Pamalam: Page 47 is brilliant page #McCann V #Amaral: Supreme Court verdict 31 Jan 2017

From Pamalam

https://twitter.com/JustPamalam/status/829810048096415745

Well, this looks as if it puts pay to the McCanns going to the CEHR:

N. The rights to freedom of expression and information and the right to freedom of the press and social communication media are enshrined in articles 370 and 380 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. O. And further, the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Contrary to the claim of the appellants, various decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that can be consulted, have come to condemn the Portuguese Courts of Law for violating the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press by condemning journalists and other citizens for defamation. Q. The ECHR considers that the right to freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. R. The Supreme Court of Justice in Portugal has also delivered judgments that value the right to freedom of expression, to the detriment of other rights. S. In view of the exposed elements, there can be no doubt that the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the press are fundamental in a democratic State of Law.

GAME, SET AND MATCH!

Exactly, In a democratic society the right to express an opinion.

 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), ... have come to condemn the Portuguese Courts of Law for violating the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press by condemning journalists and other citizens for defamation.

Another little snippet of interest, from page 45:

 As it is undisputed that the appellants have achieved notoriety and fame in Portugal and around the world, it is not possible that they grant interviews to the media, even in the intimacy of their home, when it is favourable, and then forbid the publication of books...

Page   47.

T. As stated, it was the appellants themselves (McCanns) who, freely and consciously, chose to make public facts that besides cannot be considered from private and family life.
 U. The request for protective injunctions of the appellants' personality rights petitioned are not suitable for the purpose at stake, besides of being illegal.

V. And could only be applied after detailed analysis to verify, case by case, if they are legal, appropriate and proportionate to the specific case and who are the recipients thereof, which is forbidden to that Court.

W- The present minutes are composed of two different actions with different values. The respondent G&P is part of an action with a value of € 30,000,01, whereby this is the value of the costs paid by the party whose claim is rejected.

X. The uttered judgment must be maintained in its precise terms, at risk of violating, namely, the
Articles 13°, 20°, 37°, 38° and 42° of the CRP

Articles 5°, 158°and 615° of the CFC (sic, likely CPC)

Articles 334° and 335° of the CC

Article 19° of the Declaration of Human Rights

Article 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights.



2.4. It can be verified that the divergence found in the decisions of the instances consists essentially in the following :


- the first instance found that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral, for having been responsible for the criminal investigation as a member of the PJ, although, meanwhile, he retired, couldn't enjoy full and complete freedom of expression, since the functions he was in charge of  imposed on him, in particular, the reserve duty, wherefore that freedom having to yield to this duty, his conduct was unlawful in virtue of the art. 484°of the CC.

- the second instance took the view that this argumentation could not be upheld, inasmuch "it would be hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed, actually, largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves, (McCanns), in national and international media",   imposing himself to consider...
--------------------------------

What was Isabel D 'playing at'?

Dosen't she know the 'law' in Portugal?

The McS, 'supposedly' 80 'page' appeal, was, imo, 'written' in such a way, to almost be deliberately 'designed', imo, to 'fail', but to 'show' their 'remaining supporters'...... 'hey, look at us, fighting, to save yours and our honour, please donate, to us, in future'

Maybe, MAYBE, her 'litigious' erm, 'employers', will SUE her!

On the other hand, maybe 'our Izzy' had had her 'lick' of the FindMadeleine Fund 'lolly' and didn't 'give a s*it', anymore!

(She's, 'supposedly' already 'lost her friends' and 'people' don't 'talk to me' anymore, what more has she got to lose'?)

jeanmonroe wrote:Page   47.

T. As stated, it was the appellants themselves (McCanns) who, freely and consciously, chose to make public facts that besides cannot be considered from private and family life.
 U. The request for protective injunctions of the appellants' personality rights petitioned are not suitable for the purpose at stake, besides of being illegal.

V. And could only be applied after detailed analysis to verify, case by case, if they are legal, appropriate and proportionate to the specific case and who are the recipients thereof, which is forbidden to that Court.

W- The present minutes are composed of two different actions with different values. The respondent G&P is part of an action with a value of € 30,000,01, whereby this is the value of the costs paid by the party whose claim is rejected.

X. The uttered judgment must be maintained in its precise terms, at risk of violating, namely, the
Articles 13°, 20°, 37°, 38° and 42° of the CRP

Articles 5°, 158°and 615° of the CFC (sic, likely CPC)

Articles 334° and 335° of the CC

Article 19° of the Declaration of Human Rights

Article 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights.



