Did Gonçalo Amaral breach Portuguese secrecy laws?

[Montclair]

Was the supposed breaking of the secrecy law one of the points cited by the McCanns in their writ ? Because if not I'm not sure why you feel it relevant.

The secrecy law was not included in the current damages case.

[faithlilly]

The secrecy law was not included in the current damages case.

Of course not Montclair.

And it's interesting that the faithful think the accounts of the PUBLICLY  funded company run by the McCanns is none of our business yet chew over Amaral's PRIVATE income like so many rabid dogs ( sorry not supposed to mention dogs ) on a week old carcass.

Now that really is hypocrisy.

[John]

bump

[Brietta]

Just as a matter of interest ... does anyone know how many people have been punished for breaking the Judicial Secrecy Laws of Portugal?

A brief search reveals that in Britain prosecutions, some resulting in heavy sentences depending on the severity of the offence, take place on a regular basis.



Man arrested over alleged Official Secrets Act breach
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26995615

CPS decides no retrial for Daniel James - soldier faces sentence over Official Secrets breach http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/172_08/

Submariner sentenced for breaching Official Secrets Act
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/news/news-by-category/criminal-cases/submariner-sentenced-for-breaching-official-secrets-act.html

Counter-terrorism officer charged with breaching Official Secrets Act
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9579352/Counter-terrorism-officer-charged-with-breaching-Official-Secrets-Act.html

A London police borough commander has been sacked by a disciplinary panel for giving details of a "sensitive" police investigation to a journalist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30858871

[Benice]

Of course not Montclair.

And it's interesting that the faithful think the accounts of the PUBLICLY  funded company run by the McCanns is none of our business yet chew over Amaral's PRIVATE income like so many rabid dogs ( sorry not supposed to mention dogs ) on a week old carcass.

Now that really is hypocrisy.

IMO the accusation of hypocrisy against sceptics is because they constantly criticise the lack of detail which they demand should be shown in the fund accounts.  They claim that they are entitled to know every tiny little expenditure -  because donations were made by the public.   But simultaneously they completely approve - and have no criticism whatsoever of Amaral's decision to give no account at all of how donations to his fund also made by the public, have been used.

How anyone can claim that stance is not hypocritical is a mystery to me.

[Montclair]

Does the fact that the judge said amaral broke the secrecy laws actually mean he did...do you have a cite...or does it mean something completely different like other statements made by legal peeps in this case

When did the judge say that Gonçalo Amaral broke the secrecy laws? She did not say a word about secrecy laws since that question was not part of the trial. Isabel Duarte did try to put her spin on it when the first manipulated news about the proven and unproven facts were given to the news agency Lusa.

[Mr Gray]

When did the judge say that Gonçalo Amaral broke the secrecy laws? She did not say a word about secrecy laws since that question was not part of the trial. Isabel Duarte did try to put her spin on it when the first manipulated news about the proven and unproven facts were given to the news agency Lusa.

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.[/color]

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

[faithlilly]

IMO the accusation of hypocrisy against sceptics is because they constantly criticise the lack of detail which they demand should be shown in the fund accounts.  They claim that they are entitled to know every tiny little expenditure -  because donations were made by the public.   But simultaneously they completely approve - and have no criticism whatsoever of Amaral's decision to give no account at all of how donations to his fund also made by the public, have been used.

How anyone can claim that stance is not hypocritical is a mystery to me.

But Benice I'm not referring to the legal fund set up by well-wishers to finance Amaral's defence but his PRIVATE finances.

[faithlilly]

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.[/color]

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

I notice the 'which is a violation of the secrecy of justice' is not in quote marks which I assume is because the judge didn't say it. Care to supply the whole article ?

[Carana]

Just as a matter of interest ... does anyone know how many people have been punished for breaking the Judicial Secrecy Laws of Portugal?

A brief search reveals that in Britain prosecutions, some resulting in heavy sentences depending on the severity of the offence, take place on a regular basis.



