ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[Brietta]

That's not strictly true.

Allen v UK
25424/09

From the Grand Chamber...
*snipped*

2.  The Court’s assessment

(a)  General principles

(i)  Introduction

92.  The object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of human beings, requires that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, inter alia, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 87, Series A no. 161, and Al‑Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 162, ECHR 2011). The Court has expressly stated that this applies to the right enshrined in Article 6 § 2 (see, for example, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308, and Capeau, cited above, § 21).

93.  Article 6 § 2 safeguards the right to be “presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. Viewed as a procedural guarantee in the context of a criminal trial itself, the presumption of innocence imposes requirements in respect of, inter alia, the burden of proof (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 77, Series A no. 146, and Telfner v. Austria, no. 33501/96, § 15, 20 March 2001); legal presumptions of fact and law (see Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, § 28, Series A no. 141‑A, and Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 24, ECHR 2004‑II); the privilege against self-incrimination (see Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑VI, and Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 40, ECHR 2000‑XII); pre-trial publicity (see Akay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 34501/97, 19 February 2002, and G.C.P. v. Romania, no. 20899/03, § 46, 20 December 2011); and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant’s guilt (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, §§ 35-36, and Nešťák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 88, 27 February 2007).

94.  However, in keeping with the need to ensure that the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 is practical and effective, the presumption of innocence also has another aspect. Its general aim, in this second aspect, is to protect individuals who have been acquitted of a criminal charge, or in respect of whom criminal proceedings have been discontinued, from being treated by public officials and authorities as though they are in fact guilty of the offence charged. In these cases, the presumption of innocence has already operated, through the application at trial of the various requirements inherent in the procedural guarantee it affords, to prevent an unfair criminal conviction being imposed. Without protection to ensure respect for the acquittal or the discontinuation decision in any other proceedings, the fair-trial guarantees of Article 6 § 2 could risk becoming theoretical and illusory. What is also at stake once the criminal proceedings have concluded is the person’s reputation and the way in which that person is perceived by the public. To a certain extent, the protection afforded under Article 6 § 2 in this respect may overlap with the protection afforded by Article 8 (see, for example, Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003‑XII, and Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus, nos. 39627/05 and 39631/05, §§ 27 and 56-59, 16 October 2008).

What is also at stake once the criminal proceedings have concluded is the person’s reputation and the way in which that person is perceived by the public.

Not a minute of any day goes by without someone somewhere posting pejorative perceptions regarding the McCann family and or their holiday companions.  Many quote directly from Amaral and the judges of the Portuguese Supreme Court.
So I think that part is unequivocally proven.

[Mr Gray]

It isn't a protection applied to civil cases, just to criminal cases.

Cite required

[G-Unit]

What is also at stake once the criminal proceedings have concluded is the person’s reputation and the way in which that person is perceived by the public.

Not a minute of any day goes by without someone somewhere posting pejorative perceptions regarding the McCann family and or their holiday companions.  Many quote directly from Amaral and the judges of the Portuguese Supreme Court.
So I think that part is unequivocally proven.

I don't think posts on social media are going to influence the ECHR judges at all. If the McCann's claims are deemed admissible they are being asked to judge;

a) If the Portuguese courts weighed the interests at stake in accordance with the criteria set out in the Court's case-law.
b) If the reasoning contained in the decisions delivered on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court in the outcome of the civil liability action violated their right to the presumption of innocence.

[G-Unit]

Cite required

Article 6:2

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial#:~:text=Article%206%3A%20Right%20to%20a%20fair%20and%20public%20hearing&text=2.,proved%20guilty%20according%20to%20law.

Do you have a cite which says everyone suing or sued in a civil action has this right? If not, then it doesn't apply to civil cases.

[Mr Gray]

Article 6:2

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial#:~:text=Article%206%3A%20Right%20to%20a%20fair%20and%20public%20hearing&text=2.,proved%20guilty%20according%20to%20law.

Do you have a cite which says everyone suing or sued in a civil action has this right? If not, then it doesn't apply to civil cases.

You are certainly wrong on the first and im absolutely sure you are wrong on the second.

The first.... The ECHR have a broad meaning of the word charged and it applied to every stage of the criminal proceedings including being questioned ss suspects.

The secind part.. The mccanns have the right to tje presumption of innocence from the crriminal process and therefore amaral and the SC are denying their rights under the ECHR by not respecting this.

