Goncalo Has Lost the Libel trial

Warhelt (6.45):
‘from the sound of it the Judge has decide that the "right to a good name" trumps the right to freedom of expression.’
 
The judgement makes no sense whatever as, even though the book came out only a few days after the case was archived and the PJ files released (which the judge did not seem to like), the files revealed in their full glory the facts which have been held up against Amaral, and were therefore already in the public domain.
 
Judgement:
‘There will therefore be proven to compensate the damage done within the parameters of paragraph 4 of article 496º of the Civil Code, those who are harmed by the defendant's conduct - the authors Gerald and Kate McCann.
The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of Lesante's fault, the seriousness of the offense and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offense.
The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK.’
 
As the information was already in the public domain, the answer can only be ‘none’ to these criteria, in which case, logically, no damages should have been awarded.
 
However, she has clearly equated the award very much to ‘the value of benefits earned by one with the offense’.
 
It is almost as if she has fined him for what she considers was ‘using privileged information’ as the book had to have been written prior to the archiving date, and therefore Amaral was subject to the Portuguese equivalent of our Official Secrets Act, and this frankly has nothing whatsoever to do with case.

Is anyone selling good quality wristbands ?
Or

" />

Jeanmonroe (1.30):
 
‘istbc, but the 'costs' of the two losing book 'ban' appeal cases, by the McCanns and their three children, were awarded 100% AGAINST the McCann's AND their three children.’
 
I think you are correct Jean in that the costs were awarded against them in full, but payment of these was allowed to be deferred, although I don’t believe we ever saw the actual thinking behind this decision.
 
The judgement says:
 
X. condemn the authors KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and the defendant GONÇALO AMARAL the expense of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for the second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
 
 
XI. Condemn the perpetrators KATE HEALY MARIE McCann, GERALD PATRICK McCann, MADEILENE BETH McCann, Sean Michael McCann and McCann AMELIE EVE and defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA in action the expense attached at the rate of 50%, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
 
I am not convinced that (XI) relates to the original ‘book’ cases, although it may do, but without seeing the ‘expense attached’ we cannot be certain as to what it relates. It could feasibly relate to the costs of the second part of this action, where the 'book ban' and claim against GA, the publishers, DVD producer etc were again brought in and had to be considered by this court.


 
I can’t see how a lesser Court can overall a higher Court ruling on costs (although she appears to have done so as regards the availability of the book). We can only wait and see.
 
Maybe Amaral’s lawyers will spell out what the judgement is actually saying once they have digested it in full. (It’s a dead cert that CM won’t!)

ChippyM wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search."

So they know that whenever OG's investigation ends, it won't have found their daughter.

 
 I think probably the most important thing to them is public perception. What Mitchell said implies that SY, after spending millions of pounds and years cannot solve this mystery, it is as the parents said, almost inexplicable in what they say happened and and will never be solved like the riddle of the sphinx or the mystery of the pyramids. He is also confirming that the Mc's will only use the money for the futile act of continuing the search.

  I believe them when they say the libel trial was never about the money, again the public perception is what they were fighting for. If most of the public glance at a headline and see that Amaral has 'legally' been declared a liar then that is worth more than the money. I'm sure they will enjoy the money and destroying their enemy as a bonus.

I can't disagree with your last paragraph.

Perception.

The problem with Mr Mitchell is that when he is claiming to say nothing he reveals everything.

For myself the word he uses is " silence " as in silencing Mr Amaral and what he reveals in his book.

I originalllythought that Mr Amaral would win his case fairly easily and then maybe a score draw but this
decsion appears on the face of it to be opinion rather than law. Hence the Jurisprudence re: balancing rights.

Because it is opinion ( not fact or law ) then it is appealable I think.

The 3 Judges that ruled in favour of Mr Amaral's rights will ahve to be approached again with the simple question of
whether they will allow their judgement to be overruled by a minor Court.

The same applies to the banning of the book again and the TV Documentary role in the matter.

I think the learned Judge has overstepped her mark. We shall see.

The main thing wasn't the money that's true. It is to try and prevent for public consumption any scintilla of doubt in the UK mind
that another tale may be true and not necessarily tally with the MSM and Operation Granges way of investigating.

The damage vis the parents could not count in the UK as the book was never published in the UK so any amount awarded due to that should not count towards any compensation.

Meanwhile the real story plods on.

How shall we search/find Madeleine?

