The Supreme Court in Portugal will shortly decide the McCann v Amaral damages case.

[sadie]

Well, you know i know every tom dick and harry knows that is not ever going to happen now so why worry about it vis a vis a legal case, have a cigar instead

Well I am not called tom dick or harry ... and I think SY know a lot more about it than you could ever dream

[mercury]

Well I am not called tom dick or harry ... and I think SY know a lot more about it than you could ever dream

You can thnk what you like im not stopping you, have fun

[John]

It's a curious race, between those who want the Supreme Court to bring down the dice (one way or the other) in the libel trial, and those who want Operation Grange to (finally) reveal the mystery of what happened to Madeleine and bring perpetrators to book.

Dunno.

It'll be a bit odd if Operation Grange bring third-parties (not remotely the McCanns or any of their friends) to book for crime(s) against Madeleine, and the Portuguese Supreme Court finds Amaral is entitled to express a view contrary to that of the Prosecutors in the (archived) process.

Not sure what to think.

Actually, I am sure what to think ....

I don't think you should hold your breath on SY solving this case any time soon ferryman going by the lack of anything positive from them so far.  On the other hand the Portuguese Civil Supreme Court will rule on the damages in the case and at least that decision will allow both parties to take stock and plan the way ahead.

It is really sad however that a little girl is lost, most probably been dead for nine years, and so it goes on!

[ferryman]

The Supreme Court will look incredibly silly if Operation Grange, even without solving the mystery, makes abundantly plain neither the McCanns nor their friends have any case to answer, yet it (the Supreme Court) finds Amaral's book transgresses no libel laws ....

[jassi]

I imagine the Portuguese Supreme Court will trump anything SY might have to say, particularly in Portugal.

[G-Unit]

The Supreme Court will look incredibly silly if Operation Grange, even without solving the mystery, makes abundantly plain neither the McCanns nor their friends have any case to answer, yet it (the Supreme Court) finds Amaral's book transgresses no libel laws ....

Why the Supreme Court in Portugal should care about the opinions of a foreign police force escapes me.

[Alice Purjorick]

Why the Supreme Court in Portugal should care about the opinions of a foreign police force escapes me.

Twos up on that 

[ferryman]

I imagine the Portuguese Supreme Court will trump anything SY might have to say, particularly in Portugal.

Third definition, maybe ....

https://www.quora.com/What-does-trump-mean-in-British-slang

[ferryman]

Why the Supreme Court in Portugal should care about the opinions of a foreign police force escapes me.

The enquiry is a joint one and the PJ are singing from the same hymn-sheet as Scotland Yard.

But yes, perhaps the Supreme Court will metaphorically stick up two fingers to both.

[G-Unit]

I'm still puzzling over this, said after the Appeal Court overturned the first judgement;

The panel’s decision, Duarte told the Mail, was “an appreciation of the law and not the facts”.
http://portugalresident.com/appeal-court-judges-reject-mccanns-%E2%80%98libel-win%E2%80%99

The Supreme Court doesn't normally deal with facts either;

The Supreme Court of Justice seats in Lisbon and has jurisdiction over all the national territory.
As a rule, it only hears or determines on matter of law but under no circumstances on factual matters.
http://www.dgpj.mj.pt/sections/english-version/strategic-planning/annexes/the-portuguese-judicial/the-portuguese-judicial/

In my opinion, therefore, the court will be examining the law as used by the judge of the first instance to support her ruling. If it agrees with the Appeal Court that Amaral was entitled to 'a large and full freedom of expression' then the  McCann's appeal will be dismissed.

This is how the judge used the law to rule in favour of the McCann couple;

It appears that the conflict should be solved with the fact data that are present from the outset and that reveal the special condition of the defendant in front of the criminal investigation, condition that he capitalises in the book, the interview and the documentary.

Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.

This form of resolving the conflict between the rights reveals the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral in respect of the effects of article 484 of the Civil Code.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

[Brietta]

I don't think any of us have any understanding of this whatsoever so there is probably little point in trying to second guess what's going on or the Judges' decision, whatever that may be.

We've waited this long ... so we may as well wait a little longer for all to be revealed ... unless JP pops in to help us out in interpreting the process.

[ferryman]

I'm still puzzling over this, said after the Appeal Court overturned the first judgement;

The panel’s decision, Duarte told the Mail, was “an appreciation of the law and not the facts”.
http://portugalresident.com/appeal-court-judges-reject-mccanns-%E2%80%98libel-win%E2%80%99

The Supreme Court doesn't normally deal with facts either;

The Supreme Court of Justice seats in Lisbon and has jurisdiction over all the national territory.
As a rule, it only hears or determines on matter of law but under no circumstances on factual matters.
http://www.dgpj.mj.pt/sections/english-version/strategic-planning/annexes/the-portuguese-judicial/the-portuguese-judicial/

In my opinion, therefore, the court will be examining the law as used by the judge of the first instance to support her ruling. If it agrees with the Appeal Court that Amaral was entitled to 'a large and full freedom of expression' then the  McCann's appeal will be dismissed.

This is how the judge used the law to rule in favour of the McCann couple;

It appears that the conflict should be solved with the fact data that are present from the outset and that reveal the special condition of the defendant in front of the criminal investigation, condition that he capitalises in the book, the interview and the documentary.

Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.

This form of resolving the conflict between the rights reveals the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral in respect of the effects of article 484 of the Civil Code.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

In summary, although Amaral breached judicial secrecy to get his book published and in the shops so soon after the archiving dispatch, he quit the PJ and Portugal does not impose a duty on civilians (even ex-police officers) to keep stm about cases they have been involved in.

That, combined predominantly with Kate's book, brings about a level playing-field where there is effective annulment of the usual rules of libel, and no-one can be held legally accountable for anything they write or otherwise introduce into the public domain.

That, at least, is how I understand it ...

[stephen25000]

In summary, although Amaral breached judicial secrecy to get his book published and in the shops so soon after the archiving dispatch, he quit the PJ and Portugal does not impose a duty on civilians (even ex-police officers) to keep stm about cases they have been involved in.

That, combined predominantly with Kate's book, brings about a level playing-field where there is effective annulment of the usual rules of libel, and no-one can be held legally accountable for anything they write or otherwise introduce into the public domain.

That, at least, is how I understand it ...

I'm afraid Ferryman, what you believe is irrelevant.

All that counts now is the Supreme Court decision.

[jassi]

Nothing makes any difference. What will be will be.
The Court will make a decision without input from you or anyone else.

[ferryman]

It is a point of law that will determine whether Amaral can, or cannot, be held personally accountable for leaks on his watch.