Author Topic: Madeleine McCann's parents win €500k in damages against former police chief.  (Read 165344 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jean-Pierre

And possibly countering jurisprudence on the amount of damages?

The Judge gave reasons for associating the level of damages broadly in line with his earnings.  The problem with Amaral appealing the level of damages is that he risks a higher court making a higher award.   

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
I find your post incomprehensible. Please provide the quotes that you think support your reasoning as I do not recognise it as a correct summary of the situation.
Supply me with a link to the ruling that isn't in gobbledegook and I will attempt to do so, thanks. 


Offline Carana

The Judge gave reasons for associating the level of damages broadly in line with his earnings.  The problem with Amaral appealing the level of damages is that he risks a higher court making a higher award.   

Yes, I can see that as a risk... But his lawyer would still have to find legal or factual grounds and a new judge (or panel) would still have to accept those as admissible, if I've understood the procedure correctly.

Offline Jean-Pierre

Yes, I can see that as a risk... But his lawyer would still have to find legal or factual grounds and a new judge (or panel) would still have to accept those as admissible, if I've understood the procedure correctly.

Yes.  Quite a hurdle for him.

stephen25000

  • Guest
The Judge gave reasons for associating the level of damages broadly in line with his earnings.  The problem with Amaral appealing the level of damages is that he risks a higher court making a higher award.   


Very unlikely.

The 'damages' were limited to the books profits.

Offline Brietta

The Judge gave reasons for associating the level of damages broadly in line with his earnings.  The problem with Amaral appealing the level of damages is that he risks a higher court making a higher award.   

I can see the danger for him there, JP, we were thinking about a reduction but that might not necessarily be the case.

However, does he have it to pay out?  I think that is why the Court was so insistent about getting financial statements from him regarding his earnings from Madeleine ... if there is more in the coffers they may go for that too??
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
I find your post incomprehensible. Please provide the quotes that you think support your reasoning as I do not recognise it as a correct summary of the situation.
Does the following quote appear in the judgment or not?

Quote
"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" -

If it does, then where are the caveats in the judgment that expressly state that if you are a publisher or video maker then freedom of expression and information CAN take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to a good name and reputation, etc?

OxfordBloo

  • Guest
Does the following quote appear in the judgment or not?

If it does, then where are the caveats in the judgment that expressly state that if you are a publisher or video maker then freedom of expression and information CAN take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to a good name and reputation, etc?

Can you give a page number for that quote so that I can see it in context.

Offline Mr Gray

Can you give a page number for that quote so that I can see it in context.


If libel/defamation had already been decided by the supreme court then why is this in the latest judgement...


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

Offline Carana

Does the following quote appear in the judgment or not?

If it does, then where are the caveats in the judgment that expressly state that if you are a publisher or video maker then freedom of expression and information CAN take precedence over the fundamental rights of citizens to a good name and reputation, etc?

That's an interesting point, Alfie.

I didn't think the publisher / TV company would get off that easily.

There's quite a lot on press law here:

http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=138&tabela=leis

In the Murat appeal case, the judges made quite a point about hammering home that "public interest" isn't the same as "what interests the public" and that newspapers had responsibilities.

Why would a book publisher / documentary-maker of material purported to be factual not be considered to have similar responsibilities?


OxfordBloo

  • Guest

If libel/defamation had already been decided by the supreme court then why is this in the latest judgement...


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

Once again:

Libel and defamation involve falsehoods.

A good name can also be ruined by the truth.


So the SC had ruled that there was no libel in the book or film because Freedom of Expression trumped it.

But this judgement decides that potentially true information or statements of belief coming from, specifically ex-law officers, can be a tort.

That tort is to do with right to a good name being denied not by potential libel (which is protected speech) but by possibly truthful information gained illicitly or by the expression of opinion on guilt by an ex police office ( which would not have been a tort if said by an ordinary citizen.)

And that is why

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Can you give a page number for that quote so that I can see it in context.
I don't I'm afraid, it's in the bottom third I believe.  If someone would give me a link to a properly translated version of the judgment it would help!

