McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

by IAmNotMerylStreep 18.05.15 16:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!
If THIS doesn't explain it to those who don't seem to understand and try and discredit it, then NOTHING will:)
MANY thanks to the person that compiled it for this thread smile emoticon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point One that should not even be debated due to its obvious nature: UK Law applies in the UK , Portuguese Law in Portugal. In fact , our systems are totally different. Also, no law can go against the Portuguese
Constitution, not even an EU Law. In the same manner, all codified law in Portugal cannot go against the Constitution of the Republic. So quite clear, no doubts about this.
Common Law dates to the XII Century and is bases on Secular Courts instituted by Henry II. Common Law is also known as Case Law or Precedent and this also was born with the Judges following eachother's decisions in these secular courts. Common law is prevalent in the UK, US and Common Wealth countries as well as former Colonies not part of Common Wealth.
Civil Law, also known as the Continental System, and applied in mainland Europe, Latin America, former European Colonies , etc. It is based on Roman Law (Ius Civilis , or the law of the citizens of Rome) . Laws and norms are codified and that is the main source of Law. Only when the codes do not predict a certain situation do the courts resource to other sources of Law such as Jurisprudence, Precedent or Equity.
The Civil Law system is based on Roman Law and the first codification was the corpus Iuris civilis or a codification of laws and rules, that system of codified Laws transited to Civil Law models. (Note that ius civilis is the law of the citizens of Rome, non citizens were legislated by ius gentium so not to be confused with civil law in current terms)
Hence each to their own, UK law the UK and Portuguese Law to Portugal. Quite simple.
Point 2: Libel or Defamation in Portuguese Law ,is a criminal Offence as contemplated in article 180 of the penal Code .That is trialed in a criminal Court or in the "Vara Criminal" of the court. Such was the case That Gonçalo Amaral brought against Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer, a Criminal Law suit for defamation, under article 180 of the Penal code.
" Brief introductory note: The hereunder addendum belongs to a process for criminal defamation and vilification against Marcos Aragão Correia filed by Dr. Gonçalo Amaral in April 2008. While this process is at the moment stalled in the Public Ministry, a counter-complaint filed against Dr. Gonçalo Amaral by the psychic lawyer, in October 2008, was urged forward.
The following document is published with the author's permission
JUDICIAL COURT OF FARO
PUBLIC MINISTRY SERVICES
Process 87/08.8JAFAR
1ST SECTION
Mr Prosecutor,
Gonçalo Amaral, the offended party with the capacity to constitute himself as an assistant, and better identified in the files, comes forward to APPEND the following to the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT that was presented against arguido Marcos Aragão, under the rights of petition and of probatory intervention:"
What we have in the current trial , best translated as a Civil Law suit for damages is called in Portuguese "Acção de Processo Comum Ordinário" Object: Ilicit Facts -Civil cour( Factos Ilicitos-( Vara Cível ) " Or more accurately " accão de Condenação com Processo Comum Ordinário. " . In this case the object is Factos Ilicitos.A cause effect relation between the proved Factos Ilicitos and the perceived harm caused must be established in order for damages to be awarded.
In summary Libel , Article 180 of the Penal Code (difamação) or defamation. Generally the party can bring a private criminal action via a lawyer with regards to the crimes of defamation, Calunia or Injuria. .
The McCanns decided not to do that and instead they decided to bring a Civil Law Suit for Damages (acção civil ) . Hence, this is not a libel trial but a private civil law suit for damages.
This is why the case is in a civil court and not in a criminal court. Please see attached the SS of Isabel Duarte's Initial petition to the court and also check the Judge's Verdict and see what court it comes from. A civil first instance court
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by OxfordBloo 18.05.15 19:10

