Author Topic: Would the libel case had a different result if pecuniary damages weren't sought?  (Read 2455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

An interesting question has arisen elsewhere.  Do members think the Kate & Gerry McCann v Amaral & Others libel case would have had a different outcome if pecuniary damages in the sum of 1.2 millioon hadn't been sought?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Brietta

An interesting question has arisen elsewhere.  Do members think the Kate & Gerry McCann v Amaral & Others libel case would have had a different outcome if pecuniary damages in the sum of 1.2 millioon hadn't been sought?

They won their case.

The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline John

They won their case.

The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.

If I recall correctly, Portuguese courts had never previously considered awarding such a high amount in damages which calls into question the basic competency of the court of first instance imo.  And especially so given, as you have correctly pointed out, that both the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court found the decision wanting and so overturned it.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online Davel

If I recall correctly, Portuguese courts had never previously considered awarding such a high amount in damages which calls into question the basic competency of the court of first instance imo.  And especially so given, as you have correctly pointed out, that both the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court found the decision wanting and so overturned it.

Or more likely  IMO the competency of the appeal and SCcourts

UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline John

Or more likely  IMO the competency of the appeal and SCcourts

Hardly Dave, the upper courts are supposed to be the superior courts and as such harmonize rulings by setting uniform jurisprudence.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 03:31:34 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline jassi

They won their case.

The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.

Yeah, that's why they were lumbered  with those legal costs
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   11 years and still no solution.

Online Davel

Hardly Dave, the upper courts are supposed to be the superior courts and as such determine precedences.

There have been two cases in the last month where the ECHR ruled against Portugal... The SC may well have got it wrong... From what I have read Re other cases... They did
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 03:34:46 PM by Davel »
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline slartibartfast

They won their case.

The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.

They lost their case....are you myth making?
It is a lack of contrition that makes a person who has done wrong fixate on being proven blameless.

Offline Sunny

I think the fact that McCanns were demanding such significant damages which would be enough to bankrupt their oppsition, probably annoyed the court but it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome as judges use facts and legal precidents not their own opinions.

Davel the McCanns lost the case.  To claim otherwise is to be sadly mistaken.

This is all in my own opinion of course.

Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Online Davel

I think the fact that McCanns were demanding such significant damages which would be enough to bankrupt their oppsition, probably annoyed the court but it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome as judges use facts and legal precidents not their own opinions.

Davel the McCanns lost the case.  To claim otherwise is to be sadly mistaken.

This is all in my own opinion of course.
Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal  but may well win in Europe
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline Faithlilly

Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal  but may well win in Europe

I think it will depend on how our access to the ECHR is affected by Brexit.
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline Robittybob1

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15070
  • Total likes: 2303
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
    • The Lord Jesus - search for Madeleine McCann
Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal  but may well win in Europe
Who pays the court fees?
What are you doing to find Madeleine?

Online Davel

I think it will depend on how our access to the ECHR is affected by Brexit.
You need to do a bit more research.....the ECHR is not limited to the EU
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION

Offline Sunny

Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal  but may well win in Europe

If they win at the EHCR that wouldn't be against Amaral though would it so they would still need to pay the court fees for all the portuguese legal action I am sure.

I thought they had already lost at the highest court in Portugal so they lost and that cant be reversed. They are trying to take Portugals courts to court arent they and this is on technical points not any book banning reasons AFAIK
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Online Davel

If they win at the EHCR that wouldn't be against Amaral though would it so they would still need to pay the court fees for all the portuguese legal action I am sure.

I thought they had already lost at the highest court in Portugal so they lost and that cant be reversed. They are trying to take Portugals courts to court arent they and this is on technical points not any book banning reasons AFAIK

Looks like you don't understand it....imo the case wil hinge on Portugal allowing amaral to defame the McCann s and perhaps the presumption of innocence...the ECHR may well rule amarals accusations are defamatory and cannot be re peated
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ALL POSTS ARE MY OPINION