So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[Carana]

martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt
#Madeleine Final legal arguments in the McCann £1m libel trial over ex-cop's book in Lisbon next week. Verdict expected in February

Of which year?

[Alfred R Jones]

Of which year?

Good question...

[Mr Gray]

let's hope the libel trial actually completes next year

[ferryman]

Of which year?

Surely you must mean which century ...

Don't you?

[Brietta]

let's hope the libel trial actually completes next year

I'm not holding my breath.

[Mr Moderator]

martinbrunt @skymartinbrunt
#Madeleine Final legal arguments in the McCann £1m libel trial over ex-cop's book in Lisbon next week. Verdict expected in February

About time too!

[lordpookles]

I've heard said this is a damages trial not libel. Is that correct and what is the difference?

[ferryman]

I've heard said this is a damages trial not libel. Is that correct and what is the difference?

In so far as I can fathom the method of due process in Portugal, in sense, it may be.

A trial to determine damage arising from proven and established libel.

Can't make sense of Santos' opening appeal to let proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madleine be alive any other way.

[Mr Moderator]

I've heard said this is a damages trial not libel. Is that correct and what is the difference?

Confusing to say the least.  However, if we are to be guided by precedent, the Amaral book ban was removed on appeal when the learned judges ruled that the contents were justified under Portuguese Law.  That ruling would therefore not be consistent with any libel.

[Mr Gray]

I've heard said this is a damages trial not libel. Is that correct and what is the difference?

For some reason some posters are trying to pretend this is not  a libel trial...this clip from a post on Joanna Morais' site confirms it is...

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

[Mr Gray]

Confusing to say the least.  However, if we are to be guided by precedent, the Amaral book ban was removed on appeal when the learned judges ruled that the contents were justified under Portuguese Law.  That ruling would therefore not be consistent with any libel.

The ban was overturned because libel had not been decided...that's what this trial is about

[Mr Moderator]

For some reason some posters are trying to pretend this is not  a libel trial...this clip from a post on Joanna Morais' site confirms it is...

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

A libel can never be proven in the McCann case until it is known what befell Madeleine and who if anyone was responsible.

[Mr Gray]

A report from the Correio Da Mahna re the DEFAMATION trial...

O casal McCann chega a Lisboa na segunda-feira, para o reatar do julgamento do processo em que os pais de Madeleine pedem indemnização de 1,2 milhões de euros, por difamação, ao ex-inspetor da PJ Gonçalo Amaral

[ferryman]

Confusing to say the least.  However, if we are to be guided by precedent, the Amaral book ban was removed on appeal when the learned judges ruled that the contents were justified under Portuguese Law.  That ruling would therefore not be consistent with any libel.

No.

We've been through that.

The dispute over the injunction was whether Amaral had a right to free speech or the McCanns had a right to protection of their reputation. 

The original ruling was that the McCanns' right to a good reputation should hold sway; the appeal that Amaral's right to free speech should hold sway.

The libel trial (strangely enough) is to determine questions of libel ...

[misty]

No.

We've been through that.

The dispute over the injunction was whether Amaral had a right to free speech or the McCanns had a right to protection of their reputation. 

The original ruling was that the McCanns' right to a good reputation should hold sway; the appeal that Amaral's right to free speech should hold sway.

The libel trial (strangely enough) is to determine questions of libel ...

So, in layman's terms - the original trial was about getting the book banned, because it was libellous. That was concluded in Amaral's favour under his right to free speech.
The latest trial, which falls under the McCanns' right to reply,  is for damages as a result of the alleged libel in the book which has been available for the public to purchase.

Have I got that right?