Man arrested over alleged Official Secrets Act breach
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26995615

CPS decides no retrial for Daniel James - soldier faces sentence over Official Secrets breach http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/172_08/

Submariner sentenced for breaching Official Secrets Act
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/news/news-by-category/criminal-cases/submariner-sentenced-for-breaching-official-secrets-act.html

Counter-terrorism officer charged with breaching Official Secrets Act
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9579352/Counter-terrorism-officer-charged-with-breaching-Official-Secrets-Act.html

A London police borough commander has been sacked by a disciplinary panel for giving details of a "sensitive" police investigation to a journalist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30858871

There have been a few prosecutions in Portugal

- PJ inspector José Torrão (Setúbal) got an 8-month suspended sentence for leaking about the never-ending Freeport saga (but he was seemingly caught red-handed). I have no idea if the sentence was upheld on appeal or not.

Inspector da PJ condenado a 8 meses de pena suspensa
Data: 2007.07.18
Fonte: JN
Autor: Redacção

Jornalistas Inês Serra Lopes e Francisco Teixeira foram absolvidos. O ex-inspector da PJ José Torrão foi ontem condenado a oito meses de pena suspensa por violação de segredo de justiça, no âmbito do caso Freeport . A pena foi suspensa por 18 meses, mediante o compromisso de entregar cinco mil euros �  Quercus. Os dois jornalistas envolvidos no processo, Inês Serra Lopes e Francisco Teixeira, foram absolvidos do mesmo crime, de acordo com a Lusa. A defesa do ex-inspector da PJ de Setúbal anunciou que vai decorrer da sentença para o Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa.

http://www.tretas.org/Freeport/Artigos

- There was another prosecution involving quite a few PJ officers in the Casa Pia affair, IIRC. I'll add a link when I find one.

- There also seem to be noises about cracking down on it more generally, but it might just be... noise.
http://pesquisa.rtp.pt/default.aspx?relid=19230&ind=rtpnoticias

- A general article by Henrique Monteiro (11 Jan 2014) on the subject, discussing various options ETA I modified my original wording to read: from the perspective of journalists. Unfortunately, I can only get the gist of it as his prose is somewhat above that of CdaM.

A general summary of what I think I understand (with apologies if I've got some of it wrong and the points don't necessarily follow the ones made in the article):

The gripe seems to be that judicial secrecy is in theory so all-encompassing that journalists have a hard time doing their job. Some end up as arguidos and are not even sure what they've done wrong. Others often completely ignore it, which ironically sometimes leads to cases of injustice. (He mentions the "British example" early on - by which I presume he means the Leveson inquiry.)

One proposal on the table appears to be recorded conversations between journalists and their sources... (I can't see that ever happening.)

His view seems to be that judicial secrecy should be the exception rather than the norm, and journalists should be given more access to information, with clearer guidelines as to the boundaries, as well as being given justified reasons why some cases may need to be off limits (I'm not sure if he means during the investigation phase or whether he means the entire judicial process). If journalists are told to shut up, then all journalists must respect it and clear sanctions should be imposed if it is broken.

http://expresso.sapo.pt/contra-o-segredo-de-justica-e-um-aplauso-a-pgr=f850074

[faithlilly]

There have been a few prosecutions in Portugal

- PJ inspector José Torrão (Setúbal) got an 8-month suspended sentence for leaking about the never-ending Freeport saga (but he was seemingly caught red-handed). I have no idea if the sentence was upheld on appeal or not.

Inspector da PJ condenado a 8 meses de pena suspensa
Data: 2007.07.18
Fonte: JN
Autor: Redacção

Jornalistas Inês Serra Lopes e Francisco Teixeira foram absolvidos. O ex-inspector da PJ José Torrão foi ontem condenado a oito meses de pena suspensa por violação de segredo de justiça, no âmbito do caso Freeport . A pena foi suspensa por 18 meses, mediante o compromisso de entregar cinco mil euros �  Quercus. Os dois jornalistas envolvidos no processo, Inês Serra Lopes e Francisco Teixeira, foram absolvidos do mesmo crime, de acordo com a Lusa. A defesa do ex-inspector da PJ de Setúbal anunciou que vai decorrer da sentença para o Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa.

http://www.tretas.org/Freeport/Artigos

- There was another prosecution involving quite a few PJ officers in the Casa Pia affair, IIRC. I'll add a link when I find one.

