will be concentrated on finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
That is what we all want ... isn't it???
The case has established the book had no impact on the search.
Meanwhile what are SY doing ? &%+((£
-
Does anyone know when the official court document will be in the public domain?
It will be interesting to have the full SP.
At the moment it is difficult to tell what really happened.
The start sheet looked like:
4 Defendants
A writ with 42 items on it two of which were:
The Book et al had a deleterious effect on the search for Madeleine.
The book caused anguish etc the McCanns
Damages sought were 500k for the Drs McCann
450k for Madeleine
95k each for Amelie and Sean.
The unofficial result sheet being bandied about looks like:
The book did not effect the search for Madeleine
The McCanns did indeed suffer anguish as a result of the book.
The McCanns have been awarded 360k damages plus interest which no doubt the court will calculate. This presumably will be spread over the defendants.
Around 600k to 750k in damages claims has been booted into the long grass. (there has always been confusion over the unit of currency)
The defendants have the right of appeal.
If I remember correctly in this case each party pays their own costs.
Isobel and Clarence have been at pains to point out to us it wasn't about the money.
Roll on the pukka gen!
-
Are any of the UK papers carrying this story yet? I've had a quick look through some of their websites, but haven't seen anything.
The Daily Mail. Not sure about the others.
-
Does anyone know when the official court document will be in the public domain?
It will be interesting to have the full SP.
At the moment it is difficult to tell what really happened.
The start sheet looked like:
4 Defendants
A writ with 42 items on it two of which were:
The Book et al had a deleterious effect on the search for Madeleine.
The book caused anguish etc the McCanns
Damages sought were 500k for the Drs McCann
450k for Madeleine
95k each for Amelie and Sean.
The unofficial result sheet being bandied about looks like:
The book did not effect the search for Madeleine
The McCanns did indeed suffer anguish as a result of the book.
The McCanns have been awarded 360k damages plus interest which no doubt the court will calculate. This presumably will be spread over the defendants.
Around 600k to 750k in damages claims has been booted into the long grass. (there has always been confusion over the unit of currency)
The defendants have the right of appeal.
If I remember correctly in this case each party pays their own costs.
Isobel and Clarence have been at pains to point out to us it wasn't about the money.
Roll on the pukka gen!
Thank you for that Alice. 8((()*/
-
The case has established the book had no impact on the search.
Meanwhile what are SY doing ? &%+((£
The Met & PJ are no doubt continuing to do whatever it was they were doing. This will have no impact on it.
-
The case has established the book had no impact on the search.
Meanwhile what are SY doing ? &%+((£
I cannot believe anyone can possibly be as obtuse as you pretend ... and the fact that the judge's ruling suits me fine and has obviously upset you is neither here nor there.
Whoever took Madeleine McCann can no longer hide behind the very convenient smokescreen created by Goncalo Amaral and the libels and slanders he has been responsible for ... once two modern competent law enforcement agencies took over who were determined to crack the case and not perpetuate a theory, it was inevitable.
The judge's ruling reflects that and as far as helping the investigation into Madeleine McCann's case goes it is a very important step.
So comfort yourself with thoughts of what the McCanns did not win ... I'm far too busy enjoying the news of what they did win, and that was a tremendous amount as it includes the fact their integrity has been assured and Goncalo Amaral recognised for what he is ... and that is confirmed by two court judgements to the effect.
-
The Daily Mail. Not sure about the others.
Oh, is it ? I had a look there - must have missed it.. Better have another look.
-
The Daily Mail. Not sure about the others.
And you have to scroll down so far to find the article among their other important articles about Justin Bieber or one of Bruce Willis's daughters.
So far, today, none of the lawyers have received any official notification. Perhaps that is why the papers are not giving the story much space, probably waiting for something official.
-
I cannot believe anyone can possibly be as obtuse as you pretend ... and the fact that the judge's ruling suits me fine and has obviously upset you is neither here nor there.
Whoever took Madeleine McCann can no longer hide behind the very convenient smokescreen created by Goncalo Amaral and the libels and slanders he has been responsible for ... once two modern competent law enforcement agencies took over who were determined to crack the case and not perpetuate a theory, it was inevitable.
The judge's ruling reflects that and as far as helping the investigation into Madeleine McCann's case goes it is a very important step.
So comfort yourself with thoughts of what the McCanns did not win ... I'm far too busy enjoying the news of what they did win, and that was a tremendous amount as it includes the fact their integrity has been assured and Goncalo Amaral recognised for what he is ... and that is confirmed by two court judgements to the effect.
We shall see after the appeal.
Yes the mccanns have been awarded money, but that is subject to appeal, and the Portuguese court system.
As to the mccanns, can you name any case where parents who did what the mccanns did, and ended up with a monetary award for their own failings in not protecting their children ?
-
We shall see after the appeal.
Yes the mccanns have been awarded money, but that is subject to appeal, and the Portuguese court system.
As to the mccanns, can you name any case where parents who did what the mccanns did, and ended up with a monetary award for their own failings in not protecting their children ?
I can't remember any case where someone has been awarded that much money, especially when almost all of the points were given as "unproven".
Saw an article in the paper yesterday where two siblings were awarded € 130.000,00 for both of them as compensation for the death of their mother on the operating table in 1984, due to a mistake with the anaesthesia. That is what you would call traumatising.
-
From what I have been told the ruling has stated that the book was not libelous, so I cannot understand how the judge could have awarded the parents that much money.
What the judge has done is to create a situation whereby the upper court can easily act. I can see right through her ruling.
-
Seems the journalists are getting their copy from somewhere ... and not necessarily from 'leaks' ... isn't it procedure for them to actually see the court documents?
**snip
In the 52-page document, seen by The Portugal News shortly after the ruling was released, repeated references are made to the fact that the date of the release of Amaral’s book (24 July 2008), took place only three days after the Portuguese Attorney-General’s office decided to shelve the case.
http://theportugalnews.com/news/lisbon-court-orders-mccanns-be-paid-500000-in-damages-by-former-pj-detective/34612?
-
We shall see after the appeal.
Yes the mccanns have been awarded money, but that is subject to appeal, and the Portuguese court system.
As to the mccanns, can you name any case where parents who did what the mccanns did, and ended up with a monetary award for their own failings in not protecting their children ?
Can you name a case where a Police Officer writes a book whilst still being a member of that Police force, writing that his theory is fact? Using his position is the Police Force to use material in the case?
This is nothing to do with parental care this is all to do with a former police officer who used his position of trust to write a book about what he believed happened to Madeleine.
-
Does anyone know when the official court document will be in the public domain?
It will be interesting to have the full SP.
At the moment it is difficult to tell what really happened.
The start sheet looked like:
4 Defendants
A writ with 42 items on it two of which were:
The Book et al had a deleterious effect on the search for Madeleine.
The book caused anguish etc the McCanns
Damages sought were 500k for the Drs McCann
450k for Madeleine
95k each for Amelie and Sean.
The unofficial result sheet being bandied about looks like:
The book did not effect the search for Madeleine
The McCanns did indeed suffer anguish as a result of the book.
The McCanns have been awarded 360k damages plus interest which no doubt the court will calculate. This presumably will be spread over the defendants.
Around 600k to 750k in damages claims has been booted into the long grass. (there has always been confusion over the unit of currency)
The defendants have the right of appeal.
If I remember correctly in this case each party pays their own costs.
Isobel and Clarence have been at pains to point out to us it wasn't about the money.
Roll on the pukka gen!
Each Party pays it's own Court Costs. But someone has got to pay Isobel Duarte. There's the rub.
-
Can you name a case where a Police Officer writes a book whilst still being a member of that Police force, writing that his theory is fact? Using his position is the Police Force to use material in the case?
This is nothing to do with parental care this is all to do with a former police officer who used his position of trust to write a book about what he believed happened to Madeleine.
Where has the accidental death hypothesis been disproved ?
-
Where has the accidental death hypothesis been disproved ?
It doesn't have to be.
-
It doesn't have to be.
... and the constant references to the fact that the book was released only three days after the case was archived means that fact was foremost in the judge's mind.
We may yet see further activity concerning breach of judicial secrecy.
-
It doesn't have to be.
To prove libel it does. The McCanns culpability is as unknown today as it was in May 2007 despite the blood money ruling.
-
To prove libel it does. The McCanns culpability is as unknown today as it was in May 2007 despite the blood money ruling.
Precisely. 8@??)(
-
Are any of the UK papers carrying this story yet? I've had a quick look through some of their websites, but haven't seen anything.
Only all of them I believe.
-
To prove libel it does. The McCanns culpability is as unknown today as it was in May 2007 despite the blood money ruling.
Very apt ... the blood money ruling concerning a book written for blood money.
I think you are wrong in your definition of what constitutes libel.
-
Can you name a case where a Police Officer writes a book whilst still being a member of that Police force, writing that his theory is fact? Using his position is the Police Force to use material in the case?
This is nothing to do with parental care this is all to do with a former police officer who used his position of trust to write a book about what he believed happened to Madeleine.
Gonçalo Amaral was already retired when the book came out.
-
To prove libel it does. The McCanns culpability is as unknown today as it was in May 2007 despite the blood money ruling.
Are you still claiming that this trial was not about Amaral libelling the McCanns?
-
Gonçalo Amaral was already retired when the book came out.
Yeah, he was sacked retired to do so.
So some things really do move swiftly in Portugal ... three days to write, print and distribute a book ... wow!
-
Yeah, he was sacked retired to do so.
So some things really do move swiftly in Portugal ... three days to write, print and distribute a book ... wow!
To be fair it wasn't very well thought out so maybe he did write it in three days...
-
Can you name a case where a Police Officer writes a book whilst still being a member of that Police force, writing that his theory is fact? Using his position is the Police Force to use material in the case?
Actually you cannot do this if you'd signed the Data Protection Act. (EU - Data Protection Directive and Portugal is part of it)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/
-
Gonçalo Amaral was already retired when the book came out.
Found this -
Gonçalo Amaral, who spent 28 years at the Polícia Judiciária, which he entered as an agent in 1981, having passed through many different departments, revealed to 24horas that the book about the Maddie case “is ready”. It was written during his brief holidays, before he returned to the PJ in May, to leave now into retirement. But the publication depends on the “judicial secrecy” which was not lifted yet. The book promises fabulous sales figures, both in Portugal and abroad, mainly in Great Britain.
-
A mediocre result at best? They failed to win £1 million which was their aim, they failed to prove libel on behalf of the twins and they failed in their claim that Amaral's book damaged the search.
Amaral intends to appeal this judgement to the Portuguese Supreme Court so no surprises there and given past decisions...well. let's wait another five years and see.
In the meantime no money will be paid to anyone.
It is also worth mentioning the little fact which you clearly don't wish to acknowledge and that is that it is still unknown what happened to Madeleine and whether Amaral was correct in his thesis.
I'm happy to aknowledge we do not know for sure what happened to Maddie...but what we do know is some things are far more likely than others and amaral's theory has been kicked into touch
-
Yes, she did. But some are like dustbins, they take anything in £5%4%
She did not mislead anyone, what she wrote was correct. That is why it is so difficult to understand this "verdict" when the judge gave as "unproven" almost all of the points for the McCanns.
-
Members are again reminded that disingenuous and goading posts are prohibited on this forum and will be removed. Sanctions for repeat offenders will now be invoked.
-
Very apt ... the blood money ruling concerning a book written for blood money.
I think you are wrong in your definition of what constitutes libel.
Libel has not been proven in this case as the cause of Maddie's disappearance is as yet unknown. Have you forgotten the constant reminder by Davel et all pointing out that the claim is for damages for suffering and anxiety caused and is not a libel trial. No doubt the learned judge was persuaded of this in her decision. A decision which I might add only fulfilled a part of the initial claim.
-
I'm happy to aknowledge we do not know for sure what happened to Maddie...but what we do know is some things are far more likely than others and amaral's theory has been kicked into touch
That's so good of you to acknowledge we don't know what happened to Madeleine, for a minute I thought you were inferring that this judicial decision somehow meant that Amaral was wrong?
-
Each Party pays it's own Court Costs. But someone has got to pay Isobel Duarte. There's the rub.
No doubt judge Emilia has ruled on that. So roll on the pukka gen.
-
Libel has not been proven in this case as the cause of Maddie's disappearance is as yet unknown. Have you forgotten the constant reminder by Davel et all pointing out that the claim is for damages for suffering and anxiety caused and is not a libel trial. No doubt the learned judge was persuaded of this in her decision. A decision which I might add only fulfilled a part of the initial claim.
What caused the McCanns' suffering if not the fact that Amaral wrote a book full of lies about them?! For God's sake of course it's a libel trial!!!
-
Libel has not been proven in this case as the cause of Maddie's disappearance is as yet unknown. Have you forgotten the constant reminder by Davel et all pointing out that the claim is for damages for suffering and anxiety caused and is not a libel trial. No doubt the learned judge was persuaded of this in her decision. A decision which I might add only fulfilled a part of the initial claim.
Indeed so, the judge has awarded damages on the basis that the parents suffered anxiety and trauma following the publication of the book and release of the DVD. She was not however persuaded that such trauma/suffering extended to the twins. The ruling would also appear to confirm my previous belief that the Amaral book did not impede the search for Madeleine but in fact assisted it. I suppose half a cake is better than no cake when all is said and done!
-
That's big of you to acknowledge we don't know what happened to Madeleine, for a minute I thought you were inferring that this judicial decision somehow meant that Amaral was wrong?
If Amaral was not wrong why is he having to shell out half a million euros?
-
Indeed so, the judge has awarded damages on the basis that the parents suffered anxiety and trauma following the publication of the book and release of the DVD. She was not however persuaded that such trauma/suffering extended to the twins. The ruling would also appear to confirm my previous belief that the Amaral book did not impede the search for Madeleine but in fact assisted it. I suppose half a cake is better than no cake when all is said and done!
It has the the appearance of a split points decision at the end of a raggedy contest rather than a resounding first round KO.
-
Indeed so, the judge has awarded damages on the basis that the parents suffered anxiety and trauma following the publication of the book and release of the DVD. She was not however persuaded that such trauma/suffering extended to the twins. The ruling would also appear to confirm my previous belief that the Amaral book did not impede the search for Madeleine but in fact assisted it. I suppose half a cake is better than no cake when all is said and done!
Why did you delete my perfectly reasonable reply to your post in which you re-wrote a victory for the McCanns as a failure? As I pointed out their award is unprecedented in Portuguese legal history we have been led to believe so how, by any stretch, is this result a failure for the McCanns? Do you actually think that Amaral looks upon this result as a failure for them?
-
Who did then? They were her words, were they not?
No, they were not. She didn't have a copy of the document. These are her words:
When the judge left the room after distributing the document to the lawyers, as if the benches for the public were empty, looking literally through the three members of the public, I entered the “sacred” area and asked the clerk if I could read the document. The clerk looked embarrassed, hesitated but then said “no”, adding, as a justification, that it was “informal”.
-
Last night I predicted that yesterday's victory for the McCanns would, in 24 hours, be re-written off as a failure by the "sceptics". It seems I was right. How absolutely, hilariously predictable.
-
No, they were not. She didn't have a copy of the document. These are her words:
When the judge left the room after distributing the document to the lawyers, as if the benches for the public were empty, looking literally through the three members of the public, I entered the “sacred” area and asked the clerk if I could read the document. The clerk looked embarrassed, hesitated but then said “no”, adding, as a justification, that it was “informal”.
Who translated the document parts of which appeared on this forum and led "sceptics" to believe that Amaral was going to win the case?
-
Why did the Judge award the McCanns the unprecented sum of 500,000 euros plus interest? Let's hear the rationale please..
-
Each Party pays it's own Court Costs. But someone has got to pay Isobel Duarte. There's the rub.
I have read that the McCanns gave been ordered to pay 58.30% of the costs.
-
Who translated the document parts of which appeared on this forum and led "sceptics" to believe that Amaral was going to win the case?
Someone who isn't Anne.
-
Libel has not been proven in this case as the cause of Maddie's disappearance is as yet unknown. Have you forgotten the constant reminder by Davel et all pointing out that the claim is for damages for suffering and anxiety caused and is not a libel trial. No doubt the learned judge was persuaded of this in her decision. A decision which I might add only fulfilled a part of the initial claim.
Then I am in world wide good company ... to name but a few ...
Gerry and Kate McCann win Portugese libel case http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/gerry-and-kate-mccann-win-portugese-libel-case-1-3757147
Madeleine McCann’s parents win libel payout over false cover-up claims http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1779897/madeleine-mccanns-parents-win-libel-payout-over-false-cover-claims
Madeleine McCann's parents win libel case over allegations they were involved in disappearance http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_28004275/madeleine-mccanns-parents-win-libel-case-over-allegations?
Whether or not what happened to Madeleine McCann is known ... the ruling in Portugal underlines that it is committing libel to write a book accusing anyone of involvement in her disappearance, perhaps if the lead detective at the time had devoted less time to his literary career and more to finding Madeleine we would not be having this discussion.
-
If Amaral was not wrong why is he having to shell out half a million euros?
You really haven't grasped this yet Alfred, have you?
The judge has ruled that the Amaral book and DVD caused injury and distress to Madeleine's parents. The truth or otherwise of the content is quite another matter since nobody (except the abductor if there was one) knows yet what happened to Madeleine.
I take it you do recall the judge commenting on this at the end of the trial when Gerry McCann testified?
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
-
Then I am in world wide good company ... to name but a few ...
Gerry and Kate McCann win Portugese libel case http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/gerry-and-kate-mccann-win-portugese-libel-case-1-3757147
Madeleine McCann’s parents win libel payout over false cover-up claims http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1779897/madeleine-mccanns-parents-win-libel-payout-over-false-cover-claims
Madeleine McCann's parents win libel case over allegations they were involved in disappearance http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_28004275/madeleine-mccanns-parents-win-libel-case-over-allegations?
Whether or not what happened to Madeleine McCann is known ... the ruling in Portugal underlines that it is committing libel to write a book accusing anyone of involvement in her disappearance, perhaps if the lead detective at the time had devoted less time to his literary career and more to finding Madeleine we would not be having this discussion.
Had he not been removed from the case by the time he wrote the book?
-
You really haven't grasped this yet Alfred.
The judge has ruled that the Amaral book and DVD caused injury and distress to Madeleine's parents. The truth or otherwise of the content is quite another matter since nobody (except the abductor if there was one) knows yet what happened to Madeleine.
John, with respect it is YOU who hasn't grasped this. If the book was deemed a fair and accurate account of events then in what universe would the author be ordered to pay half a million euros to the subject for writing it?
-
Libel has not been proven in this case as the cause of Maddie's disappearance is as yet unknown. Have you forgotten the constant reminder by Davel et all pointing out that the claim is for damages for suffering and anxiety caused and is not a libel trial. No doubt the learned judge was persuaded of this in her decision. A decision which I might add only fulfilled a part of the initial claim.
What is your definition of "defamation" and 'libel' , Angelo?
-
John, if I were to write a book in which I speculated that you abducted and murdered Claudia Lawrence would we have to wait until the truth was uncovered before deciding that the book was libellous?
-
Had he not been removed from the case by the time he wrote the book?
Then how was it based on the police files to which he should have had no access while being excluded from the investigation?
-
Why did the Judge award the McCanns the unprecented sum of 500,000 euros plus interest? Let's hear the rationale please..
Because the part of the writ that dealt with damages for the McCanns and its value was upheld by the judge?
The interest bit is common practice in Europe.
-
"“I informed them immediately by email and Kate wrote back to say they were absolutely delighted and so very happy."
You'd have thought they'd found Madeleine, wouldn't you ?
-
Because the part of the writ that dealt with damages for the McCanns and its value was upheld by the judge?
The interest bit is common practice in Europe.
Yes, but WHY was it upheld?
-
Had he not been removed from the case by the time he wrote the book?
He was given an OBE/DCM in September 2007 I believe, but it's fun to forget about that.
-
Yes, but WHY was it upheld?
We won't know until we read the court document(s).
-
John, with respect it is YOU who hasn't grasped this. If the book was deemed a fair and accurate account of events then in what universe would the author be ordered to pay half a million euros to the subject for writing it?
Which part of emotional stress and damages don't you yet comprehend. The judge made it crystal clear to Gerry McCann whilst he was on the stand.
Judge "We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not"
-
Which part of emotional stress and damages don't you yet comprehend. The judge made it crystal clear to Gerry McCann whilst he was on the stand.
We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not.
So you're telling me that if I write a completely accurate and truthful book about you and it upsets you that I could end up paying you half a million euros for upsetting you? Is that how it works?
-
Yes, but WHY was it upheld?
Wait til the full judgment is available then you will know the full SP straight from the horses mouth as it were. You could of course play guessing games in the meantime, but in the immortal words of Sam Goldwyn "include me out".
-
Which part of emotional stress and damages don't you yet comprehend. The judge made it crystal clear to Gerry McCann whilst he was on the stand.
Judge "We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not"
Do you have a cite for that, John?
-
Why would The Judge have thought that The McCanns suffered anxiety and trauma if they were guilty?
Oh, I know. They are guilty and were dead worried about being arrested. Amaral had no right to do that to them. No?
-
I have read that the McCanns gave been ordered to pay 58.30% of the costs.
Assuming that is correct you can see how the system is being worked.
-
Wait til the full judgment is available then you will know the full SP straight from the horses mouth as it were. You could of course play guessing games in the meantime, but in the immortal words of Sam Goldwyn "include me out".
I'm not interested in guessing but I am curious to know why "sceptics" believe that you can get half a million euros in Portugal cos someone wrote something truthful and accurate about you that then upset you.
-
I have read that the McCanns gave been ordered to pay 58.30% of the costs.
Let's have a cite then.
-
You sound so bitter Faithlilly. Have you finished washing through Smiffy's underwear yet?
Don't you agree though that when their daughter is still missing such triumphalism over the award of money is a tad crass ?
-
Why did you delete my perfectly reasonable reply to your post in which you re-wrote a victory for the McCanns as a failure? As I pointed out their award is unprecedented in Portuguese legal history we have been led to believe so how, by any stretch, is this result a failure for the McCanns? Do you actually think that Amaral looks upon this result as a failure for them?
Amaral will undoubtedly see this as a partial defeat in a lower court with all yet to be decided in the Supreme Court.
-
I'm not interested in guessing but I am curious to know why "sceptics" believe that you can get half a million euros in Portugal cos someone wrote something truthful and accurate about you that then upset you.
You will have to remain curious. I am not that sort of sceptic. Like Christians and Muslims "sceptics" come in all makes and shapes 8(0(*
-
Don't you agree though that when their daughter is still missing such triumphalism over the award of money is a tad crass ?
I think you're incredibly crass. The McCanns have made it very clear that the award of the money is not the reason for their happiness. Of course you are tainted by your hatred so refuse to see that. Never mind.
-
Amaral will undoubtedly see this as a partial defeat in a lower court with all yet to be decided in the Supreme Court.
AFAIK, none of the lawyers have yet been officially notified of the "verdict".
-
I think you're incredibly crass. The McCanns have made it very clear that the award of the money is not the reason for their happiness. Of course you are tainted by your hatred so refuse to see that. Never mind.
Maybe it's because they have a lawyer representing them who complained "We can't find the money!" on Day 1 of the hearings.
Classy.
-
You will have to remain curious. I am not that sort of sceptic. Like Christians and Muslims "sceptics" come in all make and shapes 8(0(*
If it is true that you can successfully sue someone in Portugal for writing something that is both truthful and accurate about you simply because it upsets you then clearly Portugal has abandoned freedom of speech as one of its tenets.
-
AFAIK, none of the lawyers have yet been officially notified of the "verdict".
Perhaps Amarals lawyers post man hasn't yet delivered it!
-
Maybe it's because they have a lawyer representing them who complained "We can't find the money!" on Day 1 of the hearings.
Classy.
Could we have that comment in context please.
-
Could we have that comment in context please.
There was no context, she just blurted it out. I'd say it was quite extraordinary, but in this case it isn't actually.
-
So you're telling me that if I write a completely accurate and truthful book about you and it upsets you that I could end up paying you half a million euros for upsetting you? Is that how it works?
Best ask the judge. She couldn't have been clearer in what she told Gerry McCann when he attempted to introduce forensic evidence into the trial. The truthfulness or otherwise appears not to be the issue. The issue for the judge was simple and I repeat her words, "Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
Now as to a hole and a shovel, I suggest you take note.
-
I'm not interested in guessing but I am curious to know why "sceptics" believe that you can get half a million euros in Portugal cos someone wrote something truthful and accurate about you that then upset you.
Alternative answer to my post above: pick the one you like best.
"Portugal is only 40 years out of a dictatorship with no proper legal system as we understand it ( I know that from reading on here) so weird unpredictable things 'appen Mr Rudd.
-
I think you're incredibly crass. The McCanns have made it very clear that the award of the money is not the reason for their happiness. Of course you are tainted by your hatred so refuse to see that. Never mind.
So what is their reason ? It appears the judge decided if the information circulating at the moment is correct, that the book neither affected the search nor their children so why are they so happy that their reason for bringing the case has been tossed aside by the judge ?
Of course if it has now been judicially proven that the book didn't hinder the search will it still be ethical for the McCanns to fund any present or future litigation through the fund ?
-
Wait til the full judgment is available then you will know the full SP straight from the horses mouth as it were. You could of course play guessing games in the meantime, but in the immortal words of Sam Goldwyn "include me out".
Pick the bones out of this
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eliphashardi.eu%2F&sandbox=1
-
Perhaps Amarals lawyers post man hasn't yet delivered it!
I saíd NONE of the lawyers not just Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer.
-
There was no context, she just blurted it out. I'd say it was quite extraordinary, but in this case it isn't actually.
So she said it a propos of nothing at all, like someone with Tourettes?
-
If it is true that you can successfully sue someone in Portugal for writing something that is both truthful and accurate about you simply because it upsets you then clearly Portugal has abandoned freedom of speech as one of its tenets.
Indeed. Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech? In Portugal you are no longer allowed to cause Anxiety and Trauma, even if what you say is true.
-
Best ask the judge. She couldn't have been clearer in what she told Gerry McCann when he attempted to introduce forensic evidence into the trial. The truthfulness or otherwise appears not to be the issue. The issue for the judge was simple and I repeat her words, "Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
Now as to a hole and a shovel, I suggest you take note.
Kindly describe the rights of the claimants in this case please.
-
Do you have a cite for that, John?
Gerry McCann testimony on 8th July 2014
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 12
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
-
Kindly describe the rights of the claimants in this case please.
And there was me thinking you understood this trial and what it was really all about? %#&%4%
-
Pick the bones out of this
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eliphashardi.eu%2F&sandbox=1
Thanks Alfred. 84 proven facts, listed, as I said.
-
Maybe it's because they have a lawyer representing them who complained "We can't find the money!" on Day 1 of the hearings.
Classy.
Very classy to keep on alleging something you can't provide a cite for ... a vague reference to Sky News doesn't quite do it http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6091.25;wap2
-
Indeed. Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech? In Portugal you are no longer allowed to cause Anxiety and Trauma, even if what you say is true.
It certainly looks that way Eleanor.
-
Pick the bones out of this
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eliphashardi.eu%2F&sandbox=1
Why?
You should now be a happy little Alfred you have the full SP so there is no need for guessing games and asking further questions is there?
-
So she said it a propos of nothing at all, like someone with Tourettes?
I wish I'd been recording, because it was quite a performance from her. But I didn't record it and luckily for Isabel it seems nobody else did either.
-
The simple truth of the matter is that Amaral made accusations against The McCanns that he could not substantiate.
That is Libel.
-
Very classy to keep on alleging something you can't provide a cite for ... a vague reference to Sky News doesn't quite do it http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6091.25;wap2
Trust me on this ?{)(**
-
And there was me thinking you understood this trial and what it was really all about? %#&%4%
Clearly I don't so what of the defendants' rights did Amaral violate?
-
Why?
You should now be a happy little Alfred you have the full SP so there is no need for guessing games and asking further questions is there?
Sorry, I thought you were interested in the judgment, clearly you're not, my mistake.
-
The simple truth of the matter is that Amaral made accusations against The McCanns that he could not substantiate.
That is Libel.
Perfectly put.
-
Thanks Alfred. 84 proven facts, listed, as I said.
Most of the 84 are just statements of what the book says, and what was said in the newspaper article etc. however. Most of the 84 were never disputed.
-
The simple truth of the matter is that Amaral made accusations against The McCanns that he could not substantiate.
That is Libel.
Actually no. Libel is in essence the promotion of a malicious false statement. Libel has not been proven!
-
Clearly I don't so what of the defendants' rights did Amaral violate?
Undoubtedly it will all be detailed in the judges report.
-
Gerry McCann testimony on 8th July 2014
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 12
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
OK John so you are using as a "cite" an amateur court report from a biased individual. Fair enough.
However, that said, you are also taking that particular sentence out of context. If you read the whole passage from the point where GMC says "can I make a statement" it makes it clear that the Judge means that determining the facts (e.g forensics in the car) - is the job of the experts in that field, and not the court. The results are therefore "taken as read".
-
Don't you agree though that when their daughter is still missing such triumphalism over the award of money is a tad crass ?
Not to mention absolutely delighted!!!
-
OK John so you are using as a "cite" an amateur court report from a biased individual. Fair enough.
However, that said, you are also taking that particular sentence out of context. If you read the whole passage from the point where GMC says "can I make a statement" it makes it clear that the Judge means that determining the facts (e.g forensics in the car) - is the job of the experts in that field, and not the court. The results are therefore "taken as read".
Anne Guedes' reports were matter of fact and checked very carefully with other sources. Her commitment to finding out the truth can never be overstated.
The judge made it crystal clear that the evidence of potential criminality in the case was irrelevant to the claim submitted by the McCanns. This was always about damages and not libel.
-
"Freedom of expression and information can not actually take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to good name and reputation, and his moral integrity, the right to privacy" - from the judgment. These are the rights that were violated by Amaral. And how did he violate these rights? By writing a book in which unproven allegations were made about Kate and Gerry. If it is written into the constitution that precedence must be given to personal reputation over freedom of expression then what hope does Amaral have of a successful appeal?
-
If it is true that in Portugal you can sue for damages without being libelled, because things have been written about you have upset you does this mean that Amaral could sue all the Portuguese press who are carrying this news story today? Assuming that he is upset by today's news that is.
-
If it is true that in Portugal you can sue for damages without being libelled, because things have been written about you have upset you does this mean that Amaral could sue all the Portuguese press who are carrying this news story today? Assuming that he is upset by today's news that is.
Possibly if he can prove that such has affected him in the same way as that which the McCanns have claimed.
-
If it is true that in Portugal you can sue for damages without being libelled, because things have been written about you have upset you does this mean that Amaral could sue all the Portuguese press who are carrying this news story today? Assuming that he is upset by today's news that is.