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!
If THIS doesn't explain it to those who don't seem to understand and try and discredit it, then NOTHING will:)
MANY thanks to the person that compiled it for this thread smile emoticon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point One that should not even be debated due to its obvious nature: UK Law applies in the UK , Portuguese Law in Portugal. In fact , our systems are totally different. Also, no law can go against the Portuguese
Constitution, not even an EU Law. In the same manner, all codified law in Portugal cannot go against the Constitution of the Republic. So quite clear, no doubts about this.
Common Law dates to the XII Century and is bases on Secular Courts instituted by Henry II. Common Law is also known as Case Law or Precedent and this also was born with the Judges following eachother's decisions in these secular courts. Common law is prevalent in the UK, US and Common Wealth countries as well as former Colonies not part of Common Wealth.
Civil Law, also known as the Continental System, and applied in mainland Europe, Latin America, former European Colonies , etc. It is based on Roman Law (Ius Civilis , or the law of the citizens of Rome) . Laws and norms are codified and that is the main source of Law. Only when the codes do not predict a certain situation do the courts resource to other sources of Law such as Jurisprudence, Precedent or Equity.
The Civil Law system is based on Roman Law and the first codification was the corpus Iuris civilis or a codification of laws and rules, that system of codified Laws transited to Civil Law models. (Note that ius civilis is the law of the citizens of Rome, non citizens were legislated by ius gentium so not to be confused with civil law in current terms)
Hence each to their own, UK law the UK and Portuguese Law to Portugal. Quite simple.
Point 2: Libel or Defamation in Portuguese Law ,is a criminal Offence as contemplated in article 180 of the penal Code .That is trialed in a criminal Court or in the "Vara Criminal" of the court. Such was the case That Gonçalo Amaral brought against Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer, a Criminal Law suit for defamation, under article 180 of the Penal code.
" Brief introductory note: The hereunder addendum belongs to a process for criminal defamation and vilification against Marcos Aragão Correia filed by Dr. Gonçalo Amaral in April 2008. While this process is at the moment stalled in the Public Ministry, a counter-complaint filed against Dr. Gonçalo Amaral by the psychic lawyer, in October 2008, was urged forward.
The following document is published with the author's permission
JUDICIAL COURT OF FARO
PUBLIC MINISTRY SERVICES
Process 87/08.8JAFAR
1ST SECTION
Mr Prosecutor,
Gonçalo Amaral, the offended party with the capacity to constitute himself as an assistant, and better identified in the files, comes forward to APPEND the following to the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT that was presented against arguido Marcos Aragão, under the rights of petition and of probatory intervention:"
What we have in the current trial , best translated as a Civil Law suit for damages is called in Portuguese "Acção de Processo Comum Ordinário" Object: Ilicit Facts -Civil cour( Factos Ilicitos-( Vara Cível ) " Or more accurately " accão de Condenação com Processo Comum Ordinário. " . In this case the object is Factos Ilicitos.A cause effect relation between the proved Factos Ilicitos and the perceived harm caused must be established in order for damages to be awarded.
In summary Libel , Article 180 of the Penal Code (difamação) or defamation. Generally the party can bring a private criminal action via a lawyer with regards to the crimes of defamation, Calunia or Injuria. .
The McCanns decided not to do that and instead they decided to bring a Civil Law Suit for Damages (acção civil ) . Hence, this is not a libel trial but a private civil law suit for damages.
This is why the case is in a civil court and not in a criminal court. Please see attached the SS of Isabel Duarte's Initial petition to the court and also check the Judge's Verdict and see what court it comes from. A civil first instance court
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In my analysis it is not strictly about defamation as it is described in English Law. The original trial upheld the right of any citizen to state what Amaral stated in his book. It was not defamatory because of the provisions of free speech.

The question before the court was did Amaral transgress the rights of the McCanns in any other way. The court found that neither the publishers nor the TV station were liable in civil law but Amaral was.

Why?

Amaral owed a duty to the state and thus to the McCann's, as an officer of the law to

1/ Keep secret those matters not in the public domain
2/ Maintain the innocence before the law of unconvinced persons.

Unfortunately in his book the Judge pointed out that he had used further information than was published in the Files, and had accused the McCann's of being guilty of an offence under the law.

It is implied if his book was STRICTLY LIMITED to the contents of the files, and he merely noted that the McCann's HAD BEEN SUSPECTED of breaking the law, there would have been no tort.

Unfortunately he was not careful enough to avoid this and hence was found liable under civil law for transgressing the civil rights of the McCann's.

by OxfordBloo 18.05.15 19:12

Unconvicted not unconvinced. Bugged autospell.

by lj 18.05.15 23:17

Hi Oxfordboo

I have tried to work my way through the verdict, but to be honest I doze off every other page. However I can't remember the judge stating what was the information that was not in the PJ files. Did you see anything specifically pointed out? Shouldn't it be pointed out if that was the reason of her verdict?

