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

[Brietta]

I have read the ECHR Article 6 (2) and it seems to be about the right of suspects to the presumption of innocence.. Were the McCanns suspects at the time?

The Drs McCann were neither charged nor brought to trial therefore they were always considered innocent.

Mr Amaral was charged with a criminal offence for which he was found guilty in a court of law, the guilt being reaffirmed when he lost his appeal.

Therefore in some peoples' topsy turvy view of the world the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence is under constant 'questioning' and 'doubting' ... by the same group of individuals who hang on the every word of a man convicted of the crime of perjury.

It is difficult to comprehend why the guilty impugning the innocent has had such currency for eight years. In my opinion the judgement against Mr Amaral doesn't go near to redressing the harm he has done ... perhaps the size of the award will concentrate minds on the deeper implication of that.

Who knows ~ that could include those in the appeal court?



The presumption of innocence guarantees the innocence of a person charged with a criminal offence until proved guilty according to law. Alongside international instruments, [7] this principle is endorsed by Art. 6.2 of the ECHR and Art. 48.1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

[John]

A subsidiary question to this as I have posted is; "Did the judge have the powers to do this" ?
The judgement seems to have been based on a premise outside the terms of the writ being tried.
Or putting it another way "Was she allowed to do this under the terms of the contract"?

A good point Alice, I would have thought she was bound by the original complaint regardless of any breaches in judicial secrecy laws.

[Carana]

A good point Alice, I would have thought she was bound by the original complaint regardless of any breaches in judicial secrecy laws.

What do you mean by the "original complaint"?

[John]

What do you mean by the "original complaint"?

The writ for damages.

[G-Unit]

Yes, she did say that - and that bothers me in a broader context than just this case as the implication is that if one is Portuguese then it's perfectly ok to go around accusing anyone of murdering your great-aunt and microwaving bits of her for breakfast. And then that doesn't quite make sense as everybody and his brother appears to have a complaint lodged for the criminal act of insulting one's "honour"...

That aside, there is presumably a distinction somewhere along the line between the presumption of innocence in terms of the right to a fair trial (once someone has been charged) and the presumption of innocence as a basic human right even in Portugal.

In theory, a "suspect" isn't necessarily the same as an arguido, but again, in theory, the fact that you have been helping the police with their enquiries isn't meant to be splashed over the front page of every tabloid. Did the landlord in the Yeates case deserve the lurid headlines?

Perhaps not illegal in a criminal sense, but not acceptable in a defamation sense? So you can't be arrested for saying it but you can be sued? The presumption of innocence similarly seems only to apply to suspects. I assume those not suspected would have to resort to suing also.

On the presumption of innocence question Article 6 (2) of the Human Rights Act says;

2  Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Article 48 of the EU charter of fundamental rights says;

Article 48
Presumption of innocence and right of defence
1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that the presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Committee has also stated that public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused, and that the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence.

[Alfred R Jones]

What is the argument here?  That the McCanns only had the right to the presumption of innocence when they were arguidos, but when they ceased to be arguidos they were fair game to be accused of anything you like?

[Carana]

The Drs McCann were neither charged nor brought to trial therefore they were always considered innocent.

Mr Amaral was charged with a criminal offence for which he was found guilty in a court of law, the guilt being reaffirmed when he lost his appeal.

Therefore in some peoples' topsy turvy view of the world the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence is under constant 'questioning' and 'doubting' ... by the same group of individuals who hang on the every word of a man convicted of the crime of perjury.

It is difficult to comprehend why the guilty impugning the innocent has had such currency for eight years. In my opinion the judgement against Mr Amaral doesn't go near to redressing the harm he has done ... perhaps the size of the award will concentrate minds on the deeper implication of that.

Who knows ~ that could include those in the appeal court?



