Chapter 61. Brückner’s “Arrest Warrant “ cancelled.
Previously subtitled “Subject of course to endless Appeals”
Now : CONCLUDED
A quick summary and explanation of the legal issues behind this.
In most modern democracies the police arrest a person, charge him with a crime and then bail him, or take him before the next available court, normally in England within 24 hours or a little longer with a senior officer’s written authority.
The court then either releases the prisoner on bail, or remands him in Custody pending trial, in which case a written Remand document is signed and handed to the Custody Sergeant, who in turn hands it to the Prison officers who come to collect him. At every stage of the process documents and Body Receipt books are completed to show that the detention by each officer in the chain is lawful. Remember that this person has not been found Guilty of anything at this stage.
In Germany much the same system applies. The document or order is a “Haftbefehl” which most of the free translation applications show as “Arrest Warrant”, but which is more accurately given as “Warrant of Detention”. “Arrest warrant” means something slightly different in English Law, but it amounts to the same thing. A Warrant or Order issued by a Court for the further detention of a person before and during his trial.
If it becomes clear that the evidence is insufficient to allow a verdict of Guilty, the trial should be stopped, the suspect released, and the trial formally concluded with a formal verdict of Not Guilty entered in the record
And that is what has happened here.
REF 1, 1.1
The Prosecution case was dismissed. The judge decided there was No case to Answer.
The Prosecution, naturally, ‘appealed’ and accused the judge/s of ‘bias. The first count was against all three judges, was rejected two weeks ago, the second against the judge herself was rejected on 25th July. The objection was held to be “Groundless”
REF 2
Defence counsel H. Fülscher played his hand brilliantly, allowing examination of the so-called “witnesses” – most of whom actually witnessed nothing - not intervening when they told their wild and lurid stories as second and third hand uncorroborated hearsay, except to observe the contradictions and discrepancies, and not objecting when matters irrelevant to the five instant charges, but allegedly relating to Madeleine McCann were introduced, and allowing the verbal ‘effluvia’ to drain from them unchecked so it was entered into the record as their sworn testimony.
Clever, since if there ever were another trial on the same facts, a re-trial of current charges, which is now not thought to be legally possible, or a trial involving the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they are not now in position to change or ‘enhance’ their evidence to suit the new facts on pain of being prosecuted for Perjury in either or both cases or even conspiracy to Pervert the course of Justice.
And then, when the prosecution case had exhausted those witnesses and there was nothing left for them to say he played the Trump card and submitted that the series of unconnected pieces of evidence presented to the court “don't amount to a hill of beans”. In the language of the court “dringender Tatverdacht” has been translated by non-German speaking journalists as “Urgent suspicion”, where “Compelling suspicion” would be more descriptive
H. Fülscher submitted this as a legal procedural point, – that the continued detention of Brückner could not be legally justified. That put the Judge, Frau Engemann, in the position where she not only had been critical of many of the witnesses evidence, including of Behan’s, but was fully aware of the lack of credibility of many of the witnesses presented by the prosecution.
We must remember that the German legal system is”Inquisitorial” aimed at establishing all the facts, as opposed to the English Common Law system which is “Accusatorial”, aimed at establishing sufficient ‘facts’ to prove a persons Guilt, but no more. Judges intervene to put their own questions, to clarify, expand and explain,
It was the judge herself who asked Brückner to approach the bench so that she could look into his eyes to test Behan’s identification on his eyes alone, and who observed for herself that his eyes, far from being a piercing blue are a dull and lifeless blue-grey.
It was the judge who asked Behan if she had had intimate relations with her then boyfriend that day which might have explained an alleged ‘stain’ in her underwear.
It was the judge who asked the lawyers to examine Brückners thigh for the alleged Cross shaped scar or birthmark, and who was then told there was nothing except a tiny scar from his childhood operation for an undescended testicle some 40 years ago, the scar being a transverse inguinal incision, deep in the crease between the leg and the abdomen.
And we have to remember that of the FIVE charges Brückner was facing there was only ONE complainant, ONE alleged Victim – Hazel Behan, who testified to the cross shaped scar on the leg, which was not there, and insisted she could see the colour of her assailant’s eyes - in the dark - through a ‘gimp’ mask, and whose evidence implied that he had scaled the outside of the building to reach her balcony carrying a heavy video camera, tapes for 4 hours recording, batteries - ditto, rope, a whip, and a knife. And then taken it all away again when he “fled’, none of which were observed by another alleged witness who saw the assailant run and remove his mask as he did so, implying at least one free hand.