I have read his book, albeit a translation, so I might have missed the fine details. The impression it made on me is that he develops a theory from all the evidence and information he has (and apparently he has a lot more). So under the presumption that he, as retired PJ officer, still has to hold on to the innocent until proven guilty can't he even publish or out a theory? Isn't innocent until proven guilty much more a legal concept, where at trial they (the prosecutor) has to prove someone is guilty, iso the defendant has to proof his innocence? Otherwise nobody ever can develop a theory about any case, still in limbo or not, without be sued the pants off (well we know that's happening here anyway).
Will they have to impound and burn all books written about cases where there is no or an innocent verdict? Or only those written by former law enforcement officers?

Just some questions of a legal nitwit

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 7:44

lj wrote:Hi Oxfordboo

I have tried to work my way through the verdict, but to be honest I doze off every other page. However I can't remember the judge stating what was the information that was not in the PJ files. Did you see anything specifically pointed out? Shouldn't it be pointed out if that was the reason of her verdict?

I have read his book, albeit a translation, so I might have missed the fine details. The impression it made on me is that he develops a theory from all the evidence and information he has (and apparently he has a lot more). So under the presumption that he, as retired PJ officer, still has to hold on to the innocent until proven guilty can't he even publish or out a theory? Isn't innocent until proven guilty much more a legal concept, where at trial they (the prosecutor) has to prove someone is guilty, iso the defendant has to proof his innocence? Otherwise nobody ever can develop a theory about any case, still in limbo or not, without be sued the pants off (well we know that's happening here anyway).
Will they have to impound and burn all books written about cases where there is no or an innocent verdict? Or only those written by former law enforcement officers?

Just some questions of a legal nitwit

From the Judgement:

Re Amaral not mantaining the Presumption of Innocence:

"In this case, Kate and Gerald McCann never ceased to benefit from presumption of innocence and there is an imperative of behavior that requires the national enforcement and judicial authorities and all its employees and agents to respect that presumption"

Re Amaral using material from hios own experience not in the files:

"There is no doubt that the defendant used his staus as a former coordinator of criminal investigation and that it is through such status that the book, the interview and the documentary are produced - and by editing -. the opinion of television commentators, writers or other summarisers.
But, at least in our view, this cannot confer the same status to mark the limits of freedom of the defendant's expression when compared to ordinary citizens.
Having been in charge of that investigation as part of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although he retired on July 1, 2008, he did not enjoy, on 24 July, the same status as ordinary citizens who were merely aware of the criminal investigation results released on the 21st July, who would retain the right to broad and full freedom of expression.
This freedom was conditioned by necessity (of freedom of speech) and his status imposed special duties ... (on Amaral) ...that continue into retirement, including the duty of confidentiality.
... the defendant claims in the introductory note to the book, the freedom of expression(due to an ordinary citizen.)
This was not the case, and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, he launched the book...."

by Guest 19.05.15 8:27

OxfordBloo wrote: ... the defendant claims in the introductory note to the book, the freedom of expression(due to an ordinary citizen.)
This was not the case, and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, he launched the book...."

I would say the judge is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

This is nonsense.

So... legally... what period of time should he have waited before releasing a book?

There is no law, the judge has made it up.

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 11:20

BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote: ... the defendant claims in the introductory note to the book, the freedom of expression(due to an ordinary citizen.)
This was not the case, and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, he launched the book...."
I would say the judge is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

This is nonsense.

So... legally... what period of time should he have waited before releasing a book?

There is no law, the judge has made it up.

She quotes the law above in her discussion. I do not have the judgement in front of me now but I will quote it when I have it (it is on another computer).

It seems the duty of confidence is permanent as is the duty to maintain innocence.

Give me time to get the quotes.

by Guest 19.05.15 12:30

OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote: ... the defendant claims in the introductory note to the book, the freedom of expression(due to an ordinary citizen.)
This was not the case, and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, he launched the book...."
I would say the judge is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

This is nonsense.

So... legally... what period of time should he have waited before releasing a book?

There is no law, the judge has made it up.
She quotes the law above in her discussion. I do not have the judgement in front of me now but I will quote it when I have it (it is on another computer).

It seems the duty of confidence is permanent as is the duty to maintain innocence.

Give me time to get the quotes.

But surely that is a disciplinary matter and has nothing to do with what the book says or it's affect or not on the claimants?