What you are misunferstanding and I think the SC may have misunderstood is the POI does not apply in a civil court when claiming compensation for wrongful arrest or imprisonment. I had a discussion with I Cant HTTruth  on this point and he agreed with me




The protection of the rights of the claimants to their good name and reputation is, in this case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.




Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).

[Carana]

Hmm. In one sense, it could be argued that the criminal proceedings hadn't been concluded, but suspended. Hence the grey area: none of the arguidos had been charged, and therefore the presumption of innocence (criminal sense) didn't apply and so continued to be (an often lucrative) free-for-all under the umbrella of freedom of expression.

However, freedoms come with responsibilities. IMO, it would be worth rereading the legal discussion in McCann family vs Amaral et al Judgment Verdict - April 27, 2015

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

[G-Unit]

You are certainly wrong on the first and im absolutely sure you are wrong on the second.

The first.... The ECHR have a broad meaning of the word charged and it applied to every stage of the criminal proceedings including being questioned ss suspects.

The secind part.. The mccanns have the right to tje presumption of innocence from the crriminal process and therefore amaral and the SC are denying their rights under the ECHR by not respecting this.

What you are misunferstanding and I think the SC may have misunderstood is the POI does not apply in a civil court when claiming compensation for wrongful arrest or imprisonment. I had a discussion with I Cant HTTruth  on this point and he agreed with me




The protection of the rights of the claimants to their good name and reputation is, in this case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.




Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).

That still doesn't demonstrate that Article 6 applies to civil cases.

[G-Unit]

Hmm. In one sense, it could be argued that the criminal proceedings hadn't been concluded, but suspended. Hence the grey area: none of the arguidos had been charged, and therefore the presumption of innocence (criminal sense) didn't apply and so continued to be (an often lucrative) free-for-all under the umbrella of freedom of expression.

However, freedoms come with responsibilities. IMO, it would be worth rereading the legal discussion in McCann family vs Amaral et al Judgment Verdict - April 27, 2015

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

The judge of the first instance found in favour of the McCanns by suggesting that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by the reserve imposed upon him by his status as a retired police officer. The Appeal and Supreme Courts rejected this argument.

[kizzy]

Thanks Carana.

Just a waiting game from now on.  I think it is so sad that things have dragged on for as long as they have over a situation which could have been prevented had Amaral chosen either not to have written his book or had chosen to write a different type of book.

which could have been prevented had Amaral chosen either not to have written his book or had chosen to write a different type of book.

FGS, how egocentric and ironic is your post B. imo

If we are going to go on about prevention  ...this could have been prevented if the mccs hadn't left there children alone.

Or if they had chosen to put there childrens welfare first.

The mccs imo were the ones responsible for leaving there children ...

Maddie had a right to be protected....she wasn't


anyone would think the mcs had already won ....they haven't.

[Vertigo Swirl]

which could have been prevented had Amaral chosen either not to have written his book or had chosen to write a different type of book.

FGS, how egocentric and ironic is your post B. imo

If we are going to go on about prevention  ...this could have been prevented if the mccs hadn't left there children alone.

Or if they had chosen to put there childrens welfare first.

The mccs imo were the ones responsible for leaving there children ...

Maddie had a right to be protected....she wasn't


anyone would think the mcs had already won ....they haven't.

Classic goalpost shifting.  Have you considered that all this could have been avoided if the McCanns had been denied the right to IVF treatment, or had never gotten together in the first place?

[Mr Gray]

That still doesn't demonstrate that Article 6 applies to civil cases.

Im absolutely certain you are wrong... We will wait and see

[kizzy]

Classic goalpost shifting.  Have you considered that all this could have been avoided if the McCanns had been denied the right to IVF treatment, or had never gotten together in the first place?

Well put it that way if you want...but at least maddie would not have gone through what she did if that had been the case.

A silly post deserves a silly answer imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well put it that way if you want...but at least maddie would not have gone through what she did if that had been the case.

A silly post deserves a silly answer imo.

So in other words -  because  in your opinion the parents didn’t look after Madeleine properly they deserved to be targets of every accusation Amaral made about them, even if they were untrue, is that right?

[kizzy]

So in other words -  because  in your opinion the parents didn’t look after Madeleine properly they deserved to be targets of every accusation Amaral made about them, even if they were untrue, is that right?

How do you know,  whats true and what isn't.

[G-Unit]

snip/
Hmm. In one sense, it could be argued that the criminal proceedings hadn't been concluded, but suspended.

I agree that the archiving was a suspension, not a closing of the case. Duarte, however, argued that the archiving dispatch was proof of innocence;

Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm