Given the Appellate Courts decision, is the libel trial a foregone conclusion?

[Carana]

A European Commission comparative study on personal rights (covering defamation).

The section on Portugal starts p. 121.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/study_privacy_annexe_3_en.pdf

[ferryman]

I'm interested in Jean-Pierre's view as well.

I'm not so sure any more that they do need to challenge the content...

Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): "Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused."

ARTIGO 484º
(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)

Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.

It says fact, not false statement.

I think the clue is in the follow-up

... capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person,

A fact that's factual wouldn't do that ...

[Montclair]

I think the clue is in the follow-up

... capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person,

A fact that's factual wouldn't do that ...

But have the McCanns been able to prove that their "good" name was prejudiced? I don't think so. Furthermore, all of the information that was contained in Gonçalo Amaral's book was out in the public domain well before it was published. Therefore, if those facts prejudiced the parents' good name, the facts would have done so before when these facts had already been in the newspapers. Also, there were three other books published about the case much earlier, so why choose Gonçalo Amaral's book? My cynical side thinks that the reason is that it made a lot more money. Why didn't the McCanns sue right after the book was released?

[Carana]

But have the McCanns been able to prove that their "good" name was prejudiced? I don't think so. Furthermore, all of the information that was contained in Gonçalo Amaral's book was out in the public domain well before it was published. Therefore, if those facts prejudiced the parents' good name, the facts would have done so before when these facts had already been in the newspapers. Also, there were three other books published about the case much earlier, so why choose Gonçalo Amaral's book? My cynical side thinks that the reason is that it made a lot more money. Why didn't the McCanns sue right after the book was released?

I suppose you have a point concerning: "...all of the information that was contained in Gonçalo Amaral's book was out in the public domain well before it was published". The flagrant disregard for judicial secrecy under his watch probably won't be considered in the libel trial.

[ferryman]

But have the McCanns been able to prove that their "good" name was prejudiced?

Why not?

Purely as an example, there is the Gerry not Madeleine's father canard and there is a direct reference from the files that tends to link Amaral to it.

Purely as an example ...

[stephen25000]

But have the McCanns been able to prove that their "good" name was prejudiced?

Why not?

Purely as an example, there is the Gerry not Madeleine's father canard and there is a direct reference from the files that tends to link Amaral to it.

Purely as an example ...

''good'' name ???