The presumption of innocence guarantees the innocence of a person charged with a criminal offence until proved guilty according to law. Alongside international instruments, [7] this principle is endorsed by Art. 6.2 of the ECHR and Art. 48.1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

His criminal guilt in a different case is presumably neither here nor there in terms of this case, but that and other private cases that he's lost might well make a dent in his earlier assertions in his defence that he was well-regarded (according to certain Internet sites) and that he had a potentially glorious future as a politician. Come to think of it, that no longer appears in the defence of the main trial...

[Carana]

What is the argument here?  That the McCanns only had the right to the presumption of innocence when they were arguidos, but when they ceased to be arguidos they were fair game to be accused of anything you like?

Apparently... with the additional question as to whether it's legal to accuse anyone of any horrific crime under the sun even if you have never been a suspect / arguido at all. On the last point, the judge actually did state something to that effect, but whether that was intended to be taken in the context of honest comment by the average Joe Blow based on the contemporaneous general media frenzy surrounding that case or not isn't clear.

The sad irony is that the parentswhatdunnit media frenzy was based on leaks during Amaral's tenure... but I guess that that's out of bounds as well for the purposes of this trial.

[Mr Gray]

I think that that was one of the points that Oxfordbloo was trying to point out.

The facts in the proven list are a mixture of those that can indeed be verified (the fact that the parents were married, the dates of birth, the fact that they were in Portugal, Amaral's verifiable gains, etc.) and those that can't.

There are a number of points that were accepted as factual for the purposes of the trial: e.g, it is a fact that TdeA had written a report in which in which it was stated where the dogs alerted and what to.

However, testing the veracity of anything that appeared in the police files was considered to be off bounds. He could have said that the moon was made of blue cheese - it would still be a fact (in the sense that such a statement could hypothetically be found to exist in the police files) for the purposes of the civil trial.

That isn't what it said in the judgement...that's why I question whether we have seen the full judgement

[Alice Purjorick]

I see.  You are simply questioning the judge's ability to do her job correctly, fair enough.

Am I?

[Alfred R Jones]

Am I?

yes.

[Alice Purjorick]

yes.

OK

[Alfred R Jones]

Apparently... with the additional question as to whether it's legal to accuse anyone of any horrific crime under the sun even if you have never been a suspect / arguido at all. On the last point, the judge actually did state something to that effect, but whether that was intended to be taken in the context of honest comment by the average Joe Blow based on the contemporaneous general media frenzy surrounding that case or not isn't clear.

The sad irony is that the parentswhatdunnit media frenzy was based on leaks during Amaral's tenure... but I guess that that's out of bounds as well for the purposes of this trial.

My take on things (for what it's worth, which ain't much on this forum) is that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, even when suspected of or charged with a criminal offence.  Your rights don't increase because you've become a suspect, they simply need reiterating legally so that the legal process isn't prejudiced.  No doubt some smart alec will come along and tell me I'm completely wrong.

[slartibartfast]

The Drs McCann were neither charged nor brought to trial therefore they were always considered innocent.

Mr Amaral was charged with a criminal offence for which he was found guilty in a court of law, the guilt being reaffirmed when he lost his appeal.

Therefore in some peoples' topsy turvy view of the world the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence is under constant 'questioning' and 'doubting' ... by the same group of individuals who hang on the every word of a man convicted of the crime of perjury.

It is difficult to comprehend why the guilty impugning the innocent has had such currency for eight years. In my opinion the judgement against Mr Amaral doesn't go near to redressing the harm he has done ... perhaps the size of the award will concentrate minds on the deeper implication of that.

Who knows ~ that could include those in the appeal court?



The presumption of innocence guarantees the innocence of a person charged with a criminal offence until proved guilty according to law. Alongside international instruments, [7] this principle is endorsed by Art. 6.2 of the ECHR and Art. 48.1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

The presumption of innocence applies to each individual offence, because someone is found guilty of one crime doesn't mean that their presumption of innocence is diminished subsequently.

[G-Unit]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says we are innocent until proven guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.

I don't know how anyone would show that an accusation is untrue, however?