Opinion only.

Doug D wrote:Warhelt (6.45):
‘from the sound of it the Judge has decide that the "right to a good name" trumps the right to freedom of expression.’
 
The judgement makes no sense whatever as, even though the book came out only a few days after the case was archived and the PJ files released (which the judge did not seem to like), the files revealed in their full glory the facts which have been held up against Amaral, and were therefore already in the public domain.
 
Judgement:
‘There will therefore be proven to compensate the damage done within the parameters of paragraph 4 of article 496º of the Civil Code, those who are harmed by the defendant's conduct - the authors Gerald and Kate McCann.
The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of Lesante's fault, the seriousness of the offense and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offense.
The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK.’
 
As the information was already in the public domain, the answer can only be ‘none’ to these criteria, in which case, logically, no damages should have been awarded.
 
However, she has clearly equated the award very much to ‘the value of benefits earned by one with the offense’.
 
It is almost as if she has fined him for what she considers was ‘using privileged information’ as the book had to have been written prior to the archiving date, and therefore Amaral was subject to the Portuguese equivalent of our Official Secrets Act, and this frankly has nothing whatsoever to do with case.

I'm still not clear what "good name" could have been impugned. Their repeated negligence of their kids directly led to one disappearing in some way. Their name is mud around the world; they are certainly not esteemed by society in general. The damages should have been more symbolic not punitive. It would seem, on the basis of this decision, that anyone repeating (as Amaral did) the contents of the Police files/report would be equally as guilty of defamation. Is the fact that he made money from it determinative? If so, any newspaper or broadcaster quoting the files should runs the risk of being in the dock too. Are the police in Portugal specifically exempt from liability for defamation or are they next in line for the litigation bandwagon?

http://portugalresident.com/amaral-to-appeal-as-portuguese-start-reacting-to-mccanns%E2%80%99-%E2%80%9Clibel-win%E2%80%9D


More from The Portugal Resident which includes the following paragraph.


Sol’s columnist João Pinto Costa write: “Former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral was condemned to pay €500,000 to the parents of Madeleine McCann because of the publication of his book ‘Maddie: The Truth of the Lie’. Finally, we found one person who will not make any money from the disappearance of the English girl.”

Doug D wrote:
It is almost as if she has fined him for what she considers was ‘using privileged information’ as the book had to have been written prior to the archiving date, and therefore Amaral was subject to the Portuguese equivalent of our Official Secrets Act, and this frankly has nothing whatsoever to do with case.

I think so too !
He's being punished simply for having written the book, nothing to do with the case.
I don't understand why the hefty award imposition when the book was never published in English, hence the readership limited to Portuguese language readers.
It's as if the Judge has a personal prejudice and allows it to cloud her judgement.
Their "good name" was already in MUD when they were made "suspects" in their daughter disappearance, with the deeds they were suspected of reported in news globally.
What could be more damaging than that, that sticks in people's mind?

Ask anyone in the street - Have they heard Kate & Gerry were suspected of involvement in M's disappearance vs Have they heard of Amaral's book, it's going to be obvious to which of these questions you will get a positive reply.

Wahrheit wrote:

Doug D wrote:Warhelt (6.45):
‘from the sound of it the Judge has decide that the "right to a good name" trumps the right to freedom of expression.’
 
The judgement makes no sense whatever as, even though the book came out only a few days after the case was archived and the PJ files released (which the judge did not seem to like), the files revealed in their full glory the facts which have been held up against Amaral, and were therefore already in the public domain.
 
Judgement:
‘There will therefore be proven to compensate the damage done within the parameters of paragraph 4 of article 496º of the Civil Code, those who are harmed by the defendant's conduct - the authors Gerald and Kate McCann.
The criterion to be followed in determining the "quantum" of the compensation is equity, should be considered the degree of Lesante's fault, the seriousness of the offense and, because particularly relevant in this case, the value of benefits earned by one with the offense.
The offense committed to the good name of the injured had very wide dissemination (paragraphs 27, 28, 30 and 47), having been the subject of intense media coverage both in Portugal and in the UK.’
 
As the information was already in the public domain, the answer can only be ‘none’ to these criteria, in which case, logically, no damages should have been awarded.
 
However, she has clearly equated the award very much to ‘the value of benefits earned by one with the offense’.
 
