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

[OxfordBloo]

so the videos can be shown with impunity... I think not

They are banned because they are authored by or based on information gained unlawfully resulting in the enrichment of the person who misused their office.

Any other person could use that information but not Amaral.

If a third party wants to write a book, or others want to circulate or sell copies of the book, that would be legal except as it abrogates Amaral's right of authorship.

The court has ordered Amaral not to license any further editions. But current copies are not defamatory nor would future copies be unless the led to the enrichment of Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

Look:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation

Defamation is stating something FALSE about a person.

Libel is stating something FALSE about a person without legal excuse.

No court has pronounced on the truth status of The Truth of the Lie.

Distress is a psychological feeling of negative value.

Causing distress may be a tort if there is no legal excuse

Amaral made statements that may or may not be true, but whether or not they were they caused distress. 

Those statements would not be actionable if spoken by an ordinary citizen.

But as Amaral was a retired police officer he was found to have abused his office and thus the distress caused was actionable.

The important point is that even if in fact Amarillo writings were gospel truth (meaning not defamation) they are still actionable because of the manner in which the information was obtained and his duty as a law officer.

In an extreme case if Amaral bad said something complimentary about the McCann but they did not wish that information to be disclosed and if Amaral had gained that information through his office which he had abused, then there would still be a course of action.

Defamation requires falsity

Distress only requires discomfort.



I suspect you are only riding this horse because you are looking for a way to claim that the Portuguese legal system has condemned The Truth of the Lie.

It has not.

It has upheld the right to self expression whether or not the book is accurate

And it has found a public servant to have acted wrongly

But it has made no comment on the truth value of the book.

you suspect wrongly.....it is the result of the trial that is important and it is a resounding success for the mccanns....if as you say amaral has little grounds for appeal that will be the icing on the cake

[stephen25000]

you suspect wrongly.....it is the result of the trial that is important and it is a resounding success for the mccanns....if as you say amaral has little grounds for appeal that will be the icing on the cake

Why can't you ever admit, you get things wrong.

You need to demonstrate humility.

[OxfordBloo]

you suspect wrongly.....it is the result of the trial that is important and it is a resounding success for the mccanns....if as you say amaral has little grounds for appeal that will be the icing on the cake

It is a resounding success for the McCann.

But the book The Truth of the Lie has not been banned, only the publication of it by Amaral as it enriches him.

The Portuguese Legal system has made no judgement on the truth value of the book and copying the text online or by any physical copying method are allowed in Portugal.

The McCann have won the Press War in the UK, and have shown Amaral to have failed in his legal duty, but they have not managed to get the Portuguese legal system to declare the book as defamatory.

It would certainly be defamatory in the UK. Portuguese law differs.

[Mr Gray]

Why can't you ever admit, you get things wrong.

You need to demonstrate humility.

what makes you think you are in any position to tell me what to do

[jassi]

They are banned because they are authored by or based on information gained unlawfully resulting in the enrichment of the person who misused their office.

Any other person could use that information but not Amaral.

If a third party wants to write a book, or others want to circulate or sell copies of the book, that would be legal except as it abrogates Amaral's right of authorship.

The court has ordered Amaral not to license any further editions. But current copies are not defamatory nor would future copies be unless the led to the enrichment of Amaral.

Does that mean that both can remain freely available on the internet as long as there is no charge for viewing?

[Carana]

In England we have a system of common law which supports a clear distinction between civil and criminal law. This has developed over the centuries as before 1400 the only law was the King's law- all disputes whether criminal in nature or civil were to do with the King's Peace. Gradually the concept of civil law evolved where individuals could hold other individuals accountable through the courts without it being a matter of state.

In countries based on Roman Law there is less distinction between civil and criminal matters and particular actions may fall on what to us seems the 'wrong' side of the civil- criminal divide which is in any case less clear in Roman Law domains. In this case rather than misconduct in a public office being a crime, it is a tort and thus a civil matter. Amaral's actions were thus not arrestable but a tort. The tort was not libel but causing distress to another person in an unlawful manner. The response to this is damages rather than punishment.

Interesting reading, I'm still catching up.

I have a few questions.

I'm not sure if this has been updated or not, but violating the secrecy of justice is a criminal offence. Why wouldn't it have applied to him?

