Madeleine McCann's parents lose libel case with the European Court of Human Rights

[Vertigo Swirl]

A million excuse can be put forward and probably will be.

None of them will alter reality. McCann lost.

Yes, they lost.  The question is why?  If you're not interested in discussing it, don't read.  Here you are trying to shut down discussion whilst earlier G-Unit has accused supporters of not wanting to discuss it.  Strange innit.

[Vertigo Swirl]

In the mean time the emergency budget has gone down like a lead balloon.

It's a shocker, makes me feel physically ill.

[G-Unit]

It is the case... Fact. So how and why were these lies accepted by the court as fact's... That's the question that has not been answered

A further explanation of what facts are in this context;

All that is part of the investigation, beyond this fact, are clues, means of evidence*, means of obtaining evidence** and theses or hypotheses that are proper to an investigation shelved for lack of evidence. It will therefore be understood that, when are put together the “facts ascertained in the investigation” and the “facts that are part of the investigation”, it is referred to means of obtaining evidence, means of evidence and clues that constitute the proper investigation and are documented in the inquiry.
page 11 https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm

[barrier]

Yes, they lost.  The question is why?  If you're not interested in discussing it, don't read.  Here you are trying to shut down discussion whilst earlier G-Unit has accused supporters of not wanting to discuss it.  Strange innit.

You can look at the whole and try to fathom like some modern day Rumpole or read the part where it explains it.
What is of note imo is that the Government responded to the communication stage, the applicants did not comment on objections raised ?

vi. Conclusion
101. In view of all the considerations set out above, the Court considers that the Supreme Court, when acting as the court of last instance, made a careful assessment of the balance to be struck between the applicants' right to respect for their private lives and G.A.'s right to freedom of expression, assessing them in the light of the criteria emerging from its case-law and making ample reference to the Court's case-law (see paragraphs 49, 51, 53 and 55 above). Considering the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in this case, the Court sees no serious reason to substitute its opinion for that of the Supreme Court. It does not therefore appear that the national authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligation to protect the applicants' right to respect for their private lives within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
102. There was therefore no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

104. The Government disputed the applicability of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the present case. In that respect, it considered that there was no link between the criminal proceedings of which the applicants had been granted a discontinuance and the civil proceedings brought by them following the publication of G.A.'s book and the broadcasting of the documentary film which had been adapted from it. It observed that the criminal proceedings concerned the establishment of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicants' daughter, whereas the civil proceedings related to the civil liabilities arising from the book and the documentary in question.
105. The applicants did not comment on the objection raised by the Government.

[barrier]

It's a shocker, makes me feel physically ill.

It ain't pretty.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You can look at the whole and try to fathom like some modern day Rumpole or read the part where it explains it.
What is of note imo is that the Government responded to the communication stage, the applicants did not comment on objections raised ?

vi. Conclusion
101. In view of all the considerations set out above, the Court considers that the Supreme Court, when acting as the court of last instance, made a careful assessment of the balance to be struck between the applicants' right to respect for their private lives and G.A.'s right to freedom of expression, assessing them in the light of the criteria emerging from its case-law and making ample reference to the Court's case-law (see paragraphs 49, 51, 53 and 55 above). Considering the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in this case, the Court sees no serious reason to substitute its opinion for that of the Supreme Court. It does not therefore appear that the national authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligation to protect the applicants' right to respect for their private lives within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
102. There was therefore no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

104. The Government disputed the applicability of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the present case. In that respect, it considered that there was no link between the criminal proceedings of which the applicants had been granted a discontinuance and the civil proceedings brought by them following the publication of G.A.'s book and the broadcasting of the documentary film which had been adapted from it. It observed that the criminal proceedings concerned the establishment of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicants' daughter, whereas the civil proceedings related to the civil liabilities arising from the book and the documentary in question.
105. The applicants did not comment on the objection raised by the Government.

I was rather referring to why did the case ever go before the ECHR in the first place, given that it was apparently obvious to all sceptics right from the start that the McCanns didn't have a leg to stand on.

[Brietta]

IMO an ethical, honourable lawyer knowing that there was zero chance of winning at the ECHR would have turned down the opportunity to represent a client in such an appeal, on the basis that it was unwinnable.  But I don't  think that's what happened here.  I think the McCanns' lawyers clearly were of the opinion that the McCanns had a case and that  ECHR had been broken otherwise they would have not been able to put forward any sort of cohesive appeal.  And if they held that opinion, it is perfectly reasonable for others to see where they were coming from, even if that opinion was legally refuted at the ECHR.

I think the fact that the action was listened to in the appeal court rather suggests that it was competent.

Had it not been so it would never have reached that stage and would have fallen at the first hurdle.  Therefore the action was competent and the lawyers were competent in bringing it.
The unanimous verdict of the seven judges gives the lie to that and there is no clarity given as to why that should be.