Of course he could, but they aren't saying he hid his dead daughter's body are they.
I think it's clear from the rough google translation of the document that it was the film and sample newspaper interview that mainly led to this decision, not the book.
-
Most of the 84 are just statements of what the book says, and what was said in the newspaper article etc. however. Most of the 84 were never disputed.
If one looks at the way the judge apportioned costs then 60 % of the McCanns writ was unproven and 40% was proven.
Or 58.3% and 41.7% if one wishes to be picky.
-
My point is - if you write something in error that is libellous and then fail to correct it, it is still libel. It is also libel to repeat or report others' libel.
You have to have the knowledge that it is untrue. Does Amaral believe his thesis to be untrue?
-
Of course he could, but they aren't saying he hid his dead daughter's body are they.
I think it's clear from the rough google translation of the document that it was the film and sample newspaper interview that mainly led to this decision, not the book.
I agree. I have long thought this to be true. But he wasn't going to shut up, was he.
-
If one looks at the way the judge apportioned costs then 60 % of the McCanns writ was unproven and 40% was proven.
Or 58.3% and 41.7% if one wishes to be picky.
She appears to have decided solely on the parents sufferings.
-
Possibly if he can prove that such has affected him in the same way as that which the McCanns have claimed.
That's ridiculous though isn't it? I don't believe he would have a leg to stand on. If however it is true then those in positions of power and influence in Portugal need never worry about another critical word ever being written about them in the press because they can simply sue any paper that upsets them - that is, if you truly believe what you are saying.
-
That's ridiculous though isn't it? I don't believe he would have a leg to stand on. If however it is true then those in positions of power and influence in Portugal need never worry about another critical word ever being written about them in the press because they can simply sue any paper that upsets them - that is, if you truly believe what you are saying.
Come on Alfred, its a little more than an upset. Didn't Kate McCann claim to have considered suicide at one point because of what Gonçalo had written?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10321902/Kate-McCann-contemplated-suicide-after-detectives-book.html
-
You have to have the knowledge that it is untrue. Does Amaral believe his thesis to be untrue?
It doesn't matter whether or not he believes it, what matters is - is it true? Can he prove it? In the same way I believe xxxxx xxxxxxxxx is a homosexual who employs rent boys on a regular basis, I was told this by an acquaintance, I believe it is true, but were I to write a book about xxxxx in which I made this claim I would be sued unless I could prove the veracity of my claims.
-
I agree. I have long thought this to be true. But he wasn't going to shut up, was he.
But the document doesn't explain why fully 100% of the sums demanded by the McCanns for themselves was awarded when they only partially proved their assertions.
If they'd demanded 500k each would they have therefore got 500k each?
If they only partially proved (according to the judge) surely they shouldn't then get all of what they were demanding?
-
Come on Alfred, its a little more than an upset. Didn't Kate McCann claim to have considered suicide at one point because of what Gonçalo had written?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10321902/Kate-McCann-contemplated-suicide-after-detectives-book.html
Who's to say whether or not Amaral is feeling suicidal today? He is ruined, facing a huge bill, credibility in tatters. These newspaper reports might be making him feel pretty low.
-
The Metro says on it's front page today "Cop who tried to frame McCanns".
Maybe he could sue for that.
-
But the document doesn't explain why fully 100% of the sums demanded by the McCanns for themselves was awarded when they only partially proved their assertions.
If they'd demanded 500k each would they have therefore got 500k each?
If they only partially proved (according to the judge) surely they shouldn't then get all of what they were demanding?
Hmm, interesting point. I missed that, and I don't know.
Perhaps because the claim for Madeleine was to do with the search, which The Judge ruled wasn't damaged.
And The Twins were too young to feel personal distress as The McCanns did their best to make sure they didn't.
I believe that in any Damages Claim a figure has to be stated, although not necessarily awarded, so it would suggest that The McCanns didn't overstate their own claim.
-
The Metro says on it's front page today "Cop who tried to frame McCanns".
Maybe he could sue for that.
I'd love to see him try.
-
I'd love to see him try.
Unfortunately the courts are not a level playing field, and he'd be unlikely to get a no win, no fee offer from one of our nation's finest firms would he.
But never say never.
-
I'd love to see him try.
It would certainly lead to some interesting argument and counter argument in court ... but I think he will be busy working on his next 'five year plan' and his lawyer will be thinking about how he is going to get paid.
-
Hmm, interesting point. I missed that, and I don't know.
Perhaps because the claim for Madeleine was to do with the search, which The Judge ruled wasn't damaged.
And The Twins were too young to feel personal distress as The McCanns did their best to make sure they didn't.
I believe that in any Damages Claim a figure has to be stated, although not necessarily awarded, so it would suggest that The McCanns didn't overstate their own claim.
But they didn't even completely prove the claims relating to their own additional suffering, yet still got 100% of what they were claiming for themselves.
It's another example of how they win the money but lose the PR struggle.
-
Sorry, I thought you were interested in the judgment, clearly you're not, my mistake.
I am but the translation is bit indistinct. I think I know what it is about but a "proper translation" would be better.
-
But they didn't even completely prove the claims relating to their own additional suffering, yet still got 100% of what they were claiming for themselves.
It's another example of how they win the money but lose the PR struggle.
I don't think it's much to do with what is claimed. It's to do with what The Judge thinks their suffering was worth. The claim is just a guide line. They could have been awarded more or less of what they claimed.
And it will have had something to do with how much money Amaral made in the process of defaming them.
Most things come down to mathematics in the end.
-
I don't think it's much to do with what is claimed. It's to do with what The Judge thinks their suffering was worth. The claim is just a guide line. They could have been awarded more or less of what they claimed.
And it will have had something to do with how much money Amaral made in the process of defaming them.
Most things come down to mathematics in the end.
She can't just use her own maths though, it has to be backed by law/precedent. It doesn't appear to be explained in the google translated document.
However if she's done it wrong I'm sure a lawyer somewhere will know it.
-
She can't just use her own maths though, it has to be backed by law/precedent. It doesn't appear to be explained in the google translated document.
However if she's done it wrong I'm sure a lawyer somewhere will know it.
There are guidelines within which she will have to have worked. There always are. And she doesn't appear to be daft to me.
-
"Freedom of expression and information can not actually take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to good name and reputation, and his moral integrity, the right to privacy" - from the judgment. These are the rights that were violated by Amaral. And how did he violate these rights? By writing a book in which unproven allegations were made about Kate and Gerry. If it is written into the Constitution (or Human Rights Act) that precedence must be given to personal reputation over freedom of expression then what hope does Amaral have of a successful appeal?
BUMP.
-
So what is their reason ? It appears the judge decided if the information circulating at the moment is correct, that the book neither affected the search nor their children so why are they so happy that their reason for bringing the case has been tossed aside by the judge ?
Of course if it has now been judicially proven that the book didn't hinder the search will it still be ethical for the McCanns to fund any present or future litigation through the fund ?
BUMP
-
The Judge's Report reveals in some detail why she came to the decision she did. The condensed version is relatively simple. She went into some detail quoting from the European Human Rights legislation and using examples from cases including one from the UK. Her argument basically came down to this, a balance had to be struck between Amaral's right to free speech and expression and those rights enjoyed by the McCanns to a good name and honour. She determined that Amaral had abused his position within the PJ and had illegally used information he gleamed whilst a serving police officer. The Judge also criticised his activities on retirement and stated that they were not conducive with his former status, she added that he had a responsibilities but failed to uphold them.
In respect of the sum awarded, I refer directly to an extract from the Judges Report...
There will therefore be proven to compensate the damage done within the parameters of paragraph 4 of article 496º of the Civil Code, those who are harmed by the defendant's conduct - the authors Gerald and Kate McCann. The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of Lesante's fault, the seriousness of the offense and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offense. The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK. It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83). The same offense allowed the defendant earn the amount of about Euro 382,000.00 of income (paragraphs 33 and 62, and noted that the latter relates to the proceeds with the sale of the DVD so that it takes little strict, but or so it stops being materially true, because if the DVD was only sold at the end of April 2009, the process for their marketing began on March 7, 2008 with the contract concluded with the defendant VC Films, and this defendant the payment of Euros 40,000.00 documented on pages. 2095). In light of these vectors, it is deemed appropriate and proportionate compensation petitioned by those authors, which is Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) for each, to be added under paragraph 3 of article 805º code Civil, default interest at the statutory rate of civil interest, from the date of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's quote for action (January 5, 2010 -. fl 151) until full payment.
So there you have it, the Judge allowed the claim against Amaral on the basis of his thesis which contravened the McCanns rights under both National and European Law to a good name, the award of €500k was based on Amaral's illegal earnings from such conduct.
-
The Judge's Report reveals in some detail why she came to the decision she did. The condensed version is relatively simple. She went into some detail quoting from the European Human Rights legislation and using examples from cases including one from the UK. Her argument basically came down to this, a balance had to be struck between Amaral's right to free speech and expression and those rights enjoyed by the McCanns to a good name and honour. She determined that Amaral had abused his position within the PJ and had illegally used information he gleamed whilst a serving police officer. The Judge also criticised his activities on retirement and stated that they were not conducive with his former status, she added that he had a responsibilities but failed to uphold them.
In respect of the sum awarded, I refer directly to an extract from the Judges Report...
There will therefore be proven to compensate the damage done within the parameters of paragraph 4 of article 496º of the Civil Code, those who are harmed by the defendant's conduct - the authors Gerald and Kate McCann. The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of Lesante's fault, the seriousness of the offense and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offense. The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK. It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83). The same offense allowed the defendant earn the amount of about Euro 382,000.00 of income (paragraphs 33 and 62, and noted that the latter relates to the proceeds with the sale of the DVD so that it takes little strict, but or so it stops being materially true, because if the DVD was only sold at the end of April 2009, the process for their marketing began on March 7, 2008 with the contract concluded with the defendant VC Films, and this defendant the payment of Euros 40,000.00 documented on pages. 2095). In light of these vectors, it is deemed appropriate and proportionate compensation petitioned by those authors, which is Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) for each, to be added under paragraph 3 of article 805º code Civil, default interest at the statutory rate of civil interest, from the date of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's quote for action (January 5, 2010 -. fl 151) until full payment.
What specifically was the offence committed then? Also, if under the Human Rights Act the McCanns right to not be slagged off by a corrupt ex-cop trumps the rights of a corrupt ex-cop to write anything he likes about them then where does he go from here, legally speaking?
-
John, are you happy that your forum is being used to circulate Amaral's illegal thesis?
-
The Judge's Report reveals in some detail why she came to the decision she did. The condensed version is relatively simple. She went into some detail quoting from the European Human Rights legislation and using examples from cases including one from the UK. Her argument basically came down to this, a balance had to be struck between Amaral's right to free speech and expression and those rights enjoyed by the McCanns to a good name and honour. She determined that Amaral had abused his position within the PJ and had illegally used information he gleamed whilst a serving police officer. The Judge also criticised his activities on retirement and stated that they were not conducive with his former status, she added that he had a responsibilities but failed to uphold them.
In respect of the sum awarded, I refer directly to an extract from the Judges Report...
There will therefore be proven to compensate the damage done within the parameters of paragraph 4 of article 496º of the Civil Code, those who are harmed by the defendant's conduct - the authors Gerald and Kate McCann. The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of Lesante's fault, the seriousness of the offense and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offense. The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK. It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83). The same offense allowed the defendant earn the amount of about Euro 382,000.00 of income (paragraphs 33 and 62, and noted that the latter relates to the proceeds with the sale of the DVD so that it takes little strict, but or so it stops being materially true, because if the DVD was only sold at the end of April 2009, the process for their marketing began on March 7, 2008 with the contract concluded with the defendant VC Films, and this defendant the payment of Euros 40,000.00 documented on pages. 2095). In light of these vectors, it is deemed appropriate and proportionate compensation petitioned by those authors, which is Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) for each, to be added under paragraph 3 of article 805º code Civil, default interest at the statutory rate of civil interest, from the date of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's quote for action (January 5, 2010 -. fl 151) until full payment.
So there you have it, the Judge allowed the claim against Amaral on the basis of his thesis which contravened the McCanns rights under both National and European Law to a good name, the award of €500k was based on Amaral's illegal earnings from such conduct.
so amaral libelled the mccanns
-
so amaral libelled the mccanns
You will find if you read through the judgement that the word 'libel' never appears once. So the answer to your question is self evident really.
-
You will find if you read through the judgement that the word 'libel' never appears once. So the answer to your question is self evident really.
What is the legal name for the offence committed by Amaral then?
-
15). The European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence of the principle of presumption of innocence imposes a standard of conduct for all agents, officials and magistrates involved in the administration of criminal justice. The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these arestos, premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also statements by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect liability of the suspects in the facts under investigation. Accordingly reads the decision in Karaman process c Germany "The Court has previously held in this context que Article 6 § 2 AIMS at Preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person "charged with a criminal offense" is guilty before he has proved so goods According to the law, but Also covers statements made by other public officals about pending criminal investigations Which Encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the court Competent authority
She seems to have taken this into consideration too. Somewhere in the judgement the judge suggests had he offered an alternative thesis as well he would have been home free.
-
John, are you happy that your forum is being used to circulate Amaral's illegal thesis?
It is acceptable to review his thesis or any other book or publication for that matter for research purposes.
-
What specifically was the offence committed then? Also, if under the Human Rights Act the McCanns right to not be slagged off by a corrupt ex-cop trumps the rights of a corrupt ex-cop to write anything he likes about them then where does he go from here, legally speaking?
Not sure Alfred.
He has been given leave to appeal, but his lawyer will have requested that automatically so it does not really mean anything.
He will need to have grounds for appeal, and the court will have to agree that those grounds are valid.
He could appeal against the judgement, but will need to show where the Judge was wrong in her process of arriving at her decision.
He could appeal against the amount of damages awarded. However, if he does so, it will open the question of damages again and the amount may be decreased or increased. It will also potentially add to his costs. So it would be a significant risk.
The judgement so far seems to be silent on the other defendants (I am sure someone will correct if wrong). So that could be a factor. Maybe they will wish to appeal, or settle the matter as is.
Interesting times.
-
Come on people, dig deep into your pockets for Amaral - he needs your dosh! So far he's averaging £12.40 per charitable donation, but he needs at least £25k according to this, so just 1991 more benevolent Gonc Fans are needed.
http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
-
It was said earlier Amaral had not had notification of the ruling. Yet he was contacted yesterday and responded.
PORTUGALPRESS on April 28, 2015
Goncalo-amaral-ordered-to-pay-parents-of-madeleine-mccann €500.000-in-damages
In a court ruling that has left many in states of total disbelief, former PJ detective Gonçalo Amaral has been ordered to pay €500,000 in damages to the parents of Madeleine McCann.
The long-running civil case for defamation centring on Amaral’s book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ has finally “come to an end”, Sky News reported on Tuesday. But whether this is an end, or simply yet another lurch in the tortuous proceedings, remains to be seen.
“Mr Amaral, who led the (original) police search for the girl, can appeal the court’s ruling”, Sky concludes.
It is a verdict that has set social media alight, with comments ranging from “I love Gonçalo Amaral” to more constructive pointers on how people can donate to his legal fund.
While many are asking “how could this have happened?”, Portuguese are suggesting it “an outrageous sum” for a country where people generally don’t have that kind of money.
Added to the libel ‘win’, Amaral is understood to be facing legal charges of another €106,000.
“The court court also prohibited any more sales of the books and gave the publisher (Guerra e Paz) 60 days to return all existing copies”, Sky continued, adding that the makers of the TV documentary based on the book are now prohibited from selling any more copies of their film.
It is a far cry from the news published both in Portugal and UK in January hinting that Judge Emília Melo e Castro's “reading of the proven facts” suggested that an outright court win for the McCanns was “unlikely”.
British tabloid The Daily Express ran (belatedly) with the headline “Exclusive: McCanns will lose £1 million libel trial”.
Key points in the McCanns’ case were listed as “not proven”.
Even Amaral agreed he was cautiously optimistic.
But then came the long wait for the final verdict, and finally Tuesday’s bombshell that despite all the McCanns’ claims “not proved”, Amaral was considered to have “caused harm” to Madeleine’s parents to the extent that both are due compensation of €250,000.
Even more baffling is the fact that his book has once again been “banned”. A ban was overturned in October 2010 by Lisbon’s appeal court and though the McCann couple appealed, their appeal was overruled by the Supreme Court of Justice in 2011.
It cannot be without irony that Tuesday’s announcement has been timed to coincide almost to the day with the 8th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance from a rental apartment in Praia da Luz.
Contacted for his thoughts on the ruling, Amaral told the Resident: “We are in the face of a mere battle in a war that is far from over.”
By NATASHA DONN
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
-
It was said earlier Amaral had not had notification of the ruling. Yet he was contacted yesterday and responded.
PORTUGALPRESS on April 28, 2015
Goncalo-amaral-ordered-to-pay-parents-of-madeleine-mccann €500.000-in-damages
In a court ruling that has left many in states of total disbelief, former PJ detective Gonçalo Amaral has been ordered to pay €500,000 in damages to the parents of Madeleine McCann.
Contacted for his thoughts on the ruling, Amaral told the Resident: “We are in the face of a mere battle in a war that is far from over.”
By NATASHA DONN
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
That's correct DCI, formal procedures appear to have broken down, a breach which is itself now being investigated. Both the claimants and the defendants should have received official notification of the Courts decision before the Press.
-
Come on people, dig deep into your pockets for Amaral - he needs your dosh! So far he's averaging £12.40 per charitable donation, but he needs at least £25k according to this, so just 1991 more benevolent Gonc Fans are needed.
http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
At the present donationrate of £67 per hour and allowing a bit of diversity he'll have it in about 6 weeks 8(0(*
-
At the present donationrate of £67 per hour and allowing a bit of diversity he'll have it in about 6 weeks 8(0(*
To be honest I cannot see much benefit in appealing this ruling as it appears at first trawl to be watertight. A higher court could reduce the award possibly?
Judgement in Portuguese
www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html
-
At the present donationrate of £67 per hour and allowing a bit of diversity he'll have it in about 6 weeks 8(0(*
Ah it's almost like old times ! Remember when the OFM campaign website gave us some idea of what was being donated to the fund ? Them were the days eh ! %£&)**#
-
At the present donationrate of £67 per hour and allowing a bit of diversity he'll have it in about 6 weeks 8(0(*
you are making rather a ridiculous assumption that the rate will continue at a similar level
-
That's correct DCI, formal procedures appear to have broken down, a breach which is itself now being investigated. Both the claimants and the defendants should have received official notification of the Courts decision before the Press.
They were being delivered by post, to the lawyers. Who is investigateing the breach. Court officials, post office staff?
-
You will find if you read through the judgement that the word 'libel' never appears once. So the answer to your question is self evident really.
You seem to want to deny amaral is guilty of libel...defation is the same thing...so what is he guilty of and why have damages been awarded. It seems by your train of thought the Ciprianos could sue amaral for damages
-
you are making rather a ridiculous assumption that the rate will continue at a similar level
What do you understand by "allowing for a bit of diversity" ?.
Apart from the fact I was taking the piss.
EBBOKB
-
At the present donationrate of £67 per hour and allowing a bit of diversity he'll have it in about 6 weeks 8(0(*
We shall review the total in 6 weeks and see if you're right. 8(0(*
-
To be honest I cannot see much benefit in appealing this ruling as it appears at first trawl to be watertight. A higher court could reduce the award possibly?
Judgement in Portuguese
www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html
It seems odd the argument this judge puts forward didn't come out at the book banning caper as it would have been relevant then. It would appear that the award was based on Dr Amaral having used information gained in his position as a public servant to profit by leading the public to believe Drs McCann were guilty and not offering an alternative thesis.
The only way I can see the judgement being oddsed is if it falls back to the right of freedom of speech and all that as per the book banning. I certainly wouldn't place a bet on it.
I wouldn't mind betting that neither side saw this one coming.
-
We shall review the total in 6 weeks and see if you're right. 8(0(*
See my post to Davel.
-
It seems odd the argument this judge puts forward didn't come out at the book banning caper as it would have been relevant then. It would appear that the award was based on Dr Amaral having used information gained in his position as a public servant to profit by leading the public to believe Drs McCann were guilty and not offering an alternative thesis.
The only way I can see the judgement being oddsed is if it falls back to the right of freedom of speech and all that as per the book banning. I certainly wouldn't place a bet on it.
I wouldn't mind betting that neither side saw this one coming.
The Judge was never concerned with the criminal investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, she said as much when she stopped Gerry McCann dead in his tracks when he attempted to enlighten the Court over his cadaver dog research.
She was merely concerned with the damage sustained by the McCann's as a direct consequence of Amaral's claims. All she had to decide was if Amaral's right to free expression eclipsed the McCanns right to a good name. She decided in favour of the latter.
Had Amaral not earned substantial royalties as a result of his book etc, the damages awarded would have been insignificant.
-
To be honest I cannot see much benefit in appealing this ruling as it appears at first trawl to be watertight. A higher court could reduce the award possibly?
Judgement in Portuguese
www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html
As I remember the judge in the injunction hearing in January 2010 used the same arguments in her verdict to uphold the book ban and that decision was eventually overturned by the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010. So nothing is water tight. The TdR stated that, although Gonçalo Amaral was a public servant, he was also a citizen with the same rights to freedom of expression and opinion as anyone else. This same court also stated that as the McCanns used the press and media for their advantage, they therefore could not expect not be subject to adverse opinion.
As for the book ban, in Portuguese law, the decision made by the Tribunal de Relação is jurisprudence and cannot be overturned by a lower court, that is the civil court. This could be a very important point for the appeal.
BTW, the lawyers have finally received today official notification and have 40 days to make their appeal.
-
What is the legal name for the offence committed by Amaral then?
Gonçalo Amaral committed no offence, the McCanns just didn't like what he wrote.
There was no libel and the judge made clear that the book was factual. You see, someone can win damages even if the defendant has written or spoken the truth.
-
Gonçalo Amaral committed no offence, the McCanns just didn't like what he wrote.
There was no libel and the judge made clear that the book was factual. You see, someone can win damages even if the defendant has written or spoken the truth.
The paragraph of the judgment that John posted earlier repeatedly uses the word "offence". Can you highlight the part where she made it clear the book was factual, ie: truthful?
-
Would it be true to say that if and when it is established that the McCanns did not hide their child's body that Amaral could be charged with the crime of libel?
-
Would it be true to say that if and when it is established that the McCanns did not hide their child's body that Amaral could be charged with the crime of libel?
Is there any such crime? It's a civil matter.
(You're very fixated with this libel word.)
-
The Judge was never concerned with the criminal investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, she said as much when she stopped Gerry McCann dead in his tracks when he attempted to enlighten the Court over his cadaver dog research.
She was merely concerned with the damage sustained by the McCann's as a direct consequence of Amaral's claims. All she had to decide was if Amaral's right to free expression eclipsed the McCanns right to a good name. She decided in favour of the latter.
Had Amaral not earned substantial royalties as a result of his book etc, the damages awarded would have been insignificant.
I agree with the first part, although there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure about your last comment.
Part of the issue was, as Brenden de Beer, put it:
Isabel Duarte had argued that Amaral used privileged information in the book, with the court ruling that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by his position as a former police detective and lead investigator in the case.
-
Is there any such crime? It's a civil matter.
(You're very fixated with this libel word.)
I'm not fixated with it, I'm simply taking part in a discussion, do you have a problem with that? Libel is a criminal matter according to John, so assuming it can be proved that the contents of his book are entirely false, then Amaral will have broken criminal law, surely?
-
Is there any such crime? It's a civil matter.
(You're very fixated with this libel word.)
Seems the judge has ruled that Goncalo Amaral's literary efforts have defamed the McCanns.
She has ruled that he has injured their reputations; he has exposed them to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
Doing that constitutes libel according to the dictionary definition ... I really don't see what the problem is with that.
-
I'm not fixated with it, I'm simply taking part in a discussion, do you have a problem with that? Libel is a criminal matter according to John, so assuming it can be proved that the contents of his book are entirely false, then Amaral will have broken criminal law, surely?
Fair enough, a quick search tells me it can be civil or criminal.
-
Somebody needs to correct the world media if this was not a libel trial. Almost every headline has the word "libel" in it.
-
DECISION
**
Given the above, on balance of fact and law, decide:
I. Judging remedied the representation of irregularity MADELEINE McCann BETH author in accordance with article 29, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, dismiss the objection raised by the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL.
II. Declared partly the claims made in the main action by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL, and to that extent, the second sentence to pay each of the first indemnity the amount of Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) plus default interest at the statutory rate of interest civilians, since January 5, 2010 until full payment.
III. Dismiss the other requests made in the same action, the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL and the same acquit the defendant.
IV. Fully judge rejected the requests made, in the same action, the authors MADELEINE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE against the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL and the same acquit the defendant.
V. Declared partly the claims valid in attached action, the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA, and in the same measure:
a) prohibit the defendants Gonçalo Amaral and War and Peace, Editor, SA selling book "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie" and condemn them in the collection, for delivery to the authors, within sixty (60) days after res judicata, of copies of this book that still remain in bookstores, other retail outlets, warehouses and warehouses.
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
Tel: 213 846 400 Fax: 213 874 221 Mail: lisboa.centralcivel@tribunais.org.pt
Proc.Nº 1454 / 09.5TVLSB
b) prohibit the defendants Gonçalo . Amaral and War and Peace, Editor, SA execution of new editions of the same book
c) prohibit the defendant VC - Oak-Movies Valentine, Audiovisual, SA execution of new editions of the DVD "Maddie, The Truth of the Lie".
d) prohibit the defendants Gonçalo Amaral, War and Peace, Editor, SA and VC - Oak-Movies Valentine, Audiovisual, SA, respectively, of the transfer, onerous or free, any form of copyright and book publishing and DVD.
and) order, each of these defendants, the penalty payment of EUR 50,000.00 (fifty thousand euros) for each offense of the above prohibitions.
VI. Judge over the rest of unfounded the claims made in the action attached by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and same acquit the defendants.
VII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the attached action against TVI defendant - INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, the same acquitting the defendant.
VIII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the action attached by the authors MADELEINE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE.
IX. Judging unchecked (subject to incidental sentence imposed in the order of 20 May 2014) the litigation in bad faith of either party.
X. Condemn the perpetrators KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL the expense of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
XI. Condemn the perpetrators KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE,
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
Tel: 213 846 400 Fax: 213 874 221 Mail: lisboa.centralcivel@tribunais.org.pt
Proc.Nº 1454 / 09.5TVLSB
AUDIOVISUAL, SA at the expense of attached action in the proportion of 50%, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Notify.
Sign.
**
*
Almada, April 27, 2015
-
Fair enough, a quick search tells me it can be civil or criminal.
Ah, so libel can be a civil matter can it? So, what would be the main differences between a civil libel action and what we've just seen in the case of McCann v Amaral?
-
Somebody needs to correct the world media if this was not a libel trial. Almost every headline has the word "libel" in it.
Indeed. The opening post from the Guardian (and posted by John himself) uses the word liberally.
-
Ah, so libel can be a civil matter can it? So, what would be the main differences between a civil libel action and what we've just seen in the case of McCann v Amaral?
This was a civil case. Not criminal.
Quick quote from a legal site (British mind you):
To outline the differences, in a civil court then the claimant in the case (i.e. the person about whom the defamatory statement was made) will be awarded compensation for the damage to his or her reputation. In a criminal court, the libel must be seen to have the potential of leading to some breach of the peace via the publication of a defamatory statement. To explain this rationale further, one example could be an instance where the defamed person becomes so angered by this publication that there are further repercussions other than this person feeling that their reputation has been attacked.
The law of criminal libel is several centuries old and campaigners have attempted to have both criminal libel and seditious libel abolished.
-
This was a civil case. Not criminal.
Quick quote from a legal site (British mind you):
To outline the differences, in a civil court then the claimant in the case (i.e. the person about whom the defamatory statement was made) will be awarded compensation for the damage to his or her reputation. In a criminal court, the libel must be seen to have the potential of leading to some breach of the peace via the publication of a defamatory statement. To explain this rationale further, one example could be an instance where the defamed person becomes so angered by this publication that there are further repercussions other than this person feeling that their reputation has been attacked.
The law of criminal libel is several centuries old and campaigners have attempted to have both criminal libel and seditious libel abolished.
Re: the bit in bold - isn't that what has just happened in this case? And you say this is PT civil libel law?
-
15). The European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence of the principle of presumption of innocence imposes a standard of conduct for all agents, officials and magistrates involved in the administration of criminal justice. The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these arestos, premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also statements by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect liability of the suspects in the facts under investigation. Accordingly reads the decision in Karaman process c Germany "The Court has previously held in this context que Article 6 § 2 AIMS at Preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person "charged with a criminal offense" is guilty before he has proved so goods According to the law, but Also covers statements made by other public officals about pending criminal investigations Which Encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the court Competent authority
She seems to have taken this into consideration too. Somewhere in the judgement the judge suggests had he offered an alternative thesis as well he would have been home free.
Yes, I agree. Because they did fail to evidence their pain, suffering and who GAF about their reputation.
This is what this is about Money nothing more - nothing less. I never read the book, I never started looking for Maddie I suspected she was dead early on. So the book never 'affected' the search, because people were still claiming sightings. I never took the thesis that the parents killed their daughter and hid her body as a fact of what happened- it was there with other thesis,unsubstantiated claims, but he did write about what was suspected by the police.
It chokes me that they have their reputation being shunted about....lost their integrity a long time ago in the eyes of many.
I Hope they enjoy the money, they wouldn't have it if only they looked after their children properly.
They won on a technichality IMO... Where is the Templars when you need them...lol
-
Ah, so libel can be a civil matter can it? So, what would be the main differences between a civil libel action and what we've just seen in the case of McCann v Amaral?
In some states, including Portgual, defamation can come under either the civil or the criminal law.
In essence, Criminal Defamtion is punitive and carries a sanction of imprisonment or a fine, or both.
Civil defamation is designed to provide redress for damage caused, and remedies range from an apology / retraction to an award of monetary compensation.
This case is clearly one of defamation under the Portuguese civil code.
-
In some states, including Portgual, defamation can come under either the civil or the criminal law.
In essence, Criminal Defamtion is punitive and carries a sanction of imprisonment or a fine, or both.
Civil defamation is designed to provide redress for damage caused, and remedies range from an apology / retraction to an award of monetary compensation.
This case is clearly one of defamation under the Portuguese civil code.
Thanks for that, JP 8((()*/
-
I gather she wasn't too impressed by the "we, experts, policemen..." stance. ;)
-
15). The European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence of the principle of presumption of innocence imposes a standard of conduct for all agents, officials and magistrates involved in the administration of criminal justice. The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these arestos, premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also statements by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect liability of the suspects in the facts under investigation. Accordingly reads the decision in Karaman process c Germany "The Court has previously held in this context que Article 6 § 2 AIMS at Preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person "charged with a criminal offense" is guilty before he has proved so goods According to the law, but Also covers statements made by other public officals about pending criminal investigations Which Encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the court Competent authority
She seems to have taken this into consideration too. Somewhere in the judgement the judge suggests had he offered an alternative thesis as well he would have been home free.
of course he would and it shows how stupid he was....
