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

[Mr Gray]

oxford...could you confirm that your definition of defamation is incorrect

[OxfordBloo]

defamation is not about publishing false information...it is about publishing information you cannot prove...it may well be true

OK, let's unsplit some hairs and define terms

Defamation is anything that harms a person's reputation

Libel is defaming someone without a defence.

This case is not about defamation as such but about psychological damage caused by unlawful acts committed by Amaral.

The statements he made were defamatory as were those identical ones made by the publishers and similar ones made by the TV company. Defamation at this level was not libel and was not a tort

Amaral has been found guilty of misusing information gained in a privileged position and of failing to abide by the legal requirements of his profession.

The words used by all were equally defamatory and not actionable under the concept of Free Speech.

But Amaral's action which were unlawful led to harm other than defamation- psychological damage and harrassment- right to peaceful enjoyment of life.

I know you are desperate to claim that this is an action for defamation so that it could be claimed that the book was necessarily full of false accusations, but this judgement does not address the factuality of the book but only the actions of Amaral and his responsibility for those actions.

[Montclair]

If you read the whole judgement you will find that is explained.

Amaral has the right to free expression but not the right to use information gained in his duties as a police officer- if he had kept to the files he would have been alright but the Judge specifies accasions where he relied on information that he had obtained under privilege. Additionally the Judge pointed out that Amaral had an absolute obligation as a retired Law Officer to protect teh Status of Innocent until proven guilty of any defendents within his purview- in this he failed by publicly accusing the McCanns of concealment.

I'm sure that the TdR was aware of the fact that he was a retired PJ when they made the statement about his right to freedom of expression. AFAIK, he had legal advice before he published the book. I'm not versed in law as you are, but I know that it is open to interpretation and the TdR had a different interpretation from that of the verdict in February 2010 and this latest one.

[OxfordBloo]

Why was the children's claim not allowed, do you know? Also, is that why the McCanns are liable for over 50% of the costs (if that's true)?

The children's claim was disallowed as they had not suffered direct personal harm from Amarals abuse of his position whereas the parents had.

I believe the costs referred to are more like court fees rather than each side's legal costs. The Judge apportioned the fees according to whose additional claims added to court time and expense (IMHO)

[stephen25000]

Why was the children's claim not allowed, do you know? Also, is that why the McCanns are liable for over 50% of the costs (if that's true)?

Does anyone know the extent of the mccanns legal expenses as a result of this case ?

[OxfordBloo]

I'm sure that the TdR was aware of the fact that he was a retired PJ when they made the statement about his right to freedom of expression. AFAIK, he had legal advice before he published the book. I'm not versed in law as you are, but I know that it is open to interpretation and the TdR had a different interpretation from that of the verdict in February 2010 and this latest one.

Read the Judge's reasoning in the Judgement. She explains it very clearly how she made her decision.

[Montclair]

A response from Amaral:

30 Apr 2015

A Message From Gonçalo Amaral



I find that the court's decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion.

For that reason, I do not resign myself to the decision and I will appeal it until the very last judicial instance.

If I am able to continue counting on your support, I will continue to fight within the judicial system for the Truth and the achievement of Justice.

Thank you.



It looks like he too does not understand the judgement to be about his personal capacity as an officer of the law with privileged information.

I'm sure that Gonçalo Amaral has read the verdict and is aware of the points made about his being a police officer. He studied law.

[OxfordBloo]

Does anyone know the extent of the mccanns legal expenses as a result of this case ?

Probably similar to Amaral's.

I understand that in Portuguese Law unless rulings are made to the contrary, each side is responsible for its own legal costs.

[Mr Gray]

OK, let's unsplit some hairs and define terms

Defamation is anything that harms a person's reputation

Libel is defaming someone without a defence.

This case is not about defamation as such but about psychological damage caused by unlawful acts committed by Amaral.

The statements he made were defamatory as were those identical ones made by the publishers and similar ones made by the TV company. Defamation at this level was not libel and was not a tort

Amaral has been found guilty of misusing information gained in a privileged position and of failing to abide by the legal requirements of his profession.

The words used by all were equally defamatory and not actionable under the concept of Free Speech.

But Amaral's action which were unlawful led to harm other than defamation- psychological damage and harrassment- right to peaceful enjoyment of life.

I know you are desperate to claim that this is an action for defamation so that it could be claimed that the book was necessarily full of false accusations, but this judgement does not address the factuality of the book but only the actions of Amaral and his responsibility for those actions.

so now you are changing your definition of defamation...so therefore your claim that the judge could not decide on defamation is also wrong...that's two mistakes

[Mr Gray]

I'm sure that Gonçalo Amaral has read the verdict and is aware of the points made about his being a police officer. He studied law.

looks like he didn't understand it..

[OxfordBloo]

I'm sure that Gonçalo Amaral has read the verdict and is aware of the points made about his being a police officer. He studied law.

If he has read it he will understand that any appeal will be very difficult as it is undeniable that he used privileged information (there are parts of The Truth of the Lie that rely on his own notes and recollections rather than on the published files) as it is undeniable that he did accuse the McCanns (as persons having the right to the presumption of innocence) of being guilty of a crime or crimes.

[Mr Gray]

OK, let's unsplit some hairs and define terms

Defamation is anything that harms a person's reputation

Libel is defaming someone without a defence.

This case is not about defamation as such but about psychological damage caused by unlawful acts committed by Amaral.

The statements he made were defamatory as were those identical ones made by the publishers and similar ones made by the TV company. Defamation at this level was not libel and was not a tort

Amaral has been found guilty of misusing information gained in a privileged position and of failing to abide by the legal requirements of his profession.

The words used by all were equally defamatory and not actionable under the concept of Free Speech.

But Amaral's action which were unlawful led to harm other than defamation- psychological damage and harrassment- right to peaceful enjoyment of life.

I know you are desperate to claim that this is an action for defamation so that it could be claimed that the book was necessarily full of false accusations, but this judgement does not address the factuality of the book but only the actions of Amaral and his responsibility for those actions.

so where is amarals defence to libel

[Montclair]

Read the Judge's reasoning in the Judgement. She explains it very clearly how she made her decision.

I did read it and in Portuguese and I understand her reasoning, but that doesn't mean that another court can't come to another conclusion with other reasoning.

[OxfordBloo]

so now you are changing your definition of defamation...so therefore your claim that the judge could not decide on defamation is also wrong...that's two mistakes

I refuse to get involved in a spat about a side issue.

The Judgement is not on defamation or libel.

It is about Harm caused to a person generally including psychological harm, reliant on the privileged position of the perpetrator.

The Publishers of the book are equally repsonsible for its contents and are not liable.

[OxfordBloo]

I did read it and in Portuguese and I understand her reasoning, but that doesn't mean that another court can come to another conclusion with other reasoning.

On the simple facts I do not see an alternative reading. He did abuse his position. It is nothing to do with defamation (yea or nay) or truth (yea or nay) but merely to do with Amaral's proven actions.