Anyone could have written the book using the information released to the public.

by **PeterMac** 19.05.15 12:32

BlueBag wrote:
Anyone could have written the book using the information released to the public.

That is what Winters and Goose did. Just copied selected bits out of the files and pretended they had done research and spoken to the people concerned.
Which is why is was a fraud, as well as useless.

by gemmill 19.05.15 12:42

OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote: ... the defendant claims in the introductory note to the book, the freedom of expression(due to an ordinary citizen.)
This was not the case, and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, he launched the book...."
I would say the judge is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

This is nonsense.

So... legally... what period of time should he have waited before releasing a book?

There is no law, the judge has made it up.
She quotes the law above in her discussion. I do not have the judgement in front of me now but I will quote it when I have it (it is on another computer).

It seems the duty of confidence is permanent as is the duty to maintain innocence.

Give me time to get the quotes.

by gemmill 19.05.15 12:44

Looks like Daryl Dixon etc is back as Oxfordbloo.

by Joss 19.05.15 12:57

IF the latest judgement re Goncalo Amaral's damages trial was legal and correct, surely GA would have no case for Appeal?

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 13:11

BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote: ... the defendant claims in the introductory note to the book, the freedom of expression(due to an ordinary citizen.)
This was not the case, and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, he launched the book...."
I would say the judge is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

This is nonsense.

So... legally... what period of time should he have waited before releasing a book?

There is no law, the judge has made it up.
She quotes the law above in her discussion. I do not have the judgement in front of me now but I will quote it when I have it (it is on another computer).

It seems the duty of confidence is permanent as is the duty to maintain innocence.

Give me time to get the quotes.
But surely that is a disciplinary matter and has nothing to do with what the book says or it's affect or not on the claimants?

Anyone could have written the book using the information released to the public.

There are equivalents in English law. Civilly an employer owes a duty of confidentiality to his employer whether informally or formally as part of their contract of employment. This endures beyond the contact period. Criminally a signatory to the Official Secrets Act is responsible for not disclosing information gained in the course of their duties. Also criminally, public servants are required to act fairly in their actions and if found to have not done so, they may be charged with Misconduct in a Public Office.

Imagine the McCann's had abandoned their children in England. The police investigated and presented their case to the CPS who declined to charge and the McCann's were released. Technically they were Not Guilty of any Crime. Then the Detective Inspector in charge retires and writes a book accusing the McCanns of hiding the body of their child and implies that they may be guilty of manslaughter. Not only would the Detective be sued for libel successfully under English law, but be could be charged with Misconduct in Public Office and breaking the Official Secrets Act.

Parallel situation confused by differences in criminal and civil law in two systems of law.

by Joss 19.05.15 13:17

OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote: ... the defendant claims in the introductory note to the book, the freedom of expression(due to an ordinary citizen.)
This was not the case, and the truth is that on July 24, 2008, scant three days after the release of the order for termination of the investigation for lack of proof, he launched the book...."
I would say the judge is scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

This is nonsense.

So... legally... what period of time should he have waited before releasing a book?

There is no law, the judge has made it up.
She quotes the law above in her discussion. I do not have the judgement in front of me now but I will quote it when I have it (it is on another computer).

It seems the duty of confidence is permanent as is the duty to maintain innocence.

Give me time to get the quotes.
But surely that is a disciplinary matter and has nothing to do with what the book says or it's affect or not on the claimants?

Anyone could have written the book using the information released to the public.
There are equivalents in English law. Civilly an employer owes a duty of confidentiality to his employer whether informally or formally as part of their contract of employment. This endures beyond the contact period. Criminally a signatory to the Official Secrets Act is responsible for not disclosing information gained in the course of their duties. Also criminally, public servants are required to act fairly in their actions and if found to have not done so, they may be charged with Misconduct in a Public Office.

Imagine the McCann's had abandoned their children in England. The police investigated and presented their case to the CPS who declined to charge and the McCann's were released. Technically they were Not Guilty of any Crime. Then the Detective Inspector in charge retires and writes a book accusing the McCanns of hiding the body of their child and implies that they may be guilty of manslaughter. Not only would the Detective be sued for libel successfully under English law, but be could be charged with Misconduct in Public Office and breaking the Official Secrets Act.

Parallel situation confused by differences in criminal and civil law in two systems of law.