- There also seem to be noises about cracking down on it more generally, but it might just be... noise.
http://pesquisa.rtp.pt/default.aspx?relid=19230&ind=rtpnoticias

- A general article by Henrique Monteiro (11 Jan 2014) on the subject, discussing various options concerning journalists who break it. Unfortunately, I can only get the gist of it as his prose is somewhat above that of CdaM.

A general summary of what I think I understand (with apologies if I've got some of it wrong and the points don't necessarily follow the ones made in the article):

The gripe seems to be that judicial secrecy is in theory so all-encompassing that journalists have a hard time doing their job. Some end up as arguidos and are not even sure what they've done wrong. Others often completely ignore it, which ironically sometimes leads to cases of injustice. (He mentions the "British example" early on - by which I presume he means the Leveson inquiry.)

One proposal on the table appears to be recorded conversations between journalists and their sources... (I can't see that ever happening.)

His view seems to be that judicial secrecy should be the exception rather than the norm, and journalists should be given more access to information, with clearer guidelines as to the boundaries, as well as being given justified reasons why some cases may need to be off limits (I'm not sure if he means during the investigation phase or whether he means the entire judicial process). If journalists are told to shut up, then all journalists must respect it and clear sanctions should be imposed if it is broken.

http://expresso.sapo.pt/contra-o-segredo-de-justica-e-um-aplauso-a-pgr=f850074

And what about Tanner discussing the case on Panorama or indeed Gerry briefing David James Smith for his Beyond the Smears article ? Or are you also subscribing to the idea that if they spoke publicly in the UK then no laws were broken ?

[Carana]

And what about Tanner discussing the case on Panorama or indeed Gerry briefing David James Smith for his Beyond the Smears article ? Or are you also subscribing to the idea that if they spoke publicly in the UK then no laws were broken ?

We've had this discussion before.

- I simply don't know whether JT technically broke it or not. Despite various PT pundits declaring that the McCanns had broken judicial secrecy and had signed the child's fate by publicising the fleck in her eye, one of the few things I give Amaral credit for was actually organising a description of her (including the eye detail) very quickly. The McCanns had been on TV to present the type of pyjamas she had been wearing. Was that a breach of secrecy? Or was it publicising details that could have helped to find her that the PJ hadn't done? JT's description of what she'd seen was surely in the same vein: trying to jog people's memories to help find the missing child.

ETA: I find it inconceivable that Panorama did not seek legal advice concerning the content. JT may have also sought legal advice independently.

- David James Smith is an investigative journalist. Do you have a reliable source that Gerry briefed him?

[Mr Gray]

I notice the 'which is a violation of the secrecy of justice' is not in quote marks which I assume is because the judge didn't say it. Care to supply the whole article ?

why bother...you won't accept anything that doesn't fit with your views

[Benice]

But Benice I'm not referring to the legal fund set up by well-wishers to finance Amaral's defence but his PRIVATE finances.

I was explaining to you why people find sceptics to be hypocritical.   You brought Madeleine's Fund into the equation.

There has been plenty of discussion over the years about the McCanns private income - even down to assessing Gerry's salary.

What is never discussed by sceptics  is the extent of their own money the McCanns have put into the fund and the considerable amount of money they have raised for charity.   It has however been sneered at on occasions. Very sad IMO.

[faithlilly]

We've had this discussion before.

- I simply don't know whether JT technically broke it or not. Despite various PT pundits declaring that the McCanns had broken judicial secrecy and had signed the child's fate by publicising the fleck in her eye, one of the few things I give Amaral credit for was actually organising a description of her (including the eye detail) very quickly. The McCanns had been on TV to present the type of pyjamas she had been wearing. Was that a breach of secrecy? Or was it publicising details that could have helped to find her that the PJ hadn't done? JT's description of what she'd seen was surely in the same vein: trying to jog people's memories to help find the missing child.

ETA: I find it inconceivable that Panorama did not seek legal advice concerning the content. JT may have also sought legal advice independently.

- David James Smith is an investigative journalist. Do you have a reliable source that Gerry briefed him?

But we are not talking about descriptions are we Carana, we are talking about detail and, yes, we have had this discussion before and we will probably have it again in the future too as a consensus is extremely unlikely.