Portuguese judicial secrecy laws explained.

[stephen25000]

The Portuguese legal system is what it is.  Like all systems it has its good points and its not so good points, but it is the way they do things.  Nobody is "attacking" it.

The PJ?  Again the PJ is a large impersonal organisation, it is what it is and is part of the state machinery which allows Portugal to function.  Individuals within the PJ and aother areas have been critisised on this forum, of course.  No individual is above critisism.

Amaral - well, what can I say.  Personally I dont think he a did a very good job as coordinator, and given he was transferred it seems that view has support in Portugal. 

Since he "retired" there has been much to denigrate.

Nobody is attacking the Portuguese system ? 

Really ?

He was 'transferred' from the case after complaining of interference from his UK counterparts.

As to denigration, that is a matter of opinion, as you are an unadulterated backer of the mccanns.

[Alice Purjorick]

Good 'ere innit?
Right early doors John posted an article by a Portuguese advogado giving the SP relating to judicial secrecy.
It appears to remain unread judging by some of the ensuing posts. Just saying like 

[Alfred R Jones]

Did Jane Tanner commit the alleged offence in Portugal? Was discussing the case in the UK illegal? If the answer to both of these questions is no then I can't see how she has broken any law.

[Jean-Pierre]

Nobody is attacking the Portuguese system ? 

Really ?

He was 'transferred' from the case after complaining of interference from his UK counterparts.

As to denigration, that is a matter of opinion, as you are an unadulterated backer of the mccanns.

How is that an attack on the Portuguese system?  You really will need to explain that one, Stephen.

"interference" - ah, poor little Amaral.

Who transferred him?  The british police?  Or the PJ? 

[Alice Purjorick]

From Johns first post on this thread:
<<<< snip>>>>
Media: The rule allows the investigation to follow its course undisturbed and prevents witnesses being coerced by the suspect or material evidence being compromised; therefore it is extremely important at the initial stage of investigation.The principle of secrecy, to a larger or lesser degree, is in use in police forces around the world including the British police. However, differences may lie in the way that other police forces, particularly in the US and the UK, use the media as a vehicle for spreading information with the objective of bringing new evidence to the investigation.The PJ, with authorisation of the Criminal Investigation Judge (JIC), can provide information to the media.
<<<< snip>>>>
In that case when is a leak not a leak?
As for Jane Tanner she clearly broke Portuguese judicial secrecy laws (IMO), however "what to do" is key here.
Had her comments had a grossly deleterious effect on the case possibly the Criminal Investigation Judge in charge would have cut up rough. I do rather suspect that what she did was along the lines of not signing a "maroon book" driving licence (for those old enough to remember them). It was an offence not to sign it but unless one was found to have done a load of other hooky driving offences or been trappy to the speed cop it would generally be ignored.

[Alfred R Jones]

If you go on holiday to somewhere where alcohol is illegal, and then come back to the UK and have a pint of Guinness have you broken the law of the country from whence you have just been?  Just wondering...

[Jean-Pierre]

If you go on holiday to somewhere where alcohol is illegal, and then come back to the UK and have a pint of Guinness have you broken the law of the country from whence you have just been?  Just wondering...

A good analogy.

Alice - I would be interested to hear your views on exactly which law Tanner broke in the Panorama programme. 

[Alfred R Jones]

A good analogy.

Alice - I would be interested to hear your views on exactly which law Tanner broke in the Panorama programme.

The grammar  was a bit shocking though, I do apologise.

[Alice Purjorick]

Anyone connected with the case is not allowed to discuss the case with the media as it is an offence under Portuguese law except under certain conditions according the Portuguese advogado who wrote the piece that John posted. So the forum barrack room avocados think differently.
If one signs The Official Secrets Act in this country one is bound by it. When one ceases to be employed in a capacity that is covered by it one signs a release which basically says thou shalt not reveal bla de bla for as long as one has breath in ones body. Should one be so indiscreet one risks the wrath of etc.
Going to Temple Bar and getting pissed on Guinness (to maintain Alf's line) and making a programme on RTE, about what one had been involved in, would be frowned upon. A defence of "it was all a long time ago and I was in another country when trapping off about it" would be a flaky defence were one scooped up on ones return home. But all this a nice diversion. The really interesting bit you have ignored, whether by accident or design is open to debate, is:
The bit that says the PJ can talk to the press if the CIJ approves it; now that does a put a different complexion on some posts down the years does it not?
So back to my original question when is a leak not leak?
That shouldn't be too difficult to answer should it? and it was the crutch of my post until you and Alf attempted a body swerve.

[Alfred R Jones]

The main thrust of this discussion has been whether or not JT broke the law by appearing on the Panorama programme.  Clearly she did not, even if the PT authorities may have "frowned" upon her actions, they were not illegal under the laws of the country where JT resides and where the programmes was made.    As for the PJ having a "get out of jail free" card with regard their own leaks that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.  It rather makes a mockery of the whole system IMO.

[ferryman]

If you go on holiday to somewhere where alcohol is illegal, and then come back to the UK and have a pint of Guinness have you broken the law of the country from whence you have just been?  Just wondering...

Maybe not.

But it still has to be said that anyone who drinks Guinness should be lynched ...

[Alfred R Jones]

Maybe not.

But it still has to be said that anyone who drinks Guinness should be lynched ...

[ censored word ]!!!

[Jean-Pierre]

Maybe not.

But it still has to be said that anyone who drinks Guinness should be lynched ...

I shall remember that at "The Cabbage Patch" on the 21st March. 

[Alice Purjorick]

Alf posted:
If you go on holiday to somewhere where alcohol is illegal, and then come back to the UK and have a pint of Guinness have you broken the law of the country from whence you have just been?  Just wondering...
J-P posted:
A good analogy.

If the gentleman are sincere in what they post; and they may well be-they may well be; then they have failed to spot the major flaw in their posts in likening the two instances.
Ho hum.

[Jean-Pierre]

Alf posted:
If you go on holiday to somewhere where alcohol is illegal, and then come back to the UK and have a pint of Guinness have you broken the law of the country from whence you have just been?  Just wondering...
J-P posted:
A good analogy.

If the gentleman are sincere in what they post; and they may well be-they may well be; then they have failed to spot the major flaw in their posts in likening the two instances.
Ho hum.

And what, pray, do you percieve as the "fatal flaw"? (among the many flaws).