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

[Brietta]

It would be presumptuous to say at this stage.  If Mr Amaral appeals which he is entitled do, it is anyone's guess as to how this could yet turn out.

I think it is almost certain that he will appeal the Court ruling ... he certainly has nothing more to lose ... and having won the first all important round (again) against what were predicted to be overwhelming odds, I think the McCanns can afford to be quite relaxed about it.

If I were to be asked (hardly likely, I know) my advice would be to accept the ruling, pick up the pieces and get on with whatever life is left.  If he had done that a few years ago he could have saved a lot of grief.
I think proceeding to appeal will only damage his reputation further ... but if he can find a lawyer to represent him, I am sure he will go for it.

[OxfordBloo]

I have spent the last day reading the judgement. The following points are clear.

The question of libel was settled previously. What Amaral said was not libellous because citizens are guaranteed the defence of free speech except in exceptional cases.

The word 'libel' does not appear in this Judgement.

The Judge accepted that some damage was caused to the McCann parents but not the children.

The question was- was this damage a tort. If so then it would be open to damages.

It was already proved that there was no tort of defamation.

However Amaral was and remains constrained by his office as a part of the judicial system. This requires that information gained from office should not be used unless it is lawful to do so. It also requires that such an officer should never impugn the right of a person to be regarded as innocent of any crime until proven guilty.

A simple citizen could have written a book using the files and this would be protected expression. However Amaral was not a simple citizen but an active and retired police officer. He used information from his own experience that was not in the files and asserted that the McCann were guilty of a crime for which they had not been convicted.

In the UK this might be auctioned as a Official Secrets case or performance in a public office.

Note that the TV and publisher were acquitted as they were not privy directly to evidence and were not bound by the requirement to maintain the McCann presumption of innocence.

Finally, the 'Costs' seems to refer to Court fees rather than solicitors charges for each side.

[jassi]

I have spent the last day reading the judgement. The following points are clear.

The question of libel was settled previously. What Amaral said was not libellous because citizens are guaranteed the defence of free speech except in exceptional cases.

The word 'libel' does not appear in this Judgement.

The Judge accepted that some damage was caused to the McCann parents but not the children.

The question was- was this damage a tort. If so then it would be open to damages.

It was already proved that there was no tort of defamation.

However Amaral was and remains constrained by his office as a part of the judicial system. This requires that information gained from office should not be used unless it is lawful to do so. It also requires that such an officer should never impugn the right of a person to be regarded as innocent of any crime until proven guilty.

A simple citizen could have written a book using the files and this would be protected expression. However Amaral was not a simple citizen but an active and retired police officer. He used information from his own experience that was not in the files and asserted that the McCann were guilty of a crime for which they had not been convicted.

In the UK this might be auctioned as a Official Secrets case or performance in a public office.

Note that the TV and publisher were acquitted as they were not privy directly to evidence and were not bound by the requirement to maintain the McCann presumption of innocence.

Finally, the 'Costs' seems to refer to Court fees rather than solicitors charges for each side.

That's interesting and answers a question I asked on another thread.

[Montclair]

This is the judge's opinion and interpretation only. Don't forget that the judge who upheld the book ban also stated the same argument about Gonçalo Amaral being a policemen, which seems a rather desperate argument IMHO. Later this same interpretation was torn apart by the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa in October 2010, where they wrote in the acordão that GA, although he was a retired policeman or civil servant, still enjoyed the same rights to freedom of expression and opinion as any other citizen in Portugal. This current verdict is based on opinion and not based on law. He broke no law AFAIK. I find it frightening that someone can be made to pay such a high amount when what they wrote was true and not libellous! This could be dangerous for freedom of expression in the future.

[Mr Gray]

That's interesting and answers a question I asked on another thread.

it answers it but gives the wrong answer...the damages were awarded for damage to reputation...defamation...libel

[jassi]

it answers it but gives the wrong answer...the damages were awarded for damage to reputation...defamation...libel

Except that the question I asked was, - "Right, so have judgements been made against the other parties as well?"  so it was the correct answer.

[Alice Purjorick]

I guess nothing will be resolved until the appeals process is exhausted or someone caves in or dies. A long running fraud case in India was closed out when the last living witness to events turned up his toes.
My understanding is that no money changes hands until the appeals process is completed.
It is rapidly becoming beyond parody.

