Interesting article (from Jan 2014), reporting that 83 criminal investigations into violations of judicial secrecy were opened into cases to which judicial secrecy applied in 2011-2012. (The totality of cases under judicial secrecy during that period was 6,696).
Most of the violations concerned cases of drug trafficking (475 cases), child sex abuse (189) and domestic violence (102). Out of those, 49 were archived, 9 led to charges and 25 were still ongoing (at the time of the article).
The types of violations at "critical moments" were related to searches (15), judicial interrogations (9), "comunicados de imprensa" (press releases doesn't sound right, information published by the press?) (6), and "escutas" (listening - phone tapping? Other illicit means of interception?) (5). Violations at unspecified "other moments" (40) are also on the list.
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=708687&tm=8&layout=121&visual=49The nature of the cases of violation under investigation at critical moments makes sense of the need for secrecy in certain circumstances. I expect that there will be lessons learned in terms of the live media coverage of the recent hostage cases in Sydney and France, for example, and the tense situation over elite forces zooming in on the nutjob in southern France, where seemingly the police had to rely on the voluntary cooperation of the media. (I wonder where Sargento's case over allegedly tipping off the media over the presumed serial rapist saga is at?)
Amaral clearly did breach judicial secrecy on at least two occasions: disclosing information to the publishing industry prior to the secrecy being lifted, and his rant to his wife's friend who also happened to be a journalist (which got him booted off the case).
It's not clear whether he was also directly leaking to the media on other occasions, but the constant drip of half-baked leaks, nearly all designed to smear the McCanns and Murat, happened under his watch. One, about the crying episode, leaked under Rebelo, but it's not clear when the information was leaked - it could have been leaked earlier and kept for a rainy day, e.g, when the McCanns were in Brussels. It's quite possible that those drip leaks are now timed-out for criminal inquiry purposes... or were quietly dealt with internally.
IMO, although, as it happens, they couldn't be described as being at "critical" moments of the investigation (as in forewarning of a potential dawn raid), they nonetheless constituted a violation of personal rights including irrelevant personal information (e.g., Kate's diary), and a potential obstruction of justice in terms of presumed innocence and influence on public opinion prior to any potential trial involving a jury.
I'm not convinced that all of the "leaks" flew out of PJ windows for free, either... which raises a different issue.
