The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Page 4 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 10:45

@Out of the woods wrote:It's not rubbish if he comes out of the appeal worse off than he is at the moment. The costs will be huge and certainly not covered by the £20,000 that has been raised by the defence fund. You have stated that in your opinion the judgement was fair, so why should he appeal?

It's a gamble, and a dubious one in my opinion.

It seems that costs as such are generally borne equally by both parties, and each side is responsible for their own legal expenses, so the cost is not as high as it would be in a common law system.

His best (and potentially most successful) course is to challenge the amount of damages. The judge's reasoning for setting high damages is less set in law than the judgement on the offence itself.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 10:57

A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?

BlueBag

Posts : 3429
Reputation : 1275
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 11:15

@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
I have not said that the judge got it right. Having read what the judge has written about specified Portuguese laws has made me re-evaluate my previous belief that Amaral's right to free speech would protect him. The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Guest on 22.05.15 11:29

@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 11:42

WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
The McCann's claim was that Amaral's actions
1/ Harmed them
2/ Harmed their children
3/ Harmed the future investigations.

The judge found that 2 and 3 were not proved.

The judge found that the McCann were not harmed by the newspaper and TV coverage, even when based on Amaral's book because of the right to free speech.

The judge found that Amaral had breached his responsibility to the state and to others in that he
1/ had used information gained in the course of his duties against the provisions of Portuguese law, and
2/ had accused the McCanns of being guilty of criminal offences when specifically prohibited from doing so, as a retired police officer, by Portuguese law.

As these two acts were illegal, the judge found that the McCann's rights had been abrogated by Amaral and so he was liable for causing them harm and was responsible for compensating them for that harm.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 11:45

WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
That is exactly my point.

Disciplinary matters have no impact on the effect of the book on the McCanns and should not have been used as reason for awarding damages.

Anyone could have written that book and expressed the same opinions after the files were made public.

The right to publish the book had already been tested in Portuguese courts.

BlueBag

Posts : 3429
Reputation : 1275
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Guest on 22.05.15 11:47

@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
The McCann's claim was that Amaral's actions
1/ Harmed them
2/ Harmed their children
3/ Harmed the future investigations.

The judge found that 2 and 3 were not proved.
Meaning 1 was proved?
The judge found that the McCann were not harmed by the newspaper and TV coverage, even when based on Amaral's book because of the right to free speech.

The judge found that Amaral had breached his responsibility to the state and to others in that he
1/ had used information gained in the course of his duties against the provisions of Portuguese law, and
2/ had accused the McCanns of being guilty of criminal offences when specifically prohibited from doing so, as a retired police officer, by Portuguese law.

As these two acts were illegal, the judge found that the McCann's rights had been abrogated by Amaral and so he was liable for causing them harm and was responsible for compensating them for that harm.
Highlighted in red they were either harmed or weren't,contradiction there.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 11:53

@BlueBag wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
That is exactly my point.

Disciplinary matters have no impact on the effect of the book on the McCanns and should not have been used as reason for awarding damages.

Anyone could have written that book and expressed the same opinions after the files were made public.

The right to publish the book had already been tested in Portuguese courts.
They are not 'disciplinary matters', but clear breaches of Portuguese civil law. The judge quoted exactly which laws were breached.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 11:57

WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
The McCann's claim was that Amaral's actions
1/ Harmed them
2/ Harmed their children
3/ Harmed the future investigations.

The judge found that 2 and 3 were not proved.
Meaning 1 was proved?
The judge found that the McCann were not harmed by the newspaper and TV coverage, even when based on Amaral's book because of the right to free speech.

The judge found that Amaral had breached his responsibility to the state and to others in that he
1/ had used information gained in the course of his duties against the provisions of Portuguese law, and
2/ had accused the McCanns of being guilty of criminal offences when specifically prohibited from doing so, as a retired police officer, by Portuguese law.

As these two acts were illegal, the judge found that the McCann's rights had been abrogated by Amaral and so he was liable for causing them harm and was responsible for compensating them for that harm.
Highlighted in red they were either harmed or weren't,contradiction there.
That is not what I said.

The judge totally rejected harm to the children or to the progress of the case. She then went on to consider whether there was harm to the McCann. She found that the newspaper and TV coverage did not cause harm to the McCanns because they were protected under their right to free speech, but she found that the rights of a retired police officer differed and had less protection because of specific Portuguese laws that limited the freedom of retired police officers; so she found that the McCann were harmed and due compensation.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 12:07

@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
The McCann's claim was that Amaral's actions
1/ Harmed them
2/ Harmed their children
3/ Harmed the future investigations.

