Madeleine McCann's parents win €500k in damages against former police chief.

[Alfred R Jones]

At the present donationrate of £67 per hour and allowing a bit of diversity he'll have it in about 6 weeks 

We shall review the total in 6 weeks and see if you're right. 

[Alice Purjorick]

To be honest I cannot see much benefit in appealing this ruling as it appears at first trawl to be watertight.  A higher court could reduce the award possibly?

Judgement in Portuguese

www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html

It seems odd the argument this judge puts forward didn't come out at the book banning caper as it would have been relevant then. It would appear that the award was based on Dr Amaral having used information gained in his position as a public servant to profit by leading the public to believe Drs McCann were guilty and not offering an alternative thesis.
The only way I can see the judgement being oddsed is if it falls back to the right of freedom of speech and all that as per the book banning. I certainly wouldn't place a bet on it.
I wouldn't mind betting that neither side saw this one coming.

[Alice Purjorick]

We shall review the total in 6 weeks and see if you're right. 

See my post to Davel.

[John]

It seems odd the argument this judge puts forward didn't come out at the book banning caper as it would have been relevant then. It would appear that the award was based on Dr Amaral having used information gained in his position as a public servant to profit by leading the public to believe Drs McCann were guilty and not offering an alternative thesis.
The only way I can see the judgement being oddsed is if it falls back to the right of freedom of speech and all that as per the book banning. I certainly wouldn't place a bet on it.
I wouldn't mind betting that neither side saw this one coming.

The Judge was never concerned with the criminal investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, she said as much when she stopped Gerry McCann dead in his tracks when he attempted to enlighten the Court over his cadaver dog research.

She was merely concerned with the damage sustained by the McCann's as a direct consequence of Amaral's claims.  All she had to decide was if Amaral's right to free expression eclipsed the McCanns right to a good name.   She decided in favour of the latter.

Had Amaral not earned substantial royalties as a result of his book etc, the damages awarded would have been insignificant.

[Montclair]

To be honest I cannot see much benefit in appealing this ruling as it appears at first trawl to be watertight.  A higher court could reduce the award possibly?

Judgement in Portuguese

www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html

As I remember the judge in the injunction hearing in January 2010 used the same arguments in her verdict to uphold the book ban and that decision was eventually overturned by the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010. So nothing is water tight. The TdR stated that, although Gonçalo Amaral was a public servant, he was also a citizen with the same rights to freedom of expression and opinion as anyone else. This same court also stated that as the McCanns used the press and media for their advantage, they therefore could not expect not be subject to adverse opinion.

As for the book ban, in Portuguese law, the decision made by the Tribunal de Relação is jurisprudence and cannot be overturned by a lower court, that is the civil court. This could be a very important point for the appeal.

BTW, the lawyers have finally received today official notification and have 40 days to make their appeal.

[Montclair]

What is the legal name for the offence committed by Amaral then?

Gonçalo Amaral committed no offence, the McCanns just didn't like what he wrote.

There was no libel and the judge made clear that the book was factual. You see, someone can win damages even if the defendant has written or spoken the truth.

[Alfred R Jones]

Gonçalo Amaral committed no offence, the McCanns just didn't like what he wrote.

There was no libel and the judge made clear that the book was factual. You see, someone can win damages even if the defendant has written or spoken the truth.

The paragraph of the judgment that John posted earlier repeatedly uses the word "offence".  Can you highlight the part where she made it clear the book was factual, ie: truthful?

[Alfred R Jones]

Would it be true to say that if and when it is established that the McCanns did not hide their child's body that Amaral could be charged with the crime of libel?

[Lyall]

Would it be true to say that if and when it is established that the McCanns did not hide their child's body that Amaral could be charged with the crime of libel?

Is there any such crime? It's a civil matter.

(You're very fixated with this libel word.)

[Carana]

The Judge was never concerned with the criminal investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, she said as much when she stopped Gerry McCann dead in his tracks when he attempted to enlighten the Court over his cadaver dog research.

She was merely concerned with the damage sustained by the McCann's as a direct consequence of Amaral's claims.  All she had to decide was if Amaral's right to free expression eclipsed the McCanns right to a good name.   She decided in favour of the latter.

