LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 5 of 8 • Share
Page 5 of 8 • 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Guest 04.12.11 8:45
If Goncalo Amaral is cleared of Libel 9th-10th of Feb and Tony's hearing is delayed until after that, surely it would blow the case against Tony WI---------------------------DE open. 
Bring it on !!!!
Bring it on !!!!
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Guest 04.12.11 9:18
Carter Ruck remind me of the Titanic. The biggest and most impressive of it's kind, or so they thought. 
But we all know what happened when they took their eyes off those annoying little icebergs.
I hope they have enough life boats between them.
But we all know what happened when they took their eyes off those annoying little icebergs.
I hope they have enough life boats between them.
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by pennylane 04.12.11 10:18
I despise those high-priced bullies at CR and their fat cat, sleazy clients. TM are nothing but a bunch of serpents and vipers.
The McCanns and their ilk within the British establishment make me loathe this country.
Very best of luck to you Tony! I do hope you will keep us informed. I am praying for you to prevail against such injustice, and also for Goncalo and Pat to prevail.
The McCanns and their ilk within the British establishment make me loathe this country.
Very best of luck to you Tony! I do hope you will keep us informed. I am praying for you to prevail against such injustice, and also for Goncalo and Pat to prevail.
pennylane- Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by AskTheDogsSandra 04.12.11 11:15
Wow. So even when there is enough evidence to put someone in jail over the death of a child as long as you've got money and friends in high places then you can use the justice system to destroy people safe in the knowlege that the people you set out to destroy cannot defend themselves because they don't have enough money. And that's all it boils down to:- the McCanns have more money than Mr Bennett. And yet before their daughter died I bet they didn't have more money than Mr Bennett until Mr Kennedy came along.
AskTheDogsSandra- Posts : 136
Activity : 149
Likes received : 10
Join date : 2011-05-22
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Xavier 04.12.11 11:29
Well lets look it from another perspective. Tony has finally succeeded in provoking the McCanns into taking action against him. Posters here complaining that this has now happened is daft - from his actions Tony clearly knew exactly what he was doing. And he has said on a number of occasions that he wants to get the McCanns into court.
The proceedings will be for contempt of court, for breaching an undertaking given to the high court in 2009.
It is interesting that he says he intends to defend the action, but not by arguing that he has not libelled the McCanns. Instead he is apparently going to argue that the original undertaking was too widely drawn, or that he signed it under duress.
If the former, then he should have taken steps to have the undertaking set aside soon after it was signed. To do so at this stage is unlikely to impress the court. He signed it and is bound to abide by it until such time as it is formally set aside.
As for duress - he had at the time the choice of defending the libel action brought by the McCanns or agreeing to sign an undertaking to the court to refrain from doing certain things. He was I believe advised by his lawyers at the time that he risked losing - ie that libel could be proved - and that he should seek an alternative. So again unlikely to impress the court.
If he is relying on the intention of government to reform libel law, then this is also in my view doomed to failure. Libel law is long overdue for reform. However, it is not the intention of Parliament to allow defamation willy nilly in the interests of freedom of speech. It is levelled at the misuse of the lible laws by the rich and powerful to surpress inconvenient facts emerging. It is more concerned with super injunctions (not a feature of this case) and the use of threats of libel by large corporations and even government departments (step forward and take a bow Carter Ruck and others) as a way of restricting articles or internet forums hosts with threats of having to defend a libel action, even where no such libel actually exists.
There is interesting information on evernote, which may provide more information.
https://www.evernote.com/pub/englishpen/libel#b=d69c80e0-286e-483c-b778-0a3ffcfdb004&n=29f3e1d4-9f3e-4b34-bbaf-bf40fc2b0444
I wish Tony luck in this, but nobody here should underestimate the seriousness of what he is facing. In my view he should be seeking urgent and proper legal advice, as deliberately breaching an undertaking to the High Court will have repercussions.
The proceedings will be for contempt of court, for breaching an undertaking given to the high court in 2009.
It is interesting that he says he intends to defend the action, but not by arguing that he has not libelled the McCanns. Instead he is apparently going to argue that the original undertaking was too widely drawn, or that he signed it under duress.
If the former, then he should have taken steps to have the undertaking set aside soon after it was signed. To do so at this stage is unlikely to impress the court. He signed it and is bound to abide by it until such time as it is formally set aside.
As for duress - he had at the time the choice of defending the libel action brought by the McCanns or agreeing to sign an undertaking to the court to refrain from doing certain things. He was I believe advised by his lawyers at the time that he risked losing - ie that libel could be proved - and that he should seek an alternative. So again unlikely to impress the court.
If he is relying on the intention of government to reform libel law, then this is also in my view doomed to failure. Libel law is long overdue for reform. However, it is not the intention of Parliament to allow defamation willy nilly in the interests of freedom of speech. It is levelled at the misuse of the lible laws by the rich and powerful to surpress inconvenient facts emerging. It is more concerned with super injunctions (not a feature of this case) and the use of threats of libel by large corporations and even government departments (step forward and take a bow Carter Ruck and others) as a way of restricting articles or internet forums hosts with threats of having to defend a libel action, even where no such libel actually exists.
There is interesting information on evernote, which may provide more information.
https://www.evernote.com/pub/englishpen/libel#b=d69c80e0-286e-483c-b778-0a3ffcfdb004&n=29f3e1d4-9f3e-4b34-bbaf-bf40fc2b0444
I wish Tony luck in this, but nobody here should underestimate the seriousness of what he is facing. In my view he should be seeking urgent and proper legal advice, as deliberately breaching an undertaking to the High Court will have repercussions.
Xavier- Posts : 130
Activity : 130
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-08
Costly
by Tony Bennett 04.12.11 11:41
Xavier wrote:Well lets look it from another perspective. Tony has finally succeeded in provoking the McCanns into taking action against him. Posters here complaining that this has now happened is daft - from his actions Tony clearly knew exactly what he was doing. And he has said on a number of occasions that he wants to get the McCanns into court...
REPLY: I have taken a vow of silence on this forum from now on until the court case. But I cannot allow that incorrect statement to stand. I have never, ever, said I 'want to get the McCanns into court', and nowhere will you be able to find any such statement I have ever made.
It would be good if you would please respond and accept that.
What I may have said is that IF the McCanns were to take me to court, then I would be prepared for that, or e.g. that I would defend statements about the case that I have made. No-one in the right mind WANTS to face a committal to prison or other libel action, facing lawyers who rack up their costs at £562.50 an hour (£9.37 a minute; £4,500 for an 8-hour day).
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Xavier 04.12.11 12:13
Tony Bennett wrote:Xavier wrote:Well lets look it from another perspective. Tony has finally succeeded in provoking the McCanns into taking action against him. Posters here complaining that this has now happened is daft - from his actions Tony clearly knew exactly what he was doing. And he has said on a number of occasions that he wants to get the McCanns into court...
REPLY: I have taken a vow of silence on this forum from now on until the court case. But I cannot allow that incorrect statement to stand. I have never, ever, said I 'want to get the McCanns into court', and nowhere will you be able to find any such statement I have ever made.
It would be good if you would please respond and accept that.
What I may have said is that IF the McCanns were to take me to court, then I would be prepared for that, or e.g. that I would defend statements about the case that I have made. No-one in the right mind WANTS to face a committal to prison or other libel action, facing lawyers who rack up their costs at £562.50 an hour (£9.37 a minute; £4,500 for an 8-hour day).
If you want to play semantics, that is fine. And I am actually firmly on your side. Just a realist.
Of course I will respond. I rather gathered that you went to the extent of attempting to bring a private prosecution against the McCanns in 2007.
From wikipedia: On 1 August 2007, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal, Bennett set up a fund called The Madeleine Foundation to fund a private prosecution for alleged child neglect.[30] In November 2007, he started such a prosecution against the parent of Madeline - Gerry and Kate McCann.[31] The initial hearing was at Loughborogh Magistrates Court where the application was dismissed on the grounds that it was a matter for the Poruguese authorities, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of British courts.[32]
And the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2270467/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerrys-fury-at-club-devoted-to-prosecuting-them.html
Have these two got it wrong? You could argue that you have not used those exact words. But any reasonable person would draw the conculsion that if you dont want to get the McCanns into court, then bringing a private prosecution against them is a curious way to go about it.
Xavier- Posts : 130
Activity : 130
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-08
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Cheshire Cat 04.12.11 13:44
AskTheDogsSandra wrote:Wow. So even when there is enough evidence to put someone in jail over the death of a child as long as you've got money and friends in high places then you can use the justice system to destroy people safe in the knowlege that the people you set out to destroy cannot defend themselves because they don't have enough money. And that's all it boils down to:- the McCanns have more money than Mr Bennett. And yet before their daughter died I bet they didn't have more money than Mr Bennett until Mr Kennedy came along.
Jersey springs to mind. And also brave Robert Green and what is happening to him.
Cheshire Cat- Madeleine Foundation
- Posts : 676
Activity : 821
Likes received : 58
Join date : 2010-08-16
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by aiyoyo 05.12.11 2:18
I wonder how the mccanns are going to spilt themselves to be in two places attending two hearings running almost simultaneously.Stella wrote:If Goncalo Amaral is cleared of Libel 9th-10th of Feb and Tony's hearing is delayed until after that, surely it would blow the case against Tony WI---------------------------DE open.
Bring it on !!!!
How can they in UK on 8th Feb and expected to be in Lisbon on the following day. One has to give surely.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Gillyspot 05.12.11 7:05
If Pat Brown's libel case against the McCanns' occurrs in 2012 then they are going to have a very busy (expensive) year next year.
____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
Gillyspot- Posts : 1470
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-06-13
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by aiyoyo 05.12.11 7:59
Gillyspot wrote:If Pat Brown's libel case against the McCanns' occurrs in 2012 then they are going to have a very busy (expensive) year next year.
Money is least of their concern because they are sitting on plenty of other people's money, which they set up for this very purpose. And before they run out they just have to wheel kate out in a silly frock as a damsel in distress and beg for more, which is what they had done so far - no nothing new there.
They concern should be where to find Maddie and it certainly isn't going to be in the Courtroom. What would be interesting however is what would be their next step after they lost to Amaral and Pat Brown. Is kate going to "climb" (her own word) into a hole from her unsalvageable reputation? By then it (her rotten reputation) would stink to the next planet - Maddie's planet !
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Xavier 05.12.11 8:31
aiyoyo wrote:I wonder how the mccanns are going to spilt themselves to be in two places attending two hearings running almost simultaneously.Stella wrote:If Goncalo Amaral is cleared of Libel 9th-10th of Feb and Tony's hearing is delayed until after that, surely it would blow the case against Tony WI---------------------------DE open.
Bring it on !!!!
How can they in UK on 8th Feb and expected to be in Lisbon on the following day. One has to give surely.
I do not think the McCanns will need to be in court. So that is unlikely to be a problem for them.
Xavier- Posts : 130
Activity : 130
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-08
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by aiyoyo 05.12.11 13:24
Xavier wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:Xavier wrote:Well lets look it from another perspective. Tony has finally succeeded in provoking the McCanns into taking action against him. Posters here complaining that this has now happened is daft - from his actions Tony clearly knew exactly what he was doing. And he has said on a number of occasions that he wants to get the McCanns into court...
REPLY: I have taken a vow of silence on this forum from now on until the court case. But I cannot allow that incorrect statement to stand. I have never, ever, said I 'want to get the McCanns into court', and nowhere will you be able to find any such statement I have ever made.
It would be good if you would please respond and accept that.
What I may have said is that IF the McCanns were to take me to court, then I would be prepared for that, or e.g. that I would defend statements about the case that I have made. No-one in the right mind WANTS to face a committal to prison or other libel action, facing lawyers who rack up their costs at £562.50 an hour (£9.37 a minute; £4,500 for an 8-hour day).
If you want to play semantics, that is fine. And I am actually firmly on your side. Just a realist.
Of course I will respond. I rather gathered that you went to the extent of attempting to bring a private prosecution against the McCanns in 2007.
From wikipedia: On 1 August 2007, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal, Bennett set up a fund called The Madeleine Foundation to fund a private prosecution for alleged child neglect.[30] In November 2007, he started such a prosecution against the parent of Madeline - Gerry and Kate McCann.[31] The initial hearing was at Loughborogh Magistrates Court where the application was dismissed on the grounds that it was a matter for the Poruguese authorities, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of British courts.[32]
And the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2270467/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerrys-fury-at-club-devoted-to-prosecuting-them.html
Have these two got it wrong? You could argue that you have not used those exact words. But any reasonable person would draw the conculsion that if you dont want to get the McCanns into court, then bringing a private prosecution against them is a curious way to go about it.
So you equate filing a case against them for child neglect same as attempting to take them to court to argue over the alleged murder (albeit accidental) of their daughter as posited by the Police? It seems your legal knowledge is at par with the rest of us if not worst.
It's as if saying child neglect charge is same as homicide charge? hmmm..........
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Daisy 05.12.11 16:31
I'd rather not give the snarling lapdogs of Carter Ruck the opporunity to read my personal thoughts on TB's latest announcements; the less info we give them the better.
So I'll just dedicate a favourite poem of mine to Mr Bennett, to show my respect to a MAN that stood up for justice for Madeleine, in the face of bullying, indimidation, harrassment, threats of finiancial ruin & imprisonment - IMPRISONMENT for questioning and speaking your mind? Is this just the beginning, is TB being made an example of? Today Tony Bennett - tomorrow the rest of us?
No doubt this will give those same snivelling little minions something to hold up and ridicule but do I care
- i'm sure the words & meaning will be lost on them.
'if' by rudyard kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing
theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt
you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not
be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being
hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too
wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master,
If you
can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and
Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to
hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for
fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and
build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it
all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your
beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force
your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are
gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which
says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk
with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends
can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can
fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance
run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more
- you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
So I'll just dedicate a favourite poem of mine to Mr Bennett, to show my respect to a MAN that stood up for justice for Madeleine, in the face of bullying, indimidation, harrassment, threats of finiancial ruin & imprisonment - IMPRISONMENT for questioning and speaking your mind? Is this just the beginning, is TB being made an example of? Today Tony Bennett - tomorrow the rest of us?
No doubt this will give those same snivelling little minions something to hold up and ridicule but do I care
- i'm sure the words & meaning will be lost on them.'if' by rudyard kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing
theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt
you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not
be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being
hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too
wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master,
If you
can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and
Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to
hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for
fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and
build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it
all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your
beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force
your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are
gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which
says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk
with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends
can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can
fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance
run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more
- you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”
Unknown
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Daisy- Posts : 1245
Activity : 1312
Likes received : 11
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Guest 06.12.11 9:36
Well said Daisy 
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Xavier 06.12.11 9:47
aiyoyo wrote:Xavier wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:Xavier wrote:Well lets look it from another perspective. Tony has finally succeeded in provoking the McCanns into taking action against him. Posters here complaining that this has now happened is daft - from his actions Tony clearly knew exactly what he was doing. And he has said on a number of occasions that he wants to get the McCanns into court...
REPLY: I have taken a vow of silence on this forum from now on until the court case. But I cannot allow that incorrect statement to stand. I have never, ever, said I 'want to get the McCanns into court', and nowhere will you be able to find any such statement I have ever made.
It would be good if you would please respond and accept that.
What I may have said is that IF the McCanns were to take me to court, then I would be prepared for that, or e.g. that I would defend statements about the case that I have made. No-one in the right mind WANTS to face a committal to prison or other libel action, facing lawyers who rack up their costs at £562.50 an hour (£9.37 a minute; £4,500 for an 8-hour day).
If you want to play semantics, that is fine. And I am actually firmly on your side. Just a realist.
Of course I will respond. I rather gathered that you went to the extent of attempting to bring a private prosecution against the McCanns in 2007.