The judge found that 2 and 3 were not proved.
Meaning 1 was proved?
The judge found that the McCann were not harmed by the newspaper and TV coverage, even when based on Amaral's book because of the right to free speech.

The judge found that Amaral had breached his responsibility to the state and to others in that he
1/ had used information gained in the course of his duties against the provisions of Portuguese law, and
2/ had accused the McCanns of being guilty of criminal offences when specifically prohibited from doing so, as a retired police officer, by Portuguese law.

As these two acts were illegal, the judge found that the McCann's rights had been abrogated by Amaral and so he was liable for causing them harm and was responsible for compensating them for that harm.
Highlighted in red they were either harmed or weren't,contradiction there.
That is not what I said.

The judge totally rejected harm to the children or to the progress of the case. She then went on to consider whether there was harm to the McCann. She found that the newspaper and TV coverage did not cause harm to the McCanns because they were protected under their right to free speech, but she found that the rights of a retired police officer differed and had less protection because of specific Portuguese laws that limited the freedom of retired police officers; so she found that the McCann were harmed and due compensation.
Some tortuous logic here.

They were harmed or they were not regardless of the right of free speech.

The judge can't find for the McCanns on a disciplinary matter specific to one person.

BlueBag

Posts : 3429
Reputation : 1275
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 12:13

Also.. the issue of Amaral's right to free speech has already been decided by a higher court.


Portugal's attorney general, having reviewed the investigation, has ruled there is no evidence to suggest that the McCanns are anything other than entirely innocent.
The court said the decision to block sales of the book had broken "a constitutional and universal right: that of opinion and freedom of expression."
"The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," the court said, according to the Jornal de Noticías newspaper's website.
bhttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/19/madeleine-mccann-book-ban-overturned

BlueBag

Posts : 3429
Reputation : 1275
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 12:18

@BlueBag wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
The McCann's claim was that Amaral's actions
1/ Harmed them
2/ Harmed their children
3/ Harmed the future investigations.

The judge found that 2 and 3 were not proved.
Meaning 1 was proved?
The judge found that the McCann were not harmed by the newspaper and TV coverage, even when based on Amaral's book because of the right to free speech.

The judge found that Amaral had breached his responsibility to the state and to others in that he
1/ had used information gained in the course of his duties against the provisions of Portuguese law, and
2/ had accused the McCanns of being guilty of criminal offences when specifically prohibited from doing so, as a retired police officer, by Portuguese law.

As these two acts were illegal, the judge found that the McCann's rights had been abrogated by Amaral and so he was liable for causing them harm and was responsible for compensating them for that harm.
Highlighted in red they were either harmed or weren't,contradiction there.
That is not what I said.

The judge totally rejected harm to the children or to the progress of the case. She then went on to consider whether there was harm to the McCann. She found that the newspaper and TV coverage did not cause harm to the McCanns because they were protected under their right to free speech, but she found that the rights of a retired police officer differed and had less protection because of specific Portuguese laws that limited the freedom of retired police officers; so she found that the McCann were harmed and due compensation.
Some tortuous logic here.

They were harmed or they were not regardless of the right of free speech.

The judge can't find for the McCanns on a disciplinary matter specific to one person.
It is not at all 'tortuous' though it is interesting that you use that adjective.

Civil law in common law countries involves the concept of 'tort' which shares the same root. In non common law countries the concept is better described as 'harm'.

People can be harmed in many ways- be demeaned, assaulted, denied their rights under the law, have their goods appropriated, etc. All of these cause harm.

Some harms are however allowed- free speech may allow some demeaning, prisoners have some rights legally removed, the state taxes people, etc.

The Judgement found that although the McCanns had been demeaned by the Press and TV, this was legal because of their right to free speech. However the judge pointed out that the Portuguese parliament had passed laws that specifically limited the rights of retired police officers such as Amaral from exercising free speech when it involved information gained through their privileged position or making statements about non convicted people being guilty.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Guest on 22.05.15 12:22

@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
The McCann's claim was that Amaral's actions
1/ Harmed them
2/ Harmed their children
3/ Harmed the future investigations.

The judge found that 2 and 3 were not proved.
Meaning 1 was proved?
The judge found that the McCann were not harmed by the newspaper and TV coverage, even when based on Amaral's book because of the right to free speech.

