Duty of Reserve.

[Benice]

At first glance and in simple terms the duty of reserve prevents former public servants from putting into the public domain any information which the Ministry hasn't previously ever published.  Since the Court latterly agreed that Amaral's book was based on the Archive then it cannot be argued that he was in breach of the duty of reserve.

What do you mean by 'Archive' please John? 

[Robittybob1]

At first glance and in simple terms the duty of reserve prevents former public servants from putting into the public domain any information which the Ministry hasn't previously ever published.  Since the Court latterly agreed that Amaral's book was based on the Archive then it cannot be argued that he was in breach of the duty of reserve.

If we were to follow the released files do we actually see the evidence that Amaral claims?

[Robittybob1]

There are so many points and this is an important one too! Page 68
"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)."

Doesn't Amaral claim the McCanns are guilty?

[G-Unit]

There are so many points and this is an important one too! Page 68
"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)."

Doesn't Amaral claim the McCanns are guilty?

He wasn't a 'public body' and they were not 'arguidos'.

[Robittybob1]

He wasn't a 'public body' and they were not 'arguidos'.

He represented the public body, the PJ, and the McCanns were not arguidos so that just makes it more imperative that they are not made to look guilty.
that would extend to a statement "... resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the [former] arguido is in fact guilty".
If it must not happen to an arguido it definitely should not happen to a former arguido.

[slartibartfast]

"Indeed, irrespective of the reasons given by the appellant for publication, it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media."
Page 18.

You missed bolding the "it is hardly understandable..."

[Robittybob1]

You missed bolding the "it is hardly understandable..."

It is always a bit hit and miss choosing the words to highlight.

[G-Unit]

He represented the public body, the PJ, and the McCanns were not arguidos so that just makes it more imperative that they are not made to look guilty.
that would extend to a statement "... resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the [former] arguido is in fact guilty".
If it must not happen to an arguido it definitely should not happen to a former arguido.

He was not a member of the PJ when his book was published.

[John]

The coordination between the release of the book, the archiving of the case and the release of the files seems too coincidental to me.  I would not be surprised if there was not a type of conspiracy being acted out behind the scenes to get all of this happening, and the whole thing viewed as payback to the McCanns for embarrassing  the Portuguese Police with all their publicity.

I expect this post will be deleted but I have been longing to state my thesis in this time of freedom of expression.

Anything is possible I suppose.  Amaral knew the rules in respect of a duty of reserve and the consequences of breaching them.  I don't think even he would be so foolish as to tread on thin ice where Portuguese Law is concerned.

[ferryman]

It does seem rather rum that on the timing of a book's release rests the answer to the question whether you can tell a pack of lies that lower reputation and get away with it (as Amaral appears to have done, that is, get away with it!) or whether you can't.

[John]

It does seem rather rum that on the timing of a book's release rests the answer to the question whether you can tell a pack of lies that lower reputation and get away with it (as Amaral appears to have done, that is, get away with it!) or whether you can't.

Even if they were a pack of lies, as yet undetermined, he wasn't the only one practising the art.

[G-Unit]

It does seem rather rum that on the timing of a book's release rests the answer to the question whether you can tell a pack of lies that lower reputation and get away with it (as Amaral appears to have done, that is, get away with it!) or whether you can't.

Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?

[Brietta]

Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?

What judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro did say was, " The fact they are innocent ... " which appears to be at variance with the final ruling of the appeal court judges and possibly why she got it right and they appear to have overstepped the mark and getting it wrong.

[slartibartfast]

What judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro did say was, " The fact they are innocent ... " which appears to be at variance with the final ruling of the appeal court judges and possibly why she got it right and they appear to have overstepped the mark and getting it wrong.

Or more likely the other way round.

[G-Unit]

What judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro did say was, " The fact they are innocent ... " which appears to be at variance with the final ruling of the appeal court judges and possibly why she got it right and they appear to have overstepped the mark and getting it wrong.

Do you have the page number for that quote please?

May I remind you that the higher judges gave no opinion on the innocence or guilt of the McCanns? They denied their claim that they were cleared by the arhiving dispatch, that's all.