It is almost as if she has fined him for what she considers was ‘using privileged information’ as the book had to have been written prior to the archiving date, and therefore Amaral was subject to the Portuguese equivalent of our Official Secrets Act, and this frankly has nothing whatsoever to do with case.

I'm still not clear what "good name" could have been impugned. Their repeated negligence of their kids directly led to one disappearing in some way. Their name is mud around the world; they are certainly not esteemed by society in general. The damages should have been more symbolic not punitive. It would seem, on the basis of this decision, that anyone repeating (as Amaral did) the contents of the Police files/report would be equally as guilty of defamation. Is the fact that he made money from it determinative? If so, any newspaper or broadcaster quoting the files should runs the risk of being in the dock too. Are the police in Portugal specifically exempt from liability for defamation or are they next in line for the litigation bandwagon?

As far as your last sentence goes: as I understand it the fact that Dr. Amaral is a retired police officer, and as such still an officer of the judicial system, was an important factor for the judge. He should have upheld the "innocent until proven guilty". Which is rather ridiculous, imho, since that would prevent anyone that works in or ever worked in the judicial system from developing a theory.

I think within the Portuguese Judicial system there is a lot of infighting going on. Most of it has probably nothing to do with Amaral or Madeleine, but Dr. Amaral is one of the victims thereof. Something like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This verdict might have more to do with a political power struggle than with Dr. Amaral's book.

PeterMac wrote:Is anyone selling good quality wristbands ?
Or

" />

What about a T-shirt imprint "Je Suis Goncalo" ?

" />


(Sorry - it won't do cedillas.)

I notice that TextUSA and Blacksmith have now posted their blog reactions to the verdict. The BS one is not up to the usual standard and appears to be something of a rant against the incompetent Portuguese justice system. TextUSA is far more measured and seems to agree with many of the posts that were made here in the last couple of days. It's worth a read, although I understand that linking to it is not permitted.

The interesting thought that she puts forward is the idea that judge punished Amaral so severely because his book was actually an affront to the Portuguese Justice Ministry. The book says that they should never have shelved the case and he outlines why he believes that. The judge decided to punish him for it (on behalf of the Ministry).

It's an inventive interpretation but, on reflection, not convincing. Firstly, it's a bit pointless to punish him for requesting the case to be reopened when IT ALREADY HAS BEEN...!!! By two police forces. Perhaps that simply intensified the embarrassment?

And secondly, it was the McCanns (via RB and DC) who actually got the case reopened, NOT Amaral at all. To blame (and punish to the tune of 600k) Amaral for something clearly beyond his power or influence just makes no sense.

So we are left with the judge or someone in the Ministry holding a 6 year grudge against Amaral and seizing the opportunity to make him pay? Nah. Not for me.

But TextUSA agrees with us on all the major points. None of it makes sense. There is NO credible explanation or precedent for awarding such a huge sum, NO basis in law for banning the book after that question had been fully settled, and questionable grounds for basing the award on her view of what and when Amaral may or may not write.

She doesn't make the seemingly obvious jump to the fact that TPTB (Black Hats as she calls them) got involved. They have been there from day 1 as we all know, and their intervention in the Lisbon case has been decisive and shocking in equal measure. I wonder if she still believes OG will finish other than with a whitewash? (or "archive" as she calls it).

Bishop Brennan wrote:I notice that TextUSA and Blacksmith have now posted their blog reactions to the verdict.  The BS one is not up to the usual standard and appears to be something of a rant against the incompetent Portuguese justice system.   TextUSA is far more measured and seems to agree with many of the posts that were made here in the last couple of days. It's worth a read, although I understand that linking to it is not permitted.

The interesting thought that she puts forward is the idea that judge punished Amaral so severely because his book was actually an affront to the Portuguese Justice Ministry.  The book says that they should never have shelved the case and he outlines why he believes that.  The judge decided to punish him for it (on behalf of the Ministry).

It's an inventive interpretation but, on reflection, not convincing.  Firstly, it's a bit pointless to punish him for requesting the case to be reopened when IT ALREADY HAS BEEN...!!!  By two police forces.   Perhaps that simply intensified the embarrassment?  

And secondly, it was the McCanns (via RB and DC) who actually got the case reopened, NOT Amaral at all.  To blame (and punish to the tune of 600k) Amaral for something clearly beyond his power or influence just makes no sense.

So we are left with the judge or someone in the Ministry holding a 6 year grudge against Amaral and seizing the opportunity to make him pay?  Nah. Not for me.

