Robert Murat wins libel case against national daily Correio da Manhã

[DCI]

Do we think this news might put the McCanns in a stronger position regarding the forth-coming libel trial against Amaral?

In what way  ?  ...  Did Amaral similarly  libel Murat  ?  (  in his book, I mean )

Read chapter 7, of his book.

please tell me that is not compulsory

Sorry, it is if you want to see Amaral libelling, Murat. 

Detailing facts from a police investigation is not libel and you forget in the book he does say that none of it was proven to be true, the libel was was from the people who phoned or wrote in with it and the papers that repeated it

And where did the papers get it from?

"It is true that the witness, in particular, have ensured the PJ, "according to a source close to the investigation"

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Redblossom
I was addressing the question of whether police investigation or the reporting of it by a policeman can be libellous, it cant I dont think

it will be very interesting to see how it applies to an ex policeman

[Eleanor]

And where did the papers get it from?

DCI I have no idea, though for you I understand it MUST have been Mr Amaral, after all, he is behind everything isnz't he? I was addressing the question of whether police investigation or the reporting of it by a policeman can be libellous, it cant I dont think

It obviously is.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

[debunker]

Do we think this news might put the McCanns in a stronger position regarding the forth-coming libel trial against Amaral?

In what way  ?  ...  Did Amaral similarly  libel Murat  ?  (  in his book, I mean )

Read chapter 7, of his book.

please tell me that is not compulsory

Sorry, it is if you want to see Amaral libelling, Murat. 

Detailing facts from a police investigation is not libel and you forget in the book he does say that none of it was proven to be true, the libel was was from the people who phoned or wrote in with it and the papers that repeated it

As Justice Tugenhadt pointed out in his judgement on Tony Bennett, repeating the truth in a defamatory manner is still defamation.

I used to argue this on the old forums and Bunnies just refused to believe it. I was so pleased when Tugenhadt J included that in his judgement!

[amaraltheofficeboy]

And where did the papers get it from?

DCI I have no idea, though for you I understand it MUST have been Mr Amaral, after all, he is behind everything isnz't he? I was addressing the question of whether police investigation or the reporting of it by a policeman can be libellous, it cant I dont think

It obviously is.

It is not obvious at all. Whilst police if they leaked info from the investigation was wrong and probably illegal it was not libellous on their part,thats how I understand it.

so why did he win?

[debunker]

And where did the papers get it from?

DCI I have no idea, though for you I understand it MUST have been Mr Amaral, after all, he is behind everything isnz't he? I was addressing the question of whether police investigation or the reporting of it by a policeman can be libellous, it cant I dont think

It obviously is.

It is not obvious at all. Whilst police if they leaked info from the investigation was wrong and probably illegal it was not libellous on their part,thats how I understand it.

There is a concept called 'privilege'. Privilege allows an excuse to defamation. For a Prosecutor or a Member of parliament or a police officer or a witness to say that X committed such and such a crime is privileged under certain circumstances. Repeating it without privilege may be seen as defamation.

[Eleanor]

And where did the papers get it from?

DCI I have no idea, though for you I understand it MUST have been Mr Amaral, after all, he is behind everything isnz't he? I was addressing the question of whether police investigation or the reporting of it by a policeman can be libellous, it cant I dont think

It obviously is.

It is not obvious at all. Whilst police if they leaked info from the investigation was wrong and probably illegal it was not libellous on their part,thats how I understand it.

You keep telling yourself that,  Sweetcheeks.

[debunker]

so why did he win?

I am guessing only, but probably because it gave the public an impression of him from all those anonymous and other reports and silly journalists comments which were info collected by the police but not proven as fact, the police were wrong to leak it but the paper was more responsible on acting on it, he won after all because he sued THEM not the police

See my notes above about defamation by stating the truth and 'privilege'.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

   Redblossom
the police were wrong to leak it but the paper was more responsible on acting on it

is there a sigh smiley?

[ferryman]

It was my understanding that in Portugal freedom of speech trumped the individual's right not to be slandered and libelled so my question was whether this recent decision in favour of Murat might be taken as a promising sign from the McCanns' point of view?

I think that the reversal of  the ban on the book led people to believe this when that is not the case. As I understand the ban was overturned because the book had not yet been shown to be libellous as the case had not been heard. That ruling did not show that the book was not libellous.

That makes perfect sense Davel. 

What I find incomprehensible is that the McCanns were apparently not legally represented at the court case when the ban was overturned.     Can anyone confirm whether that is actually true please?  If it is  - I find that to be quite astonishing.

Kate confirms in her book that it was 'a bolt from the blue'

In fact, she says Clarence Michell learned about the reversal of the injunction from a Sun reporter

In Britain ex-parte judgments are reserved when one party perceived to be in danger is in need of rescue.

An ex-parte judgment of the type that overturned the injunction would just not be contemplated ...

[DCI]

Do we think this news might put the McCanns in a stronger position regarding the forth-coming libel trial against Amaral?

In what way  ?  ...  Did Amaral similarly  libel Murat  ?  (  in his book, I mean )

Read chapter 7, of his book.

please tell me that is not compulsory

Sorry, it is if you want to see Amaral libelling, Murat. 

Detailing facts from a police investigation is not libel and you forget in the book he does say that none of it was proven to be true, the libel was was from the people who phoned or wrote in with it and the papers that repeated it

As Justice Tugenhadt pointed out in his judgement on Tony Bennett, repeating the truth in a defamatory manner is still defamation.

I used to argue this on the old forums and Bunnies just refused to believe it. I was so pleased when Tugenhadt J included that in his judgement!

Thanks Debunker.

So the same will apply to publishing defamation?
This was publised in April 2008 by CdM, Amarals book was released 24th of July, 2008. So where did CdM get the info? Doesn't take bloody Einstein to work it out, does it?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

How extraordinary.

whilst I don't look at the place, who knows - it may appear on a certain Portuguese blog that Murat lost his case!

[Eleanor]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

How extraordinary.

whilst I don't look at the place, who knows - it may appear on a certain Portuguese blog that Murat lost his case!

Not Morais again, surely?  Isn't she in enough trouble already today?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

I'm confused - who has claimed Murat lost this latest court action?

anne the impartial translator

How extraordinary.

whilst I don't look at the place, who knows - it may appear on a certain Portuguese blog that Murat lost his case!

Not Morais again, surely?  Isn't she in enough trouble already today?

maybe someone could take a peek there - I only have a firewall on my computer - not resistant to more extreme attacks.