[color:5db5=000000]Yet, to the Appeals Court of Lisbon, "the contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights. The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are ensured to everyone by the European Convention of Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution" (concerning freedom of expression and information and freedom of press and the media).

We recall that the investigation into Maddie's disappearance was coordinated by Gonçalo Amaral and ended up being archived, without any certainties concerning what happened to the three-year-old child. In the book Maddie – The Truth of the Lie, the former inspector sustains that Maddie died in the apartment where her parents were spending their holidays, in Praia da Luz, probably due to a domestic accident, on the 3rd of May, 2007 – and then the McCann couple, assisted by their friends who where on holidays with them, concealed the cadaver.

And he alleges that he was forced to write the book in order to defend his reputation and to restore his professional honour, given the fact that at a certain point in time, he was removed from the investigation before its conclusion, through a decision from the Judiciária's national directory.

The judges at the Appeals Court in Lisbon compared the book with the archiving dispatch from the investigation into Maddie's disappearance: "We do not find any mention to any facts in the book that are not also in that dispatch. Where the author (Gonçalo Amaral) differs from the Prosecutors that wrote the dispatch is in the logical, police-work-oriented and investigative interpretation of said facts. In that sense, we stand before the exercise of the right of opinion, namely in a domain in which the author is an expert, as he worked as a criminal investigator for 26 years".
[color:5db5=000000]"Concerning the applicants' (the McCann couple's) protection of private life, it is themselves who give multiple interviews and intervene in the media, offering them [the media] information that would otherwise hardly be published" and that "they voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, in order to pursue higher values like the discovery of their daughter’s whereabouts".

Nonetheless, in doing so, "they opened the doors for others to give their opinion about the matter, in accordance to what they were saying, but eventually also in contradiction with their directions, yet always within a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right of opinion and freedom of expression of thought".

The decision was issued by the Appeals judges Francisco Bruto da Costa, Catarina Arelo Mando and António Valente.

[color:5db5=000000][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Joss 19.05.15 13:24

The Case is confidential in England

During the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the British police were "invited" to sign a document of confidentiality that prevents them today from talking about what happened in Portugal or in England, a procedure that is not normal for police in England. "It is normal in cases with the secret services, and that document is signed right at the beginning. Now with normal police, undertaking a criminal investigation, that doesn't happen," said Amaral.

The former coordinator of the Judicial Police of CID in Portimão goes further and notes that it was Stuart Prior, one of the most important officers of the British police sent to Portugal, who said, regarding the evidence collected against the parents of Madeleine, that "he had arrested people in England with much less."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Joss 19.05.15 13:27

So it seems it is BS that a normal police officer is not allowed to discuss a case. And i don't think Goncalo Amaral was in the secret services to my knowledge.

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 14:23

Joss wrote:So it seems it is BS that a normal police officer is not allowed to discuss a case. And i don't think Goncalo Amaral was in the secret services to my knowledge.

Police Officers have to sign the Official Secrets Act, as do most civil servants, even including postmen!

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 14:28

Example of Police being bound by the Official Secrets Act

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Police and intelligence officers who give evidence on an alleged Westminster paedophile ring must be protected from prosecution, two Labour MPs say.
Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk said David Cameron must guarantee officers would not face official secrets charges for aiding an inquiry into the Met Police.
The home secretary said she would not expect such an officer to be charged.
Investigators are looking into claims that the Met covered up abuse because MPs and police officers were involved.
Ministers said assurances had been given that police could give evidence.

Earlier, a former police officer told BBC Newsnight an undercover operation which gathered evidence of child abuse by the late MP Cyril Smith and other public figures was scrapped on the orders of a senior officer.
The former officer said he and his colleagues were ordered to hand over all their evidence and were warned to keep quiet about the investigation or face prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 14:29

Joss wrote:IF the latest judgement re Goncalo Amaral's damages trial was legal and correct, surely GA would have no case for Appeal?

Appeal to the court of second instance is guaranteed on points of law but not on points of agreed fact.

by Joss 19.05.15 15:00

OxfordBloo wrote:Example of Police being bound by the Official Secrets Act

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Police and intelligence officers who give evidence on an alleged Westminster paedophile ring must be protected from prosecution, two Labour MPs say.
Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk said David Cameron must guarantee officers would not face official secrets charges for aiding an inquiry into the Met Police.
The home secretary said she would not expect such an officer to be charged.
Investigators are looking into claims that the Met covered up abuse because MPs and police officers were involved.
Ministers said assurances had been given that police could give evidence.

