Mccann's refused permission to give evidence

parapono wrote:Dear all

Dv I'll be there on Tuesday.
I''ll try to post a concise report about what went on.
As soon as I possibly can. 
I'll find a way to get it translated.

Nothing professional.
Best I can do.

parapono

Thank you Parapono, that's very good to know. Good luck in your quest.

sallypelt wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Montclair wrote:

According to Portuguese law, neither the defendents nor the plaintiffs speak at libel trials and it would have been an exception if the judge had allowed any of them to speak.

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

Didn't the law regarding libel, change in Portugal in July 2013, or sometime around that date, allowing defendant and plaintiff to take the stand?

Only if the judge agrees! This is a civil case not a criminal case and it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case.

Daisy wrote:

parapono wrote:Dear all

Dv I'll be there on Tuesday.
I''ll try to post a concise report about what went on.
As soon as I possibly can. 
I'll find a way to get it translated.

Nothing professional.
Best I can do.

parapono

Thank you Parapono, that's very good to know. Good luck in your quest.

Thank you Daisy

parapono

sallypelt wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:I don't know what to make of the judges decision. Presumably though she has all the relevant information, for instance relating to the withheld Oxley report, and presumably she has been told by SY and the PJ how they view the situation. And she knows what all the previous witnesses have said.

So she's made her decision on those grounds. Sounds to me really as though she just wants the whole trial finished as soon as possible, and because 

1) the information used by Amaral is already in the files
2) because of the lack of publicity (from the McCanns) regarding the Oxley efits
3) because it is impossible to say how much distress (for whatever reason) was caused to the McCanns by each event since MM's disappearance
4) And because Amaral's book has not harmed the search in the sense that he has kept people interested in the case

I suspect the case will go in Amaral's favour

And let's not forget that lawyers do not work for nothing, and with the fund website "updating" how can they be sure they will get paid.

Just a thought!

It is a thought sallypelt, how are they going to pay for everything from now on?

Seems the Judge has heard enough, has had enough.

I wonder what strategy lay behind the Mecs' approach to the ludicrous witness hearings.

This is interesting information:

Vexatious libel litigants in Portugal have little to lose, because:


1. It costs relatively little to bring a criminal libel case in Portugal as it is essentially paid for by the Public Prosecution Service. (Judges themselves who bring libel cases enjoy favourable terms…and are exempt from paying any court costs!)

2. In Britain litigants who bring false actions for libel are ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs and expenses, and if found to have lied are prosecuted for perjury and given a jail sentence. No such consequences hang in the balance in Portugal.

3. Even when the European Court of Human Rights determines that Portugal is in breach of Article 10 governing Freedom of Expres​sion(which it invariably does) and orders the State to reimburse the applicant all fines and damages paid plus expenses incurred, the Portuguese litigant still gets to keep his/her “compensation” as the bill is footed by the Portuguese taxpayer!

There are therefore few deterrents to discourage spurious claims. Hence, libel actions are used as a highly effective intimidatory and persecutory weapon to silence critics, whistle-blowers and consumers alike, leaving the hapless individual who has spoken out with a European Criminal Record and the claimant with a profit! A win-win situation for any malicious litigant.

Unlike in Britain, where it is considered essential that libel cases be determined by a jury, and thus it remains the only civil case still to be decided by twelve members of the public, in Portugal the decision rests at 1st instance with one judge.

The offence of aggravated defamation is an inversion of democracy because it provides for greater punishment where the plaintiff is a judge, public official, lawyer or member of the clergy; insulating from criticism and scrutiny the very people who exercise power over other people’s lives, and therefore need to be subject to greater, not less, scrutiny and accountability.

The only legitimate purpose of libel laws is to protect reputations from unwarranted attack and the dissemination of false statements of fact. A reputation is an objective, definable concept and hence the European Convention refers to the balancing of the rights of freedom of expression and protection of reputation.