Of the other four offences two were themselves nothing more than allegations based on what discredited witnesses claimed they viewed on video tapes they admitted they had themselves stolen and then claimed to have destroyed or ‘lost’. And the last may be a nothing more than a misinterpretation of a girl seeing a man urinating in public, an indecent exposure at worst, at 2am during a “festival”, with no doubt beer and wines being consumed in large quantities.
It is worth our re-reading the charges so this can sink in [I have bolded some words for emphasis]
REF 3
1. At an unspecified time between December 28, 2000 and April 8, 2006, he surprised an unknown woman aged around 70-80 in the bedroom of her vacation home in Portugal. The masked accused is said to have then tied up and raped the victim. He then hit the victim several times with a whip. The accused is said to have recorded the entire incident with a video camera.
No report, no Victim, no tapes, no evidence. And a time scale of over five years.
Just the uncorroborated hearsay evidence of a known liar, drug dealer and criminal with a known and open hostility towards the Defendant… who says he viewed the stolen videotape which has now been lost / destroyed / disposed of / is not available for examination by anyone else, on the tiny screen attached to the recording device.
2. On another day that cannot be determined exactly, between December 28, 2000 and April 8, 2006, the accused is said to have tied an unknown, German-speaking girl, aged at least 14, naked to a wooden post in the living room of the house he lived in in Praia da Luz, Portugal. First, he beat the naked girl with a whip. Then, the accused is said to have brutally forced the girl to perform oral sex. The accused also videotaped this act.
No report, No victim, no tapes, no evidence, And a time scale of over five years.
No photos of the house or of the post (or ring in other versions). [Unclear what a wooden post would be doing in the living room of a rental house]
Just the uncorroborated hearsay evidence of a known liar, drug dealer and criminal with a known and open hostility towards the Defendant… who says he viewed the stolen videotape which has now been lost / destroyed / disposed of / is not available for examination by anyone else, on the tiny screen attached to the recording device.
3. On June 16, 2004, at around 3:00 a.m., the accused is said to have gained access to the apartment of a 20-year-old woman from Ireland via the balcony in Praia da Rocha, Portugal. The sleeping woman was then woken up by the masked accused at knifepoint and brutally raped. The accused then tied the woman to a table, gagged her and raped her again. He then whipped the victim on the back with a whip he had brought with him and finally forcibly performed oral sex on the victim. The accused filmed large parts of the incident with a video camera he had brought with him. While the accused later fled via the balcony, the victim managed to free herself and cried, asking for help.
Ms Behan did make a report, and gave evidence of her assailant, complete with the graphic and detailed description of the Scar and the piercing blue eyes she had seen in the dark through the mask. The knife, the whip, the rope with which she was tied, the gimp costume, and the video camera were we assume all removed from the scene by the assailant. None of these have been recovered or were presented to the court. There are no tapes.
4. On April 7, 2007, at around 3:30 p.m., the accused is said to have ambushed a ten-year-old German girl playing on the rocks on a section of the beach in Salema in the Faro district of Portugal, wearing only shoes and otherwise naked. He grabbed the child by the wrist and began to masturbate on his naked penis. He grinned and asked the girl to look at his naked genitals and the masturbatory movements he was making on them, in order to arouse himself sexually. After the accused had ejaculated, he let go of the girl and fled.
Not clear whether there was a report. Unnamed victim,
5. On June 11, 2017, in the early morning hours at around 2:00 a.m., during the so-called Snail festival in a playground in Bartolomeu de Messines in Portugal, the accused made eye contact with an 11-year-old Portuguese girl who was sitting on the swing in the local playground. The accused then pulled down his pants and underwear while maintaining constant eye contact with the child and made masturbatory movements with his naked penis in order to sexually arouse himself until the frightened girl ran to her father for help. The accused was arrested on the spot by the Portuguese police.
On arrest it was discovered that he was wanted in Germany and he was extradited. The case was “mothballed’ in Portugal, and then transferred to Braunschweig . Unclear if the girl involved was called to give evidence.
END
It should be fairly clear why the Judge was somewhat sceptical right from the start.
So where does this leave us ?
First a re-cap extracted from an article by the egregious Jon Clarke, from the Olive Press, dated May 10 2022.