2.4. It can be verified that the divergence found in the decisions of the instances consists essentially in the following :


- the first instance found that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral, for having been responsible for the criminal investigation as a member of the PJ, although, meanwhile, he retired, couldn't enjoy full and complete freedom of expression, since the functions he was in charge of  imposed on him, in particular, the reserve duty, wherefore that freedom having to yield to this duty, his conduct was unlawful in virtue of the art. 484°of the CC.

- the second instance took the view that this argumentation could not be upheld, inasmuch "it would be hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed, actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists (McCanns) themselves, in national and international media",   imposing himself to consider...
--------------------------------

What was Isabel D 'playing at'?

Dosen't she know the 'law' in Portugal?

Maybe, MAYBE, her 'litigious' erm, 'employers', will SUE her!

I think grounds for suing anyone are off the agenda! 

Absolute bonkers if they try to, but at least the newspapers revenue will increase more ...again eh!

AND IN CONCLUSION:




Page 75
Thus we shall have to conclude that, in the present case, prevail the rights of the respondents to freedom of expression and information and to freedom of the press and of the media.

Therefore the judgement under appeal does not deserve censure by excluding the unlawfulness of the respondents' conduct and, consequently, by absolving them of all requests.

Dismissed, accordingly, are the conclusions of the appellants' allegations. We do not reckon that this judgement has violated any legal rule turned into the CRP, but rather we understood, as it results from what has already been discussed, that the interpretation of the norms applicable to this case was made in accordance with the Constitution.

3 - Decision.

Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.
Costs for the appellants

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm#66

Page 66.

That is why it is not surprising that the facts related to that investigation that the respondent refers to in the book, in the interview and in the documentary, are mostly facts that occurred and were documented in this investigation (n°80 of the proven facts).

It should be noted that the understanding defended by the respondent was, also, in almost coincident terms, shared by chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, who wrote the report addressed to the Public Ministry and dated 10/9/7 (n° 9 of the proven facts).

It has to be reckoned yet that the Public Ministry by promoting by the Instruction Judge the obtention of traffic data., alluded to their need for the investigation of the crimes of kidnapping, homicide, exposure or abandonment and concealment of a corpse, the sought to be obtained data were besides connected to the appellants and included not only the date of the facts but also the period they were in Portugal (n°10 of the proven facts).

The defendants constituted as defendants in the criminal investigation (point S of the evidence).

This implies that they have been alleged to have committed crimes or crimes (cf.host by the entity constitutionally in charge of the exercise of the action)

As a matter of fact, the appellants were constituted arguidos (formal suspects) in the same criminal investigation (n°8 of the proven facts).

This implies that emerged a well-founded suspicion they had committed crime or crimes (cf. art. 58° and 59° of the CPP)
.
However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.

So, the 'distraught, desperate' parents, (of an 'abducted' child) and their 'friends' were 'summoned' to take part ('appear') in a 'reconstruction of the events', but, to be blunt, they ALL REFUSED!.

Now what 'parent', in the 'world', would DO 'THAT'?
----------------------------------

Kate McCann:  'whether that involves re-opening the case, (into her 'abducted' daughter, Madeleine)  or NOT, it DOSEN'T MATTER'.

Kate McCann: "It may sound odd, but in some ways WE WERE GLAD THE INVESTIGATION (into their 'abducted' daughter, Madeleine) HAD BEEN CLOSED"

THE VERY 'WORDS' EVERY 'MISSING' CHILD WANTS TO 'HEAR' FROM THEIR 'MOTHER'!

YEP! 'Sounds' VERY 'ODD' INDEED, MRS McCANN! ('Embarrassador' for Missing People 'charity')

Let's hope Madeleine, in her 'secret lair', in one of the 'lawless villages', within a 10km radius of PDL, wasn't watching and 'hearing' her mother saying 'we were glad the investigation (into 'her' disappearance) had been closed' and that 'it didn't matter', to her parents, if 'the ('her') case was re-opened, or not', at that Lisbon 'conference', 23rd September, 2009.

jeanmonroe, as always, for your observations!

Not forgetting that the McCanns had the chance to save the investigation from being shelved in the first place with the cost of a stamp on a letter.

They didn't do that, they let the deadline pass.

As did Granny McCann and Granny Healy and the rest of Maddie's family.