Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?

[G-Unit]

But some have admitted it...libel actions are quite often settled out of court

People settle to save money in case they lose. An offer to settle is unlikely to be accepted unless an admission of guilt is included.

[Robittybob1]

People settle to save money in case they lose. An offer to settle is unlikely to be accepted unless an admission of guilt is included.

Like a retraction and an apology as well as damages.

[Mr Gray]

People settle to save money in case they lose. An offer to settle is unlikely to be accepted unless an admission of guilt is included.

They do not have to settle if they have a defence

[G-Unit]

They do not have to settle if they have a defence

Litigation is a gamble, as the McCanns now probably realise. They gambled against the newspapers because they had measures in place which meant their personal finances were safe. That wasn't possible in Portugal as I understand it, so they gambled in Portugal without safeguards and lost. It remains to be seen whether they lost personally or whether they gambled with money which didn't belong to them.

[Robittybob1]

Litigation is a gamble, as the McCanns now probably realise. They gambled against the newspapers because they had measures in place which meant their personal finances were safe. That wasn't possible in Portugal as I understand it, so they gambled in Portugal without safeguards and lost. It remains to be seen whether they lost personally or whether they gambled with money which didn't belong to them.

Is that libellous?

[jassi]

Is that libellous?

Why should it be? - they have wealthy backers.

[G-Unit]

Is that libellous?

OK then. The McCanns instructed lawyers to sue Amaral. They did so in their own and their children's names. It was a gamble because that's the nature of litigation. The evidence (Fund accounts) suggests that at least some the expenses connected to the action were paid by the Fund. The money in the Fund doesn't belong to the McCanns.

[slartibartfast]

do you have a cite for that...that isnt what the final response from the SC was....and contradicts the SC judgeemnt which I have already posted

In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.

It’s in the SC verdict, same place you got yours from.

[slartibartfast]

People settle to save money in case they lose. An offer to settle is unlikely to be accepted unless an admission of guilt is included.

Sometimes payments are made without prejudice.

[Brietta]

The archiving dispatch said they never lost the presumption of innocence, however the investigation never cleared them. Two separate points.

Of more importance is that the Amaral investigation never charged them.

[slartibartfast]

Of more importance is that the Amaral investigation never charged them.

Off topic deflection.

[Mr Gray]

Of more importance is that the Amaral investigation never charged them.

Yes... evidence of innocence

[Sunny]

Yes... evidence of innocence

A cite for that Davel or could I just say evidence of not enough evidence to charge them. 

[Brietta]

Off topic deflection.

LOL ... how can posting that no charges were brought against Kate and Gerry be "off topic deflection" unless your post to which I replied is also "off topic deflection"?

However in my opinion my post explains precisely exactly why the media were compelled to settle defamation actions out of court ... all the evidence categorically confirmed that the McCanns had been maligned by wrongful reporting ... and in the circumstances had they gone to court the papers would have been taken to the cleaners.

The papers were guilty of libel ... they admitted it ... they apologised for it ... and paid what was considered to be substantial damages for it at the time.

Very much on topic and very much a statement of fact 

[Brietta]

A cite for that Davel or could I just say evidence of not enough evidence to charge them.

... and could I just say ... your post is bordering on libel.  There was no evidence.