Luz declares the Portuguese libel trial is not a libel trial ?

[Carana]

On appeal?

Are you sure about that?

Hmmm. Looking at it again... Good point. I may have misunderstood it when I first went through it. 

I – “A”, intentou ação declarativa, com processo comum sob a forma ordinária, contra “B” – ..., S.A.; “C”, “D” e “E”, pedindo a condenação dos Réus a pagar ao Autor a título de danos patrimoniais, o montante de € 20.000,00 e o montante de € 10.000,00, a título de lucros cessantes, e € 30.000,00 a título de danos morais, acrescidos de juros legais, desde a citação até integral pagamento.

What I now think happened (from the above) is that he was initially suing for €20k for "patrimonial" damages (loss of assets?), €10k for lost business and € 30.000,00 for moral damages (plus costs).

And right at the end of the appeal ruling:

III – Nestes termos, acordam em julgar o recurso parcialmente procedente, revogando a sentença recorrida,--------------
e, julgando a ação parcialmente procedente,---------------
condenam os RR., solidariamente, a pagar ao A....[/i]

The appeal court's ruling is dated 18/04/2013
http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument


Basicly, it seems that the appeal was considered partially founded, but I may well have been mistaken as to who appealed the ruling.

If that's the case, the appeal court upheld the finding that he had been defamed and had suffered damage as a result, and the issue was the category (financial cost, loss of income, moral) and the amount of damages.

The court seemingly didn't find satisfactory evidence of financial damage, but upheld that he should be awarded an amount for moral damage. 

What may have confused me is that the articles at the time of the appeal ruling made it sound as if Murat had finally won his case, when in fact he DID win his case in terms of defamation, but lost on the amount awarded.

A Publico article published on 06/05/2013
Correio da Manhã condenado a pagar 15 mil euros a Robert Murat

(CdaM condemned to pay €15k to RM.)
http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/correio-da-manha-condenado-a-pagar-15-mil-euros-a-robert-murat-1593550

Skimming through that article again, it doesn't actually refer to the initial ruling at all.

O Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa decidiu que o Correio da Manhã terá de pagar 15 mil euros de indemnização a Robert Murat...
The Lisbon Appeals Court decided that CdaM will have to pay €15k in damages to RM...

His intention to sue Portuguese media was announced in an Expresso article way back on 30/4/2008.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/robert-murat-processa-jornalistas-portugueses=f308674

[Carana]

I think your favourite word is 'wrong'.

The civil libel laws in Portugal as Carana has pointed out puts the onus on the plaintiff to prove his or her case.  The defender does not have to establish anything unless he or she chooses to do so.  It was exactly the same when Murat sued the Portuguese Press, he had to establish that his reputation and honour had been impinged by the articles written about him. 

Free speech is very important to the Portuguese and this is also reflected in their libel laws.  As you know Amaral eventually won his case over the book and DVD ban because in the end the Court accepted they were in accordance with that which was already in the public domain.

If the libel action fails I wholly expect Amaral to raise a case for damages and that then will be for him to prove.

I think you may have confused me with someone else.

The onus is indeed normally on plaintiffs in civil litigation in Portugal, unless there is a legal presumption to reverse it. In Murat's case, he was suing a press outlet and there was a legal presumption: the press have a duty to inform in the public interest.

Have a look at the introductory part of the appeal:
http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument

[John]

John

As you well know, Gerry was told lies by Amaral's gang at that Arguido interview.  The Amaral gang told him that they had proof that a dead Madeleine was carried in the car.  Gerry knew this to be untrue and realised, that along with other irregular things, they were being stitched up.  He would also have been warned by the Consular officials about what went on in PT, with torture, [Michael Cook, Leonor Cipriano, Virgilino Bourges etc.]  Then Leandro Silva, bless him ... I like Leandro, put his neck on the line by warning tham what happened to poor Leonor and Joao.

Then Kate was offered a deal ..  A deal !  Can you believe it? 

The Deal:  "Admit you did it and you will only get 2 years in jail!    JEZUZ can you believe it?  What a farce,  How wicked.



To tell you the truth, I would have been out of there like greased lightning. 

They could see that Madeleine wasn't being looked for ... and they knew
... That they could not have carried on their search had they both, or even one, been in jail


They would have been crazy to stay in the circumstances

Firstly Sadie, who or what is Amaral's gang?  Would you like me to refer to the tapas-9 as the McCann's gang?

Secondly, your observation and argument in relation to Gerry being told lies is defective.  An innocent person and indeed a guilty person cannot be deceived by 'lies' since they know the TRUTH!  Simples!  Gerry knew very well what the truth was in relation to a dead Madeleine allegedly being carried in the Grand Scenic hire car weeks after the disappearance unless of course you are proposing the preposterous scenario that some unknown person borrowed the hire car without Gerry's knowledge?

The McCanns had no need to flee Portugal and should have stayed in order to face up to the alleged malicious allegations against them. By fleeing back to the UK they simply gave Amaral the excuse he needed to pursue a case against them.  They played right into his hands.

 

[John]

As far as I've been able to gather, the burden of proof in a civil case in Portugal is on the plaintiffs - and that involves somehow proving damage and the extent of damage caused so that the judge can quantify it. Easier said than done, methinks.

Your words Carana.

[Mr Gray]

Firstly Sadie, who or what is Amaral's gang?  Would you like me to refer to the tapas-9 as the McCann's gang?