I think somewhere in all of this is a lesson in the swings and roundabouts of court actions.  Particularly in the long drawn out period over which this one has taken place.

I remain at a loss why Amaral has been allowed to make his libellous statements for over fifteen years and will continue to do so as we have seen and all sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights.  If the McCanns do not have the legal right to protection from Amaral's accusations - and that is so - I think a long hard look needs to be taken to procedures.

[Mr Gray]

The fact is he said it, thats not in dispute .The legend is writ, you'll understand in the end.

Exactly the same as the court pronouncing the cadaver alert as a fact

You will never understand

[barrier]

I was rather referring to why did the case ever go before the ECHR in the first place, given that it was apparently obvious to all sceptics right from the start that the McCanns didn't have a leg to stand on.

Perhaps those that didn't think the McCann's would win had a better legal knowledge than the resident expert on here.

[The General]

I think the fact that the action was listened to in the appeal court rather suggests that it was competent.

Had it not been so it would never have reached that stage and would have fallen at the first hurdle.  Therefore the action was competent and the lawyers were competent in bringing it.
The unanimous verdict of the seven judges gives the lie to that and there is no clarity given as to why that should be.

I think somewhere in all of this is a lesson in the swings and roundabouts of court actions.  Particularly in the long drawn out period over which this one has taken place.

I remain at a loss why Amaral has been allowed to make his libellous statements for over fifteen years and will continue to do so as we have seen and all sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights.  If the McCanns do not have the legal right to protection from Amaral's accusations - and that is so - I think a long hard look needs to be taken to procedures.

There's a modicum of acceptance in there, but then pivots at the end to trot out the latest excuse....the process is inherently wrong. At least you have, albeit belatedly, arrived at the last bastion; the psychological cul-de-sac. There's nowehere else to go now, except back the way you came, on the horse you rode in on.
We, the sceptical arbiter, will not forget your prevarication and forlorn defiance.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I didn't know who the lawyers were 3 days ago... Only found out in the published judgement.
I'm astonished at the choice.
You wouldnt ask your GP to give you a heart transplant.
This is the same lawyer who lost the case in Portugal

This is the crux of it.
You were so confident the McCaans would win. From your post a couple of days before the announcement there is no doubt in your mind, you knew European law not just better than anyone on this forum but any forum. I will spare your blushes and not reproduce the whole embarrassing post.

But the only way out for you to not admit you were wrong and your whole ego would collapse like a pack of cards is to find someone else to blame for your confident prediction being totally wrong (7-0).
In steps the inept lawyers into your mind, “of course its not me who is wrong, the McCaans chose lawyers who know nothing about human rights law” you think.
You can supply no reason that the McCaans didn’t notice that they were inept in the 5 years that they used them but you picked up on their ineptness after a quick glance at their website three days ago.

You really are the gift that keeps giving.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps those that didn't think the McCann's would win had a better legal knowledge than the resident expert on here.

I didn't expect the court to accept BS as fact..sceptics actually think the BS is fact... That's the difference

[The General]

I didn't expect the court to accept BS as fact..sceptics actually think the BS is fact... That's the difference

Did you expect the 'inept' lawyers to consider the court may 'accept BS as fact', given that the whole case was built around them? Because you never said.

[G-Unit]

I think the fact that the action was listened to in the appeal court rather suggests that it was competent.

Had it not been so it would never have reached that stage and would have fallen at the first hurdle.  Therefore the action was competent and the lawyers were competent in bringing it.
The unanimous verdict of the seven judges gives the lie to that and there is no clarity given as to why that should be.

I think somewhere in all of this is a lesson in the swings and roundabouts of court actions.  Particularly in the long drawn out period over which this one has taken place.

I remain at a loss why Amaral has been allowed to make his libellous statements for over fifteen years and will continue to do so as we have seen and all sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights.  If the McCanns do not have the legal right to protection from Amaral's accusations - and that is so - I think a long hard look needs to be taken to procedures.

Why the ECHR decided to examine their claim regarding Article 8;

The impugned statements made by G.A. in the book, documentary programme and interview concerned the applicants’ alleged involvement in hiding their daughter’s body, based on a theory that they had staged an abduction and on a presumed acts of negligence towards her. These statements were sufficiently serious to attract the application of Article 8.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13798%22]}

They decided that the Portuguese Appeal and Supreme Courts dealt with the case correctly.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps those that didn't think the McCann's would win had a better legal knowledge than the resident expert on here.

My point is that the McCanns lawyers obviously believed that there was a reasonable chance that they would win an appeal based presumably on similar reasoning to those on here who believed they would win.  Personally I never claimed to know enough about ECHR law to call it, but if I had, I guess I would have stood a 50/50 chance of being right so I don't think there's much to brag about either way.