Libel trial day 14 - Statement of facts proved/not proved issued to lawyers.

[faithlilly]

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk

[Mr Gray]

http://www.movenoticias.com/2015/01/caso-maddie-tribunal-da-como-provado-danos-de-goncalo-amaral-aos-mccann/

Maddie case: Court gives as proven Gonçalo Amaral of damage to McCann

The court gave this Wednesday, day 21, as proved that the book of former Inspector of Judicial Police (PJ) Gonçalo Amaral, entitled "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", caused damage to the parents of Madeleine McCann, missing British child in 2007, in the Algarve.

In order, the magistrate also considered that the book reproduces excerpts appearing on the process in which Kate and Gerry McCann were made defendants, in September 2007, filed in July of the following year, even though the British couple has been charged.

These elements were given as proven at trial, which began in October 2013, and will be considered for the preparation of the decision that will be communicated to the parties soon, but that has no due date.

"Damages were proven directly originated by the book," said the agency "Lusa" source close to the process, confirming that Judge Melo and Emilia Castro found as a fact that the work "has from the process information", which is a violation of the secrecy of justice.

Because according to the defense of the parents of the missing child to May 3, 2007, the book was given as ready three days after the prosecutor of the Republic of Portimão, Magalhães Menezes, had written the order of termination of proceedings against the McCanns dated notification of July 29, 2008.

In preparing the book, in which the former coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of the PJ in Portimão defended the thesis that Madeleine's parents were involved in the disappearance and concealment of the corpse of the child, the lawyer of the British family, Isabel Duarte, maintained that Gonçalo Amaral used unauthorized and prohibited pleadings.

The same source also pointed out that the judgment of this process sessions at the Palace of Justice in Lisbon, allowed the judge to conclude that the information contained in the book are presented "some truncated, incomplete or other missing him."

This process creeps in court for over five years, with successive postponements of trial sessions and an attempted extrajudicial settlement between the parties, which was never realized.

In 2010, in the judgment of the book sales ban and the video with the same title, produced after documentary broadcast on TVI, the court decided to keep out of the market the two products that had been injunction target of temporary withdrawal.

In October 2010, the Lisbon Court of Relationship annulled the sale prohibition sentence of the book and the video and the British couple appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected examine the use, in March 2011.

Madeleine McCann disappeared when he was four years in the tourist village of Aldeia da Luz, near Portimao, where the family was on vacation.

Kate and Gerry McCann have always maintained the position that Maddie was abducted. The case was recently reopened by prosecutors

[faithlilly]

Let's boil it down to facts davel. Did the judge say that Amaral had broken the secrecy laws ? If so you will be able to give me a direct quote.

This is what the judge said ( thank you to Astro for the translation )

27. Are the facts that are reported by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and in the aforementioned interviews, like he himself writes and said, facts that were established during the inquiry?

28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

(Both articles) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.

Notice nowhere does she mention breaking judicial secrecy.

[Carana]

Let's boil it down to facts davel. Did the judge say that Amaral had broken the secrecy laws ? If so you will be able to give me a direct quote.

This is what the judge said ( thank you to Astro for the translation )

27. Are the facts that are reported by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and in the aforementioned interviews, like he himself writes and said, facts that were established during the inquiry?

28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

(Both articles) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.

Notice nowhere does she mention breaking judicial secrecy.

Neither here, nor there, but you missed out this on one of the points that you quoted:

28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

(Both articles) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
 

The judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.



Aside from that, Astro appears to have concentrated on translating the points proven or not proven. This isn't the totality of what was said in court, presumably, as otherwise where did Anne Guedes get her account from?

It's quite possible that the supposed breach of judicial secrecy wasn't mentioned again at that session, or if it was, Anne Guedes didn't hear it.  If it is a point to be possibly considered by a criminal prosecution, it wouldn't actually be relevant in a civil trial... unless I have missed something.

[faithlilly]

Neither here, nor there, but you missed out this on one of the points that you quoted:

28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

(Both articles) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
 

The judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.



Aside from that, Astro appears to have concentrated on translating the points proven or not proven. This isn't the totality of what was said in court, presumably, as otherwise where did Anne Guedes get her account from?

It's quite possible that the supposed breach of judicial secrecy wasn't mentioned again at that session, or if it was, Anne Guedes didn't hear it.  If it is a point to be possibly considered by a criminal prosecution, it wouldn't actually be relevant in a civil trial... unless I have missed something.

