Should the €500k plus interest have been confiscated by the State?

[John]

One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.

My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages.  Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.

If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?

76

[Alfred R Jones]

One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.

My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages.  Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.

If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?

No, personally I think the state should prosecute Amaral for breaking judicial secrecy laws, in a separate action, and then bang him up.

[Brietta]

One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.

My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages.  Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.

If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?

I doubt there would be any justification in law for Mr Amaral to be fined by the State. 

The Drs McCann were damaged by his offence and took action for redress.  If the damages awarded as a result of their successful action are unheard of in Portugal ... all that means is that a precedent has been set.

[Carana]

One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.

My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages.  Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.

If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?

How would that work in a civil case with the general principles of not benefiting from illicit gains and reparation?

The award - as it stands - is substantial, certainly by Portuguese standards, apparently.

On the other hand, how many former police officers usually gain €380k+ in two years? And these are the amounts that could be PROVEN (based ONLY on direct income from the book and the docudrama).

I suppose that it MIGHT be possible that the only media outlet that he attempted to charge €80k + VAT was the one connected to Sky... but... ohh, what did I just see fly by the window?

[misty]

One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.

My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages.  Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.

If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?

If he broke the Judicial Secrecy Laws, action should have been taken by the authorities as soon after the book was published as possible.
The State had numerous opportunities to prevent Amaral profiting, but chose to do nothing. It would be like allowing a drug dealer to operate while the authorities turned a blind eye, then arresting him once he had a million in the bank - which makes the state complicit in the crime & profit.

[Carana]

No, personally I think the state should prosecute Amaral for breaking judicial secrecy laws, in a separate action, and then bang him up.

At the time, his "lateral promotion" (with thanks to Alice for making me chuckle over that expression) and whatever ensued may have seemed to be a discreet way of dealing with the issue at the time.

If ever that was an invitation to actively "explore other career avenues", the authorities may have felt that they'd dealt with it...

Edited for typos and other gremlins...

[Mr Gray]

seems quite reasonable to me

[John]

The way I see it, if what the Judge stated in her expansive judgement is true, then Amaral used privileged information which was illegal.  Surely all gains attributed to it should therefore be forfeit?

[Alfred R Jones]

The way I see it, if what the Judge stated in her expansive judgement is true, then Amaral used privileged information which was illegal.  Surely all gains attributed to it should therefore be forfeit?

There would have been no court case without the McCanns bringing the action against Amaral.  why should the McCanns pay all those legal costs in order for Portugal to profit for the damage they incurred?

[stephen25000]

There would have been no court case without the McCanns bringing the action against Amaral.  why should the McCanns pay all those legal costs in order for Portugal to profit for the damage they incurred?

There would have been no court case ,but for the actions, or more precisely inactions, of the mccanns.

[Alfred R Jones]

There would have been no court case ,but for the actions, or more precisely inactions, of the mccanns.

[Carana]

His recent spoutings give some indications as to what his appeal wil concern...

[stephen25000]

You know it's true.

Then it would mean admitting the truth.

Do you like the truth alfred ? *&*%£

[Brietta]

You know it's true.

Then it would mean admitting the truth.

Do you like the truth alfred ? *&*%£

You are very selective in the 'truths' you care to espouse.  A former cop with a criminal conviction broke the secrecy laws and broke the law regarding the McCanns' rights to innocence.

The McCanns have sought redress through the courts and have been awarded damages as a result.

If the State wishes to seek redress for damage done to the Secrecy Laws ... it is up to the representatives of the State to lay charges.

[Alfred R Jones]

You know it's true.

Then it would mean admitting the truth.

Do you like the truth alfred ? *&*%£

Another thread successfully disrupted, well done Stephen