The judge found that Amaral had breached his responsibility to the state and to others in that he
1/ had used information gained in the course of his duties against the provisions of Portuguese law, and
2/ had accused the McCanns of being guilty of criminal offences when specifically prohibited from doing so, as a retired police officer, by Portuguese law.

As these two acts were illegal, the judge found that the McCann's rights had been abrogated by Amaral and so he was liable for causing them harm and was responsible for compensating them for that harm.
Highlighted in red they were either harmed or weren't,contradiction there.
That is not what I said.

Stop squiggling, you did and I just quoted what you said with some contradictions highlighted in red.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 12:27

@BlueBag wrote:Also.. the issue of Amaral's right to free speech has already been decided by a higher court.


Portugal's attorney general, having reviewed the investigation, has ruled there is no evidence to suggest that the McCanns are anything other than entirely innocent.
The court said the decision to block sales of the book had broken "a constitutional and universal right: that of opinion and freedom of expression."
"The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," the court said, according to the Jornal de Noticías newspaper's website.
bhttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/19/madeleine-mccann-book-ban-overturned
That decision was about whether the book itself was open to banning. It was not. That has not changed. The book can be read and copies distributed freely still. That is not and never has been in doubt.

This case though does not involve the book itself, but whether in its production and promotion, Amaral acted in such a way as to cause damage to the McCanns separate from any potential (but legal) damage caused by the publication of the book.

Because Portuguese law bans retired police officers from using privileged information and also bans statements about the guilt of innocent persons, the judge found that Amaral's behaviour had harmed the McCanns because of that unlawful behaviour as he had ignored his duty under the law to remain silent in this situation.

The trial is not about libel, but about general harm to the McCanns separate to libel.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 12:29

WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
The McCann's claim was that Amaral's actions
1/ Harmed them
2/ Harmed their children
3/ Harmed the future investigations.

The judge found that 2 and 3 were not proved.
Meaning 1 was proved?
The judge found that the McCann were not harmed by the newspaper and TV coverage, even when based on Amaral's book because of the right to free speech.

The judge found that Amaral had breached his responsibility to the state and to others in that he
1/ had used information gained in the course of his duties against the provisions of Portuguese law, and
2/ had accused the McCanns of being guilty of criminal offences when specifically prohibited from doing so, as a retired police officer, by Portuguese law.

As these two acts were illegal, the judge found that the McCann's rights had been abrogated by Amaral and so he was liable for causing them harm and was responsible for compensating them for that harm.
Highlighted in red they were either harmed or weren't,contradiction there.
That is not what I said.

Stop squiggling, you did and I just quoted what you said with some contradictions highlighted in red.
Meaning one was proved eventually- not as libel, but as other harm caused by Amaral acting against Portuguese law and consequently harming the McCanns.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Guest on 22.05.15 12:33

@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:Also.. the issue of Amaral's right to free speech has already been decided by a higher court.


Portugal's attorney general, having reviewed the investigation, has ruled there is no evidence to suggest that the McCanns are anything other than entirely innocent.
The court said the decision to block sales of the book had broken "a constitutional and universal right: that of opinion and freedom of expression."
"The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," the court said, according to the Jornal de Noticías newspaper's website.
bhttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/19/madeleine-mccann-book-ban-overturned


Because Portuguese law bans retired police officers from using privileged information and also bans statements about the guilt of innocent persons, the judge found that Amaral's behaviour had harmed the McCanns because of that unlawful behaviour as he had ignored his duty under the law to remain silent in this situation.
Can you provide a link to the relevant piece of portuguese law?
Is there such a thing as an honestbroker.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 12:34

The court said the decision to block sales of the book had broken "a constitutional and universal right: that of opinion and freedom of expression."

The higher court said it is a universal right. 

And that is the way Amaral sees it as well.

BlueBag

Posts : 3429
Reputation : 1275
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 22.05.15 12:41

The judge clearly dug deep to find a technicality to find GA guilty. This is clear to me. 

If I were GA I would sue the Portuguese for freezing my assets for 5+ years (assuming guilt and possibly infringing human rights, IMO) 

These arguments/semantics can go on forever and a day though.

TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 12:49

WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:Also.. the issue of Amaral's right to free speech has already been decided by a higher court.


