Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[Robittybob1]

Incorrect bob, Slarti made the first reference to sports.

Try paying attention.

Now you  are nitpicking.

[barrier]

If there is anything to go to the ECHR about would be this presumption of innocence issue.

Page 68 of the judgement even quotes the ECHR.

First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on the Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.

Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071).

That referred principle may even impose, on the threshold of criminal proceedings, respect for an absolutory penal decision or even for a decision of archiving by the judicial authorities involved in subsequent proceedings (Allen vs United-Kingdom, Of 12/7/2013, n° 1025424/0991).

Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).


As Jónatas Machado points out, in Freedom of Expression, Public Interest and Public Figures and Equalities, BFDUC, vol.LXXXV, 2009, p. 91, The presumption of innocence, because it's only a presumption, cannot overcome the search for the truth and the right of citizens to the truth. It cannot as well prevent public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice. The same happens, furthermore, with the attempt to demonstrate the innocence of a condemned person and thereby to move aside the mark of the conviction. The search for truth, including the truth about justice, has always been one of the main justifications of freedom of expression.

[stephen25000]

Now you  are nitpicking.

Your post was incorrect.

[Robittybob1]

Page 68 of the judgement even quotes the ECHR.

OH it looks good on the surface.   They even say "resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty".  You can't read Amaral's book and not think he is saying he thinks the McCanns and their friends are guilty.  How do they bluff that error away?

[stephen25000]

OH it looks good on the surface.   They even say "resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty".  You can't read Amaral's book and not think he is saying he thinks the McCanns and their friends are guilty.  How do they bluff that error away?

Are you saying bob, you won't follow and obey the law ?

[Robittybob1]

Your post was incorrect.

Alright it was Slarti closely followed by you.  Happy now.

[Robittybob1]

Are you saying bob, you won't follow and obey the law ?

When did I say that?  I am a very law abiding citizen.

[G-Unit]

So you're only entitled to be presumed innocent if you have been charged, otherwise you're fair game for any old accusation?

Page 68

First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on the Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.......

the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings............

The presumption of innocence, because it's only a presumption, cannot overcome the search for the truth and the right of citizens to the truth. It cannot as well prevent public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice......

Page 69

It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.

Page 70

But was the freedom of expression of the respondent conditioned by the functions he performed and did those, even when he was retired, impose on him the reserve duty, as was upheld in the first instance sentence and is reaffirmed by the appellants....

Page 71

We therefore consider that freedom of expression does not either have to yield to the invoked functional duty borne by the respondent, reason why his conduct was not illicit in the terms taken into account in the first instance sentence.

Thus we shall have to conclude that, in the present case, prevail the rights of the respondents to freedom of expression and information and to freedom of the press and of the media.

Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.

Costs for the appellants.

[Alfie]

Page 68

First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on the Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.......

the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings............

The presumption of innocence, because it's only a presumption, cannot overcome the search for the truth and the right of citizens to the truth. It cannot as well prevent public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice......

Page 69

It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.

Page 70

But was the freedom of expression of the respondent conditioned by the functions he performed and did those, even when he was retired, impose on him the reserve duty, as was upheld in the first instance sentence and is reaffirmed by the appellants....

Page 71

We therefore consider that freedom of expression does not either have to yield to the invoked functional duty borne by the respondent, reason why his conduct was not illicit in the terms taken into account in the first instance sentence.

Thus we shall have to conclude that, in the present case, prevail the rights of the respondents to freedom of expression and information and to freedom of the press and of the media.

Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.

Costs for the appellants.

so I was right then.  And on this basis an ex-copper who'd been involved in investigating the alleged sex crimes of Cliff Richard (as an example of someone investigated but  never charged) would be allowed to write a best-selling book theorising about all sorts of horrific abuse with precious little evidence and that would be OK, and would cause him no damage.

[Robittybob1]

Do you think the McCann case falls under the heading of civil proceedings?  "the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings............"

[stephen25000]

Do you think the McCann case falls under the heading of civil proceedings?  "the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings............"

In 2013, 99.9 % of cases brought to the attention of the E.C.H.R. from the UK, were not accepted or failed.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/30/european-court-human-rights-case-backlog-falls

' The ECHR's annual statistics also show that nearly 99.9% of the 1,652 UK cases brought to the court in 2013 were declared inadmissible or struck out. '

[Robittybob1]

In 2013, 99.9 % of cases brought to the attention of the E.C.H.R. from the UK, were not accepted or failed.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/30/european-court-human-rights-case-backlog-falls

' The ECHR's annual statistics also show that nearly 99.9% of the 1,652 UK cases brought to the court in 2013 were declared inadmissible or struck out. '

You didn't answer my query.  "Do you think the McCann verses Amaral case falls under the heading of civil proceedings?"

[stephen25000]

You didn't answer my query.  "Do you think the McCann case falls under the heading of civil proceedings?"

Your answer lies under the auspices of the case brought by the McCann.

It isn't subject to my opinion bob.

So again, who is the 'we' who is going to contact the Portuguese Supreme Court ?

[G-Unit]

You didn't answer my query.  "Do you think the McCann verses Amaral case falls under the heading of civil proceedings?"

Damages or libel trials are civil, not criminal cases.

[Robittybob1]

Your answer lies under the auspices of the case brought by the McCann.

It isn't subject to my opinion bob.

So again, who is the 'we' who is going to contact the Portuguese Supreme Court ?

In civil proceedings there is no question of criminal guilt so no need to presume innocence but in this case Amaral is saying the McCanns are guilty so it must not be a civil matter.

Damages or libel trials are civil, not criminal cases.

But that is the step after.  It was Amaral stating/ implying the McCanns were guilty that started the civil proceedings.