From wikipedia: On 1 August 2007, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal, Bennett set up a fund called The Madeleine Foundation to fund a private prosecution for alleged child neglect.[30] In November 2007, he started such a prosecution against the parent of Madeline - Gerry and Kate McCann.[31] The initial hearing was at Loughborogh Magistrates Court where the application was dismissed on the grounds that it was a matter for the Poruguese authorities, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of British courts.[32]
And the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2270467/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerrys-fury-at-club-devoted-to-prosecuting-them.html
Have these two got it wrong? You could argue that you have not used those exact words. But any reasonable person would draw the conculsion that if you dont want to get the McCanns into court, then bringing a private prosecution against them is a curious way to go about it.
So you equate filing a case against them for child neglect same as attempting to take them to court to argue over the alleged murder (albeit accidental) of their daughter as posited by the Police? It seems your legal knowledge is at par with the rest of us if not worst.
It's as if saying child neglect charge is same as homicide charge? hmmm..........
Perhaps if you bothered to read this in context you might see that I am simply answering TBs question.
I have never, ever, said I 'want to get the McCanns into court', and nowhere will you be able to find any such statement I have ever made.
Xavier- Posts : 130
Activity : 130
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-08
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Me 06.12.11 12:46
I have to say i think people are jumping on Xavier too much here. For me, he has provided a relatively accurate and fair analysis of what TB's up against in his court action.
However inconvenient it may seem it does seem a pretty spot on surmation.
However inconvenient it may seem it does seem a pretty spot on surmation.
____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
Me- Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by jd 06.12.11 14:02
On 23rd November 2011, Gerry McCann told the Leveson Inquiry infront of the country that he strongly believes in freedom of speech and doesn't have a problem with anybody purporting a theory, at the same time he is paying Carter-Ruck to take legal action to silence those who purport a theory based on the official Portuguese police files
____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
jd- Posts : 4151
Activity : 4400
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-07-22
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Angelique 06.12.11 14:04
TB
My sympathies to you for this awful situation - you have my support if needed.
I don't know the law to any great extent - but surely this was a form of "entrapment". The fact that a ruse was used by a person so obviously employed by the McCanns would surely be a useful point.
Daisy
Nice one.
Unfortunately I think a certain section of the population have no conscience at all!
jd
Yes - I was just about to edit my post with this in mind. This also could used to a certain extent by TB.
My sympathies to you for this awful situation - you have my support if needed.
I don't know the law to any great extent - but surely this was a form of "entrapment". The fact that a ruse was used by a person so obviously employed by the McCanns would surely be a useful point.
Daisy
Nice one.
Unfortunately I think a certain section of the population have no conscience at all!
jd
Yes - I was just about to edit my post with this in mind. This also could used to a certain extent by TB.
____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
Angelique- Posts : 1396
Activity : 1460
Likes received : 42
Join date : 2010-10-19
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Xavier 06.12.11 14:23
It may be underhand, Angelique. But it is not entrapment. And such a claim would not be a defense.
Xavier- Posts : 130
Activity : 130
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-08
Smethurst's libel claim settled
by Tony Bennett 08.12.11 6:59
Libel cases update:
SMETHURST
Update - Summary: Edward Smethurst’s claim against me has been settled on the following agreed terms:
a) I will pay the sum of £2,500 agreed damages to Mr Smethurst, without any formal admission of liability. Mr Smethurst has said via Carter-Ruck that he will pay this sum into the Find Madeleine Fund
b) I will in addition pay Mr Smethurst’s reasonable legal costs to date, to be assessed by the court if not agreed between me and him (see below)
c) Carter-Ruck will draw up an undertaking for me to sign which will cover the contents of anything that I may or may not publish about him in the future; the terms of that undertaking to be agreed between us.
The hearing yesterday (7 December):
Carter-Ruck had four people representing them at yesterday’s hearing, which was in Room E117, the chambers of Master Victoria McCloud. They were:
(i) Jacob Dean, barrister
(ii) Isabel Hudson, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck
(iii) Two female assistants.
Mr Smethurst’s claim, issued by the court on 9 August 2011, was originally for £100,000 damages.
This was primarily a costs management hearing in which Carter-Ruck were asking the Master to approve their ‘costs budget’. This set out, in a series of complex tables, how they had calculated their costs to date (£28,390) and their likely future costs (£143,086.50), which totalled £171, 476.50.
Discussion about Carter-Ruck’s costs bill took up most of the 1¾ hour hearing. The Master queried the very high amount of costs in Carter-Ruck’s budget. The end result was that Carter-Ruck’s costs budget schedule, most unusually, was rejected by the Master, who ordered Carter-Ruck at their own expense to submit another one. Carter-Ruck were given leave to appeal if they wished.
The hearing opened with Jacob Dean, for Mr Smethurst, being able to make a half-hour opening summary of the case. In this address, he set out that the following legal issues to be settled in the case:
a) whether any or all of the comments I made about Mr Smethurst were justified (strictly true)
b) whether, if not justified, they were ‘fair comment’
c) what was the actual meaning of some of the words I used
d) whether I had acted promptly to remove any offending words.
He also claimed that Mr Smethurst had no control on Facebook over who became his friends on his Facebook page. That meant that I would have to have proved to the court that certain named friends of his were there as a matter of his conscious decision. Jacob Dean claimed that anyone could become Mr Smethurst’s ‘Facebook Friend’.
At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial. If the case had proceeded, there would have been a 1-day summary trial before a judge. If at that hearing the judge thought that I had an arguable case, the matter would have been set down for a 3-day trial at which all the legal arguments mentioned above would have been considered.
The Master was especially interested in the following aspects of the matter:
a) whether or not I had promptly removed any offending material
b) whether or not Mr Smethurst had followed the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which requires libel claimants to give potential defendants an opportunity to remove any allegedly libellous publications. The Protocol sets out quite clearly that court action should be ‘a last resort’
c) whether or not Mr Smethurst should have issued proceedings on 9 August when I had met all the demands of Carter-Ruck’s initial two letters of 4 August
d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request
e) whether the steps taken in the proceedings to date by Carter-Ruck were proportionate, having regard in particular to my prompt removal of any offending material.
At the conclusion of the case, the Master said that she was “fully seized of all the issues relating to the need for claimants to follow the pre-Action Protocol and as to proportionality”.
In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court.
Edward Smethurst, via his lawyers Carter-Ruck, has asked me to remove the last two sentences from this statement, and I have agreed to do so and removed them today, 4 February 2012 - Tony Bennett
SMETHURST
Update - Summary: Edward Smethurst’s claim against me has been settled on the following agreed terms:
a) I will pay the sum of £2,500 agreed damages to Mr Smethurst, without any formal admission of liability. Mr Smethurst has said via Carter-Ruck that he will pay this sum into the Find Madeleine Fund
b) I will in addition pay Mr Smethurst’s reasonable legal costs to date, to be assessed by the court if not agreed between me and him (see below)
c) Carter-Ruck will draw up an undertaking for me to sign which will cover the contents of anything that I may or may not publish about him in the future; the terms of that undertaking to be agreed between us.
The hearing yesterday (7 December):
Carter-Ruck had four people representing them at yesterday’s hearing, which was in Room E117, the chambers of Master Victoria McCloud. They were:
(i) Jacob Dean, barrister
(ii) Isabel Hudson, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck
(iii) Two female assistants.
Mr Smethurst’s claim, issued by the court on 9 August 2011, was originally for £100,000 damages.
This was primarily a costs management hearing in which Carter-Ruck were asking the Master to approve their ‘costs budget’. This set out, in a series of complex tables, how they had calculated their costs to date (£28,390) and their likely future costs (£143,086.50), which totalled £171, 476.50.
Discussion about Carter-Ruck’s costs bill took up most of the 1¾ hour hearing. The Master queried the very high amount of costs in Carter-Ruck’s budget. The end result was that Carter-Ruck’s costs budget schedule, most unusually, was rejected by the Master, who ordered Carter-Ruck at their own expense to submit another one. Carter-Ruck were given leave to appeal if they wished.