Portugal's attorney general, having reviewed the investigation, has ruled there is no evidence to suggest that the McCanns are anything other than entirely innocent.
The court said the decision to block sales of the book had broken "a constitutional and universal right: that of opinion and freedom of expression."
"The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," the court said, according to the Jornal de Noticías newspaper's website.
bhttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/19/madeleine-mccann-book-ban-overturned


Because Portuguese law bans retired police officers from using privileged information and also bans statements about the guilt of innocent persons, the judge found that Amaral's behaviour had harmed the McCanns because of that unlawful behaviour as he had ignored his duty under the law to remain silent in this situation.
Can you provide a link to the relevant piece of portuguese law?
Is there such a thing as an honestbroker.
I have provided the references above twice. I will do so again below.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 12:54

Question: Is a retired police officer required to maintain the innocence of those not convicted and to maintain privileged information in confidence?

"In the case, Kate and Gerald McCann authors never ceased to benefit from presumption of innocence and the imperative of behavior that it puts on the national enforcement and judicial authorities and all its employees and agents." 

"The police have the responsibility of defending democratic legality, protecting internal security and citizens' rights" [artº 272 of the Portuguese Constitution]."

 "The Judicial Police is the upper body of criminal police assisting in the administration of justice, organized hierarchically depending on the Minister of Justice and supervised under the law "[article 1 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police, approved by Decree-Law No. 275-A / 2000 of November 9 as amended by Decree-Law No. 235/2005, of 30 December, then in force]."

"Criminal investigation coordinators are criminal police authorities for the purposes of criminal procedural law [article 11 paragraph g) of the same Act]."

"Under the Disciplinary Regulations of the Judicial Police the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of members of the Judicial Police [paragraph e) of article 5 of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of 21 July]."

"Besides this general duty of confidentiality, the organic law imposes on employees in service at the judicial police a duty of reserve, precisely that "(...) can not make public disclosures related to lawsuits or reserved nature of the subject other than what is provided for herein on public information and preventive actions among the population and also the provisions of the criminal procedure law "[paragraph 2 of article 12]. Still admissible statements "(...) subject to prior authorization by the national director or the national Deputy Directors, on pain of disciplinary proceedings, without prejudice to any criminal liability that may place" [paragraph 3 of article 12]."

"This duty is a common functional requirement on Magistrates and the criminal police. As example, in the case of Prosecutors, the ordinary law postulates that it will remain after retirement, paragraph 7 of article 148 of the Statute that "retired officers are required to the reserve required by their condition."
It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of administration of justice. The reserve duty protects the purposes of criminal action, but also the physical, moral, freedom and the dignity of the target for the same." 

"Retired criminal investigation officers ... retain special rights, and as holders of an ID card for recognition of its quality and rights enjoyed [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 31 January]."

 The Retirement Statute [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording, the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, "the retired, and holder right to retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on active employment."

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Joss on 22.05.15 13:01

@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
That is exactly my point.

Disciplinary matters have no impact on the effect of the book on the McCanns and should not have been used as reason for awarding damages.

Anyone could have written that book and expressed the same opinions after the files were made public.

The right to publish the book had already been tested in Portuguese courts.
They are not 'disciplinary matters', but clear breaches of Portuguese civil law. The judge quoted exactly which laws were breached.
What the judge is talking about is under the banner of "Police Misconduct". The fact as you say the judge determined that GA had no business to write about his thesis of the investigation into MBM's disappearance being a retired PJ officer, sworn to secrecy or whatever an ex PJ officer is sworn to? If GA did in fact breach that law of course it stands to reason it was a matter of misconduct on his part. So will he be held to account for that?

Police Corruption and Misconduct

The violation of state and federal laws or the violation of individuals' constitutional rights by police officers; also when police commit crimes for personal gain.
Police misconduct and corruption are abuses of police authority. Sometimes used interchangeably, the terms refer to a wide range of procedural, criminal, and civil violations. Misconduct is the broadest category. Misconduct is "procedural" when it refers to police who violate police department rules and regulations; "criminal" when it refers to police who violate state and federal laws; "unconstitutional" when it refers to police who violate a citizen's Civil Rights; or any combination thereof. Common forms of misconduct are excessive use of physical or Deadly Force, discriminatory arrest, physical or verbal harassment, and selective enforcement of the law.

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Guest on 22.05.15 13:05

@OxfordBloo wrote:Question: Is a retired police officer required to maintain the innocence of those not convicted and to maintain privileged information in confidence?

"In the case, Kate and Gerald McCann authors never ceased to benefit from presumption of innocence and the imperative of behavior that it puts on the national enforcement and judicial authorities and all its employees and agents." 

"The police have the responsibility of defending democratic legality, protecting internal security and citizens' rights" [artº 272 of the Portuguese Constitution]."

