Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[jassi]

Latest from the Mail


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4193808/Kate-Gerry-McCann-warn-Portuguese-policeman-book.html

[barrier]

Latest from the Mail


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4193808/Kate-Gerry-McCann-warn-Portuguese-policeman-book.html

One way to promote a book you wish no one to read.

[barrier]

Is the SC judgement going to be released?  I'd like to see their logic.

I believe it was reported that it would be at the end of the week just gone,didn't happen apparently .

[ShiningInLuz]

Latest from the Mail


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4193808/Kate-Gerry-McCann-warn-Portuguese-policeman-book.html

Is Clarence back in the fold for this or is Tracey being a tad inventive?

[misty]

I believe it was reported that it would be at the end of the week just gone,didn't happen apparently .

This coming Thursday, I read somewhere.

[Alice Purjorick]

Latest from the Mail


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4193808/Kate-Gerry-McCann-warn-Portuguese-policeman-book.html

Misquoting deliberately for effect it is rather "Don't tell him your name Pike" isn't it ?

[G-Unit]

I believe it was reported that it would be at the end of the week just gone,didn't happen apparently .

I think that was when the party's lawyers would be officially notified by the Court. When the Supreme Court rejected the McCann's appeal against the overturning of the first book ban no judgement was released. The Appeal Court judgement stands as it did in that case.

[G-Unit]

When the Appeal Court overturned the first ban on Amaral's book he made an interesting point;

What is the direct consequence of this decision [book ban] in the claim for damages [filed by the McCanns]?

It has a very strong impact because the arguments used by the applicants for requesting the main action are the same. We strongly believe that we are going to win this battle between truth and falsehood.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id344.htm [Direct Speech: A short interview with Gonçalo Amaral, 20 October 2010]

As the arguments were the same in the main action as they were in the book banning attempt in September 2009 the Appeal Court would have been contradicting itself if it had found for the McCanns the second time those arguments came before it. Perhaps the applicants should have realised, as Amaral did, that those arguments were not going to stand up.

[Robittybob1]

Is that right?

[Alice Purjorick]

Is that right?

It was discussed on this forum at the time with Angelo, John and few others saying pretty much what G-Unit has highlighted. The usual suspects said "ah no you silly persons can't you spot the subtle differences? Amaral will get his comuppance".
So subtle were the differences the Supreme Court couldn't spot them either, apparently !

[John]

When the Appeal Court overturned the first ban on Amaral's book he made an interesting point;

What is the direct consequence of this decision [book ban] in the claim for damages [filed by the McCanns]?

It has a very strong impact because the arguments used by the applicants for requesting the main action are the same. We strongly believe that we are going to win this battle between truth and falsehood.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id344.htm [Direct Speech: A short interview with Gonçalo Amaral, 20 October 2010]

As the arguments were the same in the main action as they were in the book banning attempt in September 2009 the Appeal Court would have been contradicting itself if it had found for the McCanns the second time those arguments came before it. Perhaps the applicants should have realised, as Amaral did, that those arguments were not going to stand up.

There is a saying which goes, once bitten, twice shy, thrice a fool!

[G-Unit]

Is that right?

When the Appeal Court overturned the first ban on the book they looked at these rights;

1. damage to the reservation of the applicants' private and family life;
2. damage to their right to image and a good name;
3. damage to their right to the guarantees of the penal process, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety.

They ruled that;

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.

Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm#appeal
 

[barrier]

When the Appeal Court overturned the first ban on the book they looked at these rights;

1. damage to the reservation of the applicants' private and family life;
2. damage to their right to image and a good name;
3. damage to their right to the guarantees of the penal process, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety.

They ruled that;

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.

Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm#appeal

The high lighted part,is Madeleine still subject to a ward of court,if so are the courts responsible for her cost's,anyone?

[G-Unit]

The high lighted part,is Madeleine still subject to a ward of court,if so are the courts responsible for her cost's,anyone?

No, because the Court didn't bring the action, her parents did.

[barrier]

No, because the Court didn't bring the action, her parents did.

Thanks.