. . .
Wolters himself told me that the new charges – including the exposure to four children in 2017 and the rape of Hazel Behan, 20, in 2004 – are rather more straightforward than the Maddie case.
And once he has been convicted in the latter – in which he sadistically raped the Irish girl over hours, all filmed on his camcorder – it is likely he will then be put onto a special regime which will prevent him from ever leaving prison.
As for the Maddie case, Wolters began compiling it in 2018, two years after detectives started to probe it again, and two years before the public appeal in June 2020.
They now have lots of strong circumstantial evidence – plus, I am told, two recently received proofs – that make Wolters continually insist he is “100 per cent certain” Brueckner is the killer.
Some so-called “traces”, found in one of his vehicles driven at the time, may or may not be a red herring. That came from my colleague, journalist Sandra Felguiras, in Portugal, and she, like me, has been on this case from the beginning and has some impeccable sources.
But I don’t doubt there is some extremely damning material, among up to 20,000 photos, videos and other files, that police located in a Lidl bag, buried under the dead body of Brueckner’s dog at a box factory in former East Germany.
As for a much-discussed alibi in the Maddie case, well, he has not yet given any explanation to the police so far.
[My very obvious comment; He has not been INTERVIEWED “YET . . . SO FAR” [sic !] , and if he had been, the details of his interview would not have been made available to any passing former Geography student posing as an Investigative journalist, but actually trying to make a huge amount of money by publishing a book including all the evidence BEFORE the trial].
Yes, his lawyer has spoken on a TV documentary for Channel 5 featuring ex-policeman turned journalist Mark Williams Thomas but there actually is no alibi for 3 May 2007, the night Maddie went missing. And German police have double-checked that. I worked on the show, but my beliefs do not coincide with Williams Thomas’ narrative, that Brueckner is innocent.
It happened before in the infamous Oscar Pistorius case, where this TV detective got it wrong by insisting the South African murderer was innocent. I am certain it will happen again and over the next year or two Christian Brueckner will finally be charged with the murder of Madeleine McCann.
REF 4
END
It is surely remarkable that Clarke would put himself in the position of saying explicitly that Brückner IS GUILTY and WILL BE CONVICTED; that he sadistically raped . . . and so on.
If that is not true and does not come to pass, then it is an egregious Libel, published to the world. Similar to his putting the photo of Brückner on the front of his book which accuses him directly of the abduction, abuse and murder of Madeleine McCann.
Clarke may believe he is immune, having survived the Kidman/ Law scandal and the Murat outrage without hurt to his own bank account or luxury villas. He published an article in his paper about how “Libel is no big deal in Spain.” shortly before libelling me in his paper, and repeating the libels in his book.
He may find that German law is not so forgiving. The German Criminal Code - Strafgesetzbuch – StGB – allows for both General and Exemplary damages. [ StGB § 185, 186 ff.]
The only comment H, Fulscher has made on that subject is. “Das kommt später.“ That comes later
There was of course a token Appeal by the State Prosecution Department though it was more restrained and legalistic than the British gutter press make out The first was against all three ‘Judges’. The judge herself and the two lay Schöffen who sit with her.
The second was against the Judge on her own. Both alleged ‘bias’ and unprofessional action.
And now BOTH have been ruled as Unfounded. Groundless. Without Foundation. Baseless.
Unless the prosecution Appeal yet again to an even higher authority within 5 days the matter is closed. Res judicata.
The Trial of Christian Brückner is at an end.
There is no case to answer on any of the charges before the Court
– – – –
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE CHRISTIAN BRÜCKNER ?
He remains in prison for the few months which remain of his sentence for a crime which was not committed in the manner described at the trial and possibly was not committed by him at all.
After that it leaves him legally free and Not Guilty of the five specific allegations made against him, though it is certain that Clarke and other fanatics will never accept that the absence of any concrete or material evidence exonerates him.
It says nothing about any suspicion that Clarke or others might have about any involvement in the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
But the fact that the principal – indeed the ONLY – witnesses against Brückner in the McCann case have had their credibility and veracity comprehensively destroyed makes it extremely unlikely that they would ever be called for the prosecution in any criminal case - ever again.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE H. WOLTERS ?