In Portugal, criminal libel proceedings can be initiated on the flimsy and totally subjective argument that “one’s honour has been offended”, regardless of the legitimacy of the criticism or the veracity of the statement, and the Portuguese version of Article 10 of the Convention has substituted the word “reputation” for the term

You can read it in full on this link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

suzyjohnson wrote:I don't know what to make of the judges decision. Presumably though she has all the relevant information, for instance relating to the withheld Oxley report, and presumably she has been told by SY and the PJ how they view the situation. And she knows what all the previous witnesses have said.

So she's made her decision on those grounds. Sounds to me really as though she just wants the whole trial finished as soon as possible, and because 

1) the information used by Amaral is already in the files
2) because of the lack of publicity (from the McCanns) regarding the Oxley efits
3) because it is impossible to say how much distress (for whatever reason) was caused to the McCanns by each event since MM's disappearance
4) And because Amaral's book has not harmed the search in the sense that he has kept people interested in the case

I suspect the case will go in Amaral's favour

And of course the fact that most of McCanns witnesses seemed to know everything about the case because 'the McCanns told them'

And of course, the obvious fact, that nobody knows what happened to MM, and on that basis, how can the McCanns be allowed to win a libel trial? For all the judge knows, Amaral might well be right. If the McCanns were awarded £1,000,000, is it likely that that money would ever be recoverable? At the present time there are too many unanswered questions in the case, that may be the main reason the judge has made the decision not to let the McCanns give evidence.

If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)

Châtelaine wrote:If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)

Chatelaine, I assume you mean that the case will go Amaral's way .......?

suzyjohnson wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)

Chatelaine, I assume you mean that the case will go Amaral's way .......?

***
IMO? Absolutely. Cannot see another way ...

Châtelaine wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)

Chatelaine, I assume you mean that the case will go Amaral's way .......?

***
IMO? Absolutely. Cannot see another way ...

 Me neither

Châtelaine wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:If I understood correctly, there's no such thing in Portugal as one MILLION in damages.
Apart from that, this is a civil law case, NOT a criminal.
I have no doubt whatsoever, how next week's outcome will be ... :-)

Chatelaine, I assume you mean that the case will go Amaral's way .......?

***
IMO? Absolutely. Cannot see another way ...

And then they will have attracted major attention (hopefully) to 'issues' they wanted to 'disappear' oh the irony!!

Tony Bennett wrote:Tony Bennett

Montclair,

Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you give us any reliable authority for that please?

It seems contrary to the most basic principles of law and natural justice.

A defendant - as in this case - can be faced with absolutely massive adverse consequences...

...And he cannot speak in his own defence?

Sallypelt

Didn't the law regarding libel, change in Portugal in July 2013, or sometime around that date, allowing defendant and plaintiff to take the stand?

Montclair

Only if the judge agrees! This is a civil case not a criminal case and it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++


REPLY: This is totally bizarre.

Apart from maybe North Korea, Zimbabwe, Somalia and the Central African Republic, where else in the world apart from Portugal is one not allowed, in civil trials, to say anything in one's own defence, or 'only with the judge's permission'?

In this instance I tend to believe that the Judge has refused for one reason only.

And it would be more relevant if we turn our attention away from the odious duo, just for a moment. It could be that she refused THEM in order to refuse AMARAL. The reason for not wanting to hear him is IMO  far more interesting and promising…..   

The McCanns would LIKE to think it's all about them, their importance and right to air their imagined grievances. I'm wondering if this is all taking an intriguing turn.

I don't think there is anything intriguing about this case - now it's actually IN a court of law. It's a libel case in a Portuguese court under Portuguese law.

I believe that the Judge is acting in accordance with Portuguese law - how could she do otherwise?

There is nothing that can stop the legal process. The case is being heard, a judge is presiding and there will be a ruling.

Whoever loses will appeal. That's the way it goes.

There is only one thing that stands out for me and that is should the Mc's lose, how far are TM prepared to go to keep up the litigation and at what financial/personal/emotional cost? Will it be the libel trial of the century? Will it be a never-ending story? How can the ongoing costs of such legal representation be explained? What lawfirm/underwriter would happily continue and not cut their losses/draw a line in the sand?