 ARTIGO 371.º
(Violação de segredo de justiça)

1- Quem ilegitimamente der conhecimento, no todo ou em parte, do teor de acto de processo penal que se encontre coberto por segredo de justiça, ou a cujo decurso não for permitida a assistência do público em geral, é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa até 240 dias, salvo se outra pena for cominada para o caso pela lei do processo.

2- Se o facto descrito no número anterior respeitar:
a) A processo por contra-ordenação, até à decisão da autoridade administrativa; ou
b) A processo disciplinar, enquanto se mantiver legalmente o segredo; o agente é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 60 dias.

[stephen25000]

what makes you think you are in any position to tell me what to do

You have a habit, repeatedly of preaching to others, being proved wrong, and incapable of admitting your wrong.

[OxfordBloo]

Doesthat mean that both can remain freely available on the internet as long as there is no charge for viewing?

Portuguese law only covers Portugal. The internet is not in Portugal!

Even if the book were reprinted and sold, so long as no fee was paid to Amaral, the publication would be legal, as would any paid or freed publication on the internet.

However I suspect that most people who want to read the book will have already done so.

There are only a few thousand people in the whole world actively interested in this case. If one posts on fora dedicated to the Madeleine case one can easily get the impression that ordinary people are greatly concerned by the case; they are not.

We are the train spotters of the social media- convinced that our hobby has a universal appeal while actually we are seen as boring and a little contemptible. Anoraks on folks.

[Alfred R Jones]

Asking again as it may have got missed in the earlier exchange:

Question for Oxfordbloo:

You write



Quote

This case was not about defamation as defamation is not of itself a criminal offence- for example the Publisher and TV Channel defamed the McCanns but it was not illegal because their right to free speech trumped the right to reputation of the McCanns.

Where in the judgment does the judge make this clear?  She makes it clear that the reverse is true, but not what you've written above re: free speech trumping the right to a good name.

[OxfordBloo]

Interesting reading, I'm still catching up.

I have a few questions.

I'm not sure if this has been updated or not, but violating the secrecy of justice is a criminal offence. Why wouldn't it have applied to him?

 ARTIGO 371.º
(Violação de segredo de justiça)

1- Quem ilegitimamente der conhecimento, no todo ou em parte, do teor de acto de processo penal que se encontre coberto por segredo de justiça, ou a cujo decurso não for permitida a assistência do público em geral, é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa até 240 dias, salvo se outra pena for cominada para o caso pela lei do processo.

2- Se o facto descrito no número anterior respeitar:
a) A processo por contra-ordenação, até à decisão da autoridade administrativa; ou
b) A processo disciplinar, enquanto se mantiver legalmente o segredo; o agente é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 60 dias.

The requirement of secrecy of justice ends with the archiving of the case. He published the book three days after this happened.

[Mr Gray]

Asking again as it may have got missed in the earlier exchange:

Question for Oxfordbloo:

You write



Quote



Where in the judgment does the judge make this clear?  She makes it clear that the reverse is true, but not what you've written above re: free speech trumping the right to a good name.

the judge continually refers to the mccanns right to a good name

[OxfordBloo]

Asking again as it may have got missed in the earlier exchange:

Question for Oxfordbloo:

You write



Quote



Where in the judgment does the judge make this clear?  She makes it clear that the reverse is true, but not what you've written above re: free speech trumping the right to a good name.

You need to read the whole document and separate out supportive asides from the actual backbone of the argument.

[OxfordBloo]

the judge continually refers to the mccanns right to a good name

You just don't listen or try to understand.

[Alfred R Jones]

Portuguese law only covers Portugal. The internet is not in Portugal!

Even if the book were reprinted and sold, so long as no fee was paid to Amaral, the publication would be legal, as would any paid or freed publication on the internet.

However I suspect that most people who want to read the book will have already done so.

There are only a few thousand people in the whole world actively interested in this case. If one posts on fora dedicated to the Madeleine case one can easily get the impression that ordinary people are greatly concerned by the case; they are not.

We are the train spotters of the social media- convinced that our hobby has a universal appeal while actually we are seen as boring and a little contemptible. Anoraks on folks.

If you publish something in this country that is considered libellous you can be sued.  So, if Faithlilly (for example) decides to publish and give away copies of Amaral's book that is no different to what Tony Bennett did with his pamphlet.