It is tempting to say with “mit Ei auf seinem Gesicht” = ‘with some egg on his face’, but that is not the whole story. H. Wolters has not merely personally prosecuted these five cases, but has in a real sense led the investigations and directed the activities of the BKA in the ongoing Investigations into the supposed Abduction and Murder of Madeleine McCann.
He has suffered the loss of the all five cases, all at once, and all for the same reason. Insufficient evidence on which to base the charges. Not even enough to raise a reasonable suspicion sufficient to hold Brückner in custody. There was no case to answer, and for any Prosecutor, let alone the Chief State Prosecutor, who had years and all the resources of the BKA to prepare his case, that is mortifying professional humiliation.
He now knows knows that his only witnesses in the Madeleine case are utterly useless.
He now knows knows that he has no physical evidence, despite what Clarke has told the world, of fibres, or anything at all to link Brückner to the reported disappearance.
He now knows knows that the general uncritical public have been lied to by people including
Clarke about matters like fibres, tapes, videos, blankets, shrines, burial sites near reservoirs, scissors, abandoned cars, box factories, dead dogs, and many other things.
He will surely remember that he has on occasion publicly had to DENY Clarke’s stories.
And finally
He now knows knows that the Brick - (Bernt Stellander’s Book “The Sudden Impulse”) brings together in one volume a wealth of evidence showing that there was NO ABDUCTION and NO MURDER. Not on Thursday 3rd May 2007, nor on any other date.
REF 6
And that means that any likelihood of a prosecution fades into the background
He would need a lot more evidence. Or in fact any evidence AT ALL.
He knows as an experienced lawyer that the parents would be eviscerated under cross examination, under oath, and on their own, and further that Oldfield and Tanner would only make matters infinitely worse.
For those who think or argue forcefully on “social Media’ that the parents and Oldfield would not be called as witnesses, they are the three people who allegedly last saw her alive and then reported her missing, and are thus vital to ‘set the scene’ and establish the exact time, day and date of the ‘offence’.
Wolters could not risk their giving evidence.
Fülscher would insist on it.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE H. FÜLSCHER ?
With the satisfaction of knowing that he accepted the brief and handled it professionally for the benefit of his client, and by so doing that JUSTICE was done and the LAW upheld as the Oath of his profession demands.
It also puts him in a strong position to assist Christian Brückner with any proceedings for defamation he might decide to instigate
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE JON CLARKE ?
Clarke has for the past few years ‘pursued a quest’ to have Christian Brückner prosecuted and imprisoned for the Abduction and Murder of Madeleine McCann. The most serious of offences – which almost certainly were never committed by anyone.
To achieve that he followed his belief at immense expense in time and money, and we believe at the expense of his family’s cohesion, with a single-mindedness of purpose which is close to an unhealthy even pathological obsession. His fixation that Brückner Abducted, Abused and Murdered Madeleine McCann blinded him to the most obvious of facts which have been pointed out by the more clear thinking for many years.
Chief amongst which is that there is not a scrap of evidence that any such crimes were committed.
He failed to understand that the Rules of Evidence apply in Germany as much as – or for other reasons even more than – in most modern civilised societies :
That hearsay evidence is normally inadmissible, and even if heard is not probative.
That hearsay evidence needs to be backed up by other physical or first hand evidence,
That personal vendettas and hatred are relevant to the weight to be given to witness testimony
That a series of dubious underworld characters, drug users, dealers, thieves and burglars, repeating the mantra “I THINK IT MUST BE HIM” is not probative of anything, no matter how often they repeat it, nor how many of them can be persuaded (or PAID) to say it, and regardless of the personal delusion of the journalist persuading them to talk.
He failed to understand that Law is not the same as Journalism. Even accepting that he is qualified in neither discipline, common sense and experience of life should surely have taught him that.
And then we turn to the evidence we have, in his own Book, and in his own newspaper, of the egregious LIBELS he has made against so many people.
They are in written form, under his own hand, and he has no place to hide.
His book is published in English. Clarke is English. The family concerned and their friends are all English. The book is aimed at the Anglophone world, in particular the English.
The English High Court would be the obvious place for Brückner to file a suit for defamation.
But Germany has defamation written into its criminal code, and statute can be more easy to deal with than Common Law.
REF 5
Clarke cannot rely on any of the three defences allowed,
Truth - because what he says – isn’t
Privilege - because it does not apply to him
Fair comment - because his publication was a cynical commercial venture, designed to make a large amount of money from the book and from many syndicated articles all to be published before and during the trial.
REF 5.1
In the Brick, Bernt Stellander’s book “The Sudden Impulse” he tries to stand back from his own theory, and notes:
“The biggest mistake an investigator can do [make] is to fall in love with his / her own theory. That can truly make you reach for something that’s not there or even stretch information to fit the theory and, by that, give you tunnel vision”.
It is the basis for the most gross miscarriages of Justice ranging from Timothy Evans through the Birmingham 6, Stefan Kiszko, the Guildford 4, and Andrew Malkinson through to the Post Office scandal which infects the courts and Parliament as we speak.
Clarke very clearly fell into that deep trench of his own making a long time ago. First with Murat, then with the string of other “suspects and scapegoats” all diligently recorded in his book, perhaps as ‘insurance policies’, and finally over the past several years with Brückner.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE ?
In law, and in a perfect world, it does not affect it at all. But we live in an interconnected world, where everything spins off into something else.
The only ‘witnesses’ likely to give any evidence at all in any case involving Madeleine McCann have been totally discredited, and there are no other witnesses and so far as we know no evidence of any sort.
The parents, Oldfield and Tanner or any of the other Tapas group cannot be called as they would all be surgically and forensically filleted under cross examination.
And the PJ investigators are no use to the prosecution as they remain convinced that there was No Abduction and No Murder, and that view has been upheld by the Appeal and the Supreme Court of Portugal and by the ECHR
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE MCCANNS ?
From Kate McCann’s statements, interviews and book it seems clear that all she has ever wanted is closure and for the whole charade to end in whatever way, either by the finding of Madeleine’s grave, or even by her own death. Bernt Stellander in the Brick, his recent book, “The Sudden Impulse”, (see Ref for details) has catalogued many examples of this.
REF 6
Having Brückner – or indeed any other convenient scapegoat – wrongfully convicted of Abduction and Murder would have done this, and enabled them to issue a short statement of sadness, to announce that the “Fund” has been seriously depleted by the recent activity and that the remaining fourteen pounds, seventeen shillings, and fourpence would be donated to Missing People, the company wound up, and that they now hoped for freedom from further press intrusion, and to be allowed to live in peace in their now mortgage-free house.
Now that seems vanishingly unlikely to happen, and as the Brick (“The Sudden Impulse “) attracts more public attention their situation becomes, shall we say, ‘more difficult’.
The McCanns’ unease is clear from their recent plea to resuscitate the promised second part of the Leveson enquiry, sent very publicly to the British Government and Prime Minister, reported widely in the British Press, and treated in exactly the same way as were their pleas to the Appeal and Supreme Courts of Portugal, and to the European Court of Human Rights.
Rejected outright.
With the rejection widely reported in the same British Press
REF 7
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE TAPAS 7 ?
At the bottom of a deep trench, from which there is only one route of escape.
The Path of Truth – if they can find it.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE NUGGETS ?
Potentially in a very seriously compromised situation. Even assuming that as church-going and legally upright and decent professional people who either were lied to, or at best not told the whole truth when asked to do what appeared to be a simple if strange and obscure task by some acquaintances, they must by now realise that they have been ’set up’, and that their involvement is capable of being seen in the eyes of the law as conspiracy, or “accessory after the fact.”
If, with that knowledge, they remain silent, they could also fall into the definition of Assisting Offender S. 4(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 refers, as Mr Nugget, a lawyer, will be well aware
REF 8
They are due to receive their personalised copy of the Brick within the next two weeks
– – – – – – – –
The big problem faced by the McCanns, the Tapas 7, Mitchell, the Nuggets, and all the other people who got intimately involved is this.
It is now increasingly clear to the thinking world (with the exception of Jon Clarke, obviously) that
We all know Brückner DID NOT DO IT
Because NOBODY DID
Many sages and philosophers have said over the ages “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”
The difficulty now is how to approach that awesome task
REFS:
1 https://www.mirror.co.uk
Prosecutors want 'biased' judges thrown off Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner trial
Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner is on trial for his alleged sex crimes which are not linked to the missing child case - prosecutors have called for a change in judges
By Martin Fricker Senior Reporter
- 11:11, 5 Jul 2024UPDATED11:13, 5 JUL 2024
Furious prosecutors have applied to have “biased” judges thrown off the trial of Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner.