But TextUSA agrees with us on all the major points.  None of it makes sense.  There is NO credible explanation or precedent for awarding such a huge sum, NO basis in law for banning the book after that question had been fully settled, and questionable grounds for basing the award on her view of what and when Amaral may or may not write.

She doesn't make the seemingly obvious jump to the fact that TPTB (Black Hats as she calls them) got involved.  They have been there from day 1 as we all know, and their intervention in the Lisbon case has been decisive and shocking in equal measure.  I wonder if she still believes OG will finish other than with a whitewash? (or "archive" as she calls it).  

Just to say that Textusa has made it clear in previous posts that she believes a whitewash is no longer on the cards - but that there are two options left open - 1. Revealing truth 2. archiving the case
I guess it depends on how you interpret the word whitewash. She does not believe that it is now a viable option for them to put the crime down to being an abduction by burglars or inventing a perpetrator etc .
She has made it clear and argued convincingly why in previous posts.

I quite liked Blacksmith's post though... as in ' what's happened as happened - lets move on from that verdict and support Goncalo...'

Publishing the book so close to the archiving date means, in the judge's opinion, that he didn't base it on the released files, he used information gained during the investigation, which was illegal. Additionally, by declaring the parents guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to maintain the innocence of suspects.

Well, OK, but why isn't the Portuguese state prosecuting him for this illegality? Why do Kate & Gerry McCann need a big payout?
And furthermore, if this was the case, why wasn't this issue thrashed out at the original book banning trial and subsequent appeal?

Miraflores wrote:

Publishing the book so close to the archiving date means, in the judge's opinion, that he didn't base it on the released files, he used information gained during the investigation, which was illegal. Additionally, by declaring the parents guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to maintain the innocence of suspects.

Well, OK, but why isn't the Portuguese state prosecuting him for this illegality? Why do Kate & Gerry McCann need a big payout?

Why aren't the McCanns 'suing' the entire police force of Portugal, for 'writing' their final report and publishing it, on DVD.?

The 'report' that GA only 'quoted' from AFTER it had been 'finalised' and 'archived' by the PJ of Portugal.

Maybe they WILL!

G-Unit wrote:As far as I can gather, the book did not harm the search  or hurt the children. Hence no award for them. It did hurt the parents, but this wouldn't have led to a monetary award had Amaral been a private citizen. That's why the other two defendant's don't have to pay, they're not ex-policemen.


Publishing the book so close to the archiving date means, in the judge's opinion, that he didn't base it on the released files, he used information gained during the investigation, which was illegal. Additionally, by declaring the parents guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to maintain the innocence of suspects.

 I think you made a good point. To be fair as I duck, I think if it had been me i would have taken the person to court, for saying i had harmed their child and hidden an accident. I mean who would not have done that really? Whether it is true or not is immaterial. When i read the book i thought it was excellent and made great points, but it was based on that one premise. Mind you not sure i would have had the energy to bother to sue the author i would have spent all mine on looking for my child if I knew I was innocent of these claims, not spend most of it in court rooms et el.

BUT the thing is for me. Was a victory for the McCanns? No it wasnt. They got a 1/4 of what they were originally suing for and dont they have to pay 58 percent of the court costs? If that is the case (and I find it odd Amaral less), that is going to deplete their award straight away.

Non of my family even knew about this guys book, i have it downloaded so going to print it off lol so they can read it.

Will the book only be banned in Europe?

Miraflores wrote:

Publishing the book so close to the archiving date means, in the judge's opinion, that he didn't base it on the released files, he used information gained during the investigation, which was illegal. Additionally, by declaring the parents guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to maintain the innocence of suspects.

Well, OK, but why isn't the Portuguese state prosecuting him for this illegality? Why do Kate & Gerry McCann need a big payout?
And furthermore, if this was the case, why wasn't this issue thrashed out at the original book banning trial and subsequent appeal?

Good questions both, and almost certainly the basis for the appeal.  The more you reflect on the judge's decision, the more unusual it seems.  

As you say, the key issue: Does Amaral have the right to publish at all - or must it fall foul of the "maintain the innocent until proved guilty rule"? That question had already been ruled upon in 3 levels of court. It's extraordinary that the judge did not even refer to it even as she dismissed his right entirely.  

