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

[Mr Gray]

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

you have said that  libel had already been decided yet in the judgement it states..

MATTERS TO BE DECIDED
view of the requests made, to adjudicate essentially depends on the answer to the following question:
- The book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual (hereinafter, for simplicity, "documentary") and the interview the same defendant are illicit / antijurídicos in accordance with article 484 of Commission Code of Civil Procedure?
In response attempt will travel the following discussion levels:
I. The content of the book, documentary and interview.
 II.. The conflict in this case between freedom of expression and the right to good name and reputation of the authors


which indicates that this had not been decided

[OxfordBloo]

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

Yes. The judgement is quite clear that the requirements of confidentiality and non-malfeasance are enduring beyond retirement, partly because of the date at which the information was received, and secondly because a pensioned police officer retains certain duties and advantages of having been a police officer.

[Mr Gray]

iim just reading the judgement..it also says...

The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic protects the rights at issue in the chapter on rights, freedoms and guarantees, which is part of fundamental rights.
It has, in effect, the article 26, paragraph 1 of that order, under the heading "other personal rights" that "all rights are recognized (...) good name and reputation (...)".


so Portuguese law does protect the right to a good name and reutation

[Mr Gray]

glossing the said paragraph 3 of rule writing and Vital Moreira Gomes Canotilho "Do # 3 concludes, however, that there are certain limits on exercising the right to express and freely express thought. Freedom of expression and information can not actually take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to good name and reputation, and his moral integrity, the right to privacy (...) "[Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, emphasis added].

[OxfordBloo]

you have said that  libel had already been decided yet in the judgement it states..

MATTERS TO BE DECIDED
view of the requests made, to adjudicate essentially depends on the answer to the following question:
- The book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual (hereinafter, for simplicity, "documentary") and the interview the same defendant are illicit / antijurídicos in accordance with article 484 of Commission Code of Civil Procedure?
In response attempt will travel the following discussion levels:
I. The content of the book, documentary and interview.
 II.. The conflict in this case between freedom of expression and the right to good name and reputation of the authors


which indicates that this had not been decided

The Supreme Court decided the libel issue. Freedom of expression is more than libel. The SC decided that Freedom of Expression allowed the publication of the book as it was. Had it been authored by a civilian that would have been the end of the matter.

However there is a further question- does a public servant with his rights and duties have the right under Freedom of Expression to use information gained in the course of his duties, and does Freedom of Expression allow a retired law officer to condemn arguidos as guilty when they were in fact and law innocent.

The judgement decided that Freedom of Expression did not allow Amaral to do what he did.

[OxfordBloo]

iim just reading the judgement..it also says...

The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic protects the rights at issue in the chapter on rights, freedoms and guarantees, which is part of fundamental rights.
It has, in effect, the article 26, paragraph 1 of that order, under the heading "other personal rights" that "all rights are recognized (...) good name and reputation (...)".


so Portuguese law does protect the right to a good name and reutation

And....

That is certainly the case but not this case.

I am getting tired of this. Please read the judgement as a whole sorting out precedents and considerations from decisions and judgements.

[Mr Gray]

The protection of the rights of authors to their good name and reputation is in the case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.

[OxfordBloo]

The protection of the rights of authors to their good name and reputation is in the case, closely related to the presumption of innocence.

Only so far as precedents and jurisprudence are concerned.

You need to separate discussions of precedents and other considerations from what was actually decided.

[Mr Gray]

In the case, Kate and Gerald McCann authors never ceased to benefit from presumption of innocence and the imperative of behavior that it puts on the national enforcement and judicial authorities and all its employees and agents.


the judge has already stated that the right to presumption of innocence is closely related to the right to a good name

[DCI]

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

It was already written, using police files, well before he left the PJ.

[Mr Gray]

Only so far as precedents and jurisprudence are concerned.

You need to separate discussions of precedents and other considerations from what was actually decided.

according to what is published on this forum the judge discussed at length the damage to the mccanns reputation...amongst other things.... and then based her decision based on the above....

[Mr Gray]

The Supreme Court decided the libel issue. Freedom of expression is more than libel. The SC decided that Freedom of Expression allowed the publication of the book as it was. Had it been authored by a civilian that would have been the end of the matter.

However there is a further question- does a public servant with his rights and duties have the right under Freedom of Expression to use information gained in the course of his duties, and does Freedom of Expression allow a retired law officer to condemn arguidos as guilty when they were in fact and law innocent.

The judgement decided that Freedom of Expression did not allow Amaral to do what he did.

that is defamation

[OxfordBloo]

according to what is published on this forum the judge discussed at length the damage to the mccanns reputation...amongst other things.... and then based her decision based on the above....

Read the whole judgement in context and you might understand where the reputation law fits.

[OxfordBloo]

that is defamation

It may be defamation but it was not defamation that caused the judgement.

Read the whole judgement.

[Lyall]

And....

That is certainly the case but not this case.

I am getting tired of this. Please read the judgement as a whole sorting out precedents and considerations from decisions and judgements.

I wish the court(s) would publish the documents in English as well.

And French, and German