Just my opinion.

aquila wrote:I don't think there is anything intriguing about this case - now it's actually IN a court of law. It's a libel case in a Portuguese court under Portuguese law.

I believe that the Judge is acting in accordance with Portuguese law - how could she do otherwise?

There is nothing that can stop the legal process. The case is being heard, a judge is presiding and there will be a ruling.

Whoever loses will appeal. That's the way it goes.

There is only one thing that stands out for me and that is should the Mc's lose, how far are TM prepared to go to keep up the litigation and at what financial/personal/emotional cost? Will it be the libel trial of the century? Will it be a never-ending story? How can the ongoing costs of such legal representation be explained? What lawfirm/underwriter would happily continue and not cut their losses/draw a line in the sand?

Just my opinion.

Ask yourself why the Judge will not let Amaral speak in this. This particular case is small fry and has been in the making for 4 years. What has now become more important, and why Amaral cannot speak in this case is because there is the possibility that the JIT will bring something to the Judicial table in due course. Amarals powder needs to be kept dry.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

aquila wrote:I don't think there is anything intriguing about this case - now it's actually IN a court of law. It's a libel case in a Portuguese court under Portuguese law.

I believe that the Judge is acting in accordance with Portuguese law - how could she do otherwise?

There is nothing that can stop the legal process. The case is being heard, a judge is presiding and there will be a ruling.

Whoever loses will appeal. That's the way it goes.

There is only one thing that stands out for me and that is should the Mc's lose, how far are TM prepared to go to keep up the litigation and at what financial/personal/emotional cost? Will it be the libel trial of the century? Will it be a never-ending story? How can the ongoing costs of such legal representation be explained? What lawfirm/underwriter would happily continue and not cut their losses/draw a line in the sand?

Just my opinion.

Ask yourself why the Judge will not let Amaral speak in this. This particular case is small fry and has been in the making for 4 years. What has now become more important, and why Amaral cannot speak in this case is because there is the possibility that the JIT will bring something to the Judicial table in due course. Amarals powder needs to be kept dry.

I understand what you're saying but it's pure speculation on your part.

Of course it is pure speculation, like many things. I am speculating that the McCanns being refused permission to speak may not be very interesting or relevant in the bigger picture at this moment in time. Gerry's disappointment and belief he has the RIGHT to speak, in their DAMAGES claim (not libel IIUC) is IMO neither here nor there.

I read the Court Reports from Anne Guedes as they came in and, from what I can remember, many are correct here. The McCanns and Dr Amaral couldn't 'testify'? under the old rules. The Law changed before the hearing in September, and leading up to that they could have applied to speak. They all opted not to. Then later they did.. Then it was up to the Judge to decide if she needed to hear them in order to make a judgement. It appears she doesn't.

I'm awaiting the last day, and the judgement. I can't remember if there will be more time for that. I think so but not sure.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

And it would be more relevant if we turn our attention away from the McCanns, just for a moment. It could be that she refused THEM in order to refuse AMARAL. The reason for not wanting to hear him is IMO  far more interesting and promising…..    

The McCanns would LIKE to think it's all about them, their importance and right to air their imagined grievances. I'm wondering if this is all taking an intriguing turn.

You could have something there Smoleandmirrors, it may be because of the evidence Amaral would need to give in order to win the case, possibly

My opinion is that the McCanns want to delay the sentence that will be given by the Judge.

marconi wrote:My opinion is that the McCanns want to delay the sentence that will be given by the Judge.

you could be right,but it looks like its not going to happen

tiny wrote:

marconi wrote:My opinion is that the McCanns want to delay the sentence that will be given by the Judge.

you could be right,but it looks like its not going to happen

Oh No, they will be furious.   

plebgate wrote:

tiny wrote:

marconi wrote:My opinion is that the McCanns want to delay the sentence that will be given by the Judge.

you could be right,but it looks like its not going to happen

Oh No, they will be furious.   

