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

[Mr Gray]

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

If lible had been ruled out at the SC..of which I am still not convinced....why were the tv company included in this latest trial...what was the claim outstanding against them

[Carana]

Have I understood the underlined bit correctly? In his defence, he seems to be saying that the book (published just 3 days after the investigation was archived) didn't contain any new or confidential facts that weren't part of the criminal investigation and widely shared through social media.

Hang on a minute. Who was in charge when 99.9% of those half-baked leaks floated out of PJ windows?  &%+((£


Contestou o réu, por impugnação, invocando, em síntese, que o livro não contém qualquer facto novo ou confidencial que não tenha sido objecto do inquérito criminal e sido amplamente divulgado pela Comunicação Social, que o mediatismo internacional do caso não foi por ele criado, mas pelos autores, sendo que a tese que o demandado sustenta no livro está ancorada no extenso e fundamentado relatório de investigação de um inspector-chefe da Polícia Judiciária constante do processo-crime.

[Montclair]

Have I understood the underlined bit correctly? In his defence, he seems to be saying that the book (published just 3 days after the investigation was archived) didn't contain any new or confidential facts that weren't part of the criminal investigation and widely shared through social media.

Hang on a minute. Who was in charge when 99.9% of those half-baked leaks floated out of PJ windows?  &%+((£


Contestou o réu, por impugnação, invocando, em síntese, que o livro não contém qualquer facto novo ou confidencial que não tenha sido objecto do inquérito criminal e sido amplamente divulgado pela Comunicação Social, que o mediatismo internacional do caso não foi por ele criado, mas pelos autores, sendo que a tese que o demandado sustenta no livro está ancorada no extenso e fundamentado relatório de investigação de um inspector-chefe da Polícia Judiciária constante do processo-crime.

Most people suspect that it was the late Guilhermino da Encarnação who leaked the information, not Gonçalo Amaral.

[OxfordBloo]

If lible had been ruled out at the SC..of which I am still not convinced....why were the tv company included in this latest trial...what was the claim outstanding against them

Whether they were liable as accessories to Amaral's breach of duty. Had they been shown to have known at the time of publication that he had gained the information unlawfully, I suspect they would have been at least liable as accessories.

And the claim was for general damages Libel is not mentioned) and the McCanns as plaintiffs get to specify who they believe wronged them. They were right about Amaral and wrong about the others. Or at least that is what the judge decided. It was not a libel trial.

[Lyall]

Whether they were liable as accessories to Amaral's breach of duty. Had they been shown to have known at the time of publication that he had gained the information unlawfully, I suspect they would have been at least liable as accessories.

And the claim was for general damages Libel is not mentioned) and the McCanns as plaintiffs get to specify who they believe wronged them. They were right about Amaral and wrong about the others. Or at least that is what the judge decided. It was not a libel trial.

Why then don't they have to pay the legal fees and other costs of those they wrongly sued?

[Alfred R Jones]

Whether they were liable as accessories to Amaral's breach of duty. Had they been shown to have known at the time of publication that he had gained the information unlawfully, I suspect they would have been at least liable as accessories.

And the claim was for general damages Libel is not mentioned) and the McCanns as plaintiffs get to specify who they believe wronged them. They were right about Amaral and wrong about the others. Or at least that is what the judge decided. It was not a libel trial.

Oxford, perhaps you could explain in what circumstances it is possible to be sued for libel in Portugal?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Why then don't they have to pay the legal fees and other costs of those they wrongly sued?

Oh Lyall, it aint over yet!!  not by a long shot!

[OxfordBloo]

Oxford, perhaps you could explain in what circumstances it is possible to be sued for libel in Portugal?

Not my field of expertise, but one is generally able to state your opinion so long as it is not malicious. As in the USA it is possible to speak your opinion. But if you state it as fact and the plaintiff can prove that it is not a fact on balance of probabilities, then that is libellous.

Portuguese law is on a strange journey from a macho historic position where it was quite legal to take vengeance for a sleight to ones character, towards a modern system of the defence of Free Speech. The historic law and requirements under the ECHR often conflict and are corrected usually by their SC.