Had Amaral not earned substantial royalties as a result of his book etc, the damages awarded would have been insignificant.

I agree with the first part, although there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure about your last comment.

Part of the issue was, as Brenden de Beer, put it:

Isabel Duarte had argued that Amaral used privileged information in the book, with the court ruling that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by his position as a former police detective and lead investigator in the case.

[Alfred R Jones]

Is there any such crime? It's a civil matter.

(You're very fixated with this libel word.)

I'm not fixated with it, I'm simply taking part in a discussion, do you have a problem with that?  Libel is a criminal matter according to John, so assuming it can be proved that the contents of his book are entirely false, then Amaral will have broken criminal law, surely?

[Brietta]

Is there any such crime? It's a civil matter.

(You're very fixated with this libel word.)

Seems the judge has ruled that Goncalo Amaral's literary efforts have defamed the McCanns.

She has ruled that he has injured their reputations; he has exposed them to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

Doing that constitutes libel according to the dictionary definition ... I really don't see what the problem is with that.

[Lyall]

I'm not fixated with it, I'm simply taking part in a discussion, do you have a problem with that?  Libel is a criminal matter according to John, so assuming it can be proved that the contents of his book are entirely false, then Amaral will have broken criminal law, surely?

Fair enough, a quick search tells me it can be civil or criminal.

[misty]

Somebody needs to correct the world media if this was not a libel trial. Almost every headline has the word "libel" in it.

[Matt Erixon]

DECISION
**
Given the above, on balance of fact and law, decide:
I. Judging remedied the representation of irregularity MADELEINE McCann BETH author in accordance with article 29, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, dismiss the objection raised by the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL.
II. Declared partly the claims made in the main action by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL, and to that extent, the second sentence to pay each of the first indemnity the amount of Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) plus default interest at the statutory rate of interest civilians, since January 5, 2010 until full payment.
III. Dismiss the other requests made in the same action, the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL and the same acquit the defendant.
IV. Fully judge rejected the requests made, in the same action, the authors MADELEINE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE against the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL and the same acquit the defendant.
V. Declared partly the claims valid in attached action, the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA, and in the same measure:
a) prohibit the defendants Gonçalo Amaral and War and Peace, Editor, SA selling book "Maddie - The Truth of the Lie" and condemn them in the collection, for delivery to the authors, within sixty (60) days after res judicata, of copies of this book that still remain in bookstores, other retail outlets, warehouses and warehouses.
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
Tel: 213 846 400 Fax: 213 874 221 Mail: lisboa.centralcivel@tribunais.org.pt
Proc.Nº 1454 / 09.5TVLSB
b) prohibit the defendants Gonçalo . Amaral and War and Peace, Editor, SA execution of new editions of the same book
c) prohibit the defendant VC - Oak-Movies Valentine, Audiovisual, SA execution of new editions of the DVD "Maddie, The Truth of the Lie".
d) prohibit the defendants Gonçalo Amaral, War and Peace, Editor, SA and VC - Oak-Movies Valentine, Audiovisual, SA, respectively, of the transfer, onerous or free, any form of copyright and book publishing and DVD.
and) order, each of these defendants, the penalty payment of EUR 50,000.00 (fifty thousand euros) for each offense of the above prohibitions.
VI. Judge over the rest of unfounded the claims made in the action attached by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and same acquit the defendants.
VII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the attached action against TVI defendant - INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, the same acquitting the defendant.
VIII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the action attached by the authors MADELEINE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE.
IX. Judging unchecked (subject to incidental sentence imposed in the order of 20 May 2014) the litigation in bad faith of either party.
X. Condemn the perpetrators KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL the expense of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
XI. Condemn the perpetrators KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE,
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
Tel: 213 846 400 Fax: 213 874 221 Mail: lisboa.centralcivel@tribunais.org.pt
Proc.Nº 1454 / 09.5TVLSB
AUDIOVISUAL, SA at the expense of attached action in the proportion of 50%, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Notify.
Sign.
**
*
Almada, April 27, 2015