Secondly, your observation and argument in relation to Gerry being told lies is defective.  An innocent person and indeed a guilty person cannot be deceived by 'lies' since they know the TRUTH!  Simples!  Gerry knew very well what the truth was in relation to a dead Madeleine allegedly being carried in the Grand Scenic hire car weeks after the disappearance unless of course you are proposing the preposterous scenario that some unknown person borrowed the hire car without Gerry's knowledge?

The McCanns had no need to flee Portugal and should have stayed in order to face up to the alleged malicious allegations against them. By fleeing back to the UK they simply gave Amaral the excuse he needed to pursue a case against them.  They played right into his hands.

The mccans had every reason to flee Portugal..anyone with any sense would have done the same. Gerry knew that the pj had lied to him...they had every reason to fear arrest and being imprisoned on remand for a crime they had not committed

[Carana]

Firstly Sadie, who or what is Amaral's gang?  Would you like me to refer to the tapas-9 as the McCann's gang?

Secondly, your observation and argument in relation to Gerry being told lies is defective.  An innocent person and indeed a guilty person cannot be deceived by 'lies' since they know the TRUTH!  Simples!  Gerry knew very well what the truth was in relation to a dead Madeleine being carried in the Grand Scenic hire car weeks after the disappearance.

The McCanns had no need to flee Portugal and should have stayed in order to face up to the alleged malicious allegations against them. By fleeing back to the UK they simply gave Amaral the excuse he needed to pursue a case against them.  They played right into his hands.

I agree with Sadie on this.

They were apparently made to watch the dog videos, but I have found nothing to indicate that they were actually able to read the forensic results (as opposed to paper being waved in the air alluding to incriminating proof).

If you KNEW that you hadn't transported your dead child in that car, but that there was supposedly incriminating proof that her body had been... what are the options? Either evidence had been planted or the PJ were bluffing. Although the McCanns couldn't have known that at the time, as it turns out the PJ had their selective hearing aids on concerning what Harrison and Grime actually said, and the forensic report was bluff.

Add to that the fact that a certain coordinator was also responsible for leading the Cipriano case (which resulted in lengthy sentences based on the flimsiest "evidence" that would have been thrown out of court in the UK)... I can't quite see what would be conducive to trusting either the PJ or the system as a whole at that point.

[Carana]

Your words Carana.

You've taken one sentence out of context as I then went on to exceptions. My post is here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3993.msg148995#msg148995

[John]

The mccans had every reason to flee Portugal..anyone with any sense would have done the same. Gerry knew that the pj had lied to him...they had every reason to fear arrest and being imprisoned on remand for a crime they had not committed

Here you are WRONG.  Innocent people don't flee their responsibilities.

It is standard police practice in every country to challenge suspects by putting certain propositions to them. It's called calling their bluff!

[ferryman]

The mccans had every reason to flee Portugal..anyone with any sense would have done the same. Gerry knew that the pj had lied to him...they had every reason to fear arrest and being imprisoned on remand for a crime they had not committed

Crucial point, that.

In any situation, the one person who knows beyond doubt whether an accusation is true or false is the person accused.

And anyone falsely accused may (justly) fear the worst.

[John]

I agree with Sadie on this.

They were apparently made to watch the dog videos, but I have found nothing to indicate that they were actually able to read the forensic results (as opposed to paper being waved in the air alluding to incriminating proof).

If you KNEW that you hadn't transported your dead child in that car, but that there was supposedly incriminating proof that her body had been... what are the options? Either evidence had been planted or the PJ were bluffing. Although the McCanns couldn't have known that at the time, as it turns out the PJ had their selective hearing aids on concerning what Harrison and Grime actually said, and the forensic report was bluff.

Add to that the fact that a certain coordinator was also responsible for leading the Cipriano case (which resulted in lengthy sentences based on the flimsiest "evidence" that would have been thrown out of court in the UK)... I can't quite see what would be conducive to trusting either the PJ or the system as a whole at that point.

Please stop bringing the Ciprianos into this, that case has no relevance to the McCann interrogations.

You can spin it any way you like but the McCanns knew what the truth was.  They are intelligent people and should not have feared speculative police contentions.  Only guilty individuals are intimidated by aggressive police probing. Next?

[Mr Gray]

Here you are WRONG.  Innocent people don't flee their responsibilities.

It is standard police practice in every country to challenge suspects by putting certain propositions to them. It's called calling their bluff!

If what you are saying is true then the McCanns are guilty...they are not...so what you are saying is wrong.

[Carana]

Please stop bringing the Ciprianos into this, that case has no relevance to the McCann interrogations.

You can spin it any way you like but the McCanns knew what the truth was.  They are intelligent people and should not have feared speculative police contentions.  Only guilty individuals are intimidated by aggressive police probing. Next?

Sorry, I had no intention of taking the topic off thread by raising the Cipriano case (neither do I believe that I have done). As you know, I was in favour of a new sub-forum to discuss her case on its own merits (or lack thereof).
 
However, I stand by the fact that knowledge of what happened in that case could have added to the McCanns suspicions /anguish of what was actually going on in their own case, including how to protect themselves as well as the twins. For that reason, I don't see the objection to my comment.

Aggressive tactics (whether physical or not) and incompetence can lead to miscarriages of justice ... wouldn't you agree?

[Carana]

Crucial point, that.

In any situation, the one person who knows beyond doubt whether an accusation is true or false is the person accused.

And anyone falsely accused may (justly) fear the worst.

I agree with that (and Davel's post to which you were replying).

[Carana]

You'd have to ask Luz, apparently she's got her finger on the pulse. She is Portuguese, after all, and will therefore know far more about it than you.

Erm...

[John]

If what you are saying is true then the McCanns are guilty...they are not...so what you are saying is wrong.

In your opinion of course?