[Angelo222]

it answers it but gives the wrong answer...the damages were awarded for damage to reputation...defamation...libel

You never give up being wrong do you?   There is no reference to defamation or libel anywhere in the judgement so get over it for God's sake.

[Angelo222]

Except that the question I asked was, - "Right, so have judgements been made against the other parties as well?"  so it was the correct answer.

Simply put, only Amaral will have to pay the €500k award plus interest, the other defendants were acquitted. 

[Mr Moderator]

Right, so have judgements been made against the other parties as well?

Other parties acquitted.

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.

Expenses to be shared.

X. condemn the authors 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 the 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, AUDIOVISUAL, SA in expense attached action in the proportion of 50%, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.

[John]

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.

That is the crux of it, the Judge has spoken.  The case was all about damages and damages alone.

As regards the last comment, this again is stated clearly in the judgement.  Any award is based on amongst other factors, the illegal earnings so if the earnings were small thus the award would have been small and so on.

The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of litigant's fault, the seriousness of the offence and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offence.
The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK.
District of Lisbon
Lisbon - Inst. Central - 1st Civil Chamber - J15
Palace of Justice, Border Marquis Street - 1098-001 Lisboa
Phone: 213846400 Fax: 213874221 Mail: lisboa.centralcivel@tribunais.org.pt
Proc.Nº 1454 / 09.5TVLSB
It has been shown that as a result of the same Kate and Gerald McCann authors suffered personal injury that deserve the protection of law (paragraphs 81, 82 and 83).
The same offense allowed the defendant earn the amount of about Euro 382,000.00 of income (paragraphs 33 and 62, and noted that the latter relates to the proceeds with the sale of the DVD so that it takes little strict, but or so it stops being materially true, because if the DVD was only sold at the end of April 2009, the process for their marketing began on March 7, 2008 with the contract concluded with the defendant VC Films, and this defendant the payment of Euros 40,000.00 documented on pages. 2095).
In light of these vectors, it is deemed appropriate and proportionate compensation petitioned by those authors, which is Euro 250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand euros) for each, to be added under paragraph 3 of article 805º code Civil, default interest at the statutory rate of civil interest, from the date of Gonçalo Amaral defendant's quote for action (January 5, 2010 -. fl ​​151) until full payment.

[Alice Purjorick]

You never give up being wrong do you?   There is no reference to defamation or libel anywhere in the judgement so get over it for God's sake.

That's because the judge was wrong 

[OxfordBloo]

This is the judge's opinion and interpretation only. Don't forget that the judge who upheld the book ban also stated the same argument about Gonçalo Amaral being a policemen, which seems a rather desperate argument IMHO. Later this same interpretation was torn apart by the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa in October 2010, where they wrote in the acordão that GA, although he was a retired policeman or civil servant, still enjoyed the same rights to freedom of expression and opinion as any other citizen in Portugal. This current verdict is based on opinion and not based on law. He broke no law AFAIK. I find it frightening that someone can be made to pay such a high amount when what they wrote was true and not libellous! This could be dangerous for freedom of expression in the future.

Have you read the judgement? It gives chapter and verse for those Portuguese and European laws that make it clear what the duties of a public servant whether active or retired, and the requirement for prosecuting associates to continually support both the right to and fact of innocence.

[John]

I find this particular extract quite poignant.

In the United Kingdom the case Allen v UK emphasized the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection-the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving-the presumption of innocence if being illusory or merely ideal.

Likewise, the presumption of innocence requires that the absence of guilt that it emanates is respected, after the acquittal or dismissal, in all legal proceedings of any kind and for any authority that comes into contact with these facts [idem Allen c. United Kingdom].

In this case, the authors Kate and Gerald MacCann never ceased to benefit from this presumption of innocence and the imperative of behavior as the same places on national judicial and judicial authorities and all of its employees and agents..

[OxfordBloo]

it answers it but gives the wrong answer...the damages were awarded for damage to reputation...defamation...libel

The damages were not awarded for libel. Libel was excluded previously. They were awarded for damages caused by the unlawful actions of a public servant.

The 82 page judgement does not mention the words "Libel" or "Defamation" once.