So that leaves only the timing.  Writing down his knowledge and beliefs is certainly not illegal.  Which in turn suggests that sharing the pre-released information (with his publisher / editor) is what makes it illegal?  Even though they would be bound by a confidentiality clause.   At the very best this would be a technicality of the most tenuous kind.

I hope Amaral has a good appeal lawyer.  Fighting a jurisprudence appeal requires a lot work and analysis - effectively writing a detailed and convincing counter-essay to the one supplied by the McCann team + judge. On the plus side, the lion's share of the key issue (Amaral's right to publish at all) is extensively written about by the Appeal judges and all he need do is quote them verbatim!

I suppose the good news is that had he waited longer to publish the book and had he not been a retired police officer there would have been no award to the McCanns. If his lawyers can rebut those two points he may be OK then. 

I know nothing about law, but the judgement seems a little bit unrelated to what was being discussed for five years. Why didn't the judge spot these points earlier? Perhaps she had help. 

On the second point, Amaral was not a police officer when he published the book and the McCanns were not suspects as the case had been archived. I believe (please feel free to correct me) that archiving is not a judicial process, and even if it was Amaral wasn't involved in it. Therefore it might be argued that there was no requirement for him to refrain from accusing the McCanns. The ECHR case law requires those involved in the judicial process to uphold the presumption of innocence of suspects.

G-Unit wrote:I suppose the good news is that had he waited longer to publish the book and had he not been a retired police officer there would have been no award to the McCanns. If his lawyers can rebut those two points he may be OK then. 

But should we not look at it ths way?

'The Truth About A Lie' was published on 24 July 2008.

But the McCanns deliberately decided not to issue their libel/damages writ until late June or early July 2009.  

The McCanns could have issued a writ, and got their ex parte injunction, immediately after the book's publication.

Instead, they waited a year to issue the writ, and they didn't apply for the injunction until September 2009.

Thus the book was allowed to sell over 200,000 copies in Portugal and be translated into and publishd in nine other languages before it was banned.

Thus allowing it to make over 1 million euros in profits - and influence the opinions of millions. 

If the McCanns had not waited one year to sue, there wouldn't be 500,000 euros available for them to grab, courtesy of the Portuguese judge

for a good overview of Portuguese law and the way in which Precedent is not followed as slavishly as it is in a Common law system see

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200

PeterMac wrote:for a good overview of Portuguese law and the way in which Precedent is not followed as slavishly as it is in a Common law system see

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200

Portuguese law has been exposed as a cruel joke in this case:

1. The proceedings began with an ex-parte injunction (i.e. Amaral was not even told it was going to happen) which banned his book, froze his financial assets, and ordered all copies of his book to be impounded. Amaral could not be present; indeed he was sipping coffee in a restaurant when the news came over the radio that his book had been banned

2. The highest courts in Portugal, the Appeal Court, October 2010, and the Supreme Court, March 2011, ruled that under the European Convention on Human Rights, Amaral - who wrote the book substantially to preserve his own reputation as a detective - should be allowed to publish his book. His book was therefore unbanned - and the McCanns ordered to pay the costs of those hearings. Now, four years later, the lower Lisbon Civil No. 1 Court has defied and gone right against those higher court rulings

3. The judges in this case have dragged this case out for an appalling 6 years. Only the lawyers benefit from this, which has now broken all records for the longest-running ever libel trial on the planet   

4. The recent decision of the lower Civil Court is clearly perverse according to the evidence presented to it.

On the International Corruption Index, Portugal comes out as one of the most corrupt countries in the whole of Europe.

This case has proved it

Thanks, PeterMac. It seems appeals are allowed based just on the amount of the award?

8. Appeal

  

[size=14]8.1 Grounds for appeal

[/size]
The general rule is that a party may appeal to the court of second instance (“Tribunal da Relação”) when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR5,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR2,500.01 (Cf. Article 629 of the CPC). The court of second instance decides both on legal and factual issues.
A party may appeal to the Supreme Court when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR30,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR15,000.01.
The Supreme Court only rules on legal issues and, in most cases, cannot revoke the second instance judgment concerning the proven facts.
In most cases the parties cannot move to the Supreme Court if the first and the second instance courts have issued identical decisions with similar grounds.
The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Miraflores wrote:

Publishing the book so close to the archiving date means, in the judge's opinion, that he didn't base it on the released files, he used information gained during the investigation, which was illegal. Additionally, by declaring the parents guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to maintain the innocence of suspects.

