Madeleine suspect to sue media/Murat

suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is to sue 11 leading British newspapers and one TV station over allegedly libellous stories.

London-based law firm Simons Muirhead & Burton said it was representing Robert Murat against Sky, the Sun and others.

The 34-year-old Briton, who lives near the Algarve holiday apartment from which Madeleine went missing, denies any involvement in her disappearance.

Reports suggest the action could lead to a record payout of more than £2m.

Villa searched
In a statement, the solicitors, who are specialists in media litigation, said they were taking action against Sky, the Sun, the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star and the Daily Mail.
They also listed the Evening Standard, the Metro, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the News of the World and the Scotsman.

Media lawyer Caroline Kean of media law specialists Wiggin told the Observer newspaper that if Mr Murat successfully argued the papers implied he was involved in Madeleine's abduction or murder, he could win a record payout.
"You could expect £200,000 per paper, per claim, and that would clear £2m," she told the paper.
Joshua Rozenberg, legal editor of the Daily Telegraph, which is not being sued, told the BBC the papers will try to prove that what they printed was true.
"The newspapers will now be making their own investigations to see if they can find more information about Mr Murat in order to justify the allegations they printed," he said.
"So they may well be digging around in Portugal to see what they can find out."
Mr Murat was questioned by police 11 days after Madeleine went missing from the Praia da Luz resort on 3 May last year, before being made a formal suspect - or Arguido.
Police searched the villa where he lived with his mother after Sunday Mirror journalist Lori Campbell spoke to the British Embassy and the police about Mr Murat.
The British expatriate, who described himself as half-Portuguese, had become known to journalists and told them he had been helping police with translation work during the search.

Damages
Later, Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were also named as official suspects in the case.
Under Portuguese law someone can remain an official suspect without charge for as long as the investigation is continuing.
Last month, Mr Murat said he hoped the return of his computers signalled police were to drop his status as a formal suspect soon.
His mother, Jenny Murat, has always maintained she was with her son on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
Last month Kate and Gerry McCann won a libel settlement and apology from Express Newspapers for suggesting they were involved in their daughter's disappearance.
The newspaper group paid the couple £550,000 in damages.
***************************************************************************
Very interesting....

If Robert Murat sues the newspapers both in Britain and Portugal then surely the McCann’s should sue the Portuguese Newspapers & perhaps certain people who have spoke out against them on TV. For example the person who said K&G were swingers & leaked statement - people who have written books and people who have used Maddie's photo to sell their product (German Company). They should take the money and put it towards finding Maddie. In my opinion far worse has been written about the McCann’s than Murat.

The good thing about suing is that the newspapers will need to investigate which should lead to the source – it will be interesting to see who is behind a lot of these stories which has caused great pain and suffering.

The sickest thing about this is that the abductor/s will get off on this. :twisted:

Justice for Maddie and McCann's..

Thats right madz ...im not sure but I think it was a German magasine that put Madeleine's picture on household products such as bleach suggesting that its a very powerful product and can remove any substance(blood etc) sickening really when you see this and and at the same time have knowledge that this little girl could very well be being mistreated out there somewhere. The most bizarre thing about all this sickness is also that its put out there for the whole world to see by other adults!!Children are usually the first to pick up on something and turn it into some sort of deluded joke however I must say I have only ever seen an adult mock this little girls plight...its a disgrace.
I remember watching a news report with the editor of this magasine explaining the reasons behind their twisted logos and he replied it was a harmless joke??????
Might very well be a harmless joke to him.... however to others.... having a mockery made of their personal situations is not funny and causes a lot of hurt. :(

Another thing that annoys me about these papers is this.......if I was an editor of a paper and allowed a story to be published about such a sensitive issue then later found out it was untrue and could have caused hurt to someone I would be devastated.I would be the first one to call this family without being prompted by their solicitor and apologise ...offering some sort of compensation.I would feel terribly upset that I had added to someones heartache. Sometimes when a paper gets hold of a story that appears true its printed getting out of hand and allowing problems for another person to escalate...
I cannot fathom why an editor would learn that their paper as caused such a problem but does nothing about it.Infact the only time they did do anything was when the mccanns decided to sue???Why would a person do that...do they not have a heart??? Granted that no one wants to be sewed but if you have printed (for the whole world to see) an untruth about someones tragic story causing them hurt then surly you would feel some sort of sadness for the part you played in that??

hmmmmmmmmmm a weird old world isn't it?

Murat takes to court three Portuguese newspapers and two TV channels
Robert Murat will take legal action against three Portuguese dailies - Correio da Manhã, Jornal de Notícias, 24 Horas - and two TV channels – RTP and TVI, according his lawyer, Mr. Pagarete. The first two daily newspapers will be prosecuted for defamation and invasion of privacy. These two cases are classified as crime cases and, if there is a trial and he wins, the editor and the journalist who wrote the story can be sentenced to prison (usually, a suspended sentence, with the jail time being replaced by a daily fine) and could also have to pay an indemnification.

24 Horas, RTP and TVI will be prosecuted only for damages to his reputation and loss of earnings, on what is referred as a civil case, a non-criminal lawsuit. Mr. Pagarete regretted the fact that he couldn't take a criminal action against 24 Horas because more then six months have passed, after the publication of the news that Robert Murat considers seriously harmed his reputation, and a criminal case should have been launched before the end of that period of time.

Mr Pagarete said that he is also preparing a case against the Portuguese State and against “some persons that made statements, as having witnessed things that are not truth”. Several witnesses told Police and, later, the British Media, that they saw Robert Murat near the McCann's apartment, at the Ocean Club, the night Madeleine McCann disappeared. Murat always said that he was at home, with his mother.

Posted by Paulo Reis at 02:47:00 0 comments

That one I can hardly wait for. To successully sue a witness for making a statement, surely he must prove that the witness purposefully made a false and misleading statement. Now, if a witness truly believes it was him, and it wasnt, that is just a mistaken identity, it doesnt mean that harm was intended. Therefore no case. And how can he prove they made false witness. I cannot beleive that such an action can be taken, ie mean suing a witness. Slander law cannot apply because it must be proven that they knew it to be decietful. I would think that such a thing would be a criminal offence only, being the one we all know as perverting the course of justice, if indeed it could be proven.

I am very interested in what others think on this. Any comments.

I totally agree Diane. It goes against logic. If it were possible to be sued on the basis of what may OR MAY NOT be a mistake, nobody would ever come forward as witnesses to anything and Crimewatch-type programmes would fold. Pagarete would have to find PROOF that all those witnesses who claimed to have seen Murat conspired together to discredit him (goodness, that would be a lot of disparate people who suddenly became friends and co-conspirators!).

Pagarete is always shooting his mouth off in a most unprofessional way. I think this is another example of all wind and no substance. Maybe his role models are the PJ?

tulip wrote:I totally agree Diane. It goes against logic. If it were possible to be sued on the basis of what may OR MAY NOT be a mistake, nobody would ever come forward as witnesses to anything and Crimewatch-type programmes would fold. Pagarete would have to find PROOF that all those witnesses who claimed to have seen Murat conspired together to discredit him (goodness, that would be a lot of disparate people who suddenly became friends and co-conspirators!).

Pagarete is always shooting his mouth off in a most unprofessional way. I think this is another example of all wind and no substance. Maybe his role models are the PJ?

Bring it on I say, don't seem to get many things right do they, wonder how easy it is to get a degree in Portugal? Bet the 'witnesses' are quivering in their boots, NOT. :bounce:

Knew that Max Clifford wouldn't stop with the British Newspapers and why should he? I'm sure that the Mccanns have similar libel proceedings pending against those Portuguese newspapers.

Robert Murat has been given £600,000 in libel damages by media outlets who made false accusations against him in the wake of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Mr Murat, 34, launched the libel action after dozens of stories implicated him in the disappearance of the four-year-old, who vanished last May from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.