-
Your logic is severely impaired today Dave, how on earth could convicted murderers sue Amaral?
Libel is a criminal offence in Portugal, this was a civil case in which compensation was sought in lieu of damages. Have you read the Report?
it is your knowledge that is impaired John...as has been pointed out...libel can be criminal or civil in portugal
-
it would seem the Truth of the Lie has gone the way of most banned books and downloads have increased due to the headlines generated by the lovely Isobel.
A rather phyrrhic victory I'd say.
-
it would seem the Truth of the Lie has gone the way of most banned books and downloads have increased due to the headlines generated by the lovely Isobel.
A rather phyrrhic victory I'd say.
I'm sure amaral doesn't share your view... @)(++(*
-
it would seem the Truth of the Lie has gone the way of most banned books and downloads have increased due to the headlines generated by the lovely Isobel.
A rather phyrrhic victory I'd say.
Increased from what to what?
-
Looks like amaral's gofundme page has been banned.... @)(++(*...not having the best of times is he
-
it is your knowledge that is impaired John...as has been pointed out...libel can be criminal or civil in portugal
Libel can be criminal or civil in UK too, but GA's case was civil. Criminal libel is extremely rare anywhere.
-
Looks like amaral's gofundme page has been banned.... @)(++(*...not having the best of times is he
Where there's a will, there's a way %£&)**#
-
Looks like amaral's gofundme page has been banned.... @)(++(*...not having the best of times is he
Why was it banned, do you know?
-
Why was it banned, do you know?
I did find this
•Content associated with hate groups or terrorist organizations
•Campaigns including inflammatory or accusatory statements
https://www.gofundme.com/terms.
Take your pick
-
Why was it banned, do you know?
I believe it was reported. Are the faithful really so scared that Amaral will raise the money to appeal the judge's decision ? Of course there is more than one way to skin a giraffe but it does illustrate just how insecure certain individuals after yesterday's verdict.
-
Looks like amaral's gofundme page has been banned.... @)(++(*...not having the best of times is he
Do you have a link?
-
I believe it was reported. Are the faithful really so scared that Amaral will raise the money to appeal the judge's decision ? Of course there is more than one way to skin a giraffe but it does illustrate just how insecure certain individuals after yesterday's verdict.
I posted a link to it on here and was looking forward to seeing just how much his fanclub were prepared to cough up. Last time I looked Isabel McFadden had donated £7.00 @)(++(*
-
I believe it was reported. Are the faithful really so scared that Amaral will raise the money to appeal the judge's decision ? Of course there is more than one way to skin a giraffe but it does illustrate just how insecure certain individuals after yesterday's verdict.
Gufundme
What can I raise money for?
Most people use GoFundMe to raise money for themselves, a friend or loved one during life's important moments. This includes things like medical expenses, education costs, volunteer programs, youth sports, funerals & memorials - even animals & pets.
That said, we're always amazed at all the unique ways people use GoFundMe to raise money online. The possibilities are endless! Watch some Recent Success Stories or Take the Tour >>.
I dont think causes endorsed by gofundme include beer money, or legal expenses for a bent cop to appeal a court decision in favour of grieving parents.
-
I posted a link to it on here and was looking forward to seeing just how much his fanclub were prepared to cough up. Last time I looked Isabel McFadden had donated £7.00 @)(++(*
Tall oaks and all that ...
-
I don't think for one moment you are party to the shenanigans at McCann Central.
Still it's always nicer to feel included ?{)(**
What are you on about?
-
Again, I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought that Amaral lost a case against his brother, where he owed his brother a considerable amount of money? Please correct me if I am wrong.
And his book was blocked in the UK. Was that via the Courts? Dunno
So, if I am correct, at least 3 cases that Amaral has lost. Seems he gets things wrong.
I don't know. I've never taken any interest n G Amaral's private life and family squabbles as an indicator of anything.
I assumed you were asking about cases connected to his police career and connected directly or indirectly to the Maddie case. Everyone has skeletons in their cupboards, they can't be taken as a given of much, generally speaking. IMO.
-
Expresso 2008
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/macanos_expresso4.jpg)
Q – Former inspector Gonçalo Amaral remains convinced of your involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. Did you read ‘The Truth of the Lie’, the book that he wrote?
Kate and Gerry – No.
Kate – Why would I?
Gerry – I won’t learn anything from reading it.
Q – It was a success in Portugal.
Gerry – Was it? How many copies did it sell?
Q – Approximately 200 thousand. Next week, it is edited in Spain.
Gerry – That is what can be called illicit enrichment.
Q – Your English lawyers already have a translated copy and they are analyzing it. Do you intend to sue Gonçalo Amaral?
Gerry – At this moment we are focused on what we can do to find Madeleine and not in suing anyone.
Kate – All that I am going to say about this – because I’m not going to waste any time on Mr Amaral – is that as a professional and as a person his behaviour has been a disgrace.
Q – Aren’t you curious to know what the book says?
Kate – What for? It must be nothing but a load of rubbish. It is so secondary… It certainly won’t help to find our daughter. My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that.
Q – But you do know the theory that Gonçalo Amaral defends: Madeleine accidentally died in the Ocean Club apartment and you concealed the body.
Gerry – It really is a waste of time. And we need all the time that we can get to analyze the investigation’s documents, which contain a lot of information that we didn’t know about.
Kate – You just have to cross, loosely, his theory with the process in order to understand that the facts that he reports are not correct.
Q – There is a theory that defends that the coordinator was removed from the investigation due to British political pressure.
Gerry – Who dismissed him?
Q – The PJ’s national director.
Gerry – Then you have to ask him if he was pressured. Or if Gordon Brown discussed the case with him. He surely didn’t.
Q – He also resigned. And largely due to this process.
Gerry – That was not what I was told. Apparently he had a vision of the police itself that was different from the one held by the Justice Minister.
Q – In a final analysis, they both left the PJ because the investigation failed.
Gerry – That’s not our fault. I do not criticize the authorities over not trying to find Madeleine. It doesn’t matter anymore. Now all that matters is that we do everything to try to find her, through our own methods.
Q – Did you ever get to know Gonçalo Amaral?
Kate – The question is the other way around: did he get to know us?
-
I don't know. I've never taken any interest n G Amaral's private life and family squabbles as an indicator of anything.
I assumed you were asking about cases connected to his police career and connected directly or indirectly to the Maddie case. Everyone has skeletons in their cupboards, they can't be taken as a given of much, generally speaking. IMO.
There was another Court case that I forgot about.
After being found guilty in the Torture case, Goncalo tried to get the decision reversed. He lost.
So at the very least he LOST the following cases against him:
1) Perjury in the Torture case. LOST
2) An attempt to get the Perjury decision reversed ... LOST
3) Lawsuit against his brother, (Amaral owed him mega bucks) ... LOST
4) Case against Marcos Aragao Correia and Dores .... LOST
Was there another?
I see that it seems my original list of cases that he LOST has been taken down. Why?
Kindly do not remove this list. Thank you
It is relevant, and could be part of the reason that the Judge awarded higher than expected damages.
Maybe she felt that she couldn't trust Amarals testimony?
-
There was another Court case that I forgot about.
After being found guilty in the Torture case, Goncalo tried to get the decision reversed. He lost.
So at the very least he LOST the following cases against him:
1) Perjury in the Torture case. LOST
2) An attempt to get the Perjury decision reversed ... LOST
3) Lawsuit against his brother, (Amaral owed him mega bucks) ... LOST
4) Case against Marcos Aragao Correia and Dores .... LOST
Was there another?
I see that it seems my original list of cases that he LOST has been taken down. Why?
Kindly do not remove this list. Thank you
It is relevant, and could be part of the reason that the Judge awarded higher than expected damages.
Maybe she felt that she couldn't trust Amarals testimony?
Don't be silly! Of course, the judge did not take into consideration these other cases. That's not how justice is carried out.
FYI, Gonçalo and his brother are getting along very well now. Everybody has family squabbles.
-
Don't be silly! Of course, the judge did not take into consideration these other cases. That's not how justice is carried out.
FYI, Gonçalo and his brother are getting along very well now. Everybody has family squabbles.
I am not saying the cases per se, but the fact that he has told lies and done shifty things. Maybe he behaved the same in Court?
Who paid the bill off then? Amarals money was tied up.
-
Don't be silly! Of course, the judge did not take into consideration these other cases. That's not how justice is carried out.
FYI, Gonçalo and his brother are getting along very well now. Everybody has family squabbles.
What the faithful seem to forget it is because of Amaral's success at getting verdicts overturned in this case that has brought us to where were are now. No reason to see why that will change.
-
What the faithful seem to forget it is because of Amaral's success at getting verdicts overturned in this case that has brought us to where were are now. No reason to see why that will change.
This is an incredible victory for the mccanns and a complete shock to the doubters judging by the posts made on this forum...amaral can appeal all he likes...he has described how miserable his life is at the moment and it will continue...it may well go on for years but that will make no difference to Kate and Gerry...but amarals assets will remain frozen
-
I am not saying the cases per se, but the fact that he has told lies and done shifty things. Maybe he behaved the same in Court?
Who paid the bill off then? Amarals money was tied up.
I think he behaved in an erratic way in Court ... to give one example ... firing his lawyer at the concluding stages which caused further delay plus some of his witnesses if they bothered to appear at all didn't bolster his case any with at least one denying reading his book or watching his documentary.
None the less I think the learned judge based her ruling in the McCanns favour on points of law. When she questioned a witness saying, "– The fact they are innocent ... " shows she had a very good grasp of the case.
-
This is an incredible victory for the mccanns and a complete shock to the doubters judging by the posts made on this forum...amaral can appeal all he likes...he has described how miserable his life is at the moment and it will continue...it may well go on for years but that will make no difference to Kate and Gerry...but amarals assets will remain frozen
And Madeleine will still have had her future snatched from her due to her parents selfishness.
A hundred victories in a hundred courtrooms won't change that.
-
And Madeleine will still have had her future snatched from her due to her parents selfishness.
A hundred victories in a hundred courtrooms won't change that.
we don't need to change it because it isn't true.......I blame the criminal not the victims of crime
-
we don't need to change it because it isn't true.......I blame the criminal not the victims of crime
I blame the criminals too.
-
we don't need to change it because it isn't true.......I blame the criminal not the victims of crime
It is usual for criminals to be held accountable for their actions, but those who allow themselves to be associated with criminals such as John Hirst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hirst_%28criminal%29
and Debbie Butler http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2919043/McCanns-troll-stole-18-000-parents.html to name but two, are hardly likely to agree.
As far as the court case goes hasn't it struck people that there was something missing from the equation which could and should have ensured there would be no award to the McCanns ... only a heavy hand on their collars directing them to the nearest lock-up?
The ACE ??? Where was the ace we were all told would be produced?
-
Is this bundle of cash that the McCanns are to receive to be provided equally between the various parties?
-
we don't need to change it because it isn't true.......I blame the criminal not the victims of crime
..but you don't know who is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, do you ?
and neither do SY.
-
Is this bundle of cash that the McCanns are to receive to be shared equally between the various parties?
It would be presumptuous to say at this stage. If Mr Amaral appeals which he is entitled do, it is anyone's guess as to how this could yet turn out.
-
I see, as expected, Amaral is appealing.
Jolly good.
-
Is this bundle of cash that the McCanns are to receive to be shared equally between the various parties?
If you mean the defendants I was of the opinion not but it is difficult to work out.
There is the matter of Isobel's bill (bill you note not bell) which will make a dent in the receipts.
I wonder what the P&L for this venture looks like. But as we are constantly reminded it was never about the money.
-
It would be presumptuous to say at this stage. If Mr Amaral appeals which he is entitled do, it is anyone's guess as to how this could yet turn out.
I understand that. What I meant was, as it stands, is Amaral liable for the whole 500k, or merely one third
-
I understand that. What I meant was, as it stands, is Amaral liable for the whole 500k, or merely one third
The judgement is against Mr Amaral solely.
-
The judgement is against Mr Amaral solely.
Right, so have judgements been made against the other parties as well?
-
I see, as expected, Amaral is appealing.
Jolly good.
It may well wind up like Jarndyce v Jarndyce 8(0(*
-
It would be presumptuous to say at this stage. If Mr Amaral appeals which he is entitled do, it is anyone's guess as to how this could yet turn out.
I think it is almost certain that he will appeal the Court ruling ... he certainly has nothing more to lose ... and having won the first all important round (again) against what were predicted to be overwhelming odds, I think the McCanns can afford to be quite relaxed about it.
If I were to be asked (hardly likely, I know) my advice would be to accept the ruling, pick up the pieces and get on with whatever life is left. If he had done that a few years ago he could have saved a lot of grief.
I think proceeding to appeal will only damage his reputation further ... but if he can find a lawyer to represent him, I am sure he will go for it.
-
I have spent the last day reading the judgement. The following points are clear.
The question of libel was settled previously. What Amaral said was not libellous because citizens are guaranteed the defence of free speech except in exceptional cases.
The word 'libel' does not appear in this Judgement.
The Judge accepted that some damage was caused to the McCann parents but not the children.
The question was- was this damage a tort. If so then it would be open to damages.
It was already proved that there was no tort of defamation.
However Amaral was and remains constrained by his office as a part of the judicial system. This requires that information gained from office should not be used unless it is lawful to do so. It also requires that such an officer should never impugn the right of a person to be regarded as innocent of any crime until proven guilty.
A simple citizen could have written a book using the files and this would be protected expression. However Amaral was not a simple citizen but an active and retired police officer. He used information from his own experience that was not in the files and asserted that the McCann were guilty of a crime for which they had not been convicted.
In the UK this might be auctioned as a Official Secrets case or performance in a public office.
Note that the TV and publisher were acquitted as they were not privy directly to evidence and were not bound by the requirement to maintain the McCann presumption of innocence.
Finally, the 'Costs' seems to refer to Court fees rather than solicitors charges for each side.
-
I have spent the last day reading the judgement. The following points are clear.
The question of libel was settled previously. What Amaral said was not libellous because citizens are guaranteed the defence of free speech except in exceptional cases.
The word 'libel' does not appear in this Judgement.
The Judge accepted that some damage was caused to the McCann parents but not the children.
The question was- was this damage a tort. If so then it would be open to damages.
It was already proved that there was no tort of defamation.
However Amaral was and remains constrained by his office as a part of the judicial system. This requires that information gained from office should not be used unless it is lawful to do so. It also requires that such an officer should never impugn the right of a person to be regarded as innocent of any crime until proven guilty.
A simple citizen could have written a book using the files and this would be protected expression. However Amaral was not a simple citizen but an active and retired police officer. He used information from his own experience that was not in the files and asserted that the McCann were guilty of a crime for which they had not been convicted.
In the UK this might be auctioned as a Official Secrets case or performance in a public office.
Note that the TV and publisher were acquitted as they were not privy directly to evidence and were not bound by the requirement to maintain the McCann presumption of innocence.
Finally, the 'Costs' seems to refer to Court fees rather than solicitors charges for each side.
That's interesting and answers a question I asked on another thread.
-
This is the judge's opinion and interpretation only. Don't forget that the judge who upheld the book ban also stated the same argument about Gonçalo Amaral being a policemen, which seems a rather desperate argument IMHO. Later this same interpretation was torn apart by the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa in October 2010, where they wrote in the acordão that GA, although he was a retired policeman or civil servant, still enjoyed the same rights to freedom of expression and opinion as any other citizen in Portugal. This current verdict is based on opinion and not based on law. He broke no law AFAIK. I find it frightening that someone can be made to pay such a high amount when what they wrote was true and not libellous! This could be dangerous for freedom of expression in the future.
-
That's interesting and answers a question I asked on another thread.
it answers it but gives the wrong answer...the damages were awarded for damage to reputation...defamation...libel
-
it answers it but gives the wrong answer...the damages were awarded for damage to reputation...defamation...libel
Except that the question I asked was, - "Right, so have judgements been made against the other parties as well?" so it was the correct answer.
-
I guess nothing will be resolved until the appeals process is exhausted or someone caves in or dies. A long running fraud case in India was closed out when the last living witness to events turned up his toes.
My understanding is that no money changes hands until the appeals process is completed.
It is rapidly becoming beyond parody.
-
it answers it but gives the wrong answer...the damages were awarded for damage to reputation...defamation...libel
You never give up being wrong do you? There is no reference to defamation or libel anywhere in the judgement so get over it for God's sake.
-
Except that the question I asked was, - "Right, so have judgements been made against the other parties as well?" so it was the correct answer.
Simply put, only Amaral will have to pay the €500k award plus interest, the other defendants were acquitted.
-
Right, so have judgements been made against the other parties as well?
Other parties acquitted.
VI. Judge over the rest of unfounded the claims made in the action attached by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and same acquit the defendants.
VII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the attached action against TVI defendant - INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, the same acquitting the defendant.
Expenses to be shared.
X. condemn the authors KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL the expense of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for the second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
XI. Condemn the perpetrators KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA in expense attached action in the proportion of 50%, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
-
The Judge was never concerned with the criminal investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, she said as much when she stopped Gerry McCann dead in his tracks when he attempted to enlighten the Court over his cadaver dog research.
She was merely concerned with the damage sustained by the McCann's as a direct consequence of Amaral's claims. All she had to decide was if Amaral's right to free expression eclipsed the McCanns right to a good name. She decided in favour of the latter.
Had Amaral not earned substantial royalties as a result of his book etc, the damages awarded would have been insignificant.
I agree with the first part, although there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure about your last comment.
Part of the issue was, as Brenden de Beer, put it:
Isabel Duarte had argued that Amaral used privileged information in the book, with the court ruling that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by his position as a former police detective and lead investigator in the case.
That is the crux of it, the Judge has spoken. The case was all about damages and damages alone.
As regards the last comment, this again is stated clearly in the judgement. Any award is based on amongst other factors, the illegal earnings so if the earnings were small thus the award would have been small and so on.
The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of litigant's fault, the seriousness of the offence and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offence.
The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK.
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
Phone: 213846400 Fax: 213874221 Mail: lisboa.centralcivel@tribunais.org.pt
Proc.Nº 1454 / 09.5TVLSB
It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83).
The same offense allowed the defendant earn the amount of about Euro 382,000.00 of income (paragraphs 33 and 62, and noted that the latter relates to the proceeds with the sale of the DVD so that it takes little strict, but or so it stops being materially true, because if the DVD was only sold at the end of April 2009, the process for their marketing began on March 7, 2008 with the contract concluded with the defendant VC Films, and this defendant the payment of Euros 40,000.00 documented on pages. 2095).
In light of these vectors, it is deemed appropriate and proportionate compensation petitioned by those authors, which is Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) for each, to be added under paragraph 3 of article 805º code Civil, default interest at the statutory rate of civil interest, from the date of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's quote for action (January 5, 2010 -. fl 151) until full payment.
-
You never give up being wrong do you? There is no reference to defamation or libel anywhere in the judgement so get over it for God's sake.
That's because the judge was wrong 8(0(*
-
This is the judge's opinion and interpretation only. Don't forget that the judge who upheld the book ban also stated the same argument about Gonçalo Amaral being a policemen, which seems a rather desperate argument IMHO. Later this same interpretation was torn apart by the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa in October 2010, where they wrote in the acordão that GA, although he was a retired policeman or civil servant, still enjoyed the same rights to freedom of expression and opinion as any other citizen in Portugal. This current verdict is based on opinion and not based on law. He broke no law AFAIK. I find it frightening that someone can be made to pay such a high amount when what they wrote was true and not libellous! This could be dangerous for freedom of expression in the future.
Have you read the judgement? It gives chapter and verse for those Portuguese and European laws that make it clear what the duties of a public servant whether active or retired, and the requirement for prosecuting associates to continually support both the right to and fact of innocence.
-
I find this particular extract quite poignant.
In the United Kingdom the case Allen v UK emphasized the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection-the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving-the presumption of innocence if being illusory or merely ideal.
Likewise, the presumption of innocence requires that the absence of guilt that it emanates is respected, after the acquittal or dismissal, in all legal proceedings of any kind and for any authority that comes into contact with these facts [idem Allen c. United Kingdom].
In this case, the authors Kate and Gerald MacCann never ceased to benefit from this presumption of innocence and the imperative of behavior as the same places on national judicial and judicial authorities and all of its employees and agents..
-
it answers it but gives the wrong answer...the damages were awarded for damage to reputation...defamation...libel
The damages were not awarded for libel. Libel was excluded previously. They were awarded for damages caused by the unlawful actions of a public servant.
The 82 page judgement does not mention the words "Libel" or "Defamation" once.
-
Good news. It would seem that in just over a day the appeal fund set up by well wishers for Amaral has reached over £2000.
-
The damages were not awarded for libel. Libel was excluded previously. They were awarded for damages caused by the unlawful actions of a public servant.
The 82 page judgement does not mention the words "Libel" or "Defamation" once.
What Unlawful Action?
-
Good news. It would seem that in just over a day the appeal fund set up by well wishers for Amaral has reached over £2000.
I saw on another forum that the dirty tricks brigade was out last night trying to get the appeal fund shut down.
-
Were such a case to be heard on England it would have been part Criminal and part Civil.
Amaral would have been charged either with Misconduct in a Public Office or under the Official Secrets Act.
The McCanns would have been free to sue not for Libel (the actual words being covered by rights to free speech) but could have sued for emotional distress or even Bodily Harm. Damages might have been awarded against Amaral for causing such harm, but it would not be for defamation, but for distress in the same way that a reckless driver can be sued for the distress caused by a road traffic accident or the way victims of sexual offences can claim damages for distress.
-
What Unlawful Action?
It is unlawful for a member of the Portuguese Police to either use information gained in the course of an investigation and not otherwise released to communicate to others particularly for personal financial gain. Additionally it is unlawful for such a person (legally involved, not just as a citizen) to suggest that someone not convicted of a crime is other than totally innocent- this is seen as part of the Guarantee of the presumption of innocence.
In England the police never say they 'know' who committed a crime when no trial has taken place, even when the facts strongly suggest it- euphemisms are used such as 'investigations are continuing' or 'we haves suspects but are keeping an open mind'.
-
I saw on another forum that the dirty tricks brigade was out last night trying to get the appeal fund shut down.
I read somewhere that the funding page had been pulled.
-
I read somewhere that the funding page had been pulled.
Thanks to the work of a few tenacious supporters it has been reinstated.
-
Were such a case to be heard on England it would have been part Criminal and part Civil.
Amaral would have been charged either with Misconduct in a Public Office or under the Official Secrets Act.
The McCanns would have been free to sue not for Libel (the actual words being covered by rights to free speech) but could have sued for emotional distress or even Bodily Harm. Damages might have been awarded against Amaral for causing such harm, but it would not be for defamation, but for distress in the same way that a reckless driver can be sued for the distress caused by a road traffic accident or the way victims of sexual offences can claim damages for distress.
And they would have to prove it.
-
Thanks to the work of a few tenacious supporters it has been reinstated.
I believe that any money raised is protected from falling into the hands of the McCanns, which might encourage people to donate. I certainly wouldn't want to donate if I thought they could get their sticky little paws on it. 8(0(*
-
It is unlawful for a member of the Portuguese Police to either use information gained in the course of an investigation and not otherwise released to communicate to others particularly for personal financial gain. Additionally it is unlawful for such a person (legally involved, not just as a citizen) to suggest that someone not convicted of a crime is other than totally innocent- this is seen as part of the Guarantee of the presumption of innocence.
In England the police never say they 'know' who committed a crime when no trial has taken place, even when the facts strongly suggest it- euphemisms are used such as 'investigations are continuing' or 'we haves suspects but are keeping an open mind'.
Thank You. Many of us have wondered about this but were unable to find any confirmation.
Can you explain why Amaral wasn't arrested?
-
That is the crux of it, the Judge has spoken. The case was all about damages and damages alone.
As regards the last comment, this again is stated clearly in the judgement. Any award is based on amongst other factors, the illegal earnings so if the earnings were small thus the award would have been small and so on.
The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of litigant's fault, the seriousness of the offence and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offence.
The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK.
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
Phone: 213846400 Fax: 213874221 Mail: lisboa.centralcivel@tribunais.org.pt
Proc.Nº 1454 / 09.5TVLSB
It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83).
The same offense allowed the defendant earn the amount of about Euro 382,000.00 of income (paragraphs 33 and 62, and noted that the latter relates to the proceeds with the sale of the DVD so that it takes little strict, but or so it stops being materially true, because if the DVD was only sold at the end of April 2009, the process for their marketing began on March 7, 2008 with the contract concluded with the defendant VC Films, and this defendant the payment of Euros 40,000.00 documented on pages. 2095).
In light of these vectors, it is deemed appropriate and proportionate compensation petitioned by those authors, which is Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) for each, to be added under paragraph 3 of article 805º code Civil, default interest at the statutory rate of civil interest, from the date of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's quote for action (January 5, 2010 -. fl 151) until full payment.
perhaps all those who say damages were not paid for defamation explain what the judge means by "the offence committed to the good name of the injured"......that's defamation...aka..libel
-
I believe that any money raised is protected from falling into the hands of the McCanns, which might encourage people to donate. I certainly wouldn't want to donate if I thought they could get their sticky little paws on it. 8(0(*
It's not just Amaral who has had a donation fund closed by GoFundMe. Ms. Baulch may have jumped the gun a little. Certainly other supporters are recommending donations be made into that private bank account which attracts no admin fees (or protection for suckers).
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/anti-gay-bakers-told-pay-135-000-couple-182021820.html?bcmt_s=m#QF2T9yl
*snipped*
The Kleins, who closed their store in September 2013 amid all the negative publicity and now operate it from their home, say the ruling could bankrupt their family of seven.
A GoFundMe page raised more than $100,000 for them before it was shut down on Friday.
The website said it does not allow donations for anyone found to be in violation of the law.
"Satan's really at work," the Kleins said on their Facebook page.
They urged supporters to donate instead through the website of Samaritan's Purse, a Christian aid group.
An Indiana pizzeria raised more than $840,000 through GoFundMe after a backlash when its owners made anti-gay comments.
But GoFundMe said the parlour had not broken that state's law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
perhaps all those who say damages were not paid for defamation explain what the judge means by "the offence committed to the good name of the injured"......that's defamation...aka..libel
Not in Portugal Dave, as you know by now the laws are completely different to England.
-
As I remember the judge in the injunction hearing in January 2010 used the same arguments in her verdict to uphold the book ban and that decision was eventually overturned by the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010. So nothing is water tight. The TdR stated that, although Gonçalo Amaral was a public servant, he was also a citizen with the same rights to freedom of expression and opinion as anyone else. This same court also stated that as the McCanns used the press and media for their advantage, they therefore could not expect not be subject to adverse opinion.
As for the book ban, in Portuguese law, the decision made by the Tribunal de Relação is jurisprudence and cannot be overturned by a lower court, that is the civil court. This could be a very important point for the appeal.
BTW, the lawyers have finally received today official notification and have 40 days to make their appeal.
Just catching up on things so thank you for explaining this Montclair. The legal issues in Portugal appear to be a minefield but what you state makes sense. On the other hand the judge has made a ruling on the basis that the McCann rights were infringed by the book and the dvd so not banning them probably wasn't an option? It will be interesting to see what an appeal court makes of it all.
-
Somebody needs to correct the world media if this was not a libel trial. Almost every headline has the word "libel" in it.
The British press and at least one British-run newspaper in Portugal have used the terms defamation and libel but we have to be careful to distinguish the adjective from the noun. In the strictest Portuguese legal sense the case was not one of defamation or libel per se but merely a claim for damages representing a breach of two former arguido's rights to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
-
It's not just Amaral who has had a donation fund closed by GoFundMe. Ms. Baulch may have jumped the gun a little. Certainly other supporters are recommending donations be made into that private bank account which attracts no admin fees (or protection for suckers).
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/anti-gay-bakers-told-pay-135-000-couple-182021820.html?bcmt_s=m#QF2T9yl
*snipped*
The Kleins, who closed their store in September 2013 amid all the negative publicity and now operate it from their home, say the ruling could bankrupt their family of seven.
A GoFundMe page raised more than $100,000 for them before it was shut down on Friday.
The website said it does not allow donations for anyone found to be in violation of the law.
"Satan's really at work," the Kleins said on their Facebook page.
They urged supporters to donate instead through the website of Samaritan's Purse, a Christian aid group.
An Indiana pizzeria raised more than $840,000 through GoFundMe after a backlash when its owners made anti-gay comments.
But GoFundMe said the parlour had not broken that state's law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be pleased to here the funding is reopened for Amaral.
-
The British press and at least one British-run newspaper in Portugal have used the terms defamation and libel but we have to be careful to distinguish the adjective from the noun. In the strictest Portuguese legal sense the case was not one of defamation or libel per se but merely a claim for damages representing a breach of two former arguido's rights to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
from the judgement....Correspondingly, the right to good name and reputation is essentially in the person not be offended or injured in his honor,
that's defamation...plain and simple
-
It is worth noting from the judgement that the case is referred to as an acção declarativa or declarative action.
Speak
Clear All
KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN and GERALD PATRICK MACCANN, married, doctors, for itself and on behalf of their minor children, BETH MADEILENE MACCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MACCANN and AMELIE EVE MACCANN, residents in Orchard House, 5, The Crescent, United Kingdom;
Brought this declarative action in the form of common process (originally under the ordinary form), against,
GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, married, living in Cerro Azul Urbanization, lot 53, Quelfes, Olhão.
KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN e GERALD PATRICK MACCANN, casados, médicos, por si e em representação dos seus filhos menores, MADEILENE BETH MACCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MACCANN e AMELIE EVE MACCANN, residentes em Orchard House, 5, The Crescent, Reino Unido;
Intentaram a presente acção declarativa, sob a forma comum de processo (originalmente, sob a forma ordinária), contra,
GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, casado, residente na Urbanização Cerro Azul, lote 53, Quelfes, Olhão.
-
from the judgement....Correspondingly, the right to good name and reputation is essentially in the person not be offended or injured in his honor,
that's defamation...plain and simple
They have defamed themselves through their actions in leaving three young children effectively by themselves, on successive evenings.
If they had shown responsibility and intelligence, none of this would have been necessary.
Now comes the appeals court, the supreme court, and followed if needed by the European Court of Human Rights, which has a backlog of nearly 70,000 cases. Apparently the same European Court gave 896 judgements last year. Looks like the mccanns have a long wait to look forward to, and ever increasing legal costs.