 "The Judicial Police is the upper body of criminal police assisting in the administration of justice, organized hierarchically depending on the Minister of Justice and supervised under the law "[article 1 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police, approved by Decree-Law No. 275-A / 2000 of November 9 as amended by Decree-Law No. 235/2005, of 30 December, then in force]."

"Criminal investigation coordinators are criminal police authorities for the purposes of criminal procedural law [article 11 paragraph g) of the same Act]."

"Under the Disciplinary Regulations of the Judicial Police the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of members of the Judicial Police [paragraph e) of article 5 of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of 21 July]."

"Besides this general duty of confidentiality, the organic law imposes on employees in service at the judicial police a duty of reserve, precisely that "(...) can not make public disclosures related to lawsuits or reserved nature of the subject other than what is provided for herein on public information[/black] and preventive actions among the population and also the provisions of the criminal procedure law "[paragraph 2 of article 12]. Still admissible statements "(...) subject to prior authorization by the national director or the national Deputy Directors, on pain of disciplinary proceedings, without prejudice to any criminal liability that may place" [paragraph 3 of article 12]."

"This duty is a common functional requirement on Magistrates and the criminal police. As example, in the case of Prosecutors, the ordinary law postulates that it will remain after retirement, paragraph 7 of article 148 of the Statute that "retired officers are required to the reserve required by their condition."
It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of administration of justice. The reserve duty protects the purposes of criminal action, but also the physical, moral, freedom and the dignity of the target for the same." 

"Retired criminal investigation officers ... retain special rights, and as holders of an ID card for recognition of its quality and rights enjoyed [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 31 January]."

 The Retirement Statute [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording, the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, "the retired, and holder right to retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on active employment."

Highlighted in black,there was no lawsuit,it later became public information.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 13:06

This is BS.

The files were public when the book was published.

No breach of confidentiality.

And Amaral has the right to express an opinion about matters that are known to the public.

The judge has used legal gymnastics to find something.. anything.. to pin on Amaral.

BlueBag

Posts : 3429
Reputation : 1275
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Joss on 22.05.15 13:07

@BlueBag wrote:This is BS.

The files were public when the book was published.

No breach of confidentiality.

And Amaral has the right to express an opinion about matters that are known to the public.

The judge has used legal gymnastics to find something.. anything.. to pin on Amaral.
I agree, otherwise why hasn't he been charged with Police Misconduct?

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 13:08

@Joss wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
WMD wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:A judge's interpretation of the law can be overturned and has been many times in the past.

Anyone reading some posts in this thread would think there is no point appealing (or donating).

Dear Oxfordbloo... did you join this forum just to tell us that the judge got it right?

Have you been here before under another name?
The judge explains why a police officer does not have that protection for information gained because of his privilege and why such a retired officer is specifically banned by Portuguese law from accusing the innocent of being guilty. The laws are so clearly stated as to make a successful appeal unlikely. He may well be successful in challenging he amount of damages awarded.
But did the McCanns take him to court over this,if not how can it be found against him,that must surely be for another court.
That is exactly my point.

Disciplinary matters have no impact on the effect of the book on the McCanns and should not have been used as reason for awarding damages.

Anyone could have written that book and expressed the same opinions after the files were made public.

The right to publish the book had already been tested in Portuguese courts.
They are not 'disciplinary matters', but clear breaches of Portuguese civil law. The judge quoted exactly which laws were breached.
What the judge is talking about is under the banner of "Police Misconduct". The fact as you say the judge determined that GA had no business to write about his thesis of the investigation into MBM's disappearance being a retired PJ officer, sworn to secrecy or whatever an ex PJ officer is sworn to? If GA did in fact breach that law of course it stands to reason it was a matter of misconduct on his part. So will he be held to account for that?

Police Corruption and Misconduct



The violation of state and federal laws or the violation of individuals' constitutional rights by police officers; also when police commit crimes for personal gain.
Police misconduct and corruption are abuses of police authority. Sometimes used interchangeably, the terms refer to a wide range of procedural, criminal, and civil violations. Misconduct is the broadest category. Misconduct is "procedural" when it refers to police who violate police department rules and regulations; "criminal" when it refers to police who violate state and federal laws; "unconstitutional" when it refers to police who violate a citizen's Civil Rights; or any combination thereof. Common forms of misconduct are excessive use of physical or Deadly Force, discriminatory arrest, physical or verbal harassment, and selective enforcement of the law.
Directly above your post is the set of references to the Portuguese civil laws that Amaral breached. These are laws, not disciplinary matters.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum