Friday, 14 December 2018

Independent Press Standards Organization, a Editor's joke – “The Sun” case




My initial complaint to IPSO, about the story published by “The Sun”:

The Sun” - Headline: "MADDIE HUNT CRISIS - Fund to find Madeline could be wiped out if McCann lose £750k case against cop who claimed they were responsible for daughter’s death” – Subheading - “A FUND set up to help find Madeleine McCann could be wiped out within weeks — by a huge payout to a disgraced cop. Parents Kate and Gerry are fighting to avoid paying £750,000 to the ex-detective who shamefully claimed they were responsible for her death.” (The Sun, September 17th, story signed by Nick Pisa);

In this case, the headline itself is completely false, and the following phrase [“ A FUND set up to help find Madeleine McCann could be wiped out within weeks — by a huge payout to a disgraced cop] is not supported by the text.
The case filled by the McCann couple with the ECHR is against the Portuguese State, not against Mr. Gonçalo Amaral – for a obvious reason, the ECHR only hears applications against Sate Members, never against individuals or groups, so it's impossible for the McCann to have filled a complain against Mr. Amaral.
The Sun” repeats the same false information published by the “Daily Mail”, in the text: “The latest figures show £728,508 is in Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned — mostly from public donations. That could all go if the decision to award Amaral £430,000 is upheld — with the McCann paying costs on top.” The newspaper does not give a date and does not identify the court that has decided to award Mr. Amaral £430,000 of compensation, to be paid by the McCann couplefor a very simple reason, there is no sentence awarded by any court, in any country, with that decision (…) Mr. Amaral made clear, few days after these news were published, that he “did not file any lawsuit or demand any compensation from the McCanns".

PS - I sent a email to “The Sun”, with the news about this statement of Mr. Amaral, but “The Sun” never corrected that false information.

IPSO Executive's decision

You said that the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it gave the misleading impression that the McCanns are issuing proceedings against Mr Amaral in the ECHR. You said that this was inaccurate because “the ECHR only hears applications against Member States, never against individuals or groups”. We noted that the article did not state that the McCanns were taking Mr Amaral to the ECHR. The article stated that “the McCann’s lawyers have now lodged final paperwork” at the ECHR and does not specify who the McCanns are issuing proceedings against. The article was not therefore misleading in the way you suggested, and there was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this point.
You also said that the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it said that the “fund set up to help find Madeleine McCann could be wiped out within weeks”. You said that the headline, alongside the body of the text gave the misleading impression that Mr Amaral had applied for or will be given damages if the McCanns lose their ECHR case. However, you do not appear to dispute that the McCanns won £430,000 as a result of the original libel proceedings; that the McCanns may need to pay the money back if they were to loss their appeal; or that this money would come out of the investigation’s fund. In these circumstances, it was not misleading for the article to suggest that if the McCanns were to lose this appeal the money would come out of the investigation’s fund.
The article does not state or suggest that the ECHR itself would award any money to Mr Amaral, and you did not provide any grounds for considering that it was misleading to state that monies from the fund might have to be given to Mr Amaral as a result of the ECHR case. Your complaint did not therefore raise a possible breach of Clause 1. In any event, it did not appear that you were in any way a party to the litigation, and as such, you were not in a position to dispute this. Were Mr Amaral to dispute that he may monetarily benefit from the outcome of the ECHR case, he would be welcome to complain to IPSO.

My appeal to the Complaints Committee

To the Chairman of IPSO Complaints Committee
Appeal from the Executive's decision about my complaint, concerning the lack of accuracy of the story published by The Sun, September 17th, story signed by Nick Pisa.

Dear Sir,
The Executive's decision about my initial complaint states that I “do not appear to dispute that the McCanns won £430,000 as a result of the original libel proceedings; that the McCanns may need to pay the money back if they were to loss their appeal”. This is a completely false argument, as the McCann never received any money from Mr. Amaral, so they cannot give back something they never received. Almost every British newspaper and TVs referred the decision of the Portuguese Supreme Court, making clear that Mr. Amaral had nothing to pay to the McCanns The McCanns were, indeed, awarded £430,000, to be paid by Mr. Amaral, by a decision of a lower court. But that decision was, later, overruled by the Portuguese Supreme Court.
The Sun” wrote: “The latest figures show £728,508 is in Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned — mostly from public donations. That could all go if the decision to award Amaral £430,000 is upheld — with the McCann paying costs on top.”
So, I consider that the Executive's decision does not address my initial complaint of a lack of accuracy from “The Sun”: how is it possible that a court decision that does not exist could be upheld [by the ECHR] and make the McCanns pay a certain amount of money to Mr. Amaral?
Also, the Executive's decision mentions that the McCanns “may need to pay the money back if they were to lose their appeal” - appeal that is quite clearly, a reference to the case filed by the McCanns with the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR does not have legal competence to accept appeals against any court decision of any State member and does not have legal powers to overrule any decision of a court from a State member. So, it is impossible that the McCanns have filled an appeal with the ECHR against the ruling of Portuguese Supreme Court that decided Mr. Amaral had nothing to pay to the McCann, as compensation. This is explained, also quite clearly, in the official website of the European Court of Human Rights. This is another lack of accuracy from the Executive's decision and also a lack of accuracy of the story published by “The Sun”, that does not explain how it would be possible that, as a result from losing the case filed with the ECHR, the McCanns would have to pay Mr. Amaral a compensation.

Complaints Committee final decision

The Complaints Committee has considered your complaint, the email of 2 November 2018 from IPSO’s Executive notifying you of its view that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code, and your emails of 5 November and 12 November requesting a review of the Executive’s decision. The Committee agreed the following decision:
The Committee agreed that you are a third party to any alleged inaccuracy for the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive and therefore declined to consider your complain further. As such, it declined to re-open your complaint.

Independent Press Standards Organization, a Editor's joke – Daily Mail case


My initial complain, sent to IPSO:

Daily Mail” - Headline: "Public fund to find Madeleine McCann could be WIPED OUT if Kate and Gerry are forced to pay £750,000 to detective who claimed they covered up her death in upcoming court case" – Subheading: If they lose court case set to start in a few weeks they will have to pay £750,000” - ("Daily Mail”, September 1"Daily Mail”, September 18th, story by Charlotte Dean).

The text does not support this headline and the subhead as they refer false and misleading information, when it's written that “Figures show that there is £728,508 left in the pot used to fund the search for Madeleine, which is mostly made up of public donations. However it could be completely wiped out if the decision stands to award Amaral £430,000 as well as paying costs on top.” The newspaper does not give a date and does not identify the court that has decided to award Mr. Amaral £430,000 of compensation, to be paid by the McCann couple – for a very simple reason, there is no sentence awarded by any court, in any country, with that decision, as it is public and was, later, confirmed by Mr. Amaral himself. So, this statement is completely false.
The text also has a contradiction, as it refers, first, that “A fund set up to help find Madeleine McCann could be wiped out if her parents lose a court case [filed with the ECHR] which is due to start in the next few weeks”. A few lines after, it refers that the alleged payment only will take place if Mr. Amaral sues the McCann, as he promised, not if the McCann lose the court case with the ECHR: “If they [the McCann couple] lose the case the pair will be forced to pay Gonçalo Amaral £750,000, after he made a bid to sue them for compensation.” However, as it is public, there is no case in court, either in Portugal or in UK, from Mr. Amaral against the McCann, asking for any compensation.
That was made quite clear, a few days later, by Mr. Amaral, on September 21st, 2018, on a online publication, “Madeleine McCann Disappearance Blog”: "The news published by the Daily Mail and other British newspapers about an alleged lawsuit I have brought against the McCann is completely false. I did not file any lawsuit or demand any compensation from the McCann", Gonçalo Amaral told us, today, after questioned about a story published by that tabloid, saying that the McCann may have to pay him 750,000 pounds for compensation because of a complaint filed by him, wiping out the Fund for the search for Maddie.” But the “Daily Mail” never corrected this false information.
As simple search on Google can reveal, the ECHR only accepts cases against State Members that signed the European Convention of Human Rights and accept the authority of the ECHR: “The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols.” In this case, the defendant is the Portuguese State and, according to the powers and jurisprudence established, in no case at all it is possible, from a legal point of view – and never happened before - that the ECHR has the power to decide that a plaintiff, if he loses the case, will have to pay a compensation to whoever it would be, much less to a third party, Mr. Gonçalo Amaral, who has no direct relation with the case filled with the ECHR.
The case filled with the ECHR is “Gerry and Kate McCann versus the Portuguese State”, as the McCann spokesman, Mr. Clarence Mitchell, made clear, in a recent public statement, when he confirmed that Gerry and Kate McCann “lodged an appeal application”, with the European Court of Human Rights in July of this year.
About the phrase just under the headline [“If they (the McCann couple) lose court case set to start in a few weeks they will have to pay £750,000”], if the McCann lose the case, they will have only to pay the court expenses, as it happens in any court in any country, including in the UK and, of course, the fees of their private lawyers. This statement, also, is not supported in the text. If the McCann win the case, it will be the Portuguese State who will be sentenced and, quite probably, will have to pay a compensation to the McCann couple. In no case at all it is possible, from a legal point of view – and never happened before - that the ECHR has the power to decide that a plaintiff, if he loses the case, will have to pay a compensation to whoever it would be, much less to a third party.

IPSO Executive's decision:

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Public fund to find Madeleine McCann could be WIPED OUT if Kate and Gerry are forced to pay £750,000 to detective who claimed they covered up her death in upcoming court case”, published by Mail Online on 18 September 2018.
On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive staff reviews it to ensure that the issues raised fall within our remit, and represent a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint.
You said that this article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it reported that Mr Amaral could be awarded £430,000 in compensation by the courts if he sues Madeline McCann’s parents. You said that Mr Amaral did not file any lawsuit or make a claim for compensation from the McCann’s, and that legally, the ECHR would have no power to award Mr Amaral compensation in these circumstances.
IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints, we do need to consider the position of the party most closely involved. In this case, the Executive took the view that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Mr Amaral, the legal proceedings which he may or may not be subject to, and any compensation that may arise subsequent to the proceedings. In order to investigate your concerns we would need insight from a first party, and did not consider that you would be able to advise upon any legal proceedings related to Mr Amaral. As such, it would not be possible or appropriate to investigate and publicly rule on your complaint without Mr Amaral’s input and consent, and we declined to consider your complaint further.

Appeal to the Complaints Committee:

Appeal from the Executive's decision about my complain, concerning the lack of accuracy of the story published by "Daily Mail”, September 18th, story by Charlotte Dean.
Dear Sir,
The reply that I had, from the Executive's staff (…) argues that I said, in my initial complain, that the “article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it reported that Mr Amaral could be awarded £430,000 in compensation by the courts if he sues Madeline McCann’s parents”, that “Mr Amaral did not file any lawsuit or make a claim for compensation from the McCann’s, and that legally, the ECHR would have no power to award Mr Amaral compensation in these circumstances.”
a) This is not correct. I didn't considered a lack of accuracy the fact that the newspaper “reported that Mr Amaral could be awarded £430,000 in compensation by the courts if he sues Madeline McCann’s parents.” This is not in my initial complain and it's a distortion of what I wrote. I wrote that the newspaper made a mention about the McCann having to pay 430,000 pounds to Mr. Amaral if a court decision to do that “stands” – a false information, as there is no court decision that awards Mr. Amaral any payment from the McCann.
If you review my initial complain, I think it's clear that the first point I mention, about the lack of accuracy of the story, is the fact that the headline of the Daily Mail - "Public fund to find Madeleine McCann could be WIPED OUT if Kate and Gerry are forced to pay £750,000 to detective who claimed they covered up her death in upcoming court case" - is not supported by the text. The same happens with the sub-heading: If they [Kate and Gerry McCann] lose court case set to start in a few weeks they will have to pay £750,000”. There is no mention, in the text, about the legal reasons why, if the McCann lose the case filled with the European Court of Human Rights, “they will have to pay £750,000” to Mr. Amaral.
b) I mentioned another point, as there are, in the text, two different explanations for another kind of reasons the McCann may have to pay a compensation to Mr. Amaral, but they do not relate with the case filled with ECHR, as the headline mentioned, and those explanations refer not only a different amount of money - £430,000, instead of £750,00 – but also mention that the Fund for search of Madeleine McCann “could be completely wiped out if the decision stands to award Amaral £430,000”. There is no decision from any court that awards to Mr. Amaral the payment of £430,000, from the McCann, as it is public knowledge, and the newspapers does not identify any court case that produced that decision. So, my question, here is very simple: how is it possible that a court decision that does not exist could stand and make the McCann pay a certain amount of money to Mr. Amaral? It seems obvious that the journalist had made a confusion with a decision from a Portuguese lower court to award the McCann a compensation of 430,000 pounds, to be payed by Mr. Amaral, decision that was later overruled by the Portuguese Supreme Court.
c) In a clear contradiction with that previous explanation, the newspapers also writes, in the same story, that the alleged payment only will take place if Mr. Amaral sues the McCann, as he promised, not because the McCann lose the court case with the ECHR: “If they [the McCann couple] lose the case the pair will be forced to pay Gonçalo Amaral £750,000, after he made a bid to sue them for compensation.” Again, there is no explanation about the legal reasons why losing a case filled with the ECHR, by the McCann, against the Portuguese State, could force the McCann to pay a compensation to Mr. Amaral – unless if he sues the McCann, as the newspaper writes, which is not what the headline and sub-headline both refer.
So, I think that not only the headline and sub-headline are not supported by the text, but also the story has false information, about a court decision that does not exist but awards Mr. Amaral 430,000 pounds, to be paid by the McCann. Also, the newspapers has two different and contradictory explanations about why the McCann could have to pay a compensation to Mr. Amaral, wiping out the money that still is in the Fund.
All the story is manipulated and some of the information is distorted and false, in order to create the idea that Mr. Amaral will be responsible for the possibility that the Fund to search for Madeleine could be wiped out of money. There is not even a single mention about the powers and jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which I believe would be fundamental to explain to the readers of the Daily Mail why such situation - "Public fund to find Madeleine McCann could be WIPED OUT if Kate and Gerry are forced to pay £750,000 (...)” to Mr. Amaral, if the McCann “lose court case [filled with the ECHR ] set to start in a few weeks”.
The Executive “took the view that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Mr Amaral, the legal proceedings which he may or may not be subject to, and any compensation that may arise subsequent to the proceedings (…) it would not be possible or appropriate to investigate and publicly rule on your complaint without Mr Amaral’s input and consent, and we declined to consider your complaint further”, refers the decision that was sent to me. This is not acceptable, in my opinion, as the issues of lack of accuracy and false information I raised are not related with any decision that Mr. Amaral may take or not.
Also, the Executive's decision mentions that it does “not consider that you [me, the complainant] would be able to advise upon any legal proceedings related to Mr Amaral.” I can't see any “advise” related to Mr. Amaral in my initial complain. I consider that the Executive's decision, in this subject, making this kind of reference, is doing a clear distortion of the content of my initial complain.

Final decision of the Complaints Committee

The Complaints Committee has considered your complaint, the email of 7 November 2018 from IPSO’s Executive notifying you of its view that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code, and your email of 7 November and 15 November requesting a review of the Executive’s decision. The Committee agreed the following decision:
The Committee revised the Executive’s decision and agreed that you are a third party to any alleged inaccuracy: you do not appear to have any first-hand knowledge of the facts of the case, and as such it would be inappropriate and impractical for IPSO to undertake any investigation without the consent and involvement of those involved. For this reason, the Committee declined to re-open your complaint.

Saturday, 6 October 2018

Who is afraid of the McCann? South Yorkshire Police force, for sure, among many others...


  • Keela, the "no-more-wonder-dog-after-Maddie's investigation", with former South Yorkshire Police Force Chief-Constable, Meredydd Hughes
It took me more than one month to get a reply to three plain, simple and clear journalistic questions I addressed to South Yorkshire Police Force. They just ignored my two first emails. I had to file a request, under the FOI act, to get a reply. They told me I had to “refine” my FOI request, as the subject of any request under that act must be only related to “recorded information”.
So I did it and these are the questions SYPF Information Commissioner's Office accepted and answered, I must say very fast [the day after I refined my questions]:

-------------------------------------------
5 October 2018
Paulo Reis
pjcv.reis@gmail.com
Dear Mr Reis
Freedom of Information Request - Reference No: 20181838

REFINED REQUEST
1. What is the date that the page dedicated to Keela was replaced by a age
progressed picture of Madeleine McCann?

2. Does South Yorkshire Police still use Keela on crime investigations?

RESPONSE
I approached our Corporate Communications team for assistance with your request. A Communications Officer has provided the following response:

1 – We moved to a new website late last year. As a result of this, any old news
stories/webpages no longer exist.

Our formal response to this element of your request is therefore one of ‘no information held’.

2 – Keela is no longer a serving police dog.

The Information Commissioner's Office,

Yours sincerely
Lucy Moore

-------------------------------------------

PS: The answer to the first question is not correct. The content of the page was replaced, first, with a fixed age-progressed picture of Madeleine McCann, and in the last weeks, with pictures of different missing people. This is visible, because the web address of the page still exists: https://www.southyorks.police.uk/kidzone/dogdiary/thisweek.php.

This wouldn't happen if the SYPF website had “moved to a new website late last year” and, as a result of that change, “any old news stories/webpages no longer exist.” If this was the case, the message for that link will be a "404", indicating that a specific Internet address cannot be found [because it does not exist anymore...]

Thursday, 4 October 2018

The English version of Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie", may be published, soon, in UK




After the sentence of the Portuguese Supreme Court that acquitted Gonçalo Amaral and overruled a previous sentence, from a lower level court, banning the sales of the book in Portugal, several British publishers showed interest in printing a English version of “The Truth of the Lie”, for sale in UK and contacted several Portuguese lawyers, in order to have more details about the sentence, sources from the Portuguese legal area told MMDB (Madeleine McCann Disappearance Blog). 
 
We asked Gonçalo Amaral if he had received any contact from any British publisher about a possible publication of “The truth of the Lie” in UK, but he refused to comment. According to our sources, the fact that the sentence of Portuguese Supreme Court quoted the European Convention of Human Rights [which the European Court of Human Rights is in charge of upholding] and made references about rulings of that Court, in cases of conflict between privacy rights and Freedom of Expression, may have been some kind of turning point for those publishers, who see it as a “green light” to go on with a UK edition of “The Truth of the Lie”. 
 
The Portuguese Supreme Court, in its ruling, decided hat there was no defamatory content in Amaral's book, just a factual description of the first 5 months of investigation into Maddie's disappearance, with most facts having been already made public, through the Portuguese Media. Gonçalo Amaral was just exercising his legitimate, legal and fundamental right to Freedom of Expression, as stated in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Portuguese Supreme Court considered.

Those British publishers expect to be taken to court by the McCann, if they go on with the publication but, as one of them mentioned to a Portuguese lawyer, they consider they have another strong defense argument, to add to the sentence of Portuguese Supreme Court: the so-called “Spycatcher Case”, when the British government tried to stop the publication of the memories of Peter Wright, a former M.I.5 agent. The book was published in Australia but the British Government banned it in England. However, “Spycatcher” was on sale on Scotland, as British courts had no jurisdiction there. 
 
The Government also issued “gag orders” to all British newspapers, to avoid the publication of reports, reviews or excerpts of the book. At the time, the prestigious “The Economist” run a blank page with a boxed explanation: 
 
In all but one country, our readers have on this page a review of 'Spycatcher,' a book by an ex-M.I.5-man, Peter Wright. The exception is Britain, where the book, and comment on it, have been banned. For our 420,000 readers there, this page is blank – and the law is an ass.”

The book was cleared for legitimate sale on 1988, when the Law Lords acknowledged that overseas publication meant it contained no secrets, according to Wikipedia. But Wright was barred from receiving royalties from the sale of the book in the United Kingdom. In November 1991, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government had breached the European Convention of Human Rights in gagging its own newspapers.

Saturday, 29 September 2018

“Sky News says nooooo”


One of my preferred sketches of “Little Britain” is the one where a bank client gets some information about a new offer, that included a overdraft of 10 thousand pounds and free travel insurance. “Sounds great”, says the client to the bank clerk, accepting the offer. The bank clerk types in the keyboard, two or three times, looks at the screen and than, with a blank expression in the face, tells the client: “Computer says noooo...”
The same happened with me, in my attempt to get two video-clips of two newscasts from Sky News.
On May 28th I sent a email to the “Sky News Library Sales”, asking them authorization to reproduce two videos that are not available in Internet (and also to get copies of the video-clips) of two newscasts from Andrew Wilson and Martin Brunt, on September 11th and 12th, 2007.
I had a quick answer, next day, from Mr. Matt Reynolds, explaining me that the right to reproduce those videos, for one year, in my blog, would cost me 750 pounds. I send them a detailed indication about the hour and day of the newscasts I was searching for, on June 1st.
In the first newscast, Andrew Wilson said, on September 11th 2007, in front of the Portimão Court building: “Today, the Spanish police sent the files of the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to the magistrate in charge of the case.”
The second newscast was broadcast at 4:00 am of September 12th, 2007, and it was the public confession of Mr. Martin Brunt that his “breaking story” about “Portuguese police” having already the results of the analysis made by Forensic Science Service that showed “three 100% matches of Madeleine McCann DNA”, one of them in a sample taken from the boot of the Renault Scenic, “was burnt out…”
On September 8th, Sky News they sent me the logs of those two clips, to confirm if it was what I wanted. I said no, they were completely wrong, that content did not matched with what I watched on Sky News.
On that same day, Mr. Bill (?), from Sky News and Sport Library Sales, sent me this message:
Yes, I’m sure that your recollection of what you viewed on Sky News is correct but unfortunately we do not have a recording of those moments that you are looking for as at that time we did not keep all 24 hours of our output every day. All we have from those days is what is in the logs we sent unfortunately.”
So, “Little Britain” at its best: “Sky News says nooooo...”

A very, very interesting reading, from a blog of Ben Salmon

Gerry’s records I: Gonçalo Amaral proven right?
"I’m undecided on whether to make this a series, or just a one off blog. As many will be aware I have itemised the entirety of Gerald McCann’s Portuguese call records, as provided by Vodafone in December 2007, to the best extent of my abilities/resources. In the process of doing so I have come across many names, some known, some unknown and some whose relevance I have yet to quantify. The following calls I will present are very much names we know; and perhaps more importantly, are calls which the PJ did not know about at the time (...)"


Tuesday, 25 September 2018

Another probably emotionally unbalanced McCann supporter banging her head against a wall?


The McCann Portuguese lawyers, according to Clarence Mitchell, lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that both the ruling of Portuguese Supreme Court that overthrew the initial decision to ban the book of GA [and froze hiss assets and ordered him to pay 430 thousand pounds of compensation to Madeleine's parents] and the ruling [of the same Supreme Court] that rejected an appeal of the McCann, against that sentence, were a violation of their fundamental Human Rights.

I don't believe that Mr. Carlos Abreu and Rogério Alves are working on this case. They have a brain, they are brilliant lawyers and they are stable persons, from a emotional and psychological point of view. So, who remains as a possible lawyer, in this Case? Mrs. Isabel Duarte, who showed, in the past, with some strange attitudes of persecution of GA, out of courts and far beyond her lawyer duties, that she needed some help and advise from experts. In 2010, for example, on her final allegations of an appeal about an injunction related with the McCann case and GA book, she called defense lawyers “'vultures and vampires”...

It's curious that, the two rulings of Portuguese Supreme Court, acquitting GA and refusing to accept an appeal against that sentence [thanks to Pamalan blog], both quote the European Convention on Human Rights and jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, in similar cases, related with the right to freedom of expression being considered, by someone, to be defamatory or reason for causing damages and asking for a compensation. Some specific information on ECHR about this subject:

1 - Art. 10 on ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) – Freedom of expression


    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”


It's also curious that jurisprudence established in previous rulings of ECHR, about the confrontation between Freedom of Expression and other rights, goes completely against the McCann:

Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. Its conclusion contains the famous phrase that 'Freedom of expression...is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population" (Para. 49 of the judgment).”

Spycatcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer (1987) is a book written by Peter Wright, former MI5 officer and Assistant Director, and co-author Paul Greengrass. It was published first in Australia. Its allegations proved scandalous on publication, but more so because the British Government attempted to ban it, ensuring its profit and notoriety.[1]

The UK government attempted to halt the book's Australian publication. Malcolm Turnbull, later Prime Minister of Australia, represented the publisher that defeated the British government's suppression orders against Spycatcher in Australia in September 1987, and again on appeal in June 1988. The legal costs to the British Government was estimated at £250,000.[4]

Eventually, in 1988, the book was cleared for legitimate sale when the Law Lords acknowledged that overseas publication meant it contained no secrets.[3] However, Wright was barred from receiving royalties from the sale of the book in the United Kingdom. In November 1991, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government had breached the European Convention of Human Rights in gagging its own newspapers.[8][9]

The book has sold more than two million copies.[3] In 1995, Wright died a millionaire from proceeds of his book.[10]

So, it looks like the McCann and Mrs. Isabel Duarte are shooting not their own feet, but their heads, close range, using a double barrel shotgun, with the barrels cut short...