 I don't belueve the point was relevant to the discussion.

[faithlilly]

Carana Anne Guedes has asked me to tell you that she reported no matéria de prova because none were publicly divulged.

[Carana]

Carana Anne Guedes has asked me to tell you that she reported no matéria de prova because none was publicly divulged.

Ah, thanks for passing on the clarification.

So the points weren't read aloud? Anne mentioned that the clerk didn't give her a copy to read, so Astro managed to get a copy from a different source, presumably one of the lawyers or Amaral?

[Mr Gray]

Ah, thanks for passing on the clarification.

So the points weren't read aloud? Anne mentioned that the clerk didn't give her a copy to read, so Astro managed to get a copy from a different source, presumably one of the lawyers or Amaral?

that's what it looked like.....so it's all unnoficial

[DCI]

Ah, thanks for passing on the clarification.

So the points weren't read aloud? Anne mentioned that the clerk didn't give her a copy to read, so Astro managed to get a copy from a different source, presumably one of the lawyers or Amaral?

Now that does surprise me Carana, not.

Shouldn't be long before we all know the outcome.

I can see where the 30 days probably came in now, on the list. Apparently that is the time.

"The final decision should be issued in writing within 30 days from the end of the trial. Counsel will be notified through the judicial online platform (Citius)".

If that is correct the decision should be issued before the 20th February.

Seems the poll at the start to this thread is void too. Sorry it has been changed.

Portuguese law does not allow punitive damages in the same way as is possible under US law.

Secrecy Law

Article 195 of the Portuguese Criminal Code states that the violation of secrecy by a person obliged to respect it (which includes lawyers via Article 87 of the Portuguese Bar Association Rules) is a crime punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or a financial penalty.

http://m.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200

[Carana]

Now that does surprise me Carana, not.

Shouldn't be long before we all know the outcome.

I can see where the 30 days probably came in now, on the list. Apparently that is the time.

"The final decision should be issued in writing within 30 days from the end of the trial. Counsel will be notified through the judicial online platform (Citius)".

If that is correct the decision should be issued before the 20th February.

Seems the poll at the start to this thread is void too.

Portuguese law does not allow punitive damages in the same way as is possible under US law.

Secrecy Law

Article 195 of the Portuguese Criminal Code states that the violation of secrecy by a person obliged to respect it (which includes lawyers via Article 87 of the Portuguese Bar Association Rules) is a crime punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or a financial penalty.

http://m.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200

Hmm.

On your first point, I did try to point out that exemplary (punitive) damages don't appear to exist in PT law...

On the second (re Article 195), no idea. For the moment, I don't think that it's an issue. It was a hearing open to the public, and it wasn't a violation of lawyer / client confidentiality.

[DCI]

Hmm.

On your first point, I did try to point out that exemplary (punitive) damages don't appear to exist in PT law...

On the second (re Article 195), no idea. For the moment, I don't think that it's an issue. It was a hearing open to the public, and it wasn't a violation of lawyer / client confidentiality.

I think you have read it wrong. By a person obliged to respect it. Which includes lawyers

I also amended the poll, as it has been changed.

[Carana]

I think you have read it wrong. By a person obliged to respect it. Which includes lawyers

I also amended the poll, as it has been changed.

But what is "it"? Judicial secrecy?

I really have no idea as to whether the points were not read out due to judicial secrecy or whether the document was simply given to lawyers to read to raise any relevant points verbally for reasons of expediency.

A clerk may not have known whether he / she was authorised to hand out a copy of the document out or not and decided to be cautious.

I'll sit on my fence on this one. ;)

[faithlilly]

Hmm.

On your first point, I did try to point out that exemplary (punitive) damages don't appear to exist in PT law...

On the second (re Article 195), no idea. For the moment, I don't think that it's an issue. It was a hearing open to the public, and it wasn't a violation of lawyer / client confidentiality.

And besides I think it's common knowledge that Lusa got their ( incorrect ) information straight from Isabel Duarte.

[Carana]

And besides I think it's common knowledge that Lusa got their ( incorrect ) information straight from Isabel Duarte.

According to whom?

[Angelo222]

Ah, thanks for passing on the clarification.

So the points weren't read aloud? Anne mentioned that the clerk didn't give her a copy to read, so Astro managed to get a copy from a different source, presumably one of the lawyers or Amaral?

It matters little where it came from, what is important is the content.  Anne was honest enough to admit that she was refused a copy by the clerk, many wouldn't have divulged that ditty.