Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[stephen25000]

ok, but I meant that we don't have to accept that it was a fair judgement.

I understand that Alfie.

We can agree to disagree.

[Eleanor]

In that case you are refusing to accept the  reality of the situation  and are in a state of denial.

Aren't we all?

I'm on Alfie's side on this one.

[jassi]

Aren't we all?

I'm on Alfie's side on this one.

Fine with me. I recognise and accept the reality and finality of this judgement.

[Erngath]

Aren't we all?

I'm on Alfie's side on this one.

As am I.
I'm still in denial about the  Independence referendum, the Brexit decision and Trump's election victory.
Might as well go for broke.

[Eleanor]

As am I.
I'm still in denial about the  Independence referendum, the Brexit decision and Trump's election victory.
Might as well go for broke.

Just wait until France gets Marine le Penn.  Nope, I won't be leaving France.  But I might have to become a French Citizen.
But I don't think even France is that daft.  So who's more in denial than you?

Should we have a contest, do you think?

[xtina]

they can go to the ECHR........

N. The rights to freedom of expression and information and the right to freedom of the press and social communication media are enshrined in articles 370 and 380 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.

O. And further, the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Contrary to the claim of the appellants, various decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that can be consulted, have come to condemn the Portuguese Courts of Law for violating the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press by condemning journalists and other citizens for defamation.
Q. The ECHR considers that the right to freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society.
R. The Supreme Court of Justice in Portugal has also delivered judgments that value the right to freedom of expression, to the detriment of other rights.
S. In view of the exposed elements, there can be no doubt that the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the press are fundamental in a democratic State of Law.

[Mr Gray]

Fine with me. I recognise and accept the reality and finality of this judgement.

I'm sure we all understand that this is the final judgement in this case. That does not mean we have to accept it is a fair just judgement....if you think the  judgement is beyond question then you are in denial.

The Portuguese justice system seems seriously flawed based on some of the other things we have heard on this forum

[stephen25000]

I'm sure we all understand that this is the final judgement in this case. That does not mean we have to accept it is a fair just judgement....if you think the  judgement is beyond question then you are in denial.

The Portuguese justice system seems seriously flawed based on some of the other things we have heard on this forum

It doesn't matter what you think on this, the judgement is final.

[jassi]

I'm sure we all understand that this is the final judgement in this case. That does not mean we have to accept it is a fair just judgement....if you think the  judgement is beyond question then you are in denial.

The Portuguese justice system seems seriously flawed based on some of the other things we have heard on this forum

You have a strange concept of denial.
I accept the decision - you deny it.

 

[Eleanor]

N. The rights to freedom of expression and information and the right to freedom of the press and social communication media are enshrined in articles 370 and 380 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.

O. And further, the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Contrary to the claim of the appellants, various decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that can be consulted, have come to condemn the Portuguese Courts of Law for violating the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press by condemning journalists and other citizens for defamation.
Q. The ECHR considers that the right to freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society.
R. The Supreme Court of Justice in Portugal has also delivered judgments that value the right to freedom of expression, to the detriment of other rights.
S. In view of the exposed elements, there can be no doubt that the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the press are fundamental in a democratic State of Law.

Right.  So that's it then.  We might as well all go home.  But I can't see that happening  any time soon.

[John]

I'm sure we all understand that this is the final judgement in this case. That does not mean we have to accept it is a fair just judgement....if you think the  judgement is beyond question then you are in denial.

The Portuguese justice system seems seriously flawed based on some of the other things we have heard on this forum

What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'.  The courts have to take this into account in any decision  they make so no wonder they are cautious.   Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.

[misty]

What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'.  The courts have to take this into account in any decision  they make so no wonder they are cautious.   Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.

As the case is unsolved & the case itself was not the subject of any appeal the SC should have adopted Judicial Impartiality on innocence/guilt & based their decision solely on whether the author is permitted to defame the plaintiffs in the manner he did.

[G-Unit]

That was interesting for then it was stated there was no evidence against the McCanns, not insufficent evidence but none. 
"Fourteen months after she disappeared, Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html
"The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos," his statement read."

So wouldn't that suggest they were innocent?

The archiving dispatch was written by two public prosecutors who passed it to the AG the same day. His office issued a press release telling what it said;

By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos.
https://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/gerry-and-kate-mccann/

Someone's translation is wrong.

[MrsWuh]

I’ve been reading this forum for a few years now, but haven’t felt inclined to join in before. But a few people have said that the Supreme Court ruling must mean that Murat is also still a suspect. This isn’t true, as the text of the final archival report does, in fact, completely clear him:

“It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.”

The McCanns did not receive the same unequivocal exoneration:

“We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”

The Supreme Court hasn’t made any judgement on the McCanns’ guilt or innocence. It merely pointed out that the McCanns cannot use the archival report to claim that they had been categorically cleared of involvement – their arguido status was lifted due to a lack of evidence and nothing could be proved either way.

Part of the McCanns’ case claimed that Amaral's book would have damaged the honour and good name of ‘any innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation’. It would have been somewhat remiss of the court not to point out that the archival report had not actually cleared them. The Supreme Court hasn’t ‘gone beyond its remit’ or made a ‘ruling’ or ignored ‘judicial impartiality’ on innocence or guilt – they have clarified a misinterpretation of a legal document by the claimants. It really is as simple as that.

So by all means carry on debating the right-to-free-expression vs. right-not-to-be-defamed angle. But please stop bashing the Portuguese legal system and (deliberately?) misinterpreting the judgement of their Supreme Court. After all, we know you would have been full of praise for them had the judgement gone the other way!

[Mr Gray]

What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'.  The courts have to take this into account in any decision  they make so no wonder they are cautious.   Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.

what you fail to understand John is that the Mccanns have the right to the presumption of innocence enshrined in european law which Portugal has signed up to.
The judge in the first instance recognised this....the supreme court has not. The supreme court are wrong imo and the mccanns may well have avery straightforward case in the ECHR