In very concise terms and forgive me for any imprecision.
Mr and Mrs McCann brought a law suit for damages against Mr Gonçalo Amaral, his publishers and a newspaper. They claimed that Mr Amaral’s book caused them distress and it harmed their good name. They required 1.2 million Euros in damages and the banning of the book and documentary.
The First Instance Court Case took a long time and the decision was partially in favour of the McCanns. We say partially because the judge decided to only consider Mr and Mrs McCann as parties and did not award the 850K to their 3 children. The judge ordered that GA and the other parties would pay 500K to the McCanns. The judge also decided on banning the book and the DVD.
The reasoning: The Judge decided there was a conflict of rights Ç Freedom of expression (GA) and the right to a good name (McCanns). The judge decided for the right to a good name based on the fact that it considered that Mr Amaral had breached a duty of reserve while writing the book since he was a retired detective and still had a link to the PJ.
Mr Amaral appealed to the Relaçao Court and won. The collective of judges decided that freedom of expression would win.
The McCanns appealed to the Supreme Court. In their appeal they invoked that they were entitled to benefit from the presumption of innocence and that the archival dispatch had cleared them.
The Collective of judges decided that the archival dispatch does not clear them or innocent them as indeed it does not say they are guilty. In other words, the appellants could not claim they had been exonerated /cleared by the archival dispatch. At the same time the judges refer and well that their presumption of innocence was not affected. As a note, the presumption of innocence assists any suspect in a criminal /penal process. This is, naturally, a civil law suit for damages, judged and appealed in a civil court and it bears no effects on the Appellants’ guilt or innocence. In other words they benefit from the presumption of innocence, as do all arguidos but they cannot claim that the archival dispatch has declared them innocent.
The Appellants lost the appeal and submitted a request for annulment based on a technicality . That the Archival dispatch had been done with basis of Penal Process Code article 277.º, no.1, and that the Supreme Court's ruling states they were not exonerated within the no.2 of that same article. They ignored the whole reasoning behind both the archival dispatch and behind the Supreme court Decision. The request for annulment was today...INDEFERIDO. REJECTED: GA won, his patrimony will be freed and his book still free to go on the shelves.
The appelants (McCanns) will have to pay judicial costs (court and lawyers fees) . I would like to stress that Mr Amaral does not get one Cent from the McCanns. He may get some of his own lawyers costs refunded but that is not clear yet. What he does get, he gets his life and his assets that were frozen back.
You can check the whole process on the
PJGA link below:
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
Courtesy of Helen Kirsty Antcliff @
HiDeHoCONTROVERSYofMadeleineMcCann
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
McCann’s “frivolity” complaint rejected. Gonçalo Amaral’s ‘libel win’ confirmed for 3rd time
Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on March 21, 2017
This may be the end of the line for the long-running civil case taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann to ‘silence’ their bête-noir, former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral.
After all the hullaballoo and recriminations filling UK tabloids, Supreme court judge Dr Jorge Manuel Roque Nogueira has rejected the complaint lodged by Kate and Gerry McCann over what they considered a frivolous decision by fellow judges to uphold Gonçalo Amaral’s right to freedom of expression, sanctioning the intrinsic legality of his damning thesis ‘Maddie: the Truth of the Lie’.
Roque Nogueira’s decision, taken earlier today and published in PDF format online, means that Amaral has won the case for the third and possibly final time.
There is no higher court in Portugal to which the McCanns can take this fight - and the grounds for appeal to the European Court of Human Rights are “highly dubious”, said a source, particularly as Supreme Court judges referred to tenets set out by the ECHR in their 75-page deliberation.
For Amaral who has remained silent through this last tense stand-off over the Supreme Court ruling in January, the decision today means that finally his assets and property should be ‘unfrozen’, allowing him to return to the full control of his life.
As blogwriter Joana Morais has commented, Roque Nogueira’s decision came “sooner than we expected” and was “no doubt due to the weaknesses of the reasoning presented in the request for annulment of the Supreme Court’s ruling”.
For now, there has been no reaction from either the McCanns in UK, or their Portuguese legal team over here.
UK tabloids appear not yet to have the news.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
PORTUGAL PRESS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)