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

[Mr Gray]

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.

as you have made two statements...which are obviously incorrect...and you cannot support them...you have lost the argument

[Alice Purjorick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibKJLHRjD8

It is all worth a look but the last three or four minutes give the idea.

[stephen25000]

as you have made two statements...which are obviously incorrect...and you cannot support them...you have lost the argument

Oh dear dave, you never learn.

 &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

[OxfordBloo]

so where is amarals defence to libel

FFS

Nobody libelled the Mccanns under Portuguese Law. The Supreme Court decided that.

What has been found is that the McCanns were harmed by the unlawful actions of a civil servant with responsibilities beyond those of an ordinary citizen.

Let me try one more time with an example from a different sphere.

A Planning Officer with a local Council turns down a planning application because he knows from his work that a company wants to secetly buy up all the land in that area and he has asked to be paid bythat company when it starts work. The members of the planning committee vote to deny planning permission based on the Officer's recommendation.

The truth comes out.

The Planning Officer is guilty of misconduct in a public office. The planning committee are innocent.

No one is guilty of fraud as no money actually changed hands.

Fraud=Libel

Planning Officer= Amaral

Planning Committe= Publishers and TV station.

Why? Because the public official misused his position to harm the applicant.

[Montclair]

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.

Well, I have heard that other jurists have said that that argument would be very easy to overturn. As I said, all a matter of interpretation. We just have to wait and see, nothing more. "Não faço prognósticos antes do fim do jogo".

[OxfordBloo]

Well, I have heard that other jurists have said that that argument would be very easy to overturn. As I said, all a matter of interpretation. We just have to wait and see, nothing more. "Não faço prognósticos antes do fim do jogo".

Which "argument" would be easy to overturn. Use of illicit knowlege or failing in the duty to maintain innocence/

[OxfordBloo]

I am aware of the desperation to claim that this case has something to do with libel and defamation in order to use it as a stick to beat people who doubt the McCanns, but it is nothing to do with truth or lies, libel or accuracy.

All that has been found in the case is that Amaral is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

[G-Unit]

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.

It's hard to understand why it took 5 years for the judge to decide that Amaral, by suggesting that the McCanns were guilty of something, broke the terms of his position as a public servant. If that is what she's saying?

[Eleanor]

Let's have less of the snide remarks and insults, thank you.  This has been a civilised discussion for once.

[G-Unit]

It's hard to understand why it took 5 years for the judge to decide that Amaral, by suggesting that the McCanns were guilty of something, broke the terms of his position as a public servant. If that is what she's saying?

Apparently the case law of the European court of Human Rights says that people involved in the administration of criminal justice must not say that suspects are guilty while they are under investigation or being tried. So the assumption is that the McCanns were suspects, or arguidos. The other point the judge makes is that ECHR case law also prohibits assigning guilt (by those involved in the process) to people who have been acquitted. The McCanns were not tried, so not acquitted, but the judge mentions 'archiving' here.

[Brietta]

I am aware of the desperation to claim that this case has something to do with libel and defamation in order to use it as a stick to beat people who doubt the McCanns, but it is nothing to do with truth or lies, libel or accuracy.

All that has been found in the case is that Amaral is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

I've been of that opinion for coming up on two years now ... seems a Portuguese Court has vindicated it.

[Brietta]

Let's have less of the snide remarks and insults, thank you.  This has been a civilised discussion for once.

It has been a brilliant and informative discussion.

I've just been catching up and I am totally breathless.  Thanks for keeping up and answering everyones' questions so clearly, OxfordBlue ... much appreciated.

Going back now to reread the posts and take time to digest them properly. 

[Mr Gray]

FFS

Nobody libelled the Mccanns under Portuguese Law. The Supreme Court decided that.

What has been found is that the McCanns were harmed by the unlawful actions of a civil servant with responsibilities beyond those of an ordinary citizen.

Let me try one more time with an example from a different sphere.

A Planning Officer with a local Council turns down a planning application because he knows from his work that a company wants to secetly buy up all the land in that area and he has asked to be paid bythat company when it starts work. The members of the planning committee vote to deny planning permission based on the Officer's recommendation.

The truth comes out.

The Planning Officer is guilty of misconduct in a public office. The planning committee are innocent.

No one is guilty of fraud as no money actually changed hands.

Fraud=Libel

Planning Officer= Amaral

Planning Committe= Publishers and TV station.

Why? Because the public official misused his position to harm the applicant.

I Amaras actions are unlawful...which I accept they are...why is he not facing criminal charges

[G-Unit]

No. They have been compensated for psycholgical harm caused unlawfully by a Police Officer with particular duties of confidentiality and recognition of innocence which he has broken.

Even though he was no longer a police officer when he published the book?

[OxfordBloo]

I Amaras actions are unlawful...which I accept they are...why is he not facing criminal charges

I have explained that above. In Portugal the actions of Amaral are dealt with as torts rather than crimes.