Earlier, a former police officer told BBC Newsnight an undercover operation which gathered evidence of child abuse by the late MP Cyril Smith and other public figures was scrapped on the orders of a senior officer.
The former officer said he and his colleagues were ordered to hand over all their evidence and were warned to keep quiet about the investigation or face prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

What you are citing is nothing to do with GA's case. I am darn sure that with GA having been a seasoned PJ officer of 26 years experience he would certainly be aware of his stance regarding issues of an investigation into a missing child and in writing his book. If he was sworn to secrecy on the case, which he wasn't, as he states, he was well aware and would not have placed himself at risk. I am more concerned about the judge's decision on the outcome than anything GA did or didn't do. We will see in due course when GA's appeal has been heard and he has exhausted all his judicial options in the matter. I also wish him every success in counter suing the McC's for destroying his life.

by Joss 19.05.15 15:02

OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:IF the latest judgement re Goncalo Amaral's damages trial was legal and correct, surely GA would have no case for Appeal?
Appeal to the court of second instance is guaranteed on points of law but not on points of agreed fact.

What agreed fact?

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 15:32

Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:IF the latest judgement re Goncalo Amaral's damages trial was legal and correct, surely GA would have no case for Appeal?
Appeal to the court of second instance is guaranteed on points of law but not on points of agreed fact.
What agreed fact?

A large part of the judgement is a list if "facts" found by the first court. These are matters of re ord and are not appeallable to the next level. What is appealable is the interpretation of the matters of law.

by Joss 19.05.15 15:42

OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:IF the latest judgement re Goncalo Amaral's damages trial was legal and correct, surely GA would have no case for Appeal?
Appeal to the court of second instance is guaranteed on points of law but not on points of agreed fact.
What agreed fact?

A large part of the judgement is a list if "facts" found by the first court. These are matters of re ord and are not appeallable to the next level. What is appealable is the interpretation of the matters of law.

Could you please provide a link to the portugese laws as to what you state here in that regard, thanks.

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 15:49

Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:IF the latest judgement re Goncalo Amaral's damages trial was legal and correct, surely GA would have no case for Appeal?
Appeal to the court of second instance is guaranteed on points of law but not on points of agreed fact.
What agreed fact?

A large part of the judgement is a list if "facts" found by the first court. These are matters of re ord and are not appeallable to the next level. What is appealable is the interpretation of the matters of law.
Could you please provide a link to the portugese laws as to what you state here in that regard, thanks.

That is what I have been informed by my Portuguese legal source. I added it for illustration. We must wait to find out what grounds of appeal might be cited. Then we will know if appeal is possible on law or fact. My advice I that the judge if the first instance is the arbiter of fact.

by Joss 19.05.15 16:09

OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:IF the latest judgement re Goncalo Amaral's damages trial was legal and correct, surely GA would have no case for Appeal?
Appeal to the court of second instance is guaranteed on points of law but not on points of agreed fact.
What agreed fact?

A large part of the judgement is a list if "facts" found by the first court. These are matters of re ord and are not appeallable to the next level. What is appealable is the interpretation of the matters of law.
Could you please provide a link to the portugese laws as to what you state here in that regard, thanks.

That is what I have been informed by my Portuguese legal source. I added it for illustration. We must wait to find out what grounds of appeal might be cited. Then we will know if appeal is possible on law or fact. My advice I that the judge if the first instance is the arbiter of fact.

Oh, ok.

This from GA's interview post verdict:

Apart from the payment, the court decreed the prohibition of the sale of new editions of the book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court had decided to annul this prohibition back in 2010…

This court has not undone what had been decided by Lisbon’s Appellate Court within the injunction that was filed by the complainants. It should be clarified that the only decision that has, so far, become effective is that of Lisbon’s Appellate Court. That is the only one that is in force, the rest is still subject to appeal and it will take a few years to come into force, while I hope that our superior courts will see this differently from the lower court. This is just the judicial system working, therefore we need to remain calm.

In a more practical manner, I can say that the claimants, the McCanns, haven’t won anything yet, they only lost, namely with the decision from Lisbon’s Appellate Court, which is very clear in stating that the rights that have been violated were mine, that I, within the exercise of freedom of speech, could write the book and practiced no illicit action.