Shame. &%&£(+
-
I believe we should go by the words of the judgement - subject to translation errors of course, rather than 'interpretations'
-
You will be pleased to here the funding is reopened for Amaral.
Yes, I know. Hence my reference to Ms. Baulch. I anticipate that this same means of donating will also be shut down, for the same reasons as before.
I am pleased that people whose futile attempts to support a criminal ex-cop are prepared to thrown their own good money after bad.
-
I believe we should go by the words of the judgement - subject to translation errors of course, rather than 'interpretations'
I'm quoting the words of the judgement....the judge speaks of the right to a good name..amaral made an offense against that...John and others want to pretend that's not defamation..it is
-
Yes, I know. Hence my reference to Ms. Baulch. I anticipate that this same means of donating will also be shut down, for the same reasons as before.
I am pleased that people whose futile attempts to support a criminal ex-cop are prepared to thrown their own good money after bad.
It is up to those who wish to donate if they wish.
Those who have tried to stop it are clearly die hard mccann supporters, with their twisted hatred of Amaral.
-
It is up to those who wish to donate if they wish.
Those who have tried to stop it are clearly die hard mccann supporters, with their twisted hatred of Amaral.
I've not seen any members of this forum objecting to people putting their money where their mouths are ... in fact I think the amount of the donation should be commensurate with the size of the mouth ... this is a free country and they can do with their moneys what they will.
I do find it rather sad that the wheels of the machine are grinding throughout twitter and the internet spewing out bile on Madeleine's family because the Portuguese Courts have made an award to them in recognition of the damage they have suffered.
I think the appeal will be settled reasonably quickly ... then it will be interesting to see if Portuguese Justice will progress the outrages the system suffered at the hands of the appellant.
-
And they would have to prove it.
Going on recent cases where police have shared information with, for instance, the News of the World, it would not be that difficult to prove it. But that was only an attempt at explanation of how it would have been treated here. The judge quite clearly explains that that is one of the two roots of the finding, that and failure to maintain their innocence.
-
I'm quoting the words of the judgement....the judge speaks of the right to a good name..amaral made an offense against that...John and others want to pretend that's not defamation..it is
Not in Portugal it isn't and the last time I looked Lisbon was in Portugal! As already pointed out by me yesterday and others today, the words libel and defamation (difamação) do not appear once in the judgement.
-
I'm quoting the words of the judgement....the judge speaks of the right to a good name..amaral made an offense against that...John and others want to pretend that's not defamation..it is
To remove any doubt could you please quote the exact words you are claiming the judge said. I ask for this because part of the judgement is a detailed description of the difference between defamation by a citizen and misuse of information by a police officer.
-
Thank You. Many of us have wondered about this but were unable to find any confirmation.
Can you explain why Amaral wasn't arrested?
In England we have a system of common law which supports a clear distinction between civil and criminal law. This has developed over the centuries as before 1400 the only law was the King's law- all disputes whether criminal in nature or civil were to do with the King's Peace. Gradually the concept of civil law evolved where individuals could hold other individuals accountable through the courts without it being a matter of state.
In countries based on Roman Law there is less distinction between civil and criminal matters and particular actions may fall on what to us seems the 'wrong' side of the civil- criminal divide which is in any case less clear in Roman Law domains. In this case rather than misconduct in a public office being a crime, it is a tort and thus a civil matter. Amaral's actions were thus not arrestable but a tort. The tort was not libel but causing distress to another person in an unlawful manner. The response to this is damages rather than punishment.
-
In England we have a system of common law which supports a clear distinction between civil and criminal law. This has developed over the centuries as before 1400 the only law was the King's law- all disputes whether criminal in nature or civil were to do with the King's Peace. Gradually the concept of civil law evolved where individuals could hold other individuals accountable through the courts without it being a matter of state.
In countries based on Roman Law there is less distinction between civil and criminal matters and particular actions may fall on what to us seems the 'wrong' side of the civil- criminal divide which is in any case less clear in Roman Law domains. In this case rather than misconduct in a public office being a crime, it is a tort and thus a civil matter. Amaral's actions were thus not arrestable but a tort. The tort was not libel but causing distress to another person in an unlawful manner. The response to this is damages rather than punishment.
I don't suppose you could explain what A Tort is in this instance, could you?
Thanks again.
-
Its about time the Portuguese police pursued those involved in the Correia/Metodo 3 affair because we all know who was really behind it. They could start with attempting to obstruct justice, interfering with a criminal investigation, attempting to pervert the course of justice and bribery of public officials.
-
I don't suppose you could explain what A Tort is in this instance, could you?
Thanks again.
A tort is a is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the act.
-
An important part of the Judgement:
Having been in charge of that investigation as part of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired from the day July 1, 2008, did not enjoy, on 24 following , compared to those who were the criminal investigation results released on the 21st of the same month and year, broad and full freedom of expression.
This freedom was conditioned by his functions, it has functions that you imposed special duties that cross the status of retirement, including the duty reserve.
In the concrete situation, despite the personal reasons that the defendant invokes the introductory note of the book, was the freedom of expression that should give by imperative that reservation.
It was not what happened and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, give up the launch of the book, its sale with the newspaper's editing and publication of the interview.
-
I've not seen any members of this forum objecting to people putting their money where their mouths are ... in fact I think the amount of the donation should be commensurate with the size of the mouth ... this is a free country and they can do with their moneys what they will.
I do find it rather sad that the wheels of the machine are grinding throughout twitter and the internet spewing out bile on Madeleine's family because the Portuguese Courts have made an award to them in recognition of the damage they have suffered.
I think the appeal will be settled reasonably quickly ... then it will be interesting to see if Portuguese Justice will progress the outrages the system suffered at the hands of the appellant.
You can dream.
Perhaps you should read again through the courts findings.
The book did not harm the search.................................
Having said that, what searching did the mccanns ever really do ?
-
A tort is a is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the act.
So since what Amaral did was unlawful, would it be correct to say that The Judge only had to decide on the level of harm and how much he should pay?
-
An important part of the Judgement:
Having been in charge of that investigation as part of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired from the day July 1, 2008, did not enjoy, on 24 following , compared to those who were the criminal investigation results released on the 21st of the same month and year, broad and full freedom of expression.
This freedom was conditioned by his functions, it has functions that you imposed special duties that cross the status of retirement, including the duty reserve.
In the concrete situation, despite the personal reasons that the defendant invokes the introductory note of the book, was the freedom of expression that should give by imperative that reservation.
It was not what happened and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, give up the launch of the book, its sale with the newspaper's editing and publication of the interview.
Have I got this right?
In the context of the case and the damages awarded … Goncalo Amaral's freedom of speech as a citizen was superseded by his obligation as a public servant.
Therefore the damage he was doing outweighed his rights in favour of the McCanns' right not to be defamed?
Welcome to the forum OxfordBloo.
-
Here is the nub of Portuguese Law on Personal Integrity:
"Under the aegis of ordinary law, the artº 70 of the Civil Code establishes the general protection of personality, stating that " law protects individuals against any illegal offense or offense of threat to their physical or moral integrity. "
On the other hand, even that civil law generally provides the artº 483º that "anyone who, intentionally or recklessly, unlawfully violates the right to another person or any legal provision intended to protect foreign interests is obliged to compensate the injured party for damages resulting from the violation "and the artº 484º specifically establishes that" anyone who claims or spread a fact capable of harming the credit or good name of any individual or legal, is liable for the damage. "
Pires de Lima e Antunes Varela state that it "exists or not, by the natural or legal persons, an individual right to credit and good name, it is considered as expressly wrongful conduct that threatens to injure them within the prescribed terms. Never mind that the fact stated or disclosed correspond to the truth or not, as long as is likely, given the circumstances, to reduce confidence in the ability and willingness of the person to fulfill their obligations (loss of credit) or shake the prestige of the person or enjoy the good concept that is taken (loss the good name) in the social environment in which he lives or carries on business."
Note that even if the statement is true, it still can be seen as damaging the person.
This is also the case in England where for instance if one paraded outside a private home 12 hours a day with a placard detailing the criminal acts of an individual, one would be both civilly and criminally liable for harassment- because although the matter of fact was true, it was being used in an illegal manner.
If one were in that position one could call on the police to remove the person for Breach of the Peace, or if repeated ask for the person to be arrested for harassment. Or one could take out an injunction to estop the person from parading outside ones house, or sue the person for personal injury in the civil courts.
The important fact to grasp is that the same facts repeated by the TV and CD producers and the book publishers was not an offence of libel becasue their Free Speech was protected under the law, but Amaral lost the right to Free Speech on the issue because he misused his privileged position to harass and cause damage to the Mccanns.
Davel- the quote you give is from the section where the jusge is deciding the 'Quantum', amount of the damages and using case law in similar cases that showed that damages could be set to compensate for the monetary advantage that an offence such as libel might have resulted for the respondent. The judge seems to have balanced Amaral's profits from the book against the award to the McCanns.
-
So since what Amaral did was unlawful, would it be correct to say that The Judge only had to decide on the level of harm and how much he should pay?
She had to decide if a civil wrong- a tort- had been proved- that Amaral harmed the Mccanns in a manner not protected by law. He had not libelled the McCanns as the right to Free Speech makes what he said protected under the law, but he had harmed the Mccanns by misusing information gained in the course of his duties and by not conforming to the necessity of an officer of the law maintaining the innocence of unconvicted people.
In brief he has been found guilty of misusing privileged information and calling into question the Innocence of the Mccanns.
I think it will be very difficult to appeal this as these two accusations seem to be matters of fact- he did go beyond the Files (as the Judge explains at length) and he did say that the McCanns were guilty of concealing Madeleine, a criminal offence under Portuguese Law.
-
Have you read the judgement? It gives chapter and verse for those Portuguese and European laws that make it clear what the duties of a public servant whether active or retired, and the requirement for prosecuting associates to continually support both the right to and fact of innocence.
You better tell that to the Appeals Court in Lisbon whereby the judges ruled, when they overturned the book ban, that Gonçalo Amaral despite being a public servant also enjoyed the same basic rights to freedom of expression and opinion as any other citizen in Portugal. I believe that the judge in her verdict was making references to rulings not laws which suited her opinion.
-
Have I got this right?
In the context of the case and the damages awarded … Goncalo Amaral's freedom of speech as a citizen was superseded by his obligation as a public servant.
Therefore the damage he was doing outweighed his rights in favour of the McCanns' right not to be defamed?
Welcome to the forum OxfordBloo.
Exactly. As a person in a privileged position he lostthe right to call into question the Mccann's innocence, AND he took privileged information from his employment and used it to do psychological harm to the McCanns.
The other defendenets were not found liable becasue they were ordinary citizens or organisations and hence not covered by the laws on privilege and duty of police officers.
-
She had to decide if a civil wrong- a tort- had been proved- that Amaral harmed the Mccanns in a manner not protected by law. He had not libelled the McCanns as the right to Free Speech makes what he said protected under the law, but he had harmed the Mccanns by misusing information gained in the course of his duties and by not conforming to the necessity of an officer of the law maintaining the innocence of unconvicted people.
In brief he has been found guilty of misusing privileged information and calling into question the Innocence of the Mccanns.
I think it will be very difficult to appeal this as these two accusations seem to be matters of fact- he did go beyond the Files (as the Judge explains at length) and he did say that the McCanns were guilty of concealing Madeleine, a criminal offence under Portuguese Law.
Thank You. This makes it all so much easier to understand.
-
You better tell that to the Appeals Court in Lisbon whereby the judges ruled, when they overturned the book ban, that Gonçalo Amaral despite being a public servant also enjoyed the same basic rights to freedom of expression and opinion as any other citizen in Portugal. I believe that the judge in her verdict was making references to rulings not laws which suited her opinion.
If you read the whole judgement you will find that is explained.
Amaral has the right to free expression but not the right to use information gained in his duties as a police officer- if he had kept to the files he would have been alright but the Judge specifies accasions where he relied on information that he had obtained under privilege. Additionally the Judge pointed out that Amaral had an absolute obligation as a retired Law Officer to protect teh Status of Innocent until proven guilty of any defendents within his purview- in this he failed by publicly accusing the McCanns of concealment.
-
It is worth noting from the judgement that the case is referred to as an acção declarativa or declarative action.
Speak
Clear All
KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN and GERALD PATRICK MACCANN, married, doctors, for itself and on behalf of their minor children, BETH MADEILENE MACCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MACCANN and AMELIE EVE MACCANN, residents in Orchard House, 5, The Crescent, United Kingdom;
Brought this declarative action in the form of common process (originally under the ordinary form), against,
GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, married, living in Cerro Azul Urbanization, lot 53, Quelfes, Olhão.
KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN e GERALD PATRICK MACCANN, casados, médicos, por si e em representação dos seus filhos menores, MADEILENE BETH MACCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MACCANN e AMELIE EVE MACCANN, residentes em Orchard House, 5, The Crescent, Reino Unido;
Intentaram a presente acção declarativa, sob a forma comum de processo (originalmente, sob a forma ordinária), contra,
GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, casado, residente na Urbanização Cerro Azul, lote 53, Quelfes, Olhão.
What is an "acção declarativa" and what is its importance?
-
If you read the whole judgement you will find that is explained.
Amaral has the right to free expression but not the right to use information gained in his duties as a police officer- if he had kept to the files he would have been alright but the Judge specifies accasions where he relied on information that he had obtained under privilege. Additionally the Judge pointed out that Amaral had an absolute obligation as a retired Law Officer to protect teh Status of Innocent until proven guilty of any defendents within his purview- in this he failed by publicly accusing the McCanns of concealment.
I can't see what grounds he can use for an appeal. I hope it is denied!
-
What is an "acção declarativa" and what is its importance?
It is simply a request by a plaintiff for a court to declare that a certain matter is the case. In this case the Mccanns asked the court to declare that AMaral acted ina manner that caused them distress that wasa tort and for which he could be held responsible.
In English Law it would be up to the plaintiff (except in libel cases) to show that a tort had been committed but under continental law systems one request the court to consider the law and make a declaration whether the actions alleged amount to a tort.
-
Would he be able to appeal against the size of the damages even if he couldn't appeal against the judgement?
-
Here is the nub of Portuguese Law on Personal Integrity:
"Under the aegis of ordinary law, the artº 70 of the Civil Code establishes the general protection of personality, stating that " law protects individuals against any illegal offense or offense of threat to their physical or moral integrity. "
On the other hand, even that civil law generally provides the artº 483º that "anyone who, intentionally or recklessly, unlawfully violates the right to another person or any legal provision intended to protect foreign interests is obliged to compensate the injured party for damages resulting from the violation "and the artº 484º specifically establishes that" anyone who claims or spread a fact capable of harming the credit or good name of any individual or legal, is liable for the damage. "
Pires de Lima e Antunes Varela state that it "exists or not, by the natural or legal persons, an individual right to credit and good name, it is considered as expressly wrongful conduct that threatens to injure them within the prescribed terms. Never mind that the fact stated or disclosed correspond to the truth or not, as long as is likely, given the circumstances, to reduce confidence in the ability and willingness of the person to fulfill their obligations (loss of credit) or shake the prestige of the person or enjoy the good concept that is taken (loss the good name) in the social environment in which he lives or carries on business."
Note that even if the statement is true, it still can be seen as damaging the person.
This is also the case in England where for instance if one paraded outside a private home 12 hours a day with a placard detailing the criminal acts of an individual, one would be both civilly and criminally liable for harassment- because although the matter of fact was true, it was being used in an illegal manner.
If one were in that position one could call on the police to remove the person for Breach of the Peace, or if repeated ask for the person to be arrested for harassment. Or one could take out an injunction to estop the person from parading outside ones house, or sue the person for personal injury in the civil courts.
The important fact to grasp is that the same facts repeated by the TV and CD producers and the book publishers was not an offence of libel becasue their Free Speech was protected under the law, but Amaral lost the right to Free Speech on the issue because he misused his privileged position to harass and cause damage to the Mccanns.
Davel- the quote you give is from the section where the jusge is deciding the 'Quantum', amount of the damages and using case law in similar cases that showed that damages could be set to compensate for the monetary advantage that an offence such as libel might have resulted for the respondent. The judge seems to have balanced Amaral's profits from the book against the award to the McCanns.
your post and reasoning are muddled....parading outside someones house in a similar fashion would be a crime in the UK ...but not defamation..harassment...the McCanns have been compensated for damage to their reputation...do you not agree
-
Here is the nub of Portuguese Law on Personal Integrity:
"Under the aegis of ordinary law, the artº 70 of the Civil Code establishes the general protection of personality, stating that " law protects individuals against any illegal offense or offense of threat to their physical or moral integrity. "
On the other hand, even that civil law generally provides the artº 483º that "anyone who, intentionally or recklessly, unlawfully violates the right to another person or any legal provision intended to protect foreign interests is obliged to compensate the injured party for damages resulting from the violation "and the artº 484º specifically establishes that" anyone who claims or spread a fact capable of harming the credit or good name of any individual or legal, is liable for the damage. "
Pires de Lima e Antunes Varela state that it "exists or not, by the natural or legal persons, an individual right to credit and good name, it is considered as expressly wrongful conduct that threatens to injure them within the prescribed terms. Never mind that the fact stated or disclosed correspond to the truth or not, as long as is likely, given the circumstances, to reduce confidence in the ability and willingness of the person to fulfill their obligations (loss of credit) or shake the prestige of the person or enjoy the good concept that is taken (loss the good name) in the social environment in which he lives or carries on business."
Note that even if the statement is true, it still can be seen as damaging the person.
This is also the case in England where for instance if one paraded outside a private home 12 hours a day with a placard detailing the criminal acts of an individual, one would be both civilly and criminally liable for harassment- because although the matter of fact was true, it was being used in an illegal manner.
If one were in that position one could call on the police to remove the person for Breach of the Peace, or if repeated ask for the person to be arrested for harassment. Or one could take out an injunction to estop the person from parading outside ones house, or sue the person for personal injury in the civil courts.
The important fact to grasp is that the same facts repeated by the TV and CD producers and the book publishers was not an offence of libel becasue their Free Speech was protected under the law, but Amaral lost the right to Free Speech on the issue because he misused his privileged position to harass and cause damage to the Mccanns.
Davel- the quote you give is from the section where the jusge is deciding the 'Quantum', amount of the damages and using case law in similar cases that showed that damages could be set to compensate for the monetary advantage that an offence such as libel might have resulted for the respondent. The judge seems to have balanced Amaral's profits from the book against the award to the McCanns.
that is defamation...they may not call it such...but it is defamation
-
She had to decide if a civil wrong- a tort- had been proved- that Amaral harmed the Mccanns in a manner not protected by law. He had not libelled the McCanns as the right to Free Speech makes what he said protected under the law, but he had harmed the Mccanns by misusing information gained in the course of his duties and by not conforming to the necessity of an officer of the law maintaining the innocence of unconvicted people.
In brief he has been found guilty of misusing privileged information and calling into question the Innocence of the Mccanns.
I think it will be very difficult to appeal this as these two accusations seem to be matters of fact- he did go beyond the Files (as the Judge explains at length) and he did say that the McCanns were guilty of concealing Madeleine, a criminal offence under Portuguese Law.
are you saying that libel does not exist in Portugal ....it surely does as it is part of European law
-
A response from Amaral:
30 Apr 2015
A Message From Gonçalo Amaral
I find that the court's decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion.
For that reason, I do not resign myself to the decision and I will appeal it until the very last judicial instance.
If I am able to continue counting on your support, I will continue to fight within the judicial system for the Truth and the achievement of Justice.
Thank you.
It looks like he too does not understand the judgement to be about his personal capacity as an officer of the law with privileged information.
-
It is simply a request by a plaintiff for a court to declare that a certain matter is the case. In this case the Mccanns asked the court to declare that AMaral acted ina manner that caused them distress that wasa tort and for which he could be held responsible.
In English Law it would be up to the plaintiff (except in libel cases) to show that a tort had been committed but under continental law systems one request the court to consider the law and make a declaration whether the actions alleged amount to a tort.
Maybe Amaral should have showed their laughing Expresso interview in 2008 about his book. They didn't look too distressed there. The media gave her the name Maddie. Kate said it so it must be true @)(++(*
-
that is defamation...they may not call it such...but it is defamation
Article 70 is about defamation but if you read it in context she is looking to defamation law to decide what the should do to decide the 'quantum' the amount of damages appropriate for the different code violations and European Law judgements that she found AMaral had committed.
Defamation is publishing false information. She has said that it is not possible to decide whether the information in the Files or in the book is true or false, and that is why the Publisher and the TV company is not sanctioned in this case, but she has found that Amaral has used the facts (true or not) to cause damage to the McCanns. She has not found that Amaral libelled them (made false statements that defamed them) but that he harmed them by using quite possibly true statements that were based on privileged information and used in such a way that broke his duty as a law officer to not accuse an innocent person of committing a crime.
-
A response from Amaral:
30 Apr 2015
A Message From Gonçalo Amaral
I find that the court's decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion.
For that reason, I do not resign myself to the decision and I will appeal it until the very last judicial instance.
If I am able to continue counting on your support, I will continue to fight within the judicial system for the Truth and the achievement of Justice.
Thank you.
It looks like he too does not understand the judgement to be about his personal capacity as an officer of the law with privileged information.
I would have thought that this was obvious. It was who he was that made his remarks so devastating.
-
No. They have been compensated for psycholgical harm caused unlawfully by a Police Officer with particular duties of confidentiality and recognition of innocence which he has broken.
-
are you saying that libel does not exist in Portugal ....it surely does as it is part of European law
Libel does exist. Amaral was found not to have been libellous in the previous Supreme Court ruling. He has now been found liable for other civil torts and punished accordingly.
-
Article 70 is about defamation but if you read it in context she is looking to defamation law to decide what the should do to decide the 'quantum' the amount of damages appropriate for the different code violations and European Law judgements that she found AMaral had committed.
Defamation is publishing false information. She has said that it is not possible to decide whether the information in the Files or in the book is true or false, and that is why the Publisher and the TV company is not sanctioned in this case, but she has found that Amaral has used the facts (true or not) to cause damage to the McCanns. She has not found that Amaral libelled them (made false statements that defamed them) but that he harmed them by using quite possibly true statements that were based on privileged information and used in such a way that broke his duty as a law officer to not accuse an innocent person of committing a crime.
defamation is not about publishing false information...it is about publishing information you cannot prove...it may well be true
-
your post and reasoning are muddled....parading outside someones house in a similar fashion would be a crime in the UK ...but not defamation..harassment...the McCanns have been compensated for damage to their reputation...do you not agree
One thing you can't say is that Oxfordbloo's reasoning is muddled.
-
A response from Amaral:
30 Apr 2015
A Message From Gonçalo Amaral
I find that the court's decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion.
For that reason, I do not resign myself to the decision and I will appeal it until the very last judicial instance.
If I am able to continue counting on your support, I will continue to fight within the judicial system for the Truth and the achievement of Justice.
Thank you.
It looks like he too does not understand the judgement to be about his personal capacity as an officer of the law with privileged information.
Perfect English too £5%4%
-
One thing you can't say is that Oxfordbloo's reasoning is muddled.
actually... I just said it...and his/her definition of defamation is flawed as everyone can see
-
A response from Amaral:
30 Apr 2015
A Message From Gonçalo Amaral
I find that the court's decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion.
For that reason, I do not resign myself to the decision and I will appeal it until the very last judicial instance.
If I am able to continue counting on your support, I will continue to fight within the judicial system for the Truth and the achievement of Justice.
Thank you.
It looks like he too does not understand the judgement to be about his personal capacity as an officer of the law with privileged information.
he forgot to add he will continue to fight as long as some mug will pay for it
-
No. They have been compensated for psycholgical harm caused unlawfully by a Police Officer with particular duties of confidentiality and recognition of innocence which he has broken.
Why was the children's claim not allowed, do you know? Also, is that why the McCanns are liable for over 50% of the costs (if that's true)?
-
oxford...could you confirm that your definition of defamation is incorrect
-
defamation is not about publishing false information...it is about publishing information you cannot prove...it may well be true
OK, let's unsplit some hairs and define terms
Defamation is anything that harms a person's reputation
Libel is defaming someone without a defence.
This case is not about defamation as such but about psychological damage caused by unlawful acts committed by Amaral.
The statements he made were defamatory as were those identical ones made by the publishers and similar ones made by the TV company. Defamation at this level was not libel and was not a tort
Amaral has been found guilty of misusing information gained in a privileged position and of failing to abide by the legal requirements of his profession.
The words used by all were equally defamatory and not actionable under the concept of Free Speech.
But Amaral's action which were unlawful led to harm other than defamation- psychological damage and harrassment- right to peaceful enjoyment of life.
I know you are desperate to claim that this is an action for defamation so that it could be claimed that the book was necessarily full of false accusations, but this judgement does not address the factuality of the book but only the actions of Amaral and his responsibility for those actions.
-
If you read the whole judgement you will find that is explained.
Amaral has the right to free expression but not the right to use information gained in his duties as a police officer- if he had kept to the files he would have been alright but the Judge specifies accasions where he relied on information that he had obtained under privilege. Additionally the Judge pointed out that Amaral had an absolute obligation as a retired Law Officer to protect teh Status of Innocent until proven guilty of any defendents within his purview- in this he failed by publicly accusing the McCanns of concealment.
I'm sure that the TdR was aware of the fact that he was a retired PJ when they made the statement about his right to freedom of expression. AFAIK, he had legal advice before he published the book. I'm not versed in law as you are, but I know that it is open to interpretation and the TdR had a different interpretation from that of the verdict in February 2010 and this latest one.
-
Why was the children's claim not allowed, do you know? Also, is that why the McCanns are liable for over 50% of the costs (if that's true)?
The children's claim was disallowed as they had not suffered direct personal harm from Amarals abuse of his position whereas the parents had.
I believe the costs referred to are more like court fees rather than each side's legal costs. The Judge apportioned the fees according to whose additional claims added to court time and expense (IMHO)
-
Why was the children's claim not allowed, do you know? Also, is that why the McCanns are liable for over 50% of the costs (if that's true)?
Does anyone know the extent of the mccanns legal expenses as a result of this case ?
-
I'm sure that the TdR was aware of the fact that he was a retired PJ when they made the statement about his right to freedom of expression. AFAIK, he had legal advice before he published the book. I'm not versed in law as you are, but I know that it is open to interpretation and the TdR had a different interpretation from that of the verdict in February 2010 and this latest one.
Read the Judge's reasoning in the Judgement. She explains it very clearly how she made her decision.
-
A response from Amaral:
30 Apr 2015
A Message From Gonçalo Amaral
I find that the court's decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion.
For that reason, I do not resign myself to the decision and I will appeal it until the very last judicial instance.
If I am able to continue counting on your support, I will continue to fight within the judicial system for the Truth and the achievement of Justice.
Thank you.
It looks like he too does not understand the judgement to be about his personal capacity as an officer of the law with privileged information.
I'm sure that Gonçalo Amaral has read the verdict and is aware of the points made about his being a police officer. He studied law.
-
Does anyone know the extent of the mccanns legal expenses as a result of this case ?
Probably similar to Amaral's.
I understand that in Portuguese Law unless rulings are made to the contrary, each side is responsible for its own legal costs.
-
OK, let's unsplit some hairs and define terms
Defamation is anything that harms a person's reputation
Libel is defaming someone without a defence.
This case is not about defamation as such but about psychological damage caused by unlawful acts committed by Amaral.
The statements he made were defamatory as were those identical ones made by the publishers and similar ones made by the TV company. Defamation at this level was not libel and was not a tort
Amaral has been found guilty of misusing information gained in a privileged position and of failing to abide by the legal requirements of his profession.
The words used by all were equally defamatory and not actionable under the concept of Free Speech.
But Amaral's action which were unlawful led to harm other than defamation- psychological damage and harrassment- right to peaceful enjoyment of life.
I know you are desperate to claim that this is an action for defamation so that it could be claimed that the book was necessarily full of false accusations, but this judgement does not address the factuality of the book but only the actions of Amaral and his responsibility for those actions.
so now you are changing your definition of defamation...so therefore your claim that the judge could not decide on defamation is also wrong...that's two mistakes
-
I'm sure that Gonçalo Amaral has read the verdict and is aware of the points made about his being a police officer. He studied law.
looks like he didn't understand it..
-
I'm sure that Gonçalo Amaral has read the verdict and is aware of the points made about his being a police officer. He studied law.
If he has read it he will understand that any appeal will be very difficult as it is undeniable that he used privileged information (there are parts of The Truth of the Lie that rely on his own notes and recollections rather than on the published files) as it is undeniable that he did accuse the McCanns (as persons having the right to the presumption of innocence) of being guilty of a crime or crimes.
-
OK, let's unsplit some hairs and define terms
Defamation is anything that harms a person's reputation
Libel is defaming someone without a defence.
This case is not about defamation as such but about psychological damage caused by unlawful acts committed by Amaral.
The statements he made were defamatory as were those identical ones made by the publishers and similar ones made by the TV company. Defamation at this level was not libel and was not a tort
Amaral has been found guilty of misusing information gained in a privileged position and of failing to abide by the legal requirements of his profession.
The words used by all were equally defamatory and not actionable under the concept of Free Speech.
But Amaral's action which were unlawful led to harm other than defamation- psychological damage and harrassment- right to peaceful enjoyment of life.
I know you are desperate to claim that this is an action for defamation so that it could be claimed that the book was necessarily full of false accusations, but this judgement does not address the factuality of the book but only the actions of Amaral and his responsibility for those actions.
so where is amarals defence to libel
-
Read the Judge's reasoning in the Judgement. She explains it very clearly how she made her decision.
I did read it and in Portuguese and I understand her reasoning, but that doesn't mean that another court can't come to another conclusion with other reasoning.
-
so now you are changing your definition of defamation...so therefore your claim that the judge could not decide on defamation is also wrong...that's two mistakes
I refuse to get involved in a spat about a side issue.
The Judgement is not on defamation or libel.
It is about Harm caused to a person generally including psychological harm, reliant on the privileged position of the perpetrator.
The Publishers of the book are equally repsonsible for its contents and are not liable.
-
I did read it and in Portuguese and I understand her reasoning, but that doesn't mean that another court can come to another conclusion with other reasoning.
On the simple facts I do not see an alternative reading. He did abuse his position. It is nothing to do with defamation (yea or nay) or truth (yea or nay) but merely to do with Amaral's proven actions.
-
I refuse to get involved in a spat about a side issue.
The Judgement is not on defamation or libel.
It is about Harm caused to a person generally including psychological harm, reliant on the privileged position of the perpetrator.
The Publishers of the book are equally repsonsible for its contents and are not liable.
as you have made two statements...which are obviously incorrect...and you cannot support them...you have lost the argument
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibKJLHRjD8
It is all worth a look but the last three or four minutes give the idea.
-
as you have made two statements...which are obviously incorrect...and you cannot support them...you have lost the argument
Oh dear dave, you never learn.