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Once again:

Libel and defamation involve falsehoods.

A good name can also be ruined by the truth.


So the SC had ruled that there was no libel in the book or film because Freedom of Expression trumped it.

But this judgement decides that potentially true information or statements of belief coming from, specifically ex-law officers, can be a tort.

That tort is to do with right to a good name being denied not by potential libel (which is protected speech) but by possibly truthful information gained illicitly or by the expression of opinion on guilt by an ex police office ( which would not have been a tort if said by an ordinary citizen.)

And that is why
The bit in bold above makes no sense.  Surely libel does not cease to exist because freedom of expression trumps it!  Is it possible to libel someone in Portugal or not?

Offline Carana

In its judgment, the court found that publishing false allegations such as “Robert Murat is a predator who visits sites containing sexual violence” was not in the public interests and infringed upon his rights.
The newspaper frequently quoted anonymous police sources and alleged leaks by investigators in their coverage of the case to substantiate its claims.


http://theportugalnews.com/news/robert-murat-wins-slander-case-as-kate-mccann-visits-luz/28371

There were far more allegations in the papers than just the one above.

IIRC, the case was initially thrown out because Murat couldn't prove that they weren't true.

He won the appeal because it was deemed that his rights had been infringed, irrespective of whether the allegations could be proven to be false or not.

Hence my question as to why the book publisher / TV company got off...

Offline Carana

Here's the bit on "difamação".

I can see a few problems with going down that route.

CAPÍTULO VI
Dos crimes contra a honra Artigo 180.o Difamação
1 - Quem, dirigindo-se a terceiro, imputar a outra pessoa, mesmo sob a forma de suspeita, um facto, ou formular sobre ela um juízo, ofensivos da sua honra ou consideração, ou reproduzir uma tal imputação ou juízo, é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.
2 - A conduta não é punível quando:
a) A imputação for feita para realizar interesses legítimos; e
b) O agente provar a verdade da mesma imputação ou tiver tido fundamento sério para, em boa fé, a reputar verdadeira.
89
ASSEMBLEIA DA REPÚBLICA
3 - Sem prejuízo do disposto nas alíneas b), c) e d) do n.o 2 do artigo 31.o, o disposto no número anterior não se aplica quando se tratar da imputação de facto relativo à intimidade da vida privada e familiar.
4 - A boa fé referida na alínea b) do n.o 2 exclui-se quando o agente não tiver cumprido o dever de informação, que as circunstâncias do caso impunham, sobre a verdade da imputação.
Artigo 181.o
Injúria
1 - Quem injuriar outra pessoa, imputando-lhe factos, mesmo sob a forma de suspeita, ou dirigindo-lhe palavras, ofensivos da sua honra ou consideração, é punido com pena de prisão até 3 meses ou com pena de multa até 120 dias.
2 - Tratando-se da imputação de factos, é correspondentemente aplicável o disposto nos n.os 2, 3 e 4 do artigo anterior.
2007 Penal code.

Not sure that this is much better than Googlish, so feel free to improve it.

Article 180
(Defamation)
1 - Whoever, addressing a third party, imputes a fact, or formulates a judgement, even in the form of a suspicion, against another person, that is offensive to their honour or consideration, or reproduces such an imputation or judgement, is punished by a prison sentence of 6 months or a 240-day fine.

2 - The conduct is not punishable when:
a) The imputation was made to achieve legitimate interests; and
b) The agent proves the truth of the same imputation or had a serious foundation / grounds, in good faith, to (reputar? consider?) it to be true.

3 - Without prejudice to the provision in points b), c) and d), in No.2 of Article 31 of this Code, the provision in the previous number does not apply when it concerns imputing a fact concerning the intimacy of private and family life.

4. The good faith referred to in point b) of No. 2 is excluded when the agent (não tiver?) did not accomplish? the duty of information (duty to inform?), that the circumstances of the case imposed, about the veracity of the imputation.