Outside the High Court today, he said: “The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter destruction of mine and my family’s life and caused immense distress. I can now start to rebuild my life.”

The Algarve-based property consultant was at London’s High Court to hear his solicitor, Louis Charalambous, tell Mr Justice Eady that it was now acknowledged that the allegations against him were entirely untrue.

Mr Charalambous said the newspaper journalists and their editors had acted “with a reckless disregard for the truth”.

His lawyers brought proceedings against Associated Newspapers, Express Newspapers, MGN Limited and News Group Newspapers over nearly 100 “seriously defamatory” articles.

Today Mr Murat said that he felt “vindicated” after the newspapers made a formal apology for the stories, which he described as “devastating”.

Mr Murat was named a formal suspect, or 'arguido,' by Portuguese police during their investigation, but officers completed their inquiries at the start of this month without charging anyone.

He was questioned by police 11 days after Madeleine went missing on May 3, 2007. Police searched the villa near the McCann's holiday apartment where he lived with his mother after a journalist spoke to the British Embassy and the police about him. He said today that he would continue to live in the apartment.

Journalists met Mr Murat while dozens of members of the British media were in Praia da Luz in the wake of Madeleine’s disappearance. He told them he had been helping police with translation work during the search.

Last month, Mr Murat said that his computers had been returned to him by the police, which he hoped would signal the end of his arguido status.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4350087.ece

Apparently Murat's lawyer 'Mr Pagarete, is making some kind of veiled attempts trying to sue witnesses, for informing the police about what they say they saw. He needs to be very sure of his client to do this, it is my bet that no such action will be brought, not least because even in Portugal, this has to be a totally barking mad thing to do.

If such an action was brought, this would send out a really bad message to anyone who sees anything, they would not want to talk to police about what they saw for fear of being sued. It is hard enough to get witnesses to come forward, without actions like this.

To date I think there are around 12 witnesses that say they saw Murat, that is an awful lot of court cases and they cannot sue one group without the other.

Now do you think this sheds any light on why the witness who Kate was begging on the phone the other week was so reluctant to speak further about what he thinks he saw? Isn't there a law against witness intimidation? not saying that this is the case here, of course I am not, but it is a bit odd how this has transpired and now this.

I would imagine the only time you can sue a witness would be in the case of someone who made a deliberate false statement and why would 12 people make deliberate false statements?

For such a court case to be brought, I would say that Mr Murat needs more than just the testimony of his mother to confirm his where abouts!

Also would not the legal teams of any witnesses taken to court to be sued over this matter, be within their rights to question the 3 alibis Mr Murat has said to have given to the police about his where abouts that evening? Surely, this would also involve the PJ be taken to to court too?

Would not a legal team put this to a jury? I would also think that all the other witnesses that gave their statements that night would have to appear in court to testify that they too thought they saw Mr Murat in that place at around that time? Even if they did not want to, they would be be subpoenaed to appear.

I think that any such action could cause Mr Murat a considerable amount of embarrassment and it is hard to see that any legal team working in the best interests of their client would recommend such an action!

If all Mr Murat wants to do is to be allowed to get on with his life, it is hard to see how the above action could allow him to do this, as any amount of statements about him would be read out in court and this would also give the lawyers of those he ultimately accuses sanction to go delving into Mr Murat's past.

It is not clear which witnesses Murat's lawyer is referring to, but hazarding a guess, I don't think these will roll over and settle out of court, not least because they will get their day in court to actually challenge Murat and it will be the Portuguese Policia Judiciaria that will also be dragged into this action and that will not exactly make Robert Murat flavour of the month in Portugal, would it?

Personally I hope this is not all bluff and bluster from Murat's emotional lawyer, I hope they do bring such an action, it will be extremely interesting to see the outcome and I feel the action would take more than he was awarded in damages yesterday to bring!

If I were reading a book and such a thing was in the plot, it would make me wonder if people were not sending out a subliminal message to others 'not to think of talking' because look what can happen if you do! Hypothetically speaking of course.

Barking mad, yes. This man has had a flapping mouth throughout this whole affair. Imo he talks rubbish. As you say, how can he possibly sue witnesses, for all the reasons you mention. His is over-emotional and unpleasant.

Im not sure he can do this anyways....Dont know mind you........But I think when a witness makes a statement they make it on the grounds that its what they believe to be true etc. You cant sue someone unless you can prove they deliberately made up what they are saying. And you cant prove that because your not in the persons mind.If some one deliberately made up what they saw the only one who would know that would be the actual witness in question...hmmmmm not sure i could be wrong but thats how i understand it.

Come on get real….!!

I think it’s a great idea! He should challenge these people who say they saw Murat and get to the bottom of it once and for all and stop the speculations surrounding this! This will help the investigation won’t it? However I doubt very much one can do this - nice idea though!!

Can't see him doing this can you? Personally I think it would be the thing to do, get it all in court and then everyone would be privy to the information the PJ have been trying desperately to keep secret, by virtue of their secrecy laws.

If you cast your mind back to the DX days, I said then that no decision on this would be undertaken until the holiday season had passed and by such time the PJ and the Portuguese authorities would be hoping that all this would have calmed down and slipped into the ether and they would be able to get away with their announcements with a few small paragraphs in the papers and that would be it, over - no chance!

We are still here and I for one intend to always be still here until Madeleine is returned home to her parents and her family, or her parents and the world learns exactly what happened to Madeleine, May 3rd 2007, Praia Da Luz, The Algarve, Portugal. Secrecy order or no secrecy order.

PJ can forget it, they may as well get it over with now.

Following on from Murat's lawyer threatening to sue witnesses, excuse me while I do this

I have just got this post off of ST's, I hope Mark doesn't mind me bringing it here but it is classic! Well said Mark.

mark55 said...
Viv has just decided thar her blog "justice for Madeleine" may actually prevent justice for Madeleine .How bizarre is that .As I have said before I think we will see a descent into an acute phychosis . Using this reasoning gonc has done the most damage to the prosecution case with his leaks . What an operator .

As for Murat suing one of the tapas ,absurd .
Can you imagine watching Crimewatch , the appeal....if you have any information , however small , please check with your solicitor first before phoning us as you may eventually be sued ...

16 July 2008 18:44

Max Clifford has written a letter to PRWeek expressing his disappointment in the actions of Robert Murat, the man implicated in the Madeleine McCann disappearance.



Clifford said he was disappointed in Murat using his lawyers' PR agency (The PR Office), when he had previously advised the Briton for free. The PR Office said Murat had 'changed strategy'.

Murat yesterday received a substantial payout, of around £600,000, from the British press which had made various unfounded accusations towards him. As yet, Murat has not been found guilty of any charges related to Madeleine's disappearance.

The PR Office was brought in to handle the Murat case against various British newspapers.

Here Clifford's statement follows in full:

'Last summer, when his arguido status was put in place by the Portuguese authorities, it signalled the start of a character assassination of Robert Murat by sections of the Portuguese and British media. I was approached by Robert's family who claimed that Robert and they were having their lives destroyed by this coverage and desperately sought my help.

I totally sympathised with them and agreed to help them just as I have helped many others when facing the worst excesses of the British media. They made it clear that neither Robert nor themselves could afford to pay me and that it was impossible for Robert to work. Nevertheless, I agreed to do whatever I could to help their plight whilst explaining that because of Robert's arguido status I was unable to officially represent him.

Together with Nicola Phillips from my office, I spent a huge amount of time and effort over many months talking to Robert and his Aunt Sally, often late at night and doing everything possible to help them and stop the unjustifiable media onslaught.

So you can imagine this week how I felt when Robert admitted to me he was paying a PR firm that he had been introduced to by his legal team. Having worked free of charge and in the words of Robert and his Aunt Sally, "been both wonderfully supportive and successful", I was not happy.

In spite of this I am very pleased with what we at MCA did for Robert and his family, as many of the things written about him without so much as a shred of evidence were totally disgusting.

Robert continues to have a huge battle on his hands to clear his name and to get his life back on track and I wish him and his family every success in achieving this.

For now, I'll concentrate my time on my many appreciative paying clients and my continued battle with prostate cancer.'

In response PR Office founder Shimon Cohen said his agency was 'engaged by [Murat's legal team] Simons Muirhead & Burton to provide litigation PR support for yesterday's hearing'.

'The change of circumstances in this case brought about a change of strategy,' he continued. 'Max Clifford Associates was advised by Simons Muirhead & Burton in a timely and appropriate manner that their services were not required this week, during the days leading up to the Statement in Open Court or in the immediate aftermath.'

http://www.prweek.com/uk/home/article/832833/Clifford-not-happy-Robert-Murat-no-longer-advising-arguido-suspect/
Please Continue to Pray for the Safe Return of Madeleine & All Our Missing Children
http://dontletthemhurtourchildren.blogspot.com

Yesterday we and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about Mr Murat, Ms Walczuch and Mr Malinka in connection with the di sappearance of Madeleine McCann.

We had wrongly suggested in a number of articles that Mr Murat and Ms Walczuch were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann; that Mr Murat and Ms Walczuch had lied to the police and obstructed their investigation; that Mr Murat was a paedophile who used his computer to access depraved sexual material; that Mr Murat and Ms Walczuch might be part of a paedophile ring; and that Mr Malinka had convictions for sex offences and had lied about his acquaintance with Mr Murat.

We accepted in court that these allegations were untrue and that none of these individuals had any involvement in Madeleine's abduction. In recognition of the distress caused, we have agreed to pay substantial damages to each of the claimants plus their legal costs.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/18/robert-murat-michaela-walczuch-sergey-malinka-89520-20653177/
Please Continue to Pray for the Safe Return of Madeleine & All Our Missing Children
http://dontletthemhurtourchildren.blogspot.com

Hope you like the posts
This was My Favourite ...

He's not cleared yet, but a £500,000 (or thereabouts) libel settlement and apologies from British newspapers will put a smile back on the face of Madeleine suspect Robert Murat.

I'm told he's coming to London on Thursday to hear the papers say sorry in the High Court.

Yes, I think if I was him I'd want to be there.

I'm sure he'll be careful not to gloat, because he's still an arguido and isn't allowed to speak publicly about the Portuguese investigation.

I could try to get him plastered and reveal all. Only he says he doesn't drink.

The McCanns got a similar amount from Express newspapers, so the Madeleine coverage has cost Fleet Street a million pounds, plus legal bills.

Given the huge circulation the story generated last year, they probably think it was worth it.

The important thing for them was to avoid the mug's game of a costly libel trial.

http://blogs.news.sky.com/lifeofcrime
Please Continue to Pray for the Safe Return of Madeleine & All Our Missing Children
http://dontletthemhurtourchildren.blogspot.com

and tries to sue witnesses then that £600.000 is not going to last very long! One skint Murat and one rich lawyer, ah well good to see that nothing much changes in the legal profession.

I wonder why Murat all of a sudden switched from using Max Clifford whom he did not have to pay, to an expensive PR Agency recommended by his lawyer, whom he did have to pay?

How much sense does that make? :scratch: :scratch: :scratch:

Rosie,

You asked why he switched ????from the freebie to the other one????


Once upon a time I read an article in the paper about a guy (hmmm) who had a lawyer who was his old time buddie from childhood..........Thing is this guy would have trusted his old time buddie!!!So whatever his old time buddie(the lawyer) says went.He done whatever his buddie advised you see.Coz they were friends from a long long time ago.Infact if I remember reading correctly they played together as kiddies...cute isn't it.Awwwww.......
Thats a story I once read..infact I read it lots of times.But then you know about stories in the papers don't ya...could be a load of urmmmmm.....cr#p