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
so where is amarals defence to libel
FFS
Nobody libelled the Mccanns under Portuguese Law. The Supreme Court decided that.
What has been found is that the McCanns were harmed by the unlawful actions of a civil servant with responsibilities beyond those of an ordinary citizen.
Let me try one more time with an example from a different sphere.
A Planning Officer with a local Council turns down a planning application because he knows from his work that a company wants to secetly buy up all the land in that area and he has asked to be paid bythat company when it starts work. The members of the planning committee vote to deny planning permission based on the Officer's recommendation.
The truth comes out.
The Planning Officer is guilty of misconduct in a public office. The planning committee are innocent.
No one is guilty of fraud as no money actually changed hands.
Fraud=Libel
Planning Officer= Amaral
Planning Committe= Publishers and TV station.
Why? Because the public official misused his position to harm the applicant.
-
If he has read it he will understand that any appeal will be very difficult as it is undeniable that he used privileged information (there are parts of The Truth of the Lie that rely on his own notes and recollections rather than on the published files) as it is undeniable that he did accuse the McCanns (as persons having the right to the presumption of innocence) of being guilty of a crime or crimes.
Well, I have heard that other jurists have said that that argument would be very easy to overturn. As I said, all a matter of interpretation. We just have to wait and see, nothing more. "Não faço prognósticos antes do fim do jogo".
-
Well, I have heard that other jurists have said that that argument would be very easy to overturn. As I said, all a matter of interpretation. We just have to wait and see, nothing more. "Não faço prognósticos antes do fim do jogo".
Which "argument" would be easy to overturn. Use of illicit knowlege or failing in the duty to maintain innocence/
-
I am aware of the desperation to claim that this case has something to do with libel and defamation in order to use it as a stick to beat people who doubt the McCanns, but it is nothing to do with truth or lies, libel or accuracy.
All that has been found in the case is that Amaral is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
-
OK, let's unsplit some hairs and define terms
Defamation is anything that harms a person's reputation
Libel is defaming someone without a defence.
This case is not about defamation as such but about psychological damage caused by unlawful acts committed by Amaral.
The statements he made were defamatory as were those identical ones made by the publishers and similar ones made by the TV company. Defamation at this level was not libel and was not a tort
Amaral has been found guilty of misusing information gained in a privileged position and of failing to abide by the legal requirements of his profession.
The words used by all were equally defamatory and not actionable under the concept of Free Speech.
But Amaral's action which were unlawful led to harm other than defamation- psychological damage and harrassment- right to peaceful enjoyment of life.
It's hard to understand why it took 5 years for the judge to decide that Amaral, by suggesting that the McCanns were guilty of something, broke the terms of his position as a public servant. If that is what she's saying?
-
Let's have less of the snide remarks and insults, thank you. This has been a civilised discussion for once.
-
It's hard to understand why it took 5 years for the judge to decide that Amaral, by suggesting that the McCanns were guilty of something, broke the terms of his position as a public servant. If that is what she's saying?
Apparently the case law of the European court of Human Rights says that people involved in the administration of criminal justice must not say that suspects are guilty while they are under investigation or being tried. So the assumption is that the McCanns were suspects, or arguidos. The other point the judge makes is that ECHR case law also prohibits assigning guilt (by those involved in the process) to people who have been acquitted. The McCanns were not tried, so not acquitted, but the judge mentions 'archiving' here.
-
I am aware of the desperation to claim that this case has something to do with libel and defamation in order to use it as a stick to beat people who doubt the McCanns, but it is nothing to do with truth or lies, libel or accuracy.
All that has been found in the case is that Amaral is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
I've been of that opinion for coming up on two years now ... seems a Portuguese Court has vindicated it.
-
Let's have less of the snide remarks and insults, thank you. This has been a civilised discussion for once.
It has been a brilliant and informative discussion.
I've just been catching up and I am totally breathless. Thanks for keeping up and answering everyones' questions so clearly, OxfordBlue ... much appreciated.
Going back now to reread the posts and take time to digest them properly.
-
FFS
Nobody libelled the Mccanns under Portuguese Law. The Supreme Court decided that.
What has been found is that the McCanns were harmed by the unlawful actions of a civil servant with responsibilities beyond those of an ordinary citizen.
Let me try one more time with an example from a different sphere.
A Planning Officer with a local Council turns down a planning application because he knows from his work that a company wants to secetly buy up all the land in that area and he has asked to be paid bythat company when it starts work. The members of the planning committee vote to deny planning permission based on the Officer's recommendation.
The truth comes out.
The Planning Officer is guilty of misconduct in a public office. The planning committee are innocent.
No one is guilty of fraud as no money actually changed hands.
Fraud=Libel
Planning Officer= Amaral
Planning Committe= Publishers and TV station.
Why? Because the public official misused his position to harm the applicant.
I Amaras actions are unlawful...which I accept they are...why is he not facing criminal charges
-
No. They have been compensated for psycholgical harm caused unlawfully by a Police Officer with particular duties of confidentiality and recognition of innocence which he has broken.
Even though he was no longer a police officer when he published the book?
-
I Amaras actions are unlawful...which I accept they are...why is he not facing criminal charges
I have explained that above. In Portugal the actions of Amaral are dealt with as torts rather than crimes.
-
I have explained that above. In Portugal the actions of Amaral are dealt with as torts rather than crimes.
you have said that libel had already been decided yet in the judgement it states..
MATTERS TO BE DECIDED
view of the requests made, to adjudicate essentially depends on the answer to the following question:
- The book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual (hereinafter, for simplicity, "documentary") and the interview the same defendant are illicit / antijurídicos in accordance with article 484 of Commission Code of Civil Procedure?
In response attempt will travel the following discussion levels:
I. The content of the book, documentary and interview.
II.. The conflict in this case between freedom of expression and the right to good name and reputation of the authors
which indicates that this had not been decided
-
Even though he was no longer a police officer when he published the book?
Yes. The judgement is quite clear that the requirements of confidentiality and non-malfeasance are enduring beyond retirement, partly because of the date at which the information was received, and secondly because a pensioned police officer retains certain duties and advantages of having been a police officer.
-
iim just reading the judgement..it also says...
The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic protects the rights at issue in the chapter on rights, freedoms and guarantees, which is part of fundamental rights.
It has, in effect, the article 26, paragraph 1 of that order, under the heading "other personal rights" that "all rights are recognized (...) good name and reputation (...)".
so Portuguese law does protect the right to a good name and reutation
-
glossing the said paragraph 3 of rule writing and Vital Moreira Gomes Canotilho "Do # 3 concludes, however, that there are certain limits on exercising the right to express and freely express thought. Freedom of expression and information can not actually take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to good name and reputation, and his moral integrity, the right to privacy (...) "[Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, emphasis added].
-
you have said that libel had already been decided yet in the judgement it states..
MATTERS TO BE DECIDED
view of the requests made, to adjudicate essentially depends on the answer to the following question:
- The book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual (hereinafter, for simplicity, "documentary") and the interview the same defendant are illicit / antijurídicos in accordance with article 484 of Commission Code of Civil Procedure?
In response attempt will travel the following discussion levels:
I. The content of the book, documentary and interview.
II.. The conflict in this case between freedom of expression and the right to good name and reputation of the authors
which indicates that this had not been decided
The Supreme Court decided the libel issue. Freedom of expression is more than libel. The SC decided that Freedom of Expression allowed the publication of the book as it was. Had it been authored by a civilian that would have been the end of the matter.
However there is a further question- does a public servant with his rights and duties have the right under Freedom of Expression to use information gained in the course of his duties, and does Freedom of Expression allow a retired law officer to condemn arguidos as guilty when they were in fact and law innocent.
The judgement decided that Freedom of Expression did not allow Amaral to do what he did.
-
iim just reading the judgement..it also says...
The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic protects the rights at issue in the chapter on rights, freedoms and guarantees, which is part of fundamental rights.
It has, in effect, the article 26, paragraph 1 of that order, under the heading "other personal rights" that "all rights are recognized (...) good name and reputation (...)".
so Portuguese law does protect the right to a good name and reutation
And....
That is certainly the case but not this case.
I am getting tired of this. Please read the judgement as a whole sorting out precedents and considerations from decisions and judgements.
-
The protection of the rights of authors to their good name and reputation is in the case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.
-
The protection of the rights of authors to their good name and reputation is in the case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.
Only so far as precedents and jurisprudence are concerned.
You need to separate discussions of precedents and other considerations from what was actually decided.
-
In the case, Kate and Gerald McCann authors never ceased to benefit from presumption of innocence and the imperative of behavior that it puts on the national enforcement and judicial authorities and all its employees and agents.
the judge has already stated that the right to presumption of innocence is closely related to the right to a good name
-
Even though he was no longer a police officer when he published the book?
It was already written, using police files, well before he left the PJ.
-
Only so far as precedents and jurisprudence are concerned.
You need to separate discussions of precedents and other considerations from what was actually decided.
according to what is published on this forum the judge discussed at length the damage to the mccanns reputation...amongst other things.... and then based her decision based on the above....
-
The Supreme Court decided the libel issue. Freedom of expression is more than libel. The SC decided that Freedom of Expression allowed the publication of the book as it was. Had it been authored by a civilian that would have been the end of the matter.
However there is a further question- does a public servant with his rights and duties have the right under Freedom of Expression to use information gained in the course of his duties, and does Freedom of Expression allow a retired law officer to condemn arguidos as guilty when they were in fact and law innocent.
The judgement decided that Freedom of Expression did not allow Amaral to do what he did.
that is defamation
-
according to what is published on this forum the judge discussed at length the damage to the mccanns reputation...amongst other things.... and then based her decision based on the above....
Read the whole judgement in context and you might understand where the reputation law fits.
-
that is defamation
It may be defamation but it was not defamation that caused the judgement.
Read the whole judgement.
-
And....
That is certainly the case but not this case.
I am getting tired of this. Please read the judgement as a whole sorting out precedents and considerations from decisions and judgements.
I wish the court(s) would publish the documents in English as well.
And French, and German 8(>((
-
It may be defamation but it was not defamation that caused the judgement.
Read the whole judgement.
could you provide a link first...to where the supreme court dismissed libel
-
It was already written, using police files, well before he left the PJ.
Files which he had a hand in compiling to form conclusions in his book which were not upheld by subsequent investigation, particularly his erroneous interpretation of the forensic evidence.
I think his failure to uphold the presumption of innocence is particularly chilling when one thinks of the authoritative position he held in the PJ.
I am beginning to see where a lot of Isabel Duarte's arguments in Court were taking us; and when it has been explained to us so clearly ... I don't see how any other judgement could have been reached.
In saying so ... I can see exactly where Davel is coming from in his argument as I sympathise entirely ... not sure if we are interpreting the Portuguese Judgement as it would be in a British Court though ... and I am unsure how it would tie in with European Law.
The progress or not of an appeal might show us. But whatever, I think Madeleine's family can rest easy on this score and concentrate on what's happening in the investigation.
-
could you provide a link first...to where the supreme court dismissed libel
If you wish to cite it, please do. I am concentrating on the recent judgement which you seem reluctant to read.
-
If you wish to cite it, please do. I am concentrating on the recent judgement which you seem reluctant to read.
you have claimed the supreme court settled the libel issue.....as I remember it never mentioned libel
-
If you wish to cite it, please do. I am concentrating on the recent judgement which you seem reluctant to read.
In English? Where is it?
-
The judge ..evidently has awarded damages ..as amaral did not afford the mcccanns the presumption of innocence...so where does that leave the archiving report criticising the mccanns for not proving their innocence...
-
If you wish to cite it, please do. I am concentrating on the recent judgement which you seem reluctant to read.
another false assumption...point me in the right direction
-
Files which he had a hand in compiling to form conclusions in his book which were not upheld by subsequent investigation, particularly his erroneous interpretation of the forensic evidence.
I think his failure to uphold the presumption of innocence is particularly chilling when one thinks of the authoritative position he held in the PJ.
I am beginning to see where a lot of Isabel Duarte's arguments in Court were taking us; and when it has been explained to us so clearly ... I don't see how any other judgement could have been reached.
In saying so ... I can see exactly where Davel is coming from in his argument as I sympathise entirely ... not sure if we are interpreting the Portuguese Judgement as it would be in a British Court though ... and I am unsure how it would tie in with European Law.
The progress or not of an appeal might show us. But whatever, I think Madeleine's family can rest easy on this score and concentrate on what's happening in the investigation.
Furthermore, I would like to congratulate Judge Emilia Melo e Castro on resisting any undue pressures that almost certianly will have been put on her, due to her family and Geographical connections to Goncalo de Sousa Amaral.
Delighted for Isabel Duarte and her assistant too ... well done.
..... And, of course for the Mccann family. All of them
-
If you wish to cite it, please do. I am concentrating on the recent judgement which you seem reluctant to read.
As far as I was concerned until reading your very well researched posts ... this was the conclusion of a very long running libel trial. I would welcome clarification on what you say about the Supreme Court; I usually find sources myself but in this instance I have been unsuccessful.
-
Furthermore, I would like to congratulate Judge Emilia Melo e Castro on resisting any undue pressures that almost certianly will have been put on her, due to her family and Geographical connections to Goncalo de Sousa Amaral.
Delighted for Isabel Duarte and her assistant too ... well done.
..... And, of course for the Mccann family. All of them
no more than they deserved..victory for the mccanns...as I predicted
-
The judge ..evidently has awarded damages ..as amaral did not afford the mcccanns the presumption of innocence...so where does that leave the archiving report criticising the mccanns for not proving their innocence...
Not proving, demonstrating, and you know very well what was meant (the failure to return to Portugal).
-
Not proving, demonstrating, and you know very well what was meant (the failure to return to Portugal).
why should they have to demonstrate innocence...they should have been afforded the presumption of innocence
-
why should they have to demonstrate innocence...they should have been afforded the presumption of innocence
They didn't cooperate with the investigation. So that was mentioned, that's all.
-
why should they have to demonstrate innocence...they should have been afforded the presumption of innocence
By Amaral. Which is what The Judge said.
-
They didn't cooperate with the investigation. So that was mentioned, that's all.
they didn't have to...but according to oxford...the Portuguese justice system is guilty of a tort for not affording them the presumption of innocence
-
they didn't have to...but according to oxford...the Portuguese justice system is guilty of a tort for not affording them the presumption of innocence
In 2008 if they had returned to Portugal (even if the other invited people hadn't) the line about not demonstrating innocence wouldn't and couldn't have been included. But they didn't go back.
-
they didn't have to...but according to oxford...the Portuguese justice system is guilty of a tort for not affording them the presumption of innocence
That is incorrect.
-
By Amaral. Which is what The Judge said.
And they should have been afforded the presumption of innocence by you sceptics [ant1s] too.
-
That is incorrect.
so amaral is...but the Portuguese justice system isn't....why is that
-
Welcome OxfordBloo ..... oarsman ?
Good to have you on board
-
That is incorrect.
you did post this...
Additionally it is unlawful for such a person (legally involved, not just as a citizen) to suggest that someone not convicted of a crime is other than totally innocent- this is seen as part of the Guarantee of the presumption of innocence.
-
so amaral is...but the Portuguese justice system isn't....why is that
They were arguido.
-
They were arguido.
that's the whole point...as arguida they are entitled to the presumption of innocence..according to the judge
-
So the supreme court did NOT rule on libel as claimed by oxford...it simply ruled that the ban on the book was unconstitutional...and it was...imo of course
-
that's the whole point...as arguida they are entitled to the presumption of innocence..according to the judge
When they asked the others to take part those were requests.
With arguido it's different.
-
When they asked the others to take part those were requests.
With arguido it's different.
the mccanns should not have been asked to demonstrate their innocence...according to the judge...it's a bit complicated dear so don't worry if you don't understand it
-
you did post this...
Additionally it is unlawful for such a person (legally involved, not just as a citizen) to suggest that someone not convicted of a crime is other than totally innocent- this is seen as part of the Guarantee of the presumption of innocence.
That is correct. What you posted was not.
-
So the supreme court did NOT rule on libel as claimed by oxford...it simply ruled that the ban on the book was unconstitutional...and it was...imo of course
Please quote the judgement.
-
the mccanns should not have been asked to demonstrate their innocence...according to the judge...it's a bit complicated dear so don't worry if you don't understand it
?{)(** I understand you're barking up the wrong tree. The one thing has nothing to do with other.
The line meant: they did not return to Portugal when asked. An undeniable fact.
-
?{)(** I understand you're barking up the wrong tree. The one thing has nothing to do with other.
it's a bit complicated dear so don't worry if you don't understand it
-
I always felt it was a disgrace for the archiving report to suggest the mccanns should demonstrate their innocence...good to see the learned judge agrees with me
-
I always felt it was a disgrace for the archiving report to suggest the mccanns should demonstrate their innocence...good to see the learned judge agrees with me
What were the exact words in context used in the archiving report?
-
What were the exact words in context used in the archiving report?
haven't you seen them...
-
haven't you seen them...
I think you need to read them in context as they do not support what you are saying.
-
I think you need to read them in context as they do not support what you are saying.
I've read them in context...they do support my view. The archiving report was a disgrace in asking the mccanns to demonstrate their innocence...don't you agree
-
I've read them in context...they do support my view. The archiving report was a disgrace in asking the mccanns to demonstrate their innocence...don't you agree
The archiving report did not ask the McCann to demonstrate their innocence or suggest that they had themselves avoided doing so.
-
In 2008 if they had returned to Portugal (even if the other invited people hadn't) the line about not demonstrating innocence wouldn't and couldn't have been included. But they didn't go back.
how would the simple act of returning to Portugal have demonstrated their innocence?
-
the mccanns should not have been asked to demonstrate their innocence...according to the judge...it's a bit complicated dear so don't worry if you don't understand it
I don't remember anyone asking them to demonstrate their innocence? It says that the refusal of their friends to attend a reconstruction meant that the McCanns lost the possibility to prove their innocence;
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
how would the simple act of returning to Portugal have demonstrated their innocence?
It would have demonstrated cooperation with the investigation.
-
I don't remember anyone asking them to demonstrate their innocence? It says that the refusal of their friends to attend a reconstruction meant that the McCanns lost the possibility to prove their innocence;
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
it doesn't say prove...that's provar...they use the word comprovar
-
It would have demonstrated cooperation with the investigation.
The McCann never refused to return. But returning would have neither supported nor opposed their innocence.
-
It would have demonstrated cooperation with the investigation.
But not innocence.
-
it doesn't say prove...that's provar...they use the word comprovar
"Prove" or "Demonstrate" the Archiving document did not put any burden on the McCann to do anything to address their innocence.
Read the original in context.
-
The McCann never refused to return. But returning would have neither supported nor opposed their innocence.
Nevertheless they did not return did they.
-
Nevertheless they did not return did they.
They did not return for the reconstruction because it was never organised. Even if they had returned, it could not have happened with the absence of many other participants.
Anyway it had no relationship with their Innocence.
-
"Prove" or "Demonstrate" the Archiving document did not put any burden on the McCann to do anything to address their innocence.
Read the original in context.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
this was a disgrace...why should the archiving report talk of the mccanns having to prove their innocence
-
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
this was a disgrace...why should the archiving report talk of the mccanns having to prove their innocence
In context please.
-
it doesn't say prove...that's provar...they use the word comprovar
comprovar to prove
2. comprovar prove
3. comprovar (verb)
Synonym: atestar to vouch (verb)
4. comprovar (verb)
Synonyms: distinguir, perceber, escrever to make out (verb)
5. comprovar (verb)
Synonyms: registrar, revisar, ticar, marcar em uma lista to check off (verb)
So, this is how you say "comprovar" in english.
http://www.englishbraziliandictionary.com/en/dictionary-portuguese-english/+comprovar
-
Well, as Davel won't give the quote in context, possibly because the context destroys his contention, I sill post the section in full.
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
-
In plain English it says that unfortunately because the Tapas seven did not agree to attend, this act by them denied the McCann the possibility of demonstrating their innocence.
It should be remembered that the Portuguese system of justice is Investigative not Adversarial. Presumption of Innocence is guaranteed when deciding guilt and there needs to be evidence that proves a case beyond reasonable doubt, but the process is collegiate rather than adversarial and is able to require reconstructions or for the Judge of Instruction to follow up theories on her own account.
-
In plain English it says that unfortunately because the Tapas seven did not agree to attend, this act by them denied the McCann the possibility of demonstrating their innocence.
It should be remembered that the Portuguese system of justice is Investigative not Adversarial. Presumption of Innocence is guaranteed when deciding guilt and there needs to be evidence that proves a case beyond reasonable doubt, but the process is collegiate rather than adversarial and is able to require reconstructions or for the Judge of Instruction to follow up theories on her own account.
I'm still unsure of when this action officially became "not a libel action".
Newspaper reports claimed the McCann lawyers were saying in 2012 that they expected the plaintiffs to receive substantial damages; reports from the same newspapers also in 2012 have Goncalo Amaral's wife bemoaning the fact that the libel action had ruined their marriage, and most referrals in the press were to libel.
You have explained the situation succinctly as to why the other defendants could afford to be so sanguine throughout the court proceedings, I've got that ... and I hear what you are saying regarding damage to the McCann's reputation ... but logic tells me that is libel.
When did it cease to be a 'libel' action?
-
I'm still unsure of when this action officially became "not a libel action".
Newspaper reports claimed the McCann lawyers were saying in 2012 that they expected the plaintiffs to receive substantial damages; reports from the same newspapers also in 2012 have Goncalo Amaral's wife bemoaning the fact that the libel action had ruined their marriage, and most referrals in the press were to libel.
You have explained the situation succinctly as to why the other defendants could afford to be so sanguine throughout the court proceedings, I've got that ... and I hear what you are saying regarding damage to the McCann's reputation ... but logic tells me that is libel.
When did it cease to be a 'libel' action?
I have tried to explain above but I will try again.
It is related to libel but is not libel. It is almost defamation but not quite.
Defamation is damage to reputation.
Libel is defamation with no legal excuse.
There are more ways than defamation that damage may be caused to an individual- physical harm, psychological harm, loss of right to peaceful enjoyment, loss of family life etc.
This case was not about defamation as defamation is not of itself a criminal offence- for example the Publisher and TV Channel defamed the McCanns but it was not illegal because their right to free speech trumped the right to reputation of the McCanns.
Now given that the McCanns were already defamed by the publication of the book and so could suffer no further harm by the similar actions of Amaral in authoring the book, the question then becomes 'were the McCanns unlawfully harmed by Amaral and how.'
The Judgement found that distress was caused to the McCanns by the publication of the book because he had misused knowledge gained in a privileged capacity and that he had failed to maintain support of their status of being innocent of any crime.
The distress is separate from the reputational damage and it is the distress that forms the tort, not the reputational damage.
Above I gave a parallel to a planning case that was misconduct in a public office but not Fraud. The same arguments apply.
Amaral abused his position to distribute privileged information and failed to comply with his duty to maintain innocence.
The part of the civil code used concerns distress rather than personal integrity. The judgement does consider Personal Integrity as a guide to what penalties might be applied, although the judge is quite clear that she is using this only to guide her in setting the penalty for distress.
-
I have tried to explain above but I will try again.
It is related to libel but is not libel. It is almost defamation but not quite.
Defamation is damage to reputation.
Libel is defamation with no legal excuse.
There are more ways than defamation that damage may be caused to an individual- physical harm, psychological harm, loss of right to peaceful enjoyment, loss of family life etc.
This case was not about defamation as defamation is not of itself a criminal offence- for example the Publisher and TV Channel defamed the McCanns but it was not illegal because their right to free speech trumped the right to reputation of the McCanns.
Now given that the McCanns were already defamed by the publication of the book and so could suffer no further harm by the similar actions of Amaral in authoring the book, the question then becomes 'were the McCanns unlawfully harmed by Amaral and how.'
The Judgement found that distress was caused to the McCanns by the publication of the book because he had misused knowledge gained in a privileged capacity and that he had failed to maintain support of their status of being innocent of any crime.
The distress is separate from the reputational damage and it is the distress that forms the tort, not the reputational damage.
Above I gave a parallel to a planning case that was misconduct in a public office but not Fraud. The same arguments apply.
Amaral abused his position to distribute privileged information and failed to comply with his duty to maintain innocence.
The part of the civil code used concerns distress rather than personal integrity. The judgement does consider Personal Integrity as a guide to what penalties might be applied, although the judge is quite clear that she is using this only to guide her in setting the penalty for distress.
Thank you, I have understood all of that because you have explained it very well ... and the concept that Mr Amaral was free to write his book in the way he did has perplexed me, as I assumed that Judicial Secrecy covered similar ground to our Official Secrets Act which is considered binding.
When in Rome etc. ... and the McCanns were in a Portuguese jurisdiction subject to Portuguese law ... but despite your patience ... I still do not understand where the libel trial went and why it continued to be referred to as such.
If that is nipping your head, don't bother answering, I'll give it some more thought ... but if you can be bothered to explain that one point to me that will be fine.
I would have thought if the McCanns had lost a libel action at any time in the past it would have been meat and drink to many and we would have heard about it chapter and verse. That has not happened.
-
Thank you, I have understood all of that because you have explained it very well ... and the concept that Mr Amaral was free to write his book in the way he did has perplexed me, as I assumed that Judicial Secrecy covered similar ground to our Official Secrets Act which is considered binding.
When in Rome etc. ... and the McCanns were in a Portuguese jurisdiction subject to Portuguese law ... but despite your patience ... I still do not understand where the libel trial went and why it continued to be referred to as such.
If that is nipping your head, don't bother answering, I'll give it some more thought ... but if you can be bothered to explain that one point to me that will be fine.
I would have thought if the McCanns had lost a libel action at any time in the past it would have been meat and drink to many and we would have heard about it chapter and verse. That has not happened.
The question of libel was settled in 2010 on appeal when the lower court finding was overturned and the supremacy of Free Speech over Personal Reputation was settled.
The recent trial process was merely about whether or not Amaral's and others actions had harmed the McCann in any manner recognised by Portuguese law.
It found that the book publisher and TV programme were totally innocent, but that Amaral had breached his professional responsibilities.
-
The question of libel was settled in 2010 on appeal when the lower court finding was overturned and the supremacy of Free Speech over Personal Reputation was settled.
The recent trial process was merely about whether or not Amaral's and others actions had harmed the McCann in any manner recognised by Portuguese law.
It found that the book publisher and TV programme were totally innocent, but that Amaral had breached his professional responsibilities.
I thought that the action of overturning the book ban by the higher court was merely that. That incident was before my time of interest in the Madeleine McCann case and I really do not know a great deal about it, although I knew it was a set back for the McCann case against Amaral.
I recall that there was some controversy along the lines that the hearing was held without the McCann legal team being informed and therefore they were without legal representation ... not quite sure if that is correct.
Probably they did not appeal that because of the time factor ... I thought the present action was a continuation since the Amaral assets remained frozen, but obviously not? if what you are saying is correct.
Did their legal team advise them to take out a fresh action complaining of the damage caused? (if so, in light of the present ruling, the proper advice)
I will have to look into it further, but not tonight.
I can see exactly why there was such a punitive award against Mr Amaral, but I will have to mull over the 2010 situation some more ... thank you for your patience, OxfordBloo, you've certainly challenged us tonight
-
Very interesting, OxfordBloo. Thanks for the explanations. Do you think his appeal could be successful or even partly successful?
I think us ill informed are right in saying that Portuguese law is different to English law. What would happen in the High Court in London if someone had published that book in England and they were sued (which I've no doubt they would be)?
-
The question of libel was settled in 2010 on appeal when the lower court finding was overturned and the supremacy of Free Speech over Personal Reputation was settled.
The recent trial process was merely about whether or not Amaral's and others actions had harmed the McCann in any manner recognised by Portuguese law.
It found that the book publisher and TV programme were totally innocent, but that Amaral had breached his professional responsibilities.
I have asked before...could you show us where in it's judgement the supreme court discounted libel...
-
comprovar to prove
2. comprovar prove
3. comprovar (verb)
Synonym: atestar to vouch (verb)
4. comprovar (verb)
Synonyms: distinguir, perceber, escrever to make out (verb)
5. comprovar (verb)
Synonyms: registrar, revisar, ticar, marcar em uma lista to check off (verb)
So, this is how you say "comprovar" in english.
http://www.englishbraziliandictionary.com/en/dictionary-portuguese-english/+comprovar
we have been through this with Anne Gueddes and she agreed with me
-
Well, as Davel won't give the quote in context, possibly because the context destroys his contention, I sill post the section in full.
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
it doesn't matter how you say it the archiving report is criticising the mccanns for not proving their innocence....where as they should not question their innocence due to the presumption
-
it doesn't matter how you say it the archiving report is criticising the mccanns for not proving their innocence....where as they should not question their innocence due to the presumption
It is not. In plain English it is saying that the actions of the Tapas 7 denied the McCanns their legal opportunity to prove their innocence. Under the inquisitorial system the accused has the right to show to the Instructing Job that they are innocent- they do not have to prove their innocence but must be given the chance to demonstrate it.
This does not mean that they are not considered innocent- they are- but the inquisitorial system starts from a middle point and both sides are able to prove their case.
It is similar to Scottish Law where 'Special Defences' can be entered that allow the accused to initially prove their innocence before being tried formally.
You do not understand how Roman Law derived judicial systems work therefore you misinterpret the words used in the archiving report.
-
Why do all the Portuguese papers and Hernani Carvalho refer to the trial as a defamation trial..are they all wrong...and you still haven't pointed out where the supreme court discounted libel
They were the ones who took him to court for defamation and asked to suspend the judgement in order to negotiate. On the eve of the trial of Gonçalo Amaral, against whom they filed a complaint, the McCanns asked to negotiate.
By: Hernâni Carvalho
24 January 2013, at 10:37
With thanks to Joana Morais for translation
-
I have asked before...could you show us where in it's judgement the supreme court discounted libel...
Read carefully, I shall say this only once.
The original cases that led to the SC hearing were based on the damage to the reputation of the Mccanns by false statements in the book The Truth of the Lie- in other words libel. The lower court found that there was a prima facie case of Libel and hence banned the book pro tem. This was appealed and eventually reached the SC. The SC found that no matter what the truth value of the book (which it did not consider) the rights of a citizen to self expression outweighed any right to integrity of reputation to the McCanns. Effectively there was no Libel because the publishers (in the widest terms) had an excuse for saying what they did (whether or not it was true) becasue of their right to free speech under European and Portuguese Laws.) Consequently they over-turned the ban.
The current case was thus unable to consider the libelling of the McCanns by the book and considered whether there was any other way they had been harmed. it found that Amaral's misuse of office gave rise to harm being caused to the Mccanns and hence found against him. They found that the actual Publisher and the TV Channel were blameless becasuse although they had published the same material as Amaral, they themselves had not broken any laws of duty or confidentiality because they were not in that privileged position.