Remember that in the middle of the McCann case the arguido law changed to require reasonable cause before declaring someone arguido and they used the old law on the last day as they knew they did not have reasonable grounds and would not be able to do it the following week.

Similarly the neo-fascist state centred justice system has gradually been replaced by a liberal person centred system over the last fifty years.

A lot of the problems in this case are found in the slow change of proxedure in the police from fascist statism to liberal rights. There are still police officers serving now who started their careers when it was still SOP  to beat confessions out of suspects.

[Alfred R Jones]

Not my field of expertise, but one is generally able to state your opinion so long as it is not malicious. As in the USA it is possible to speak your opinion. But if you state it as fact and the plaintiff can prove that it is not a fact on balance of probabilities, then that is libellous.

Portuguese law is on a strange journey from a macho historic position where it was quite legal to take vengeance for a sleight to ones character, towards a modern system of the defence of Free Speech. The historic law and requirements under the ECHR often conflict and are corrected usually by their SC.

Remember that in the middle of the McCann case the arguido law changed to require reasonable cause before declaring someone arguido and they used the old law on the last day as they knew they did not have reasonable grounds and would not be able to do it the following week.

Similarly the neo-fascist state centred justice system has gradually been replaced by a liberal person centred system over the last fifty years.

A lot of the problems in this case are found in the slow change of proxedure in the police from fascist statism to liberal rights. There are still police officers serving now who started their careers when it was still SOP  to beat confessions out of suspects.

See the bit in bold above - does that mean that if Madeleine's fate is eventually proven to have nothing whatsoever to do with the McCanns that they can sue Amaral et al for libel proper?

[OxfordBloo]

See the bit in bold above - does that mean that if Madeleine's fate is eventually proven to have nothing whatsoever to do with the McCanns that they can sue Amaral et al for libel proper?

Probably yes.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It is torture to watch the gloating and what else the McCANNS CAN DO AS THEY ARE OH SO POWERFUL...

Maddie is still missing, spare a thought for her while you gloat about the parents-who are responsible for her not being at home with the rest of the family as they claim they left her alone in an unlocked room-alone.

All this talk of money is just-vile IMO.

[Alfred R Jones]

It is torture to watch the gloating and what else the McCANNS CAN DO AS THEY ARE OH SO POWERFUL...

Maddie is still missing, spare a thought for her while you gloat about the parents-who are responsible for her not being at home with the rest of the family as they claim they left her alone in an unlocked room-alone.

All this talk of money is just-vile IMO.

How would you feel if the judgment had gone Amaral's way and he' been able to get his hands on all his luverly lolly instead?  Would the gloating have made  you feel sick in that instance, or might you have allowed yourself a teensy gloat at the  McCanns' misfortune in that instance?

[Jean-Pierre]

Probably yes.

IMO unlikely as the rules of privilege will apply to serving officers, and to acts while they were serving officers.

It is not so long ago that had the McCanns been ruled out as suspects because of no evidence and had made a complaint, Amaral could have brought a case from criminal libel against them. 

[OxfordBloo]

IMO unlikely as the rules of privilege will apply to serving officers, and to acts while they were serving officers.

It is not so long ago that had the McCanns been ruled out as suspects because of no evidence and had made a complaint, Amaral could have brought a case from criminal libel against them.

But he has continued to make allegations in the press and other publications since his retirement.

[Miss Taken Identity]

How would you feel if the judgment had gone Amaral's way and he' been able to get his hands on all his luverly lolly instead?  Would the gloating have made  you feel sick in that instance, or might you have allowed yourself a teensy gloat at the  McCanns' misfortune in that instance?

IF, they are not involved in her being 'missing'. I have an open mind on that, and look at all the thesis.

I support Amarals right as a free citizen to write a book.  I have never read the book, nor do I pay any attention about his personality or looks, which has NO bearing on this case. It turns out he was found to be using inside knowledge retained with privileged status. That is all.

I discuss the reasons why McCanns tried to hide what really happened. By making it look like a abduction via a window. I believe they did that as they didn't want to let anyone know they left a door open and it made for  better drama. I believe they created suspicion when maybe there shouldn't be.

Amaral is not responsible for Maddie being missing.