Portuguese media: Gonçalo Amaral to countersue McCann couple
McCann couple at Lisbon Justice Palace, Lusa 2014
According to Expresso newspaper and RTP TV channel, Gonçalo Amaral is going to countersue the McCann couple for "moral and financial losses" connected to the withdrawal of his book 'Maddie, The Truth of the Lie' from the market.
Now is Gonçalo Amaral who wants to sue the McCanns
by Hugo Franco
The Former PJ inspector feels morally and financially harmed by the fact that his book about Maddie's disappearance was withdrawn from the market. The Lisbon Court of Appeals proved him right this Tuesday.
Gonçalo Amaral is going to counterattack after the Lisbon Court of Appeals ruled in his favour in the case against the McCanns. The judges considered that the former PJ Inspector does not have to pay 500,000 euro in damages and has the right to sell the book 'Maddie, The Truth of the Lie', as well as the documentary which was broadcast by TVI, thus overturning the decision of the Civil Court of Lisbon.
The Appeals Court believes that Gonçalo Amaral has exercised his right to opinion, and that he was not obliged to the duty of secrecy due to being retired.
In the book, the author argues that Maddie's parents were involved in the disappearance and concealment of the child's body, thus dismissing the abduction theory.
"We will proceed with a claim for compensation against the McCann couple. These have been years of losses", said Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, the lawyer of the former inspector to Expresso. At stake are the financial damages caused by the prohibition of the sale of Gonçalo Amaral's book following the favourable court decisions for the parents of Madeleine McCann, the English girl who went missing in the Algarve on May 3, 2007.
The defence of Gonçalo Amaral argues that the former inspector feels harmed not only at a monetary level but also morally. And that his good name has been called into question in this case.
Exactly one year ago, the former inspector was ordered to pay 500,000 euro to the parents of Madeleine McCann, for damage caused by the publication of the book. The court of 1st instance established as proven that Gonçalo Amaral's book had caused damages to the McCann couple.
In addition to this payment, the court also declared the ban on the book sale and on new editions of the book, even prohibiting new editions of the DVD, as well as the sale of the copyrights of the book and DVD.
The lawyer of the English family, Isabel Duarte, claimed that the author had used unauthorized and prohibited documents belonging to the process.
This process drags on court for more than six years, with successive postponements of court sessions and one attempt to an out-of-court settlement between the parties, which never came into fruition.
In 2010, in the trial of the book sales ban and of the DVD with the same title, which was produced after the documentary was broadcast on TVI, the court decided to keep out of the market both products that had previously been the target of an injunction asking for their temporary removal.
In October 2010, the Lisbon Court of Appeals overturned the sentence that prohibited the sales of the book and DVD and the English couple appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected to analyse the appeal in March 2011.
Madeleine McCann disappeared when she was four years in the holiday village of Aldeia da Luz, close to Portimão, where the family was on vacation. Kate and Gerry McCann have always maintained the view that Maddie was abducted.
Isabel Duarte said on Tuesday to the Express that the McCann couple have given her instructions to appeal the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Lisbon.
in Expresso, April 19, 2016
Miguel Cruz Rodriguez & Gonçalo Amaral, Lusa 2014
The Court of Appeals overturns the sentence against Gonçalo Amaral
by José Manuel Levy, Cristina Gomes
José Manuel Levy (voice over) - The Lisbon Court of Appeals considered that Gonçalo Amaral acted lawfully when he wrote on the book 'Maddie, The Truth of The Lie' that Madeleine McCann's parents were responsible for her disappearance. Contacted by RTP, the lawyer of the former inspector of the Judiciary Police, considered that Justice was done.
Miguel Cruz Rodriguez (on the phone) - "..of complete satisfaction, a restoration of what is rightful, obviously."
JML - Is Gonçalo Amaral of the opinion that justice was done in this case?
MCR - [unintelligible at start] ".. Of course, he merely published, he expressed an opinion perfectly consistent with previous opinions, including the opinion of our own Judiciary Police."
JML (v. over) - Gonçalo Amaral is therefore absolved in the process that was brought against him by the McCann couple, and is now allowed to express his opinion as well as publishing his book where his version of Maddie's disappearance is presented.
MCR - ".. he couldn't publish, he couldn't edit.. this besides the application for damages of 500.000 euro. Now he can publish, edit, express his opinion, reaffirm his opinion."
JML (v. over) - Following this favourable outcome, Gonçalo Amaral will now sue the McCanns. Contacted by RTP, the couple's lawyer said she received instructions from her clients to appeal against the decision at the Supreme Court of Justice. In turn, Guerra e Paz editors, the book publishers, welcomed the precedence given to the right of freedom of expression and assured the book will return to the Portuguese bookshops within weeks.
in RTP video, April 19, 2016
The Temporary Injunction: Granted on September 9, 2009 (1143/09.0TVLSB)
Lisbon Appeals Court Decision on the McCann Couple Injunction on October 14, 2010
McCann Couple demand Gonçalo Amaral Divorce to be Rewarded
McCanns Want Amaral's Family Home
McCann couple demands books to be fully destroyed
McCanns appeal to the Supreme Court to forbid Gonçalo Amaral’s book
Supreme Court turns down McCanns' request
McCann Case: Judge orders the immediate return of Gonçalo Amaral's Book
Gonçalo Amaral's book “contained nothing new, nothing that it wasn't published before”
McCanns v. Gonçalo Amaral 2013 - court reports
Trial timeline 2009/16
Gonçalo Amaral - Sick and Bankrupt
Proven Facts in the Civil Trial, January 21, 2015
Conclusions of the Appellate Court's Decision, April 19, 2016