I have no more to say to you on the matter.
-
Read carefully, I shall say this only once.
The original cases that led to the SC hearing were based on the damage to the reputation of the Mccanns by false statements in the book The Truth of the Lie- in other words libel. The lower court found that there was a prima facie case of Libel and hence banned the book pro tem. This was appealed and eventually reached the SC. The SC found that no matter what the truth value of the book (which it did not consider) the rights of a citizen to self expression outweighed any right to integrity of reputation to the McCanns. Effectively there was no Libel because the publishers (in the widest terms) had an excuse for saying what they did (whether or not it was true) becasue of their right to free speech under European and Portuguese Laws.) Consequently they over-turned the ban.
The current case was thus unable to consider the libelling of the McCanns by the book and considered whether there was any other way they had been harmed. it found that Amaral's misuse of office gave rise to harm being caused to the Mccanns and hence found against him. They found that the actual Publisher and the TV Channel were blameless becasuse although they had published the same material as Amaral, they themselves had not broken any laws of duty or confidentiality because they were not in that privileged position.
I have no more to say to you on the matter.
I'm glad you have no more to say on the matter..no where in the supreme court ruling does it rule out libel. From what I can see the ban was overturned because libel had not been proved and that's what this case was about. As I have said..all the Portuguese press and Henri Carvalho refer to it as a defamation trial. You say it's almost defamation but not quite.
Perhaps you are just splitting hairs and it's quite reasonable to refer to the case as libel. You are unable to show us where the supreme court discounts libel
-
OxfordBloo has explained matters very well and i have learned a lot. Thank You!
-
OxfordBloo has explained matters very well and i have learned a lot. Thank You!
the interesting point made is that amaral has very little grounds to appeal
-
the interesting point made is that amaral has very little grounds to appeal
He would either need to prove that he had not misused information that came to him as part of his duties or show as a point of law that public servants such as he were not bound by the laws on confidentiality cited in the judgement
Similarly with the right to be considered innocent, there is little doubt that he did accuse the McCann of being guilty of an offence when not convicted. His only a ensue would be to appeal on a point of law contending that there was no such duty despite the reasoning given in the judgement.
-
Question for Oxfordbloo:
You write
This case was not about defamation as defamation is not of itself a criminal offence- for example the Publisher and TV Channel defamed the McCanns but it was not illegal because their right to free speech trumped the right to reputation of the McCanns.
Where in the judgment does the judge make this clear? She makes it clear that the reverse is true, but not what you've written above re: free speech trumping the right to a good name.
-
He would either need to prove that he had not misused information that came to him as part of his duties or show as a point of law that public servants such as he were not bound by the laws on confidentiality cited in the judgement
Similarly with the right to be considered innocent, there is little doubt that he did accuse the McCann of being guilty of an offence when not convicted. His only a ensue would be to appeal on a point of law contending that there was no such duty despite the reasoning given in the judgement.
That is defamation
-
I'm glad you have no more to say on the matter..no where in the supreme court ruling does it rule out libel. From what I can see the ban was overturned because libel had not been proved and that's what this case was about. As I have said..all the Portuguese press and Henri Carvalho refer to it as a defamation trial. You say it's almost defamation but not quite.
Perhaps you are just splitting hairs and it's quite reasonable to refer to the case as libel. You are unable to show us where the supreme court discounts libel
There is a difference between reading press reports and actually understanding the law. The press is often no better than the average reader unless they have a solid legal background.
If you understood the Portuguese legal system better, then you would see that the original case was about defamation whether legal or not, and the second trial was about distress caused by defamation.
Libel simply requires falsity of statement with no need to prove distress, merely harm.
What was eventually found was that Amaral had caused distress by publishing information and beliefs (whether or not they were true) solely because of his legal position.
-
That is defamation
FFS
-
There is a difference between reading press reports and actually understanding the law. The press is often no better than the average reader unless they have a solid legal background.
If you understood the Portuguese legal system better, then you would see that the original case was about defamation whether legal or not, and the second trial was about distress caused by defamation.
Libel simply requires falsity of statement with no need to prove distress, merely harm.
What was eventually found was that Amaral had caused distress by publishing information and beliefs (whether or not they were true) solely because of his legal position.
so now you accept that the second trial was about distress caused by defamation...so it was a defamation trial
-
FFS
are you saying that is not defamation
-
That is defamation
OxfordBloo has explained that the other two defendants were not found guilty, although they said the same. They were allowed because of free speech. Amaral was not, as a retired police officer, because there were other restrictions on him due to his job. I think I've got that right.
-
OxfordBloo has explained that the other two defendants were not found guilty, although they said the same. They were allowed because of free speech. Amaral was not, as a retired police officer, because there were other restrictions on him due to his job. I think I've got that right.
so the videos can be shown with impunity... I think not
-
Look:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation
Defamation is stating something FALSE about a person.
Libel is stating something FALSE about a person without legal excuse.
No court has pronounced on the truth status of The Truth of the Lie.
Distress is a psychological feeling of negative value.
Causing distress may be a tort if there is no legal excuse
Amaral made statements that may or may not be true, but whether or not they were they caused distress.
Those statements would not be actionable if spoken by an ordinary citizen.
But as Amaral was a retired police officer he was found to have abused his office and thus the distress caused was actionable.
The important point is that even if in fact Amarillo writings were gospel truth (meaning not defamation) they are still actionable because of the manner in which the information was obtained and his duty as a law officer.
In an extreme case if Amaral bad said something complimentary about the McCann but they did not wish that information to be disclosed and if Amaral had gained that information through his office which he had abused, then there would still be a course of action.
Defamation requires falsity
Distress only requires discomfort.
I suspect you are only riding this horse because you are looking for a way to claim that the Portuguese legal system has condemned The Truth of the Lie.
It has not.
It has upheld the right to self expression whether or not the book is accurate
And it has found a public servant to have acted wrongly
But it has made no comment on the truth value of the book.
-
so the videos can be shown with impunity... I think not
They are banned because they are authored by or based on information gained unlawfully resulting in the enrichment of the person who misused their office.
Any other person could use that information but not Amaral.
If a third party wants to write a book, or others want to circulate or sell copies of the book, that would be legal except as it abrogates Amaral's right of authorship.
The court has ordered Amaral not to license any further editions. But current copies are not defamatory nor would future copies be unless the led to the enrichment of Amaral.
-
Look:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation
Defamation is stating something FALSE about a person.
Libel is stating something FALSE about a person without legal excuse.
No court has pronounced on the truth status of The Truth of the Lie.
Distress is a psychological feeling of negative value.
Causing distress may be a tort if there is no legal excuse
Amaral made statements that may or may not be true, but whether or not they were they caused distress.
Those statements would not be actionable if spoken by an ordinary citizen.
But as Amaral was a retired police officer he was found to have abused his office and thus the distress caused was actionable.
The important point is that even if in fact Amarillo writings were gospel truth (meaning not defamation) they are still actionable because of the manner in which the information was obtained and his duty as a law officer.
In an extreme case if Amaral bad said something complimentary about the McCann but they did not wish that information to be disclosed and if Amaral had gained that information through his office which he had abused, then there would still be a course of action.
Defamation requires falsity
Distress only requires discomfort.
I suspect you are only riding this horse because you are looking for a way to claim that the Portuguese legal system has condemned The Truth of the Lie.
It has not.
It has upheld the right to self expression whether or not the book is accurate
And it has found a public servant to have acted wrongly
But it has made no comment on the truth value of the book.
you suspect wrongly.....it is the result of the trial that is important and it is a resounding success for the mccanns....if as you say amaral has little grounds for appeal that will be the icing on the cake
-
you suspect wrongly.....it is the result of the trial that is important and it is a resounding success for the mccanns....if as you say amaral has little grounds for appeal that will be the icing on the cake
Why can't you ever admit, you get things wrong.
You need to demonstrate humility.
-
you suspect wrongly.....it is the result of the trial that is important and it is a resounding success for the mccanns....if as you say amaral has little grounds for appeal that will be the icing on the cake
It is a resounding success for the McCann.
But the book The Truth of the Lie has not been banned, only the publication of it by Amaral as it enriches him.
The Portuguese Legal system has made no judgement on the truth value of the book and copying the text online or by any physical copying method are allowed in Portugal.
The McCann have won the Press War in the UK, and have shown Amaral to have failed in his legal duty, but they have not managed to get the Portuguese legal system to declare the book as defamatory.
It would certainly be defamatory in the UK. Portuguese law differs.
-
Why can't you ever admit, you get things wrong.
You need to demonstrate humility.
what makes you think you are in any position to tell me what to do
-
They are banned because they are authored by or based on information gained unlawfully resulting in the enrichment of the person who misused their office.
Any other person could use that information but not Amaral.
If a third party wants to write a book, or others want to circulate or sell copies of the book, that would be legal except as it abrogates Amaral's right of authorship.
The court has ordered Amaral not to license any further editions. But current copies are not defamatory nor would future copies be unless the led to the enrichment of Amaral.
Does that mean that both can remain freely available on the internet as long as there is no charge for viewing?
-
In England we have a system of common law which supports a clear distinction between civil and criminal law. This has developed over the centuries as before 1400 the only law was the King's law- all disputes whether criminal in nature or civil were to do with the King's Peace. Gradually the concept of civil law evolved where individuals could hold other individuals accountable through the courts without it being a matter of state.
In countries based on Roman Law there is less distinction between civil and criminal matters and particular actions may fall on what to us seems the 'wrong' side of the civil- criminal divide which is in any case less clear in Roman Law domains. In this case rather than misconduct in a public office being a crime, it is a tort and thus a civil matter. Amaral's actions were thus not arrestable but a tort. The tort was not libel but causing distress to another person in an unlawful manner. The response to this is damages rather than punishment.
Interesting reading, I'm still catching up.
I have a few questions.
I'm not sure if this has been updated or not, but violating the secrecy of justice is a criminal offence. Why wouldn't it have applied to him?
ARTIGO 371.º
(Violação de segredo de justiça)
1- Quem ilegitimamente der conhecimento, no todo ou em parte, do teor de acto de processo penal que se encontre coberto por segredo de justiça, ou a cujo decurso não for permitida a assistência do público em geral, é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa até 240 dias, salvo se outra pena for cominada para o caso pela lei do processo.
2- Se o facto descrito no número anterior respeitar:
a) A processo por contra-ordenação, até à decisão da autoridade administrativa; ou
b) A processo disciplinar, enquanto se mantiver legalmente o segredo; o agente é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 60 dias.
-
what makes you think you are in any position to tell me what to do
You have a habit, repeatedly of preaching to others, being proved wrong, and incapable of admitting your wrong.
-
Doesthat mean that both can remain freely available on the internet as long as there is no charge for viewing?
Portuguese law only covers Portugal. The internet is not in Portugal!
Even if the book were reprinted and sold, so long as no fee was paid to Amaral, the publication would be legal, as would any paid or freed publication on the internet.
However I suspect that most people who want to read the book will have already done so.
There are only a few thousand people in the whole world actively interested in this case. If one posts on fora dedicated to the Madeleine case one can easily get the impression that ordinary people are greatly concerned by the case; they are not.
We are the train spotters of the social media- convinced that our hobby has a universal appeal while actually we are seen as boring and a little contemptible. Anoraks on folks.
-
Asking again as it may have got missed in the earlier exchange:
Question for Oxfordbloo:
You write
Quote
This case was not about defamation as defamation is not of itself a criminal offence- for example the Publisher and TV Channel defamed the McCanns but it was not illegal because their right to free speech trumped the right to reputation of the McCanns.
Where in the judgment does the judge make this clear? She makes it clear that the reverse is true, but not what you've written above re: free speech trumping the right to a good name.
-
Interesting reading, I'm still catching up.
I have a few questions.
I'm not sure if this has been updated or not, but violating the secrecy of justice is a criminal offence. Why wouldn't it have applied to him?
ARTIGO 371.º
(Violação de segredo de justiça)
1- Quem ilegitimamente der conhecimento, no todo ou em parte, do teor de acto de processo penal que se encontre coberto por segredo de justiça, ou a cujo decurso não for permitida a assistência do público em geral, é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa até 240 dias, salvo se outra pena for cominada para o caso pela lei do processo.
2- Se o facto descrito no número anterior respeitar:
a) A processo por contra-ordenação, até à decisão da autoridade administrativa; ou
b) A processo disciplinar, enquanto se mantiver legalmente o segredo; o agente é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 60 dias.
The requirement of secrecy of justice ends with the archiving of the case. He published the book three days after this happened.
-
Asking again as it may have got missed in the earlier exchange:
Question for Oxfordbloo:
You write
Quote
Where in the judgment does the judge make this clear? She makes it clear that the reverse is true, but not what you've written above re: free speech trumping the right to a good name.
the judge continually refers to the mccanns right to a good name
-
Asking again as it may have got missed in the earlier exchange:
Question for Oxfordbloo:
You write
Quote
Where in the judgment does the judge make this clear? She makes it clear that the reverse is true, but not what you've written above re: free speech trumping the right to a good name.
You need to read the whole document and separate out supportive asides from the actual backbone of the argument.
-
the judge continually refers to the mccanns right to a good name
You just don't listen or try to understand.
-
Portuguese law only covers Portugal. The internet is not in Portugal!
Even if the book were reprinted and sold, so long as no fee was paid to Amaral, the publication would be legal, as would any paid or freed publication on the internet.
However I suspect that most people who want to read the book will have already done so.
There are only a few thousand people in the whole world actively interested in this case. If one posts on fora dedicated to the Madeleine case one can easily get the impression that ordinary people are greatly concerned by the case; they are not.
We are the train spotters of the social media- convinced that our hobby has a universal appeal while actually we are seen as boring and a little contemptible. Anoraks on folks.
If you publish something in this country that is considered libellous you can be sued. So, if Faithlilly (for example) decides to publish and give away copies of Amaral's book that is no different to what Tony Bennett did with his pamphlet.
-
You need to read the whole document and separate out supportive asides from the actual backbone of the argument.
So - the principle that the right to a good name trumps freedom of speech only applies in certain cases, but is not a fundamental principle of the Human Rights act?
-
Were such a case to be heard on England it would have been part Criminal and part Civil.
Amaral would have been charged either with Misconduct in a Public Office or under the Official Secrets Act.
The McCanns would have been free to sue not for Libel (the actual words being covered by rights to free speech) but could have sued for emotional distress or even Bodily Harm. Damages might have been awarded against Amaral for causing such harm, but it would not be for defamation, but for distress in the same way that a reckless driver can be sued for the distress caused by a road traffic accident or the way victims of sexual offences can claim damages for distress.
Thanks for your reply to the other point.
Another question: If the case had been held in the UK, are you saying that the McCanns couldn't have been sued for libel? If not, what were the damages in the UK cases for?
Or have I misunderstood what you meant?
-
If you publish something in this country that is considered libellous you can be sued. So, if Faithlilly (for example) decides to publish and give away copies of Amaral's book that is no different to what Tony Bennett did with his pamphlet.
Rather obviously I was talking about republication in Portugal.
-
If you publish something in this country that is considered libellous you can be sued. So, if Faithlilly (for example) decides to publish and give away copies of Amaral's book that is no different to what Tony Bennett did with his pamphlet.
Presumably that would have to be established in a UK court, or at least between lawyers.
-
So - the principle that the right to a good name trumps freedom of speech only applies in certain cases, but is not a fundamental principle of the Human Rights act?
It is NOT about a right to a good name. It is about the right to be allowed peaceful enjoyment of life. Amaral violated that by using material that he acquired unlawfully and declared their guilt when constrained to defend their innocence.
-
It is a resounding success for the McCann.
But the book The Truth of the Lie has not been banned, only the publication of it by Amaral as it enriches him.
The Portuguese Legal system has made no judgement on the truth value of the book and copying the text online or by any physical copying method are allowed in Portugal.
The McCann have won the Press War in the UK, and have shown Amaral to have failed in his legal duty, but they have not managed to get the Portuguese legal system to declare the book as defamatory.
It would certainly be defamatory in the UK. Portuguese law differs.
Best discussion we have had on the forum for quite some time and it has certainly been a learning curve. Very well explained.
I think the judgement achieved by the McCanns is a victory, confirmed by the amount awarded for the affront they have suffered which has been the subject of surprise to many.
I believe it has been a contention that it was Mr Amaral's position as co-ordinator of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance which gave his book the measure of credibility it enjoyed.
I now see exactly where the McCann legal team were going with that.
I'm not sure that Portuguese Law on freedom of speech quite matches up with European Law. I find it extraordinary that it is lawful for a person to be allowed to promote a book based entirely on untruthful comment which is damaging to others solely in protection of the author's freedom of speech.
-
Thanks for your reply to the other point.
Another question: If the case had been held in the UK, are you saying that the McCanns couldn't have been sued for libel? If not, what were the damages in the UK cases for?
Or have I misunderstood what you meant?
I assume that you mean could the McCann have sued, not been sued.
In the UK it would have been quite a simple case, almost impossible for Amaral to defend. that is why no publisher in the UK will touch it with a barge pole.
-
Best discussion we have had on the forum for quite some time and it has certainly been a learning curve. Very well explained.
I think the judgement achieved by the McCanns is a victory, confirmed by the amount awarded for the affront they have suffered which has been the subject of surprise to many.
I believe it has been a contention that it was Mr Amaral's position as co-ordinator of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance which gave his book the measure of credibility it enjoyed.
I now see exactly where the McCann legal team were going with that.
I'm not sure that Portuguese Law on freedom of speech quite matches up with European Law. I find it extraordinary that it is lawful for a person to be allowed to promote a book based entirely on untruthful comment which is damaging to others solely in protection of the author's freedom of speech.
It would be interesting to know how it would be handled in countries such as Italy or Spain.
-
Best discussion we have had on the forum for quite some time and it has certainly been a learning curve. Very well explained.
I think the judgement achieved by the McCanns is a victory, confirmed by the amount awarded for the affront they have suffered which has been the subject of surprise to many.
I believe it has been a contention that it was Mr Amaral's position as co-ordinator of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance which gave his book the measure of credibility it enjoyed.
I now see exactly where the McCann legal team were going with that.
I'm not sure that Portuguese Law on freedom of speech quite matches up with European Law. I find it extraordinary that it is lawful for a person to be allowed to promote a book based entirely on untruthful comment which is damaging to others solely in protection of the author's freedom of speech.
Portuguese law has to match European law.....the judge was quoting European law throughout her judgement
-
Portuguese law has to match European law.....the judge was quoting European law throughout her judgement
What exactly do you mean by the statement "Portuguese law has to match European law."
It is a woolly statement with minimal meaning.
What are you trying to say?
-
It would be interesting to know how it would be handled in countries such as Italy or Spain.
I'm having enough trouble with the Portuguese version, thank you very much Jassi, France would also be a contender in your list.
I think OxfordBloo really put it into perspective for us Anoraks, and that is something we should bear in mind for future reference ... the world is not hanging on to our every word.
-
It is NOT about a right to a good name. It is about the right to be allowed peaceful enjoyment of life. Amaral violated that by using material that he acquired unlawfully and declared their guilt when constrained to defend their innocence.
I'm trying to sum it up, please correct me if I'm wrong. The book did not harm the search or hurt the children. It did hurt the parents, but this wouldn't have led to a monetary award had Amaral been a private citizen. The reason there was an award is because he used material gathered during his employment as a police officer, which he should not have done. Additionally, by declaring them guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to assume the innocence of suspects.
-
Best discussion we have had on the forum for quite some time and it has certainly been a learning curve. Very well explained.
I think the judgement achieved by the McCanns is a victory, confirmed by the amount awarded for the affront they have suffered which has been the subject of surprise to many.
I believe it has been a contention that it was Mr Amaral's position as co-ordinator of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance which gave his book the measure of credibility it enjoyed.
I now see exactly where the McCann legal team were going with that.
I'm not sure that Portuguese Law on freedom of speech quite matches up with European Law. I find it extraordinary that it is lawful for a person to be allowed to promote a book based entirely on untruthful comment which is damaging to others solely in protection of the author's freedom of speech.
Me too.
There is no Justice in that.
If that is the case, the Law needs to be changed.
-
I'm trying to sum it up, please correct me if I'm wrong. The book did not harm the search or hurt the children. It did hurt the parents, but this wouldn't have led to a monetary award had Amaral been a private citizen. The reason there was an award is because he used material gathered during his employment as a police officer, which he should not have done. Additionally, by declaring them guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to assume the innocence of suspects.
Correct.
-
Me too.
There is no Justice in that.
If that is the case, the Law needs to be changed.
The book is not "based entirely on untruthful comment". Much of it is factual and much else is opinion which is protected speech under the law in most jurisdictions outside the UK.
Whether or not the law needs changed depends on the Portuguese people who are the final arbiters. It is not for Brits who have the strictest libel laws in the western democracies to insist that others follow their rather bad example.
The book as it is is probably protected speech in most European countries and certainly would be in the USA.
-
Read carefully, I shall say this only once.
The original cases that led to the SC hearing were based on the damage to the reputation of the Mccanns by false statements in the book The Truth of the Lie- in other words libel. The lower court found that there was a prima facie case of Libel and hence banned the book pro tem. This was appealed and eventually reached the SC. The SC found that no matter what the truth value of the book (which it did not consider) the rights of a citizen to self expression outweighed any right to integrity of reputation to the McCanns. Effectively there was no Libel because the publishers (in the widest terms) had an excuse for saying what they did (whether or not it was true) becasue of their right to free speech under European and Portuguese Laws.) Consequently they over-turned the ban.
The current case was thus unable to consider the libelling of the McCanns by the book and considered whether there was any other way they had been harmed. it found that Amaral's misuse of office gave rise to harm being caused to the Mccanns and hence found against him. They found that the actual Publisher and the TV Channel were blameless becasuse although they had published the same material as Amaral, they themselves had not broken any laws of duty or confidentiality because they were not in that privileged position.
I have no more to say to you on the matter.
you seem to have made a glaring error...the judge did find against the tv company
-
It is NOT about a right to a good name. It is about the right to be allowed peaceful enjoyment of life. Amaral violated that by using material that he acquired unlawfully and declared their guilt when constrained to defend their innocence.
AFAIK, Gonçalo Amaral was never sanctioned by the PJ hierarchy for allegedly abusing his position as a policeman, so how is it possible for a judge in a civil case, 7 years after the fact, to state that he obtained the material for his book unlawfully. Where's the proof? In January 2010, Isabel Duarte along with the McCanns went to a courthouse (I think in Oeiras) to file a complaint against Gonçalo Amaral for breach of the secrecy of justice and 5 years later we're still waiting for something to happen.
It seems to me that the judge has convicted GA for something that is not within her remit.
-
We are the train spotters of the social media- convinced that our hobby has a universal appeal while actually we are seen as boring and a little contemptible. Anoraks on folks.
Very good.
-
you seem to have made a glaring error...the judge did find against the tv company
The verdict does not say that it finds against the TV company. It does say that the TV company which jointly produced the video for sale with Amaral must return all copies and not make any more.
It found damages against Amaral of 500,00 Euros and nil against the TV company and book publishers.
The court has acted solely to stop maral from making any money from his transgressions.
-
AFAIK, Gonçalo Amaral was never sanctioned by the PJ hierarchy for allegedly abusing his position as a policeman, so how is it possible for a judge in a civil case, 7 years after the fact, to state that he obtained the material for his book unlawfully. Where's the proof? In January 2010, Isabel Duarte along with the McCanns went to a courthouse (I think in Oeiras) to file a complaint against Gonçalo Amaral for breach of the secrecy of justice and 5 years later we're still waiting for something to happen.
It seems to me that the judge has convicted GA for something that is not within her remit.
The judge has not 'convicted' anyone- it is a civil case.
The judge has found as a matter of fact that some material in the book was sourced from Amaral's time with the investigation and that therefore its repetition is unlawful. It also found as a matter of fact that Maral had stated that the McCanns were guilty of an offence under Portuguese Law when in fact they are innocent, and this is a breach of his duty to the state as a police officer.
-
V. Declared partly the claims valid in attached action, the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA, and in the same measure:
so oxford....what did the judge find against the other defendants
-
The verdict does not say that it finds against the TV company. It does say that the TV company which jointly produced the video for sale with Amaral must return all copies and not make any more.
It found damages against Amaral of 500,00 Euros and nil against the TV company and book publishers.
The court has acted solely to stop maral from making any money from his transgressions.
the verdict does say it finds against the tv company...you are wrong
-
Another example of how failure to read correctly leads people down blind alleys. Elsewhere on the internet there is much kerfuffle over the "Proved Facts" included in the judgement.
Much is being made of phases such as:
"Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"
"The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007"
" Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann"
"From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred."
A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.
So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.
I suspect the post mortem examination on this will go on for days or weeks and become an established factoid.
-
V. Declared partly the claims valid in attached action, the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA, and in the same measure:
so oxford....what did the judge find against the other defendants
That they must return the items as the court has required. They are not culpable for publishing them but Amaral is as he broke the rules regarding confidence and duty.
Only Amaral is required to pay damages. The others must merely pay their share of court fees.
-
the verdict does say it finds against the tv company...you are wrong
As above, it finds that the TV company and publisher must had over the forbidden material but does not find against them for previously publishing it. No damages were awarded.
-
I assume that you mean could the McCann have sued, not been sued.
In the UK it would have been quite a simple case, almost impossible for Amaral to defend. that is why no publisher in the UK will touch it with a barge pole.
Ooops. Yes, I did mean "could the McCanns have sued".
I think I misunderstood what you meant then, as I read your comment as if they could't have sued for libel. Never mind.
I was actually very cautious about the likelihood of the McCanns winning, mainly because I didn't think it would be about libel (in a UK sense) and because I couldn't find anything in attempting to decipher the codes on how psychological damage could be quantified, as opposed to the more concrete civil cases of reparation of damage to a car, for example.
If found the Murat appeal ruling helpful (at least what I could decipher of it), but then press laws applied...
Anyway, many thanks for all your explanations. Interesting reading.
-
I'm not sure that I agree with The Portuguese stance on this. But at least I now understand what is going on. And the logic of it. Because it actually is logical.
Phew. Seven long and weary years.
The main problem seems to have been that too many of us have been looking at this from a UK perspective. Although quite a few Portuguese Citizens seem to be a bit confused as well.
-
I'm not sure that I agree with The Portuguese stance on this. But at least I now understand what is going on. And the logic of it. Because it actually is logical.
Phew. Seven long and weary years.
The main problem seems to have been that too many of us have been looking at this from a UK perspective. Although quite a few Portuguese Citizens seem to be a bit confused as well.
If Amaral does appeal, will we have another seven years I wonder?
-
If Amaral does appeal, will we have another seven years I wonder?
Probably. But at least a few of us will understand what is going on.
-
Probably. But at least a few of us will understand what is going on.
True. Thanks to our discussion we'll know what he's appealing against.
-
I'm trying to sum it up, please correct me if I'm wrong. The book did not harm the search or hurt the children. It did hurt the parents, but this wouldn't have led to a monetary award had Amaral been a private citizen. The reason there was an award is because he used material gathered during his employment as a police officer, which he should not have done. Additionally, by declaring them guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to assume the innocence of suspects.
I'm not sure that she said that it DIDN'T harm the search, but there was no evidence to prove that it had.
- Paiva had said words to the effect that the book didn't stop him collecting information (even though his vertical filing may have been influenced by Amaral's approach to the investigation, but not as a direct consequence of the book)
- It wasn't possible to quantify the extent of any change in public interest in the case. Perhaps if there had been the equivalent of a Mori poll taken shortly after publication related directly to the book and later to the "documentary", that might have provided some kind of evidence to take into account.
What's your opinion on that, Oxfordbloo?
-
Another example of how failure to read correctly leads people down blind alleys. Elsewhere on the internet there is much kerfuffle over the "Proved Facts" included in the judgement.
Much is being made of phases such as:
"Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"
"The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007"
" Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann"
"From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred."
A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.
So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.
I suspect the post mortem examination on this will go on for days or weeks and become an established factoid.
Agreed. But it raises a question for me. I underestand that the judge didn't want to deal with attempting to establish the truth of the "facts", but couldn't ID have presented a counter submission to show Amaral had simply ignored what Grime and Harrison actually said - i.e., that the alerts (to use that example) had no evidential value in the absence of corroborating forensic results?
I suppose she touched on the subject in a more global way by pointing out that even though "most of the facts" were in the files, the "facts" only represented a portion of the files, and didn't reflect the broader range of facts undere consideration in the conclusions of the AG. (Nor of the final PJ report, for that matter.)
-
I'm not sure that she said that it DIDN'T harm the search, but there was no evidence to prove that it had.
- Paiva had said words to the effect that the book didn't stop him collecting information (even though his vertical filing may have been influenced by Amaral's approach to the investigation, but not as a direct consequence of the book)
- It wasn't possible to quantify the extent of any change in public interest in the case. Perhaps if there had been the equivalent of a Mori poll taken shortly after publication related directly to the book and later to the "documentary", that might have provided some kind of evidence to take into account.
What's your opinion on that, Oxfordbloo?
Interesting reasoning. It reminds me of the statement made by Leicestershire's Assistant Chief Constable. (to paraphrase; the McCanns may be innocent but there's no evidence proving it) @)(++(*
-
Interesting reasoning. It reminds me of the statement made by Leicestershire's Assistant Chief Constable. (to paraphrase; the McCanns may be innocent but there's no evidence proving it) @)(++(*
LP couldn't have said anything else at the time as the McCanns were still technically arguidos.
I don't know whether the situation would have been any different if they had not been, but if the case had been led by LP, the investigation wouldn't have been about to be officially archived.
It was an awkward situation.
-
Interesting reasoning. It reminds me of the statement made by Leicestershire's Assistant Chief Constable. (to paraphrase; the McCanns may be innocent but there's no evidence proving it) @)(++(*
That's my understanding of it.
FACTOS NÃO PROVADOS
i) Que por causa das afirmações do réu Gonçalo Amaral no livro, no documentário e na entrevista ao Correio da Manhã, a Polícia Judiciária tivesse deixado de recolher informação e de investigar o desaparecimento de Madeleine MacCann;
n) Que a atenção da comunicação social e das pessoas em geral tivesse diminuído com a publicação do livro do réu Gonçalo Amaral.
-
That they must return the items as the court has required. They are not culpable for publishing them but Amaral is as he broke the rules regarding confidence and duty.
Only Amaral is required to pay damages. The others must merely pay their share of court fees.
where is the judgement published you are referring to...you seem to have far more information than the judgement posted by alfred
-
True. Thanks to our discussion we'll know what he's appealing against.
Yes. A belated lesson in Portuguese Law. Thanks to OxfordBloo.