They were left fuming after Judge Ute Inse Engelmann issued a ruling which criticised the evidence of key witnesses in the case. Bruekner is suspected of abducting and killing three-year-old Madeleine in Praia da Luz in May 2007. He is nearing the end of a seven-year prison term for raping an American pensioner in the Portuguese resort.
The 47-year-old is currently standing trial on unconnected sex crimes he allegedly carried out in the Algarve. In a shock move on Wednesday, Judge Engelmann overturned an arrest warrant for Brueckner. She ruled the court had not heard strong enough evidence from witnesses to keep him behind bars.
Judge Engemann’s ruling was a strong indication that Brueckner will be cleared of the charges he is facing. If he is found not guilty, Brueckner could be freed from prison in the early part of next year. Now prosecutors have filed a motion to have Judge Engemann and her two fellow judges dismissed, citing “concerns about bias”.
A ‘chamber of representatives’ in Braunschweig must now make a ruling on the extremely rare application by early August. If the prosecution application is successful, the trial will collapse and a retrial would have to take place. Brueckner is accused of carrying out five offences in the Algarve between 2000 and 2017.
In another report H Wolters declined to comment, as the professional he is.
1.1 https://www.yahoo.com/news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-unlikely-face-181242971.html
The main suspect in the Madeleine McCann case is unlikely to ever face trial for her disappearance after winning a new legal battle, his lawyers have said.
Christian Brückner won a bid to have an arrest warrant against him dropped in a separate ongoing sex offences trial.
The move is a technicality because Brückner remains behind bars, as he is serving a sentence for the rape of a 72-year-old American tourist in 2005.
However, his lawyers believe that the court decision to drop the warrant could be a sign that he will be acquitted at the sex crimes trial – and cast doubt on the prospect of there ever being a trial in the McCann case.
The warrant was cancelled at the request of the defence because there was no longer an “urgent suspicion” that Brückner committed the five offences, the court in Brunswick said in a statement.
A written statement from the Brunswick court confirmed that the arrest warrant had been formally lifted.
It reads: “The chamber has, at the request of the defence, cancelled the arrest warrant because the chamber denied an urgent suspicion of an offence with regard to all the charges.”
A verdict in the ongoing trial is expected in the autumn.
Brückner’s legal team said at the opening of the trial in February that the defence team had major doubts about the evidence against their client.
The credibility of the witnesses would be a “massive question” for the judges, lawyer Friedrich Fülscher said, alleging they were unreliable because of “drug consumption habits” among other things.
2
3
https://staatsanwaltschaft-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/presseinformationen/anklageerhebung-wegen-mehrerer-sexualstraftaten-gegen-den-verdachtigen-im-fall-madeleine-maddie-mccann-216151.html
List of charges (In English) as quoted above.
4 The Olive Press, May 10 2022
5 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1891
Section 187
Defamation
Whoever, despite knowing better, asserts or disseminates an untrue fact about another person which is suited to degrading that person or negatively affecting public opinion about that person or endangering said person’s creditworthiness incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, and, if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating content (section 11 (3)), a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine.
5.1 https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/defamation-libel-lawyer-germany
German defamation law recognises certain defences against defamation claims, such as truth (Wahrheit), privilege (Schutzgesetz), and fair comment (zulässige Meinungsäußerung). These defences aim to strike a balance between protecting free speech and safeguarding individuals from unjustified attacks on their reputations.
6 “The Sudden Impulse,” Bernt Stellander, 2024, Modocromia Ediçoës. LDA
modocromia.editora@gmail.com. ISBN: 978-989-35581-7-1
7 https://news.stv.tv/politics/mccanns-call-for-courage-and-integrity-from-pm-on-press-intrusion-inquiry
The prime minister has said no to a Leveson press inquiry part two, despite pleas from the parents of Madeleine McCann. Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was committed to holding Leveson Part Two.
But when ITV News put Gerry McCann’s statement to the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, today he ruled it out. “We set out in our manifesto our programme for action for this government, we’ve laid that out in the King’s Speech, that clearly sets out our priorities – and the second half of Leveson is not among them,” he said
8 Criminal Law Act 1967
S.4 (1). Where a person has committed a relevant offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other relevant offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.
…
3) A person committing an offence under subsection (1) above with intent to impede another person’s apprehension or prosecution shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment according to the gravity of the other person’s offence, as follows
(a) …
(b) …
(c) if it is not one included above but is one for which a person (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years, he shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years;