Well, OK, but why isn't the Portuguese state prosecuting him for this illegality? Why do Kate & Gerry McCann need a big payout?
And furthermore, if this was the case, why wasn't this issue thrashed out at the original book banning trial and subsequent appeal?

Good questions both, and almost certainly the basis for the appeal.  The more you reflect on the judge's decision, the more unusual it seems.  

As you say, the key issue: Does Amaral have the right to publish at all - or must it fall foul of the "maintain the innocent until proved guilty rule"?  That question had already been ruled upon in 3 levels of court. It's extraordinary that the judge did not even refer to it even as she dismissed his right entirely.  

So that leaves only the timing.  Writing down his knowledge and beliefs is certainly not illegal.  Which in turn suggests that sharing the pre-released information (with his publisher / editor) is what makes it illegal?  Even though they would be bound by a confidentiality clause.   At the very best this would be a technicality of the most tenuous kind.

I hope Amaral has a good appeal lawyer.  Fighting a jurisprudence appeal requires a lot work and analysis - effectively writing a detailed and convincing counter-essay to the one supplied by the McCann team + judge.  On the plus side, the lion's share of the key issue (Amaral's right to publish at all) is extensively written about by the Appeal judges and all he need do is quote them verbatim!  

Maybe the time delay was due to TPTB from UK/ Port. thrashing out how they would bat down any appeals, subsequent legal questions thrown up?  This can't have just been floated out there by some 'lowly' district judge to be torn apart / reversed on appeal?

G-Unit wrote:As far as I can gather, the book did not harm the search  or hurt the children. Hence no award for them. It did hurt the parents, but this wouldn't have led to a monetary award had Amaral been a private citizen. That's why the other two defendant's don't have to pay, they're not ex-policemen.

Publishing the book so close to the archiving date means, in the judge's opinion, that he didn't base it on the released files, he used information gained during the investigation, which was illegal. Additionally, by declaring the parents guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to maintain the innocence of suspects.

But, a judge cannot use "personal opinion" (on an issue she's an anti-stance on) that was never contested nor tried and tested inside her court.  Otherwise what does that say of her and her judgement?

Her remit must be kept to within the boundary of the claims - subject to trial, tests and examinations inside her court.   Her opinion on what Dr Amaral, or what a civil servant, or what the Mcs (for that matter), should or should not have done, or can or cannot do, has absolutely nothing to do with the case.

Kate also wrote a book. A book that slags off the Portuguese State - the PJ, the portuguese system, the investigations and more. They are direct parties in the case (suspects in fact), equally bound by the judiciary secrecy code.  That didn't stop them from the outset using family members and official mouthpiece to feed lies to the media and by extension the public about the investigators and investigations, while themselves also appearing on TV to discuss the investigations.  Not forgetting their clandestine holiday-group meeting in the hotel. Their conducts and activities are all in contravention of judiciary secrecy code.

If judiciary secrecy breach is a consideration issue, then shouldn't this be put on the table for the other side to defend. If the Mcs had filed official complaint on this, then this will fall within the Judge's remit. If that being the case, the complainants' conduct in this regard will also come under scrutiny and be examined in Court.  It's not only par for the course, it is the defendants fundamental right to defend against any allegation.  

If the use of privileged information/breach of secrecy issue is at stake here, then timing of the publication of the book is peripheral. Otherwise does it mean that had he published it later it would then be OK?  Moreover, the Mcs misconduct - their breach of the Secrecy Code happened inside the time of the live investigations - bare face blatant defiance of the secrecy rule. They wont stand up to scrutiny and won't have a leg to stand on.

He did not declare the parents guilt.
It was a theory, taken from files, and the judge concedes the book contains nothing new that was not in the files. The Judge also ruled the book did not hamper the search.

ETA: Like BB pointed out rightly, the more you reflect on the Judge's verdict the more it becomes obvious something is not quite right.

Miraflores wrote:

Publishing the book so close to the archiving date means, in the judge's opinion, that he didn't base it on the released files, he used information gained during the investigation, which was illegal. Additionally, by declaring the parents guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to maintain the innocence of suspects.

Well, OK, but why isn't the Portuguese state prosecuting him for this illegality? Why do Kate & Gerry McCann need a big payout?
And furthermore, if this was the case, why wasn't this issue thrashed out at the original book banning trial and subsequent appeal?

Exactly ! Good points.