-
Interesting reasoning. It reminds me of the statement made by Leicestershire's Assistant Chief Constable. (to paraphrase; the McCanns may be innocent but there's no evidence proving it) @)(++(*
they don't need to have any evidence to prove it...they are entitled to the presumption of innocence...you should at least understand that by now
-
However, I take on board Oxfordbloo's comment.
What's "proven" or not "proven" is simply acknowledgement of whatever document either party submitted to substantiate their side of the case that was legally admissible.
At least I think so... Is that correct, Oxfordbloo?
I'm not sure what the case would have been if countering documents had been submitted (e.g., as to my earlier question about Grime / Harrison) or what the Lowe report actually said.
-
seee johns new thread GA is taking it all the way they may not see this money fora long time if ever
-
I'm not sure that she said that it DIDN'T harm the search, but there was no evidence to prove that it had.
- Paiva had said words to the effect that the book didn't stop him collecting information (even though his vertical filing may have been influenced by Amaral's approach to the investigation, but not as a direct consequence of the book)
- It wasn't possible to quantify the extent of any change in public interest in the case. Perhaps if there had been the equivalent of a Mori poll taken shortly after publication related directly to the book and later to the "documentary", that might have provided some kind of evidence to take into account.
What's your opinion on that, Oxfordbloo?
Agree.
-
Agreed. But it raises a question for me. I underestand that the judge didn't want to deal with attempting to establish the truth of the "facts", but couldn't ID have presented a counter submission to show Amaral had simply ignored what Grime and Harrison actually said - i.e., that the alerts (to use that example) had no evidential value in the absence of corroborating forensic results?
I suppose she touched on the subject in a more global way by pointing out that even though "most of the facts" were in the files, the "facts" only represented a portion of the files, and didn't reflect the broader range of facts undere consideration in the conclusions of the AG. (Nor of the final PJ report, for that matter.)
It would have been a waste of time as it did not matter whether or not the book was truthful or full of lies. It was not a defamation case.
Whether Amaral's statements had been gospel truth or devilish lies made no difference.
the only question was- were the McCanns harmed by his unlawful activities.
-
where is the judgement published you are referring to...you seem to have far more information than the judgement posted by alfred
I think i posted the link above. I am working from my own word documanet which I have divided into readable sections with marked headings so it is possible to read it and understand it.
-
Judgement here:
http://www.eliphashardi.eu/
-
However, I take on board Oxfordbloo's comment.
What's "proven" or not "proven" is simply acknowledgement of whatever document either party submitted to substantiate their side of the case that was legally admissible.
At least I think so... Is that correct, Oxfordbloo?
I'm not sure what the case would have been if countering documents had been submitted (e.g., as to my earlier question about Grime / Harrison) or what the Lowe report actually said.
In legal cases there is normally a pack of documents that are agreed by each side and are not going to be argued. That is what the lists is- an acceptance by the Judge that the various documents were as they were stated.
So it is an agreement that "Mr X said Y", not that "Y" was true.
-
It would have been a waste of time as it did not matter whether or not the book was truthful or full of lies. It was not a defamation case.
Whether Amaral's statements had been gospel truth or devilish lies made no difference.
the only question was- were the McCanns harmed by his unlawful activities.
His unlawful activities? Was Gonçalo Amaral prosecuted for them? AFAIK, no.
-
seee johns new thread GA is taking it all the way they may not see this money fora long time if ever
The problem is that he has beenfound liable becasue of matters of fact rather than evidence or opinion.
He did deny their innocence and he did use privileged information. They are matters of fact.
His only appeal would be that retired police officers do not owe a duty of confidentiality and to respect innocence, something that the judge makes a very clear case for based on Portuguese and European law.
-
seee johns new thread GA is taking it all the way they may not see this money fora long time if ever
and as amarals assets are frozen amaral will not see any of his own money and be basically broke
-
His unlawful activities? Was Gonçalo Amaral prosecuted for them? AFAIK, no.
Unlawful (civil law) versus illegal (criminal law). Unlawful refers to a civil action that causes a tort against a person in this case. What he did was not contrary to the criminal law, but contrary to civil law.
For instance it is not illegal (criminal) to deny Bed and Breakfast Accommodation to Gay couples as it is not a criminal offence, but it is unlawful as it gives rise to a tort than can be pursued in a civil case.
-
The problem is that he has beenfound liable becasue of matters of fact rather than evidence or opinion.
He did deny their innocence and he did use privileged information. They are matters of fact.
His only appeal would be that retired police officers do not owe a duty of confidentiality and to respect innocence, something that the judge makes a very clear case for based on Portuguese and European law.
So not much chance of winning an Appeal then. Unless some other Judge decides that he owed The Justice System nothing at all.
His Perjury Conviction was based on Fact and he lost that Appeal.
-
It would have been a waste of time as it did not matter whether or not the book was truthful or full of lies. It was not a defamation case.
Whether Amaral's statements had been gospel truth or devilish lies made no difference.
the only question was- were the McCanns harmed by his unlawful activities.
Ok, I can understand that. But would an appeal only be on points of law? Or can new evidence be introduced? If it is only about points of law, wouldn't it have been useful to present countering evidence from the beginning?
-
Ok, I can understand that. But would an appeal only be on points of law? Or can new evidence be introduced? If it is only about points of law, wouldn't it have been useful to present countering evidence from the beginning?
There are only two grounds for appeal- Law or Facts.
He did accuse the Mccanns. He did use privileged information.
The only appeal is that the Judge was wrong about the legal constraints on police officers' behaviour.
-
There are only two grounds for appeal- Law or Facts.
He did accuse the Mccanns. He did use privileged information.
The only appeal is that the Judge was wrong about the legal constraints on police officers' behaviour.
And possibly countering jurisprudence on the amount of damages?
-
And possibly countering jurisprudence on the amount of damages?
I don't understand what those words mean.
-
It is NOT about a right to a good name. It is about the right to be allowed peaceful enjoyment of life. Amaral violated that by using material that he acquired unlawfully and declared their guilt when constrained to defend their innocence.
You didn't address my question though. So - the principle that the right to a good name (or if you prefer the right to be allowed peaceful enjoyment of life) trumps freedom of speech only applies in certain cases, but is not a fundamental principle of the Human Rights act?
-
You didn't address my question though. So - the principle that the right to a good name (or if you prefer the right to be allowed peaceful enjoyment of life) trumps freedom of speech only applies in certain cases, but is not a fundamental principle of the Human Rights act?
There are certain rights to Privacy that have emerged from cases before the ECHR that impinge on this.
This case is NOT about the right to a good name. it is not a Libel case. It is not a case of defamation.
It is merely a case about the misuse of privileged information and breach of legal restraints on officers of the law which result in harm to an individual.
Defamation is not the only harm that can happen to an individual and this case was about harm other than defamation.
Ex police officxers do not have the right to accuse the innocent of being guilty or to use privileged information. Amaral did this in order to make a profit and now he has been sanctioned for it. The truth or otherwise of his book is immaterial.
-
Alice Purjorick
Re: So what's next in the libel trial saga?
« Reply #1384 on: February 06, 2015, 09:32:07 AM »
It might turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for the McCanns.
It seems to me only their own claim for about 450k is left standing, the unit of currency seems to be a movable feast and the actual value of damages if any to be ruled upon by the judge.
?>)()<
-
There are certain rights to Privacy that have emerged from cases before the ECHR that impinge on this.
This case is NOT about the right to a good name. it is not a Libel case. It is not a case of defamation.
It is merely a case about the misuse of privileged information and breach of legal restraints on officers of the law which result in harm to an individual.
Defamation is not the only harm that can happen to an individual and this case was about harm other than defamation.
Ex police officxers do not have the right to accuse the innocent of being guilty or to use privileged information. Amaral did this in order to make a profit and now he has been sanctioned for it. The truth or otherwise of his book is immaterial.
I get all that - what I'm struggling with is - in the judgment the Judge states explicitly that the right to a good name trumps the right to freedom of speech, but she doesn't stipulate that this right only applies in certain circumstances. Surely if it is a principle of the Human Rights Act then it applies to all, not just some. You have stated that the video maker and publisher are not bound by this principle and that their rights to freedom of speech are greater than the McCanns' right to a good name (or peaceful enjoyment of life). Do you see where I'm coming from?
-
I get all that - what I'm struggling with is - in the judgment the Judge states explicitly that the right to a good name trumps the right to freedom of speech, but she doesn't stipulate that this right only applies in certain circumstances. Surely if it is a principle of the Human Rights Act then it applies to all, not just some. You have stated that the video maker and publisher are not bound by this principle and that their rights to freedom of speech are greater than the McCanns' right to a good name (or peaceful enjoyment of life). Do you see where I'm coming from?
I find your post incomprehensible. Please provide the quotes that you think support your reasoning as I do not recognise it as a correct summary of the situation.
-
I don't understand what those words mean.
Sorry. My question is whether or not he could find legal grounds to reduce the extent of damages awarded against him.
-
And possibly countering jurisprudence on the amount of damages?
The Judge gave reasons for associating the level of damages broadly in line with his earnings. The problem with Amaral appealing the level of damages is that he risks a higher court making a higher award.
-
I find your post incomprehensible. Please provide the quotes that you think support your reasoning as I do not recognise it as a correct summary of the situation.
Supply me with a link to the ruling that isn't in gobbledegook and I will attempt to do so, thanks.
-
The Judge gave reasons for associating the level of damages broadly in line with his earnings. The problem with Amaral appealing the level of damages is that he risks a higher court making a higher award.
Yes, I can see that as a risk... But his lawyer would still have to find legal or factual grounds and a new judge (or panel) would still have to accept those as admissible, if I've understood the procedure correctly.
-
Yes, I can see that as a risk... But his lawyer would still have to find legal or factual grounds and a new judge (or panel) would still have to accept those as admissible, if I've understood the procedure correctly.
Yes. Quite a hurdle for him.
-
The Judge gave reasons for associating the level of damages broadly in line with his earnings. The problem with Amaral appealing the level of damages is that he risks a higher court making a higher award.
Very unlikely.
The 'damages' were limited to the books profits.
-
The Judge gave reasons for associating the level of damages broadly in line with his earnings. The problem with Amaral appealing the level of damages is that he risks a higher court making a higher award.
I can see the danger for him there, JP, we were thinking about a reduction but that might not necessarily be the case.
However, does he have it to pay out? I think that is why the Court was so insistent about getting financial statements from him regarding his earnings from Madeleine ... if there is more in the coffers they may go for that too??
-
I find your post incomprehensible. Please provide the quotes that you think support your reasoning as I do not recognise it as a correct summary of the situation.
Does the following quote appear in the judgment or not?
"Freedom of expression and information can not actually take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to good name and reputation, and his moral integrity, the right to privacy" -
If it does, then where are the caveats in the judgment that expressly state that if you are a publisher or video maker then freedom of expression and information CAN take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to a good name and reputation, etc?
-
Does the following quote appear in the judgment or not?
If it does, then where are the caveats in the judgment that expressly state that if you are a publisher or video maker then freedom of expression and information CAN take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to a good name and reputation, etc?
Can you give a page number for that quote so that I can see it in context.
-
Can you give a page number for that quote so that I can see it in context.
If libel/defamation had already been decided by the supreme court then why is this in the latest judgement...
MATTERS TO BE DECIDED
view of the requests made, to adjudicate essentially depends on the answer to the following question:
- The book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual (hereinafter, for simplicity, "documentary") and the interview the same defendant are illicit / antijurídicos in accordance with article 484 of Commission Code of Civil Procedure?
In response attempt will travel the following discussion levels:
I. The content of the book, documentary and interview.
II.. The conflict in this case between freedom of expression and the right to good name and reputation of the authors
-
Does the following quote appear in the judgment or not?
If it does, then where are the caveats in the judgment that expressly state that if you are a publisher or video maker then freedom of expression and information CAN take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to a good name and reputation, etc?
That's an interesting point, Alfie.
I didn't think the publisher / TV company would get off that easily.
There's quite a lot on press law here:
http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=138&tabela=leis
In the Murat appeal case, the judges made quite a point about hammering home that "public interest" isn't the same as "what interests the public" and that newspapers had responsibilities.
Why would a book publisher / documentary-maker of material purported to be factual not be considered to have similar responsibilities?
-
If libel/defamation had already been decided by the supreme court then why is this in the latest judgement...
MATTERS TO BE DECIDED
view of the requests made, to adjudicate essentially depends on the answer to the following question:
- The book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual (hereinafter, for simplicity, "documentary") and the interview the same defendant are illicit / antijurídicos in accordance with article 484 of Commission Code of Civil Procedure?
In response attempt will travel the following discussion levels:
I. The content of the book, documentary and interview.
II.. The conflict in this case between freedom of expression and the right to good name and reputation of the authors
Once again:
Libel and defamation involve falsehoods.
A good name can also be ruined by the truth.
So the SC had ruled that there was no libel in the book or film because Freedom of Expression trumped it.
But this judgement decides that potentially true information or statements of belief coming from, specifically ex-law officers, can be a tort.
That tort is to do with right to a good name being denied not by potential libel (which is protected speech) but by possibly truthful information gained illicitly or by the expression of opinion on guilt by an ex police office ( which would not have been a tort if said by an ordinary citizen.)
And that is why
-
Can you give a page number for that quote so that I can see it in context.
I don't I'm afraid, it's in the bottom third I believe. If someone would give me a link to a properly translated version of the judgment it would help!
-
Once again:
Libel and defamation involve falsehoods.
A good name can also be ruined by the truth.
So the SC had ruled that there was no libel in the book or film because Freedom of Expression trumped it.
But this judgement decides that potentially true information or statements of belief coming from, specifically ex-law officers, can be a tort.
That tort is to do with right to a good name being denied not by potential libel (which is protected speech) but by possibly truthful information gained illicitly or by the expression of opinion on guilt by an ex police office ( which would not have been a tort if said by an ordinary citizen.)
And that is why
The bit in bold above makes no sense. Surely libel does not cease to exist because freedom of expression trumps it! Is it possible to libel someone in Portugal or not?
-
In its judgment, the court found that publishing false allegations such as “Robert Murat is a predator who visits sites containing sexual violence” was not in the public interests and infringed upon his rights.
The newspaper frequently quoted anonymous police sources and alleged leaks by investigators in their coverage of the case to substantiate its claims.
http://theportugalnews.com/news/robert-murat-wins-slander-case-as-kate-mccann-visits-luz/28371
There were far more allegations in the papers than just the one above.
IIRC, the case was initially thrown out because Murat couldn't prove that they weren't true.
He won the appeal because it was deemed that his rights had been infringed, irrespective of whether the allegations could be proven to be false or not.
Hence my question as to why the book publisher / TV company got off...
-
Here's the bit on "difamação".
I can see a few problems with going down that route.
CAPÍTULO VI
Dos crimes contra a honra Artigo 180.o Difamação
1 - Quem, dirigindo-se a terceiro, imputar a outra pessoa, mesmo sob a forma de suspeita, um facto, ou formular sobre ela um juízo, ofensivos da sua honra ou consideração, ou reproduzir uma tal imputação ou juízo, é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.
2 - A conduta não é punível quando:
a) A imputação for feita para realizar interesses legítimos; e
b) O agente provar a verdade da mesma imputação ou tiver tido fundamento sério para, em boa fé, a reputar verdadeira.
89
ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
3 - Sem prejuízo do disposto nas alíneas b), c) e d) do n.o 2 do artigo 31.o, o disposto no número anterior não se aplica quando se tratar da imputação de facto relativo à intimidade da vida privada e familiar.
4 - A boa fé referida na alínea b) do n.o 2 exclui-se quando o agente não tiver cumprido o dever de informação, que as circunstâncias do caso impunham, sobre a verdade da imputação.
Artigo 181.o
Injúria
1 - Quem injuriar outra pessoa, imputando-lhe factos, mesmo sob a forma de suspeita, ou dirigindo-lhe palavras, ofensivos da sua honra ou consideração, é punido com pena de prisão até 3 meses ou com pena de multa até 120 dias.
2 - Tratando-se da imputação de factos, é correspondentemente aplicável o disposto nos n.os 2, 3 e 4 do artigo anterior.
2007 Penal code.
Not sure that this is much better than Googlish, so feel free to improve it.
Article 180
(Defamation)
1 - Whoever, addressing a third party, imputes a fact, or formulates a judgement, even in the form of a suspicion, against another person, that is offensive to their honour or consideration, or reproduces such an imputation or judgement, is punished by a prison sentence of 6 months or a 240-day fine.
2 - The conduct is not punishable when:
a) The imputation was made to achieve legitimate interests; and
b) The agent proves the truth of the same imputation or had a serious foundation / grounds, in good faith, to (reputar? consider?) it to be true.
3 - Without prejudice to the provision in points b), c) and d), in No.2 of Article 31 of this Code, the provision in the previous number does not apply when it concerns imputing a fact concerning the intimacy of private and family life.
4. The good faith referred to in point b) of No. 2 is excluded when the agent (não tiver?) did not accomplish? the duty of information (duty to inform?), that the circumstances of the case imposed, about the veracity of the imputation.
-
Once again:
Libel and defamation involve falsehoods.
A good name can also be ruined by the truth.
So the SC had ruled that there was no libel in the book or film because Freedom of Expression trumped it.
But this judgement decides that potentially true information or statements of belief coming from, specifically ex-law officers, can be a tort.
That tort is to do with right to a good name being denied not by potential libel (which is protected speech) but by possibly truthful information gained illicitly or by the expression of opinion on guilt by an ex police office ( which would not have been a tort if said by an ordinary citizen.)
And that is why
If lible had been ruled out at the SC..of which I am still not convinced....why were the tv company included in this latest trial...what was the claim outstanding against them
-
Have I understood the underlined bit correctly? In his defence, he seems to be saying that the book (published just 3 days after the investigation was archived) didn't contain any new or confidential facts that weren't part of the criminal investigation and widely shared through social media.
Hang on a minute. Who was in charge when 99.9% of those half-baked leaks floated out of PJ windows? &%+((£
Contestou o réu, por impugnação, invocando, em síntese, que o livro não contém qualquer facto novo ou confidencial que não tenha sido objecto do inquérito criminal e sido amplamente divulgado pela Comunicação Social, que o mediatismo internacional do caso não foi por ele criado, mas pelos autores, sendo que a tese que o demandado sustenta no livro está ancorada no extenso e fundamentado relatório de investigação de um inspector-chefe da Polícia Judiciária constante do processo-crime.
-
Have I understood the underlined bit correctly? In his defence, he seems to be saying that the book (published just 3 days after the investigation was archived) didn't contain any new or confidential facts that weren't part of the criminal investigation and widely shared through social media.
Hang on a minute. Who was in charge when 99.9% of those half-baked leaks floated out of PJ windows? &%+((£
Contestou o réu, por impugnação, invocando, em síntese, que o livro não contém qualquer facto novo ou confidencial que não tenha sido objecto do inquérito criminal e sido amplamente divulgado pela Comunicação Social, que o mediatismo internacional do caso não foi por ele criado, mas pelos autores, sendo que a tese que o demandado sustenta no livro está ancorada no extenso e fundamentado relatório de investigação de um inspector-chefe da Polícia Judiciária constante do processo-crime.
Most people suspect that it was the late Guilhermino da Encarnação who leaked the information, not Gonçalo Amaral.
-
If lible had been ruled out at the SC..of which I am still not convinced....why were the tv company included in this latest trial...what was the claim outstanding against them
Whether they were liable as accessories to Amaral's breach of duty. Had they been shown to have known at the time of publication that he had gained the information unlawfully, I suspect they would have been at least liable as accessories.
And the claim was for general damages Libel is not mentioned) and the McCanns as plaintiffs get to specify who they believe wronged them. They were right about Amaral and wrong about the others. Or at least that is what the judge decided. It was not a libel trial.
-
Whether they were liable as accessories to Amaral's breach of duty. Had they been shown to have known at the time of publication that he had gained the information unlawfully, I suspect they would have been at least liable as accessories.
And the claim was for general damages Libel is not mentioned) and the McCanns as plaintiffs get to specify who they believe wronged them. They were right about Amaral and wrong about the others. Or at least that is what the judge decided. It was not a libel trial.
Why then don't they have to pay the legal fees and other costs of those they wrongly sued?
-
Whether they were liable as accessories to Amaral's breach of duty. Had they been shown to have known at the time of publication that he had gained the information unlawfully, I suspect they would have been at least liable as accessories.
And the claim was for general damages Libel is not mentioned) and the McCanns as plaintiffs get to specify who they believe wronged them. They were right about Amaral and wrong about the others. Or at least that is what the judge decided. It was not a libel trial.
Oxford, perhaps you could explain in what circumstances it is possible to be sued for libel in Portugal?
-
Why then don't they have to pay the legal fees and other costs of those they wrongly sued?
Oh Lyall, it aint over yet!! not by a long shot!
-
Oxford, perhaps you could explain in what circumstances it is possible to be sued for libel in Portugal?
Not my field of expertise, but one is generally able to state your opinion so long as it is not malicious. As in the USA it is possible to speak your opinion. But if you state it as fact and the plaintiff can prove that it is not a fact on balance of probabilities, then that is libellous.
Portuguese law is on a strange journey from a macho historic position where it was quite legal to take vengeance for a sleight to ones character, towards a modern system of the defence of Free Speech. The historic law and requirements under the ECHR often conflict and are corrected usually by their SC.
Remember that in the middle of the McCann case the arguido law changed to require reasonable cause before declaring someone arguido and they used the old law on the last day as they knew they did not have reasonable grounds and would not be able to do it the following week.
Similarly the neo-fascist state centred justice system has gradually been replaced by a liberal person centred system over the last fifty years.
A lot of the problems in this case are found in the slow change of proxedure in the police from fascist statism to liberal rights. There are still police officers serving now who started their careers when it was still SOP to beat confessions out of suspects.
-
Not my field of expertise, but one is generally able to state your opinion so long as it is not malicious. As in the USA it is possible to speak your opinion. But if you state it as fact and the plaintiff can prove that it is not a fact on balance of probabilities, then that is libellous.
Portuguese law is on a strange journey from a macho historic position where it was quite legal to take vengeance for a sleight to ones character, towards a modern system of the defence of Free Speech. The historic law and requirements under the ECHR often conflict and are corrected usually by their SC.
Remember that in the middle of the McCann case the arguido law changed to require reasonable cause before declaring someone arguido and they used the old law on the last day as they knew they did not have reasonable grounds and would not be able to do it the following week.
Similarly the neo-fascist state centred justice system has gradually been replaced by a liberal person centred system over the last fifty years.
A lot of the problems in this case are found in the slow change of proxedure in the police from fascist statism to liberal rights. There are still police officers serving now who started their careers when it was still SOP to beat confessions out of suspects.
See the bit in bold above - does that mean that if Madeleine's fate is eventually proven to have nothing whatsoever to do with the McCanns that they can sue Amaral et al for libel proper?
-
See the bit in bold above - does that mean that if Madeleine's fate is eventually proven to have nothing whatsoever to do with the McCanns that they can sue Amaral et al for libel proper?
Probably yes.
-
It is torture to watch the gloating and what else the McCANNS CAN DO AS THEY ARE OH SO POWERFUL...
Maddie is still missing, spare a thought for her while you gloat about the parents-who are responsible for her not being at home with the rest of the family as they claim they left her alone in an unlocked room-alone.
All this talk of money is just-vile IMO.
-
It is torture to watch the gloating and what else the McCANNS CAN DO AS THEY ARE OH SO POWERFUL...
Maddie is still missing, spare a thought for her while you gloat about the parents-who are responsible for her not being at home with the rest of the family as they claim they left her alone in an unlocked room-alone.
All this talk of money is just-vile IMO.
How would you feel if the judgment had gone Amaral's way and he' been able to get his hands on all his luverly lolly instead? Would the gloating have made you feel sick in that instance, or might you have allowed yourself a teensy gloat at the McCanns' misfortune in that instance?
-
Probably yes.
IMO unlikely as the rules of privilege will apply to serving officers, and to acts while they were serving officers.
It is not so long ago that had the McCanns been ruled out as suspects because of no evidence and had made a complaint, Amaral could have brought a case from criminal libel against them.
-
IMO unlikely as the rules of privilege will apply to serving officers, and to acts while they were serving officers.
It is not so long ago that had the McCanns been ruled out as suspects because of no evidence and had made a complaint, Amaral could have brought a case from criminal libel against them.
But he has continued to make allegations in the press and other publications since his retirement.
-
How would you feel if the judgment had gone Amaral's way and he' been able to get his hands on all his luverly lolly instead? Would the gloating have made you feel sick in that instance, or might you have allowed yourself a teensy gloat at the McCanns' misfortune in that instance?
IF, they are not involved in her being 'missing'. I have an open mind on that, and look at all the thesis.
I support Amarals right as a free citizen to write a book. I have never read the book, nor do I pay any attention about his personality or looks, which has NO bearing on this case. It turns out he was found to be using inside knowledge retained with privileged status. That is all.
I discuss the reasons why McCanns tried to hide what really happened. By making it look like a abduction via a window. I believe they did that as they didn't want to let anyone know they left a door open and it made for better drama. I believe they created suspicion when maybe there shouldn't be.
Amaral is not responsible for Maddie being missing.
-
Yeah, all this fuss about Amaral - he was just the first in a whole list of failed detectives, but because he publicly challenged the MCcanns, he had to be made public enemy No. 1
-
Yeah, all this fuss about Amaral - he was just the first in a whole list of failed detectives, but because he publicly challenged the MCcanns, he had to be made public enemy No. 1
He did also write a sensationalist book about the case, to "protect his honour" and make a substantial amount of money at the expense of a missing little girl. That may have something to do with it.
-
Yeah, all this fuss about Amaral - he was just the first in a whole list of failed detectives, but because he publicly challenged the MCcanns, he had to be made public enemy No. 1
Amaral was not the main problem. The main problem was a system undergoing change from a State centred oppressive policing structure towards a modern liberal structure aimed at justice rather than control.
Amaral went one step further though by becoming politically involved with the case after his retirement and abusing his formal position to unlawfully enrich himself.
The police investigation after he left continued to make similar errors to his time of control. It was not until the AG formally reviewed the whole case that it was decided that the police investigation had failed to collect the minimum level of evidence necessary to bring it to trial, and hence the McCanns were returned to their pre-Arguido status of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
-
Yeah, all this fuss about Amaral - he was just the first in a whole list of failed detectives, but because he publicly challenged the MCcanns, he had to be made public enemy No. 1
Not to mention misconduct in public office and denial of the right to presumption of innocence ... don't know if the Judge considers him public enemy number I ... but she was at pains to point out those shortcomings in her judgement.
-
Not to mention misconduct in public office and denial of the right to presumption of innocence ... don't know if the Judge considers him public enemy number I ... but she was at pains to point out those shortcomings in her judgement.
None of which is relevant to Madeleine's disappearance.
-
He did also write a sensationalist book about the case, to "protect his honour" and make a substantial amount of money at the expense of a missing little girl. That may have something to do with it.
JP, with respect, many people including: the parents, lawyers, TV and Media ALL made sensational claims and MADE A LOT OF MONEY. I don't think you can single out one person however uneasy it may sit with you.
I have never defended the reasons for why he wrote the book, that isn't really an issue. He doesn't need to justify his reasons to anyone.
He was found to be using material which was collated during his service in the Police. That is all.
-
None of which is relevant to Madeleine's disappearance.
It is all relevant to the theme of this thread which concerns the pay out of the money made from a book on Madeleine McCann's disappearance into Madeleine's Fund.
-
It is all relevant to the theme of this thread which concerns the pay out of the money made from a book on Madeleine McCann's disappearance into Madeleine's Fund.
Which is going to happen in.........another 8 years if he appeals?
-
Not to mention misconduct in public office and denial of the right to presumption of innocence ... don't know if the Judge considers him public enemy number I ... but she was at pains to point out those shortcomings in her judgement.
Those were matters of judicial fact. She made no illusions to his character contrarily to what is being insinuated.
-
JP, with respect, many people including: the parents, lawyers, TV and Media ALL made sensational claims and MADE A LOT OF MONEY. I don't think you can single out one person however uneasy it may sit with you.
I have never defended the reasons for why he wrote the book, that isn't really an issue. He doesn't need to justify his reasons to anyone.
He was found to be using material which was collated during his service in the Police. That is all.
But that has been found to be unlawful behaviour by the court and he has been ordered to pay damages because of the harm caused by his unlawful behaviour.
-
Which is going to happen in.........another 8 years if he appeals?
I believe that may be his intention. But I don't think you quite appreciate the irrelevance of the appeal in the face of the award made against him in a Portuguese Court.
Now that all that is out of the way for the time being, appeals et al are only a side show in the real business of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann, there is evidence out there and if they don't already have it the PJ and SY are doing their level best to find it.
-
The whole trial has only ever been a sideshow and has had no bearing on the current investigations.
-
Which is going to happen in.........another 8 years if he appeals?
I don't think that matters. The McCanns have again had a court find against their tormentors and have ensured that Amaral cannot further abuse them using privileged material and he is now banned from asserting that they are guilty of any expense. His finances are such that he has little extra freedom of movement and his current second book on the case has not sold and may also be unlawful.
In very much the same way as in the Tony Bennett case he has been put under severe constraints over his future behaviour.
The money may eventually flow to the Madeleine fund, but that was not the primary aim of the action. In the meantime Amaral is denied both the proceeds of the book and has had his own personal wealth sequestered.
-
I believe that may be his intention. But I don't think you quite appreciate the irrelevance of the appeal in the face of the award made against him in a Portuguese Court.
Now that all that is out of the way for the time being, appeals et al are only a side show in the real business of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann, there is evidence out there and if they don't already have it the PJ and SY are doing their level best to find it.
You mentioned the money being paid into the fund, not me. I just pointed out that it may take a while.
-
The whole trial has only ever been a sideshow and has had no bearing on the current investigations.
It certainly was not treated as such before the verdict. Most anti-McCanns saw it as the great white hope that would provide them with their first legal breakthrough in eight years to support their position and to glorify their hero.
Instead it has bolstered the McCanns' profile and sense of innocence and exposed Amaral as someone who abused his Position in an attempt to enrich himself.
-
It certainly was not treated as such before the verdict. Most anti-McCanns saw it as the great white hope that would provide them with their first legal breakthrough in eight years to support their position and to glorify their hero.
Instead it has bolstered the McCanns' profile and sense of innocence and exposed Amaral as someone who abused his Position in an attempt to enrich himself.
How will that have any bearing on the investigations?
-
How will that have any bearing on the investigations?
I am less interested in matters assisting the investigation than I am in the right of innocent citizens to live their lives free of interference from harassers, stalkers, abusers, libellers and others.
I do not particularly warm to the McCanns or condone their behaviour, but I do think that they should be as free as possible from attacks like those above.
IMHO they and their legal team together with their OR team have done an impressive job of keeping those opponents in their relative boxes and maintaining their lives and reputations. There may be a few thousand or tens of thousand rather sad people who get their kicks from abusing them in forums and comment columns, but there are millions who have no important opinion of the case.