The hearing opened with Jacob Dean, for Mr Smethurst, being able to make a half-hour opening summary of the case. In this address, he set out that the following legal issues to be settled in the case:
a) whether any or all of the comments I made about Mr Smethurst were justified (strictly true)
b) whether, if not justified, they were ‘fair comment’
c) what was the actual meaning of some of the words I used
d) whether I had acted promptly to remove any offending words.
He also claimed that Mr Smethurst had no control on Facebook over who became his friends on his Facebook page. That meant that I would have to have proved to the court that certain named friends of his were there as a matter of his conscious decision. Jacob Dean claimed that anyone could become Mr Smethurst’s ‘Facebook Friend’.
At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial. If the case had proceeded, there would have been a 1-day summary trial before a judge. If at that hearing the judge thought that I had an arguable case, the matter would have been set down for a 3-day trial at which all the legal arguments mentioned above would have been considered.
The Master was especially interested in the following aspects of the matter:
a) whether or not I had promptly removed any offending material
b) whether or not Mr Smethurst had followed the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which requires libel claimants to give potential defendants an opportunity to remove any allegedly libellous publications. The Protocol sets out quite clearly that court action should be ‘a last resort’
c) whether or not Mr Smethurst should have issued proceedings on 9 August when I had met all the demands of Carter-Ruck’s initial two letters of 4 August
d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request
e) whether the steps taken in the proceedings to date by Carter-Ruck were proportionate, having regard in particular to my prompt removal of any offending material.
At the conclusion of the case, the Master said that she was “fully seized of all the issues relating to the need for claimants to follow the pre-Action Protocol and as to proportionality”.
In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court.
Edward Smethurst, via his lawyers Carter-Ruck, has asked me to remove the last two sentences from this statement, and I have agreed to do so and removed them today, 4 February 2012 - Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Smokeandmirrors 08.12.11 7:10
Tony, re: the statement that Mr Smethurst has no control over his Facebook friends, as far as I am aware having used Facebook, people have to send a friend request which you can accept, or ignore. People can't just make themselves your friend, so I would question that as it may well help your case.
Apart from that, good luck with the it all and hope it is not too stressful.
Apart from that, good luck with the it all and hope it is not too stressful.
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Gillyspot 08.12.11 7:13
Thanks Tony for sharing that.
As you say given the inequality of the case (i e ££''s) you were in between a rock and a hard place.
By the way as regards facebook you have to accept friends before they appear on your account so any friends he may have had he (or someone else using his account) would have had to consciously accept them.
As you say given the inequality of the case (i e ££''s) you were in between a rock and a hard place.
By the way as regards facebook you have to accept friends before they appear on your account so any friends he may have had he (or someone else using his account) would have had to consciously accept them.
____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
Gillyspot- Posts : 1470
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-06-13
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Smokeandmirrors 08.12.11 7:20
Yes, I just whizzed off and checked out Facebook FAQ's, Mr Smethurst definately would have had to accept a friend request. I would strongly contest the assertion that he had no control as it simply NOT TRUE! I think it grossly unfair that they would mention this without checking their facts, a lie must not enter the case!!
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Facebook friends
by uppatoffee 08.12.11 7:35
This post has been removed from the forum by Tony Bennett at the request of Edward Smethurst.
uppatoffee- Posts : 626
Activity : 645
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-09-14
Page 5 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Similar topics» THE 17-PAGE LIST OF OF POLICE OFFICERS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AUTHORS, WEBSITES, BLOGGERS ETC given to the High Court by Tony Bennett in the contempt of court case of McCanns v Bennett
» McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
» A COMPENDIUM OF MCCANN-RELATED LIBEL ACTIONS
» Missing Tia Sharp
» Libel Reform Campaign Press Statement 9 November 2011
» McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
» A COMPENDIUM OF MCCANN-RELATED LIBEL ACTIONS
» Missing Tia Sharp
» Libel Reform Campaign Press Statement 9 November 2011
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 5 of 8
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