Sorry, no sentence on the 7th: the final summings up by all 4 parties involved; then, date set for decision; then decision, probably much later

Madeleine McCann Parents In Court Setback

A request by Madeleine McCann's parents to give evidence at a Portuguese libel trial over a book by a former local police chief has been rejected, according to a family source.

Kate and Gerry McCann are suing Goncalo Amaral over claims he made in The Truth of the Lie, which they say damaged the hunt for their missing daughter and greatly added to their anguish.

The McCanns are also taking legal action against his publisher and the makers of a documentary based on the book.

They had wanted to testify in the court case, which is taking place in Lisbon.

A request by Madeleine McCann's parents to give evidence at a Portuguese libel trial over a book by a former local police chief has been rejected, according to a family source.

Kate and Gerry McCann are suing Goncalo Amaral over claims he made in The Truth of the Lie, which they say damaged the hunt for their missing daughter and greatly added to their anguish.

The McCanns are also taking legal action against his publisher and the makers of a documentary based on the book.

They had wanted to testify in the court case, which is taking place in Lisbon.

Madeleine McCann disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in 2007
Madeleine's mother travelled to Lisbon at the start of the trial, and her husband has attended several times in the hope of being able to give evidence.

Madeleine, who was then nearly four, disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, as her parents dined at a nearby restaurant with friends.

British detectives launched a fresh investigation into the youngster's disappearance in July this year - two years into a review of the case - and made renewed appeals on television in the UK, the Netherlands and in Germany.

After shelving their inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance in 2008, Portuguese authorities said in October that a review had uncovered enough new information to justify reopening it.

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

No burglars, no suspects, just reporting the trial, the've even got a photo of GA

Cherry Blossom wrote:Madeleine McCann Parents In Court Setback

A request by Madeleine McCann's parents to give evidence at a Portuguese libel trial over a book by a former local police chief has been rejected, according to a family source.

Kate and Gerry McCann are suing Goncalo Amaral over claims he made in The Truth of the Lie, which they say damaged the hunt for their missing daughter and greatly added to their anguish.

The McCanns are also taking legal action against his publisher and the makers of a documentary based on the book.

They had wanted to testify in the court case, which is taking place in Lisbon.

A request by Madeleine McCann's parents to give evidence at a Portuguese libel trial over a book by a former local police chief has been rejected, according to a family source.

Kate and Gerry McCann are suing Goncalo Amaral over claims he made in The Truth of the Lie, which they say damaged the hunt for their missing daughter and greatly added to their anguish.

The McCanns are also taking legal action against his publisher and the makers of a documentary based on the book.

They had wanted to testify in the court case, which is taking place in Lisbon.

Madeleine McCann disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in 2007
Madeleine's mother travelled to Lisbon at the start of the trial, and her husband has attended several times in the hope of being able to give evidence.

Madeleine, who was then nearly four, disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, as her parents dined at a nearby restaurant with friends.

British detectives launched a fresh investigation into the youngster's disappearance in July this year - two years into a review of the case - and made renewed appeals on television in the UK, the Netherlands and in Germany.

After shelving their inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance in 2008, Portuguese authorities said in October that a review had uncovered enough new information to justify reopening it.

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

No burglars, no suspects, just reporting the trial, the've even got a photo of GA

An no use of the word 'abducted'

maybe OTH spoke to their boss after all!
That's the most straightforward piece I've seen in a while afaik.

Bellisa wrote:maybe OTH spoke to their boss after all!
That's the most straightforward piece I've seen in a while afaik.

Yes me too Bellisa,

That's right candyfloss, missed that   

suzyjohnson wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

And it would be more relevant if we turn our attention away from the McCanns, just for a moment. It could be that she refused THEM in order to refuse AMARAL. The reason for not wanting to hear him is IMO  far more interesting and promising…..    

The McCanns would LIKE to think it's all about them, their importance and right to air their imagined grievances. I'm wondering if this is all taking an intriguing turn.

You could have something there Smoleandmirrors, it may be because of the evidence Amaral would need to give in order to win the case, possibly

This indeed ! ...It will be most interesting to see Amaral win this libel case WITHOUT delivering his knock-out blow .