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

[Alfred R Jones]

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

So - the principle that the right to a good name trumps freedom of speech only applies in certain cases, but is not a fundamental principle of the Human Rights act?

[Carana]

Were such a case to be heard on England it would have been part Criminal and part Civil.

Amaral would have been charged either with Misconduct in a Public Office or under the Official Secrets Act.

The McCanns would have been free to sue not for Libel (the actual words being covered by rights to free speech) but could have sued for emotional distress or even Bodily Harm. Damages might have been awarded against Amaral for causing such harm, but it would not be for defamation, but for distress in the same way that a reckless driver can be sued for the distress caused by a road traffic accident or the way victims of sexual offences can claim damages for distress.

Thanks for your reply to the other point.

Another question: If the case had been held in the UK, are you saying that the McCanns couldn't have been sued for libel? If not, what were the damages in the UK cases for?

Or have I misunderstood what you meant?

[OxfordBloo]

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.

Rather obviously I was talking about republication in Portugal.

[jassi]

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.

Presumably that would have to be established in a UK court, or at least between lawyers.

[OxfordBloo]

So - the principle that the right to a good name trumps freedom of speech only applies in certain cases, but is not a fundamental principle of the Human Rights act?

It is NOT about a right to a good name. It is about the right to be allowed peaceful enjoyment of life. Amaral violated that by using material that he acquired unlawfully and declared their guilt when constrained to defend their innocence.

[Brietta]

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.

Best discussion we have had on the forum for quite some time and it has certainly been a learning curve.  Very well explained.

I think the judgement achieved by the McCanns is a victory, confirmed by the amount awarded for the affront they have suffered which has been the subject of surprise to many.

I believe it has been a contention that it was Mr Amaral's position as co-ordinator of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance which gave his book the measure of credibility it enjoyed.
I now see exactly where the McCann legal team were going with that.

I'm not sure that Portuguese Law on freedom of speech quite matches up with European Law.  I find it extraordinary that it is lawful for a person to be allowed to promote a book based entirely on untruthful comment which is damaging to others solely in protection of the author's freedom of speech.

[OxfordBloo]

Thanks for your reply to the other point.

Another question: If the case had been held in the UK, are you saying that the McCanns couldn't have been sued for libel? If not, what were the damages in the UK cases for?

Or have I misunderstood what you meant?

I assume that you mean could the McCann have sued, not been sued.

In the UK it would have been quite a simple case, almost impossible for Amaral to defend. that is why no publisher in the UK will touch it with a barge pole.

[jassi]

Best discussion we have had on the forum for quite some time and it has certainly been a learning curve.  Very well explained.

I think the judgement achieved by the McCanns is a victory, confirmed by the amount awarded for the affront they have suffered which has been the subject of surprise to many.

I believe it has been a contention that it was Mr Amaral's position as co-ordinator of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance which gave his book the measure of credibility it enjoyed.
I now see exactly where the McCann legal team were going with that.

I'm not sure that Portuguese Law on freedom of speech quite matches up with European Law.  I find it extraordinary that it is lawful for a person to be allowed to promote a book based entirely on untruthful comment which is damaging to others solely in protection of the author's freedom of speech.

It would be interesting to know how it would be handled in countries such as Italy or Spain.

[Mr Gray]

Best discussion we have had on the forum for quite some time and it has certainly been a learning curve.  Very well explained.

I think the judgement achieved by the McCanns is a victory, confirmed by the amount awarded for the affront they have suffered which has been the subject of surprise to many.

I believe it has been a contention that it was Mr Amaral's position as co-ordinator of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance which gave his book the measure of credibility it enjoyed.
I now see exactly where the McCann legal team were going with that.

I'm not sure that Portuguese Law on freedom of speech quite matches up with European Law.  I find it extraordinary that it is lawful for a person to be allowed to promote a book based entirely on untruthful comment which is damaging to others solely in protection of the author's freedom of speech.

Portuguese law has to match European law.....the judge was quoting European law throughout her judgement

[OxfordBloo]

Portuguese law has to match European law.....the judge was quoting European law throughout her judgement

What exactly do you mean by the statement "Portuguese law has to match European law."

It is a woolly statement with minimal meaning.

What are you trying to say?

[Brietta]

It would be interesting to know how it would be handled in countries such as Italy or Spain.

I'm having enough trouble with the Portuguese version, thank you very much Jassi, France would also be a contender in your list.

I think OxfordBloo really put it into perspective for us Anoraks, and that is something we should bear in mind for future reference ... the world is not hanging on to our every word.

[G-Unit]

It is NOT about a right to a good name. It is about the right to be allowed peaceful enjoyment of life. Amaral violated that by using material that he acquired unlawfully and declared their guilt when constrained to defend their innocence.

I'm trying to sum it up, please correct me if I'm wrong. The book did not harm the search or hurt the children. It did hurt the parents, but this wouldn't have led to a monetary award had Amaral been a private citizen. The reason there was an award is because he used material gathered during his employment as a police officer, which he should not have done. Additionally, by declaring them guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to assume the innocence of suspects.

[sadie]

Best discussion we have had on the forum for quite some time and it has certainly been a learning curve.  Very well explained.

I think the judgement achieved by the McCanns is a victory, confirmed by the amount awarded for the affront they have suffered which has been the subject of surprise to many.

I believe it has been a contention that it was Mr Amaral's position as co-ordinator of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance which gave his book the measure of credibility it enjoyed.
I now see exactly where the McCann legal team were going with that.

I'm not sure that Portuguese Law on freedom of speech quite matches up with European Law.  I find it extraordinary that it is lawful for a person to be allowed to promote a book based entirely on untruthful comment which is damaging to others solely in protection of the author's freedom of speech.

Me too. 

There is no Justice in that.



If that is the case, the Law needs to be changed.

[OxfordBloo]

I'm trying to sum it up, please correct me if I'm wrong. The book did not harm the search or hurt the children. It did hurt the parents, but this wouldn't have led to a monetary award had Amaral been a private citizen. The reason there was an award is because he used material gathered during his employment as a police officer, which he should not have done. Additionally, by declaring them guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to assume the innocence of suspects.

Correct.

[OxfordBloo]

Me too. 

There is no Justice in that.



If that is the case, the Law needs to be changed.

The book is not "based entirely on untruthful comment". Much of it is factual and much else is opinion which is protected speech under the law in most jurisdictions outside the UK.

Whether or not the law needs changed depends on the Portuguese people who are the final arbiters. It is not for Brits who have the strictest libel laws in the western democracies to insist that others follow their rather bad example.

The book as it is is probably protected speech in most European countries and certainly would be in the USA.