With this prohibition, are you forbidden from emitting an opinion about the case or about the McCann couple?

I am a free man, and like any other citizen in this country, I have the right to express my opinions. I was a Criminal Investigation coordinator, a policeman, and there is no reserve duty, a functional or merely instrumental thing, from the exercise of a profession, that superimposes a fundamental right and freedom of expression. To state that the duty of reserve limits freedom of expression for life, or even during the exercise of the profession of policeman, is to elevate that duty, which is merely administrative, above freedom of expression and fundamental rights, consecrated in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and on the European Convention of Human Rights.

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 16:44

Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
Joss wrote:IF the latest judgement re Goncalo Amaral's damages trial was legal and correct, surely GA would have no case for Appeal?
Appeal to the court of second instance is guaranteed on points of law but not on points of agreed fact.
What agreed fact?

A large part of the judgement is a list if "facts" found by the first court. These are matters of re ord and are not appeallable to the next level. What is appealable is the interpretation of the matters of law.
Could you please provide a link to the portugese laws as to what you state here in that regard, thanks.

That is what I have been informed by my Portuguese legal source. I added it for illustration. We must wait to find out what grounds of appeal might be cited. Then we will know if appeal is possible on law or fact. My advice I that the judge if the first instance is the arbiter of fact.
Oh, ok.

This from GA's interview post verdict:

Apart from the payment, the court decreed the prohibition of the sale of new editions of the book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court had decided to annul this prohibition back in 2010…

This court has not undone what had been decided by Lisbon’s Appellate Court within the injunction that was filed by the complainants. It should be clarified that the only decision that has, so far, become effective is that of Lisbon’s Appellate Court. That is the only one that is in force, the rest is still subject to appeal and it will take a few years to come into force, while I hope that our superior courts will see this differently from the lower court. This is just the judicial system working, therefore we need to remain calm.

In a more practical manner, I can say that the claimants, the McCanns, haven’t won anything yet, they only lost, namely with the decision from Lisbon’s Appellate Court, which is very clear in stating that the rights that have been violated were mine, that I, within the exercise of freedom of speech, could write the book and practiced no illicit action.

With this prohibition, are you forbidden from emitting an opinion about the case or about the McCann couple?

I am a free man, and like any other citizen in this country, I have the right to express my opinions. I was a Criminal Investigation coordinator, a policeman, and there is no reserve duty, a functional or merely instrumental thing, from the exercise of a profession, that superimposes a fundamental right and freedom of expression. To state that the duty of reserve limits freedom of expression for life, or even during the exercise of the profession of policeman, is to elevate that duty, which is merely administrative, above freedom of expression and fundamental rights, consecrated in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and on the European Convention of Human Rights.

It is notable that Amaral has not, since the judgement, repeated his assertion that the McCann's hid Madeleine's body.

by plebgate 19.05.15 17:09

Of course he isn't going to say anything if it is going to appeal?

He will have been advised by his legal team to keep quiet. Surely as you seem to understand the law so well Oxfordbloo, you would have been able to work that out.

Heck, Mrs' lawyer told her not to answer the 48 questions - she listened to them, even though her beautiful little girl had disappeared.

Do you really expect him to repeat anything until this is all over?

Sheesh.

by Joss 19.05.15 17:14

plebgate wrote:Of course he isn't going to say anything if it is going to appeal?

He will have been advised by his legal team to keep quiet. Surely as you seem to understand the law so well Oxfordbloo, you would have been able to work that out.

Heck, Mrs' lawyer told her not to answer the 48 questions - she listened to them, even though her beautiful little girl had disappeared.

Do you really expect him to repeat anything until this is all over?

Sheesh.

Exactly.

by OxfordBloo 19.05.15 17:24

plebgate wrote:Of course he isn't going to say anything if it is going to appeal?

He will have been advised by his legal team to keep quiet. Surely as you seem to understand the law so well Oxfordbloo, you would have been able to work that out.

Heck, Mrs' lawyer told her not to answer the 48 questions - she listened to them, even though her beautiful little girl had disappeared.

Do you really expect him to repeat anything until this is all over?

Sheesh.

That is what I mean. He knows that as the judgement stands, he cannot repeat information gained from his employment, or accuse people of crimes.

Now this may be overturned on appeal, but he is currently abiding by the terms of the judgement.