Gerry McCann's career is progressing as any other consultant's would, the McCanns have stayed together a a family and are doing as well as can be expected under the circumstances.
I was wrong in one thing; I did think that they might take up the option of moving abroad as many doctors do. This would have minimised the effect that their abusers have, but I believe they doggedly avoided that easy option as they and others might have seen it as an admission of responsibility or a cowardly act.
In the early days the anti McCanns were certain that they would be criminally prosecuted, sued for the fund money, thrown out of their profession, impoverished, imprisoned and generally despised.
None of that has happened. The entire media is on their side an d their rather comfortable middle class life style continues. Their opponents have been the victim of continual failure and humiliation.
Nothing that the anti McCanns predicted has come to fruition.
-
It certainly was not treated as such before the verdict. Most anti-McCanns saw it as the great white hope that would provide them with their first legal breakthrough in eight years to support their position and to glorify their hero.
Instead it has bolstered the McCanns' profile and sense of innocence and exposed Amaral as someone who abused his Position in an attempt to enrich himself.
I don't know what kind of legal breakthrough you mean? It was a civil case whereby the McCanns sought to have compensation awarded to themselves and their children because Amaral's book 'harmed the search for Madeleine' by stopping people from looking for her, and upset the family. The verdict did not find that the search was harmed, or the children hurt. The parents were, but they were already hurt previously.
How would that bolster their sense of innocence? They are no more nor less innocent than they were at the beginning of the case. The truth or falsity of Amaral's accusations were not addressed. The conclusion found that he used his position for material for the book and he broke the terms of his position as an ex policeman when he accused them. There was no ruling on the truth or falsehood of his accusations.
-
I don't know what kind of legal breakthrough you mean? It was a civil case whereby the McCanns sought to have compensation awarded to themselves and their children because Amaral's book 'harmed the search for Madeleine' by stopping people from looking for her, and upset the family. The verdict did not find that the search was harmed, or the children hurt. The parents were, but they were already hurt previously.
How would that bolster their sense of innocence? They are no more nor less innocent than they were at the beginning of the case. The truth or falsity of Amaral's accusations were not addressed. The conclusion found that he used his position for material for the book and he broke the terms of his position as an ex policeman when he accused them. There was no ruling on the truth or falsehood of his accusations.
perhaps you missed the judge stating that the McCanns were innocent
-
I don't know what kind of legal breakthrough you mean? It was a civil case whereby the McCanns sought to have compensation awarded to themselves and their children because Amaral's book 'harmed the search for Madeleine' by stopping people from looking for her, and upset the family. The verdict did not find that the search was harmed, or the children hurt. The parents were, but they were already hurt previously.
How would that bolster their sense of innocence? They are no more nor less innocent than they were at the beginning of the case. The truth or falsity of Amaral's accusations were not addressed. The conclusion found that he used his position for material for the book and he broke the terms of his position as an ex policeman when he accused them. There was no ruling on the truth or falsehood of his accusations.
Someone who has tormented them since day one has been forced to pay them damages and has been banned from asserting their guilt or further misusing information gained in the performance of his duties.
I would say that that is quite a coup. Amaral has his character further called into question after the perjury conviction, is denied his profits from misery and banned from further attacking the McCanns. Should it still take a decade to force the money out of Amaral, that will be the icing on the cake.
The McCanns were magnanimous in not taking Tony Bennett's house of him but settled for gagging him and reminding him every month that he is paying the search fund £125; they could have insisted on him selling his house but money was not their main aim. Limiting libellous comments was then and has been in the case the prime objective.
-
Someone who has tormented them since day one has been forced to pay them damages and has been banned from asserting their guilt or further misusing information gained in the performance of his duties.
I would say that that is quite a coup. Amaral has his character further called into question after the perjury conviction, is denied his profits from misery and banned from further attacking the McCanns. Should it still take a decade to force the money out of Amaral, that will be the icing on the cake.
The McCanns were magnanimous in not taking Tony Bennett's house of him but settled for gagging him and reminding him every month that he is paying the search fund £125; they could have insisted on him selling his house but money was not their main aim. Limiting libellous comments was then and has been in the case the prime objective.
I think your bias is leaking lol. When someone starts using emotive words like 'misery' 'attack' and 'torment' it all becomes clear.
-
I think your bias is leaking lol. When someone starts using emotive words like 'misery' 'attack' and 'torment' it all becomes clear.
My only bias is that I despise bullying, vigilantes, cowardly defamatory statements from individuals, anonymous or otherwise.
I do not believe that citizens, no matter how unlikable, should be used as fodder for the amusement of internet gossipers or be attacked by police officers, or have libellous articles and books written about them.
My bias is freedom and respectability.
The McCanns have been subjected to attacks, torment and open to misery because of the actions of many individuals.
Happily we live in a society where such victims have rights to contest defamation and avoid harassment.
-
My only bias is that I despise bullying, vigilantes, cowardly defamatory statements from individuals, anonymous or otherwise.
I do not believe that citizens, no matter how unlikable, should be used as fodder for the amusement of internet gossipers or be attacked by police officers, or have libellous articles and books written about them.
My bias is freedom and respectability.
The McCanns have been subjected to attacks, torment and open to misery because of the actions of many individuals.
Happily we live in a society where such victims have rights to contest defamation and avoid harassment.
What this case has taught me is that our media is more unfit for purpose than I thought. They argue that they are guided by public opinion when they choose what to print or broadcast. That is obviously untrue as the reporting on this case has consistently been wrong, whether the stories were pro or anti McCann - both wrong. The only place where a true overview of the case can be found is on the internet. Some people on the internet have attacked the McCanns. Others have counter-attacked. Both are as bad as each other. However, the fact that the McCanns have been attacked has absolutely no bearing on the case itself.
-
What this case has taught me is that our media is more unfit for purpose than I thought. They argue that they are guided by public opinion when they choose what to print or broadcast. That is obviously untrue as the reporting on this case has consistently been wrong, whether the stories were pro or anti McCann - both wrong. The only place where a true overview of the case can be found is on the internet. Some people on the internet have attacked the McCanns. Others have counter-attacked. Both are as bad as each other. However, the fact that the McCanns have been attacked has absolutely no bearing on the case itself.
Perhaps you can point us to whereabouts on the internet a true overview of the case can be found?
-
I think your bias is leaking lol. When someone starts using emotive words like 'misery' 'attack' and 'torment' it all becomes clear.
Only ludicrous and fury seemed to be missing. 8)--))
-
Topic, Please.
-
Perhaps you can point us to whereabouts on the internet a true overview of the case can be found?
There used to be a wonderful site called the 3As but it seems to have disappeared.
-
Perhaps you can point us to whereabouts on the internet a true overview of the case can be found?
That's the problem. You won't find it all in one place, and you know how much you like researching (not) @)(++(*
-
That's the problem. You won't find it all in one place, and you know how much you like researching (not) @)(++(*
There is no fair summary anywhere because there are so many views on the issue.
-
What this case has taught me is that our media is more unfit for purpose than I thought. They argue that they are guided by public opinion when they choose what to print or broadcast. That is obviously untrue as the reporting on this case has consistently been wrong, whether the stories were pro or anti McCann - both wrong. The only place where a true overview of the case can be found is on the internet. Some people on the internet have attacked the McCanns. Others have counter-attacked. Both are as bad as each other. However, the fact that the McCanns have been attacked has absolutely no bearing on the case itself.
There is nothing on the internet either about Madeleine McCann's case or anything else which gives a 'true overview'.
Rather strange that you equate people who deliberately set out to injure others in any way they can with those who object to such despicable actions.
You can have no idea what influence the character assassination of Madeleine McCann's parents may have had on her case just as you have no idea what the respected views of a man who was case co-ordinator, perpetuating myth upon myth about the case, had in the place where it really mattered, Portugal.
Eight years down the line a Portuguese judge has in her judgement severely called his professional integrity into question and the amount of the award to Madeleine's parents reflects that.
I think people who matter will not have missed the implication of that.
-
You mentioned the money being paid into the fund, not me. I just pointed out that it may take a while.
I have pointed out that I consider Mr Amaral to be 'yesterday's man' ... which will probably trouble him as much as when the award which will be paid directly to Madeleine's fund is handed over.
NB I am entitled to mention whatever I please in my posts without having to parrot you or anyone else ... and it has been declared that the award to Madeleine McCann's parents will be paid into Madeleine's Fund, did you object to my mention of that?
-
Someone who has tormented them since day one has been forced to pay them damages and has been banned from asserting their guilt or further misusing information gained in the performance of his duties.
I would say that that is quite a coup. Amaral has his character further called into question after the perjury conviction, is denied his profits from misery and banned from further attacking the McCanns. Should it still take a decade to force the money out of Amaral, that will be the icing on the cake.
The McCanns were magnanimous in not taking Tony Bennett's house of him but settled for gagging him and reminding him every month that he is paying the search fund £125; they could have insisted on him selling his house but money was not their main aim. Limiting libellous comments was then and has been in the case the prime objective.
According to reports Dr Amaral is living in straightened financial circumstances and nees to resort to "supporters" to fund his lifestyle and his legal bills.
Why does he not go out and get a job, like any normal person would?
-
According to reports Dr Amaral is living in straightened financial circumstances and nees to resort to "supporters" to fund his lifestyle and his legal bills.
Why does he not go out and get a job, like any normal person would?
His job for the last few years, apart from being a "best selling" author, has been as a rent-a-gob for PT TV sofa-based news & current affairs programmes. I wonder if the work will dry up now as a result, or perhaps he will be more in demand than ever...? &%+((£
-
According to reports Dr Amaral is living in straightened financial circumstances and nees to resort to "supporters" to fund his lifestyle and his legal bills.
Why does he not go out and get a job, like any normal person would?
I suspect it may be an inflated sense of entitlement. He probably shifts all the blame for his misfortunes onto the McCanns. He can hardly blame the Portuguese legal system that he has served all his life.
He took a punt on quitting his steady job and becoming a rich author but now knows this was unlawful. All his finances are sequestered and he has barely enough to live on, owes the McCanns half a million and remains responsible for his court costs.
He has a choice- take responsibility, man up and get a job, or rely on supporters to allow him to remain at leisure.
He has made his bed and must lie on it.
-
His job for the last few years, apart from being a "best selling" author, has been as a rent-a-gob for PT TV sofa-based news & current affairs programmes. I wonder if the work will dry up now as a result, or perhaps he will be more in demand than ever...? &%+((£
He can say anything be wants save accusing the McCanns of criminality- that would be to compound the felony so to speak.
-
He can say anything be wants save accusing the McCanns of criminality- that would be to compound the felony so to speak.
So that's his TV career b**gg**ed then. ?{)(**
-
According to reports Dr Amaral is living in straightened financial circumstances and nees to resort to "supporters" to fund his lifestyle and his legal bills.
Why does he not go out and get a job, like any normal person would?
He,s on a pension of €2039 a month pension, minus a sixth each month.
-
There is nothing on the internet either about Madeleine McCann's case or anything else which gives a 'true overview'.
In your opinion
Rather strange that you equate people who deliberately set out to injure others in any way they can with those who object to such despicable actions.
Both sides have posted terrible things
You can have no idea what influence the character assassination of Madeleine McCann's parents may have had on her case just as you have no idea what the respected views of a man who was case co-ordinator, perpetuating myth upon myth about the case, had in the place where it really mattered, Portugal.
Neither can you I just said they were two different things.
Eight years down the line a Portuguese judge has in her judgement severely called his professional integrity into question and the amount of the award to Madeleine's parents reflects that.
I think people who matter will not have missed the implication of that.
Who are they then?
Answers in bold.
-
He,s on a pension of €2039 a month pension, minus a sixth each month.
That's pretty close to minimum wage.
-
He,s on a pension of €2039 a month pension, minus a sixth each month.
The average gross salary for a family with two children in Portugal is E17435 (2014 figure).
So Amaral, even after the deduction of the court order to settle his previous debts, has a pension income some 17% higher then the average.
Well I suppose diamond earrings dont come cheap.........
-
Answers in bold.
I wonder why there are 'sides' in the case of a missing child and why it was necessary for her parents to take legal action against the author of a book which was written using restricted information obtained illegally and in which he denied them their right to the presumption of innocence.
-
I wonder why there are 'sides' in the case of a missing child and why it was necessary for her parents to take legal action against the author of a book which was written using restricted information obtained illegally and in which he denied them their right to the presumption of innocence.
I wondered that too,
.... but I think that I now know why.
-
I wonder why there are 'sides' in the case of a missing child and why it was necessary for her parents to take legal action against the author of a book which was written using restricted information obtained illegally and in which he denied them their right to the presumption of innocence.
There clearly are 'sides' if you look at twitter. If you don't know why you haven't been paying attention. Please don't forget that a private citizen could have written the same book and no award would have been made against them. The award was made against the author because of who he was, not what he said.
-
There clearly are 'sides' if you look at twitter. If you don't know why you haven't been paying attention. Please don't forget that a private citizen could have written the same book and no award would have been made against them. The award was made against the author because of who he was, not what he said.
a private citizen would not have had the information nor would their opinion been of as much interest as a member of the pj
-
a private citizen would not have had the information nor would their opinion been of as much interest as a member of the pj
Not just any member of the PJ either ... the lead detective and co-ordinator of the case ... can't get a weightier opinion than that one I would have thought.
-
My only bias is that I despise bullying, vigilantes, cowardly defamatory statements from individuals, anonymous or otherwise.
I do not believe that citizens, no matter how unlikable, should be used as fodder for the amusement of internet gossipers or be attacked by police officers, or have libellous articles and books written about them.
My bias is freedom and respectability.
The McCanns have been subjected to attacks, torment and open to misery because of the actions of many individuals.
Happily we live in a society where such victims have rights to contest defamation and avoid harassment.
Your bias is plain to see. This is an unsolved crime so I follow evidence. I don't know the McCanns but they hindered the original investigation. Amaral's job wasn't to make friends or suck lollipops with Gerry it was to investigate and solve the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Robert Murat was the first suspect but he answered all questions. He was a perfect example of fully cooperating with the police.
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’
-
He hasn't done very well, has he.
-
According to reports Dr Amaral is living in straightened financial circumstances and nees to resort to "supporters" to fund his lifestyle and his legal bills.
Why does he not go out and get a job, like any normal person would?
Any normal person. Kate McCann for instance ?
-
Any normal person. Kate McCann for instance ?
What a silly remark
The Mccanns make ends meet. They dont do flash things like buy a diamond earring or a Jag, when they are in debt
.... like Amaral did.
They have sufficient working income to have a fairly comfortable lifestyle. Amaral is in debt.
-
Your bias is plain to see. This is an unsolved crime so I follow evidence. I don't know the McCanns but they hindered the original investigation. Amaral's job wasn't to make friends or suck lollipops with Gerry it was to investigate and solve the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Robert Murat was the first suspect but he answered all questions. He was a perfect example of fully cooperating with the police.
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’
I am biased in favour of justice, fairness and privacy.
People generally despised the tapping of the mobile phone of the girl who disappeared. This was because doing so was offensive to justice (interfering with the course of a case) , fairness (what are the limits of a free press) and privacy (what rights do we have to not be interfered with by the state or other citizens.
There is a right to free speech and this probably should apply to a book or press article more than it does in the UK currently. And people should certainly be free to hold an opinion.
But this has to be limited in many ways. For instance Mary Bell orders for various serious criminals at risk in the community, national security, safety, libel and so on.
Se have a new situation caused by the internet that approaches close to the basis for these limits on free speech. Gossip when limited to the pub was tolerable, but when has an organised rabble egging people on to speech and a ton on a public media it becomes a probable moral and possible legal question.
The law recognises that people may have an opinion but they may not for instance express that publicly by demonstrating outside an opponent's house or sending them direct communications. I would argue that similar actions by people on organised sites in public, accessible to all is as objectionable as demonstrating outside someone's house or telephoning or emailing them. I can see an argument to apply the same restrictions on internet behaviour as we do on behaviour in the real world and to make the targeting of individuals on message boards as a case of harassment. The simple answer is that such discussions should be private to the participants and not open to the public, nor gathered by Google bots.
At present we allow a group of angry frustrated and deluded people to meet in private to cast aspersions on individuals. We do not let these people demonstrate in the residential area where the target lives. I would have little objection if there were the same limits put on harassment by social media that we place on harassment in the real world.
Sites like this that allow groups to post harassment would be required to be unavailable to non-members and not searchable. Merely factual posting would be a defence but speculation and accusation would be unlawful.
As more and more cases like attacks on rape victims (the recent footballer case), Jon Venables, Cliff Richard, Sharon Shoesmith, and a whole variety of other victims.
The press would still be free, factual discussion would still be free, but joint behaviour amounting to harassment would not be protected.
-
Any normal person. Kate McCann for instance ?
What an offensive and sexist comment.
Caring for a household and bringing up children can be a full time job.
I would rather criticise people who farm out their children to childcare to work a full time job.
I gave up a very well paid job and have been a full time father for the last fifteen years. I have not been unemployed like Amaral, I have worked full time as a child reader and a homemaker.
Perhaps you should think a little more deeply before you have a kneejerk reaction to defend Amaral and abuse Kate McCann.
-
What an offensive and sexist comment.
Caring for a household and bringing up children can be a full time job.
I would rather criticise people who farm out their children to childcare to work a full time job.
I gave up a very well paid job and have been a full time father for the last fifteen years. I have not been unemployed like Amaral, I have worked full time as a child reader and a homemaker.
Perhaps you should think a little more deeply before you have a kneejerk reaction to defend Amaral and abuse Kate McCann.
I do wonder how many of those donating their hard earned cash to Amaral realise that his pension income is higher than the national average family income in Portugal?
-
What an offensive and sexist comment.
Caring for a household and bringing up children can be a full time job.
I would rather criticise people who farm out their children to childcare to work a full time job.
I gave up a very well paid job and have been a full time father for the last fifteen years. I have not been unemployed like Amaral, I have worked full time as a child reader and a homemaker.
Perhaps you should think a little more deeply before you have a kneejerk reaction to defend Amaral and abuse Kate McCann.
You may not know but Gonçalo Amaral does have a job.
-
You may not know but Gonçalo Amaral does have a job.
Would that be with the pretendy PR agency that be used to try to divert finds from the courts?
Or is it a real paying job?
-
I do wonder how many of those donating their hard earned cash to Amaral realise that his pension income is higher than the national average family income in Portugal?
I would think his income would be taken into account by the judge prior to her consideration of the amount of damages she intended to award to Madeleine McCann's parents.
He is neither on the breadline nor will he starve and when he pays off his tax debts he will be further enriched by receiving 100% of his pension ... and the sob story about him losing his retirement villa as a result of the award is balderdash, he lost it long before he ever heard of the McCanns in settlement of previous debt.
If he wishes to present himself as a pauper in order to solicit charitable donations I doubt it is out of character as I think he presents as a man who thinks the world owes him a living.
If people wish to donate to support him financially in his effort to retain his proven illegally acquired money that is entirely up to them what they do with their cash.
On the other hand if they wish to help out the cash strapped African Prince who keeps on soliciting my bank details, I can forward his details.
-
I would think his income would be taken into account by the judge prior to her consideration of the amount of damages she intended to award to Madeleine McCann's parents.
He is neither on the breadline nor will he starve and when he pays off his tax debts he will be further enriched by receiving 100% of his pension ... and the sob story about him losing his retirement villa as a result of the award is balderdash, he lost it long before he ever heard of the McCanns in settlement of previous debt.
If he wishes to present himself as a pauper in order to solicit charitable donations I doubt it is out of character as I think he presents as a man who thinks the world owes him a living.
If people wish to donate to support him financially in his effort to retain his proven illegally acquired money that is entirely up to them what they do with their cash.
On the other hand if they wish to help out the cash strapped African Prince who keeps on soliciting my bank details, I can forward his details.
The house was bought in Alexandra's name, in 2002. it was already under threat.
Portuguese newspaper 24horas today: The judge who ordered the seizure of the house and jaguar of former PJ inspector, rated a trail of debts, in a action of anticipation of the eventual sentence of compensation to Madeleine´s parents. The assets of Gonçalo Amaral (http://www.hotels.com/ho487644/amaral-308-rio-de-janeiro-brazil/?wapb1=hotelcontentfeed) was already precarious before the decision of the Civil Court of Lisbon, who last October ordered the arrest of the proceeds frfom the rights of copyright related with the sales of the book "Maddie - the truth of lie". Until May 19, 2008, hung over Gonçalo Amaral (http://www.hotels.com/ho487644/amaral-308-rio-de-janeiro-brazil/?wapb1=hotelcontentfeed), two measures of attachment, an attachment of seize and tax / debts, which together amounted to 468, 4 thousand euros. According with a certificate signed by the 3rd Land Registry of Lisbon, with the date of 21st September of 2009, which 24horas had access - the former PJ inspector was noticed in those three actions by A.S. Amaral, by the National Treasury and also from the Bank of Espírito Santo. The first of those three actions, a seizure of the order of 129, 6 thousand euros, was brought at February 9th of 2005, referring to a "fact" verified in December 16th previous year. A.S. Amaral (http://www.hotels.com/ho487644/amaral-308-rio-de-janeiro-brazil/?wapb1=hotelcontentfeed), and the applicant of the action was at the time, resident in na 3rd floor of Quinta da Mata, in Corroios (Seixal). 24horas could not locate him. At September 14th of 2006, new "nightmare to Gonçalo Amaral with the National Treasury to move forward with seize action of 16.996 euros. The day of May 19th of 2008 was a date of an even worst news. An action - another one - the seize by the Bank Espírito Santo (which belongs to BIC) against Gonçalo Amaral (http://www.hotels.com/ho487644/amaral-308-rio-de-janeiro-brazil/?wapb1=hotelcontentfeed) reaches the sum of 294.405 euros, plus with other 14,7 thousand as payment of expenses of the executive process, judged and ordered by a judge of Olhão´s Court. The Civil Court of Lisbon understood, once evaluated the finantial situation of Gonçalo Amaral, that if he becomes to be condemned as a result of the application of indemnization requested by Madeleine´s parents, does not offer guarantees of match it´s payment. It´s from that assessment that comes the decision of... arrest the house, the jaguar, the share of Amaral in the company Gonçalo Amaral (http://www.hotels.com/ho487644/amaral-308-rio-de-janeiro-brazil/?wapb1=hotelcontentfeed)Unipessoal Lda, and a third part of his salary as manager of the firm.
House arrested:
Amaral and his wife, Alexandra, had bought a house with 240 square metres on a land with a total area of 1145 square metres at Urbanização Cerro Azul, in Quelfes, Olhão - with 2 floors, 2 terraces, a pool and a garage - at October 25 of 2002. The house was registered only in Alexandra´s name, but, the registration communion marriage of acquired in which the married, dictated their arrest due to actions taxes against her husband. The couple payed for the house 204, 3 thousand euros, form which they move forward with na voluntary morgage, as a loan title, hired in that same day and near BIC, with the total value of 292,9 thousand euros. At october 31st of 2003, the demand another loan at the same bank, with the top value of 64, 5 mil euros
.Retirement pension also under "pillage":
That same house would be the target of a seize of 129,9 thousand euros demanded by A.S. Amaral in 2005 and would work with the same purpose on the next seize, the one at 2006, as a guarantee of payment of 16.996 euros to the National Treasury. But, there is more. Retired since June 2008, Gonçalo Amaral receives a pension by early retirement - after 26 years of service - of 2039 euros, but the Retirement Administration Office forces him to discount a sixth part of that value every month, until the value of that debt reaches the 10.505 euros. The former inspector payed five of those benefits until the beginning of October. He has yet 26 to pay. And yet... a certificate of debts of October 16th of 2009 at Finantial Service from Olhão which proves that Amaral owes to the Tax payer office a total of 13.426.7 euros. The debts (of 2006, 2007, 2009) has origin in fines, IRS, stamp duty and transfer tax. In a statement released in October 21, Amaral told that he feared to "be prevented of defending his reasons in court" due to the "higher costs of money" by the judicial action requested by the couple McCann. 24horas tried to get in touch with Amaral and his wife to clarify this situation. None of them answered the phone. Also none of them answered the written messages sent by 24horas.
80 thousand for tv interview:
At the end of april 2009, a correspondent of Five News requested an interview to Amaral. According to information gathered by 24horas, the British journalist received Amaral´s answer, but the interview, if granted, would have to be payed. Amaral issued that he would charge 80 thousand euros, also the same with other broadcasts including Portuguese tv channel TVI.
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2098-debts-of-goncalo-amaral-are-around-486-thousand-euros (http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2098-debts-of-goncalo-amaral-are-around-486-thousand-euros)
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3832-gonc-s-debts-and-brothers-court-case (http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3832-gonc-s-debts-and-brothers-court-case)
-
Thank You, DCI. I needed to see that. Although I did already have some idea.
-
Would that be with the pretendy PR agency that be used to try to divert finds from the courts?
Or is it a real paying job?
And you actually have the nerve to say that you do not insult and tell lies about Gonçalo Amaral? You seem to be very emotionally involved here.
-
And you actually have the nerve to say that you do not insult Gonçalo Amaral?
The Portuguese courts in his bankruptcy hearing decided that his "PR" agency was a vehicle to protect his estate from seizure.
What other job does he have?
-
The Portuguese courts in his bankruptcy hearing decided that his "PR" agency was a vehicle to protect his estate from seizure.
What other job does he have?
What bankruptcy hearing?
-
What bankruptcy hearing?
The investigation into his finances that followed the sequestration of his assets to secure them for payment of damages in the action by the McCanns.
-
The investigation into his finances that followed the sequestration of his assets to secure them for payment of damages in the action by the McCanns.
And all of the other people that he owes money to.
-
You may not know but Gonçalo Amaral does have a job.
What is Amaral's job, do tell.
-
What is Amaral's job, do tell.
The same as Kate's I expect.
-
The same as Kate's I expect.
The idea of Amaral being responsible for child rearing and house husbandry is most amusing.
-
The idea of Amaral being responsible for child rearing and house husbandry is most amusing.
And that that is what you think Kate does all day although quaint is a tad naive.
-
The same as Kate's I expect.
He's a housewife? But I thought his wife and kids lived hundreds of miles from him...?
-
And that that is what you think Kate does all day although quaint is a tad naive.
Having raised two children as a stay at home husband without a nanny, it is a full time job.
What evidence do you have that she does not act as a housewife and mother?
-
Having raised two children as a stay at home husband without a nanny, it is a full time job.
What evidence do you have that she does not act as a housewife and mother?
About the same evidence that you have of what Amaral does as a day job.
-
About the same evidence that you have of what Amaral does as a day job.
It is public knowledge that he set up a pretendy PR business to divert money.
Beyond that I do not know whether be works or sits round all day in bars. It does not matter to me.
I never claimed to know - someone else said that he did have a job and I asked for a cite.
-
It is public knowledge that he set up a pretendy PR business to divert money.
Beyond that I do not know whether be works or sits round all day in bars. It does not matter to me.
I never claimed to know - someone else said that he did have a job and I asked for a cite.
Firstly if it doesn't matter to you why are you asking for a cite ? Secondly where is the evidence he set up a 'pretends PR company' to divert money ?
-
Firstly if it doesn't matter to you why are you asking for a cite ? Secondly where is the evidence he set up a 'pretends PR company' to divert money ?
I'd like a cite Faith
I would like to know whether it is correct that Gonc has a job, or not ?
Can we have the citation please?
-
I would like to know how Madame Duarte was able to obtain the document of the decision before it even went through the Citius system and then sent it to the press when the defendants had not even been informed through the appropriate channels.
-
I would like to know how Madame Duarte was able to obtain the document of the decision before it even went through the Citius system and then sent it to the press when the defendants had not even been informed through the appropriate channels.
probably just one of those leaks that portugal is famous for
-
probably just one of those leaks that portugal is famous for
The documents came from Isabel Duarte's email, so it was a deliberate leak from her.
-
The documents came from Isabel Duarte's email, so it was a deliberate leak from her.
Can you prove that, Montclair? How was it she had the results by email, to be able to forward them.
Anne Guedes said, the sentence will be notified to each lawyer by mail. I presume that meant by post.
-
I certainly don't. The idea that Kate would be stupid enough to sit down and decide to make up a big fat lie to include in her book - knowing that insodoing she was spreading the word to two police forces and the OC reception staff that she was a huge liar is preposterous. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling such a massive lie IMO.
I doubt it as well but when she says the Media invented the name MaddY when family and friends, ocean club staff and even the twins call her that she can be pretty stupid sometimes. She called Sean SeanY.
Kate McCann
"My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that."
Expresso interview, Kate talks about 'The Truth of the Lie' by Gonçalo Amaral, published 06 September 2008
-
I doubt it as well but when she says the Media invented the name MaddY when family and friends, ocean club staff and even the twins call her that she can be pretty stupid sometimes. She called Sean SeanY.
Kate McCann
"My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that."
Expresso interview, Kate talks about 'The Truth of the Lie' by Gonçalo Amaral, published 06 September 2008
That's rather a pedantic view and taking her too literally IMO. I have a relative called James. As he grew older people began calling him Jim, I have often been known to complain that I am the only person left in the world who insists on calling him James (a lovely name IMO). However, that isn't strictly true - as I have actually called him Jim on the very odd occasion. Very seldom indeed - but it has happened. Does that make me stupid or a liar? I don't think so.
I think you're nitpicking.
-
That's rather a pedantic view and taking her too literally IMO. I have a relative called James. As he grew older people began calling him Jim, I have often been known to complain that I am the only person left in the world who insists on calling him James (a lovely name IMO). However, that isn't strictly true - as I have actually called him Jim on the very odd occasion. Very seldom indeed - but it has happened. Does that make me stupid or a liar? I don't think so.
I think you're nitpicking.
If you claimed he was never called Jim you would be a liar.
-
If you claimed he was never called Jim you would be a liar.
Where has Kate claimed her daughter was never called Maddie?
-
That's rather a pedantic view and taking her too literally IMO. I have a relative called James. As he grew older people began calling him Jim, I have often been known to complain that I am the only person left in the world who insists on calling him James (a lovely name IMO). However, that isn't strictly true - as I have actually called him Jim on the very odd occasion. Very seldom indeed - but it has happened. Does that make me stupid or a liar? I don't think so.
I think you're nitpicking.
Definitely nitpicking ... I used to call the James in my family Séamus ... which he hated and had tantrums about when he was a small child probably about Madeleine's age when she disappeared.
He insisted on his proper name.
It is my understanding that it was Madeleine who disliked the shortening of her name. I notice her parents signed her in as Madeleine on the sheets for the OC children's club.
-
Where has Kate claimed her daughter was never called Maddie?
See 4 posts up.
-
See 4 posts up.
"we never called her Maddie" is not the same as "she was never called Maddie".