Libel ....

[ferryman]

Libel is a lie that reduces someones reputation etc etc
Ergo you have to prove someone was deliberately lying when writing somethng

http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153

Libel it seems has to be proven by the plantiff too

Lots of definitions in google so google it

to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153#ixzz4B1bgkpFa

So let's see.

Amaral was feeling sore about being dumped from the investigation.

He contradicts Harrison and Grime in stating that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place.

Amaral mangles and misrepresents the role of Harrison in the investigation (to the detriment of Kate and Gerry, and in a way that accuses Kate and Gerry).

Amaral libels the McCanns and Stuart Prior by claiming Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest.

Why did these appeal-court judges uphold the appeal?

[mercury]

The courts decided the lower court was wrong, why linger in the past, the mccanns gambled,and when you gamble you can lose, simples, they are further gambling now with the supreme court which is their right but they have no right to expect a judgement in their favour and then whinge about no money left when they gambled it all in the first place.

[G-Unit]

The courts decided the lower court was wrong, why linger in the past, the mccanns gambled,and when you gamble you can lose, simples, they are further gambling now with the supreme court which is their right but they have no right to expect a judgement in their favour and then whinge about no money left when they gambled it all in the first place.

When the Appeal Court overturned the injunction banning the book in 2010 they said;

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.

The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

The latest Appeal Court judgement also said;

The respective contents (book, DVD, interview) do not offend any of the claimants' fundamental rights,

The first Appeal Court judgement [injunction] was upheld by the Supreme Court;

on 18 March 2011, the Supreme Court rejects the appeal and authorises the sale of Gonçalo Amaral's book about Madeleine McCann.

As far as the Portuguese Courts are concerned the question of the contents of the book libeling the McCanns is settled. Two Appeal Courts and one Supreme Court judgments have resoundingly rejected that claim.

It seems clear to me that the higher courts in Portugal have made their minds up about the book and the Supreme Court is unlikely to change the above rulings during the latest appeal.

[John]

The thing is, nobody wants to end up with egg on their face and especially so the Portuguese Justice System.  As long as Maddie's fate remains undetermined the higher Courts will play it safe and return neutral judgements.  Thus why in this decision the Appeal Court reversed the earlier decision of the lower court and unfroze Amaral's assets.

[stephen25000]

The thing is, nobody wants to end up with egg on their face and especially so the Portuguese Justice System.  As long as Maddie's fate remains undetermined the higher Courts will play it safe and return neutral judgements.  Thus why in this decision the Appeal Court reversed the earlier decision of the lower court and unfroze Amaral's assets.

I thought John, his assets were still frozen, pending the Supreme Court appeal.

[John]

I thought John, his assets were still frozen, pending the Supreme Court appeal.

The Supreme Court hasn't accepted the appeal yet.

[stephen25000]

The Supreme Court hasn't accepted the appeal yet.

So have his assets been definitely unfrozen ?

[John]

So have his assets been definitely unfrozen ?

Pending the Supreme Courts acceptance or refusal of the appeal.

[Montclair]

Pending the Supreme Courts acceptance or refusal of the appeal.

The Supreme Court cannot refuse the McCanns' appeal and until a ruling has been made by the SC Gonçalo Amaral's assets remain frozen.

When GA appealed the lower court's decision, we had pages of discussion as to the possibility of his appeal being rejected. It was explained many times that the right to appeal is guaranteed in Portugal and that his appeal as well as those of the other defendants had to be accepted by the Tribunal da Relação.

When the SC refused to consider the McCanns' appeal in 2010 on the overturning of the injunction, it was because the SC does not rule on such matters as injunctions..

[stephen25000]

The Supreme Court cannot refuse the McCanns' appeal and until a ruling has been made by the SC Gonçalo Amaral's assets remain frozen.

When GA appealed the lower court's decision, we had pages of discussion as to the possibility of his appeal being rejected. It was explained many times that the right to appeal is guaranteed in Portugal and that his appeal as well as those of the other defendants had to be accepted by the Tribunal da Relação.

When the SC refused to consider the McCanns' appeal in 2010 on the overturning of the injunction, it was because the SC does not rule on such matters as injunctions..

Thank you Montclair for confirming what I said earlier.

[Miss Taken Identity]

The Supreme Court cannot refuse the McCanns' appeal and until a ruling has been made by the SC Gonçalo Amaral's assets remain frozen.

When GA appealed the lower court's decision, we had pages of discussion as to the possibility of his appeal being rejected. It was explained many times that the right to appeal is guaranteed in Portugal and that his appeal as well as those of the other defendants had to be accepted by the Tribunal da Relação.

When the SC refused to consider the McCanns' appeal in 2010 on the overturning of the injunction, it was because the SC does not rule on such matters as injunctions..

Mon... I thought the McCanns had to have a reason for challenging the SC ruling before they could appeal ie  a point of law to show SC did not act within the law when passing judgement?