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 4 of 8 • Share
Page 4 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 Nina 14.11.11 18:22
Tony Bennett wrote:I've just had to change the proposed title of my new book from: "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 501 contradictions" to "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 502 contradictions"happychick wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:She did not enter the residence in question;
one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.
Crikey Tony, it's unusual for such a contradiction to be made in this case isn't it?
Tony I think you would be safe to call it The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann 502 contradictions and still counting
____________________
Not one more cent from me.
Nina- Posts : 2862
Activity : 3218
Likes received : 344
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 81
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by aiyoyo 16.11.11 19:06
Tony Bennett wrote:I've just had to change the proposed title of my new book from: "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 501 contradictions" to "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 502 contradictions"happychick wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:She did not enter the residence in question;
one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.
Crikey Tony, it's unusual for such a contradiction to be made in this case isn't it?
So if you keep coming across new contradiction/s will you have to keep changing the title?
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 jd 16.11.11 23:59
Mr Smethurst is giving us all evidence that is Gold in his continuing pursuit of Tony in the courts. When the day comes the whole world have it all in the public domain....He likes to think he is clever but I am stunned how nieve he is that he is giving himself away. Oh well its his lost in the end...and what a big loss it is going to be. Even Kennedy has wised up, but then this is why Smethurst is only a sidekick
____________________
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 jd 17.11.11 0:00
aiyoyo wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:I've just had to change the proposed title of my new book from: "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 501 contradictions" to "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 502 contradictions"happychick wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:She did not enter the residence in question;
one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.
Crikey Tony, it's unusual for such a contradiction to be made in this case isn't it?
So if you keep coming across new contradiction/s will you have to keep changing the title?
Wasn't the incredible Charlotte Pennington the first to arrive at the apartment that night?
____________________
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
Libel latest
by Tony Bennett 03.12.11 21:37
THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION and 3 LIBEL ACTIONS
Statement by Tony Bennett, Secretary, 9pm, 3 December 2011
BRIAN KENNEDY
Brian Kennedy’s concerns that I had libelled him have now been settled on terms acceptable to both parties. No court order or undertaking is involved and I did not pay any of Mr Kennedy’s costs.
EDWARD SMETHURST
In Thursday’s post (1 December), I received a costs estimate (as per High Court procedures) of the likely costs incurred by Edward Smethurst if he pursues his libel claim against me, assuming I continue to defend his claim. I would be liable to pay all those costs if I lose (i.e. if the court holds that any one of my statements about him on Jill's forum libelled him).
In their letter, Carter-Ruck say that Smethurst's costs to date are £28,390 and that his future costs, assuming a three-day libel trial, will be £143,086.50, making the total £171,476.50.
This is based, as set out in a 10-page document, on much of the legal work being done by a Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck who charges £562.50 an hour for his time (inclusive of VAT).
Faced with such huge costs, I clearly must think carefully about my options in advance of a Case Management and Costs Management hearing in the High Court next Wednesday.
MCCANNS
Application for committtal to prison
At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns, and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files. They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.
There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.
I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.
Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.
In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous. They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not. That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.
There is a reference to all of this in Dr Kate McCann’s book: ‘madeleine’. She wrote (pp. 289-290):
“Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.
To have spent hundreds of hours on Jill Havern’s forum for the past few months ‘painstakingly and time-consumingly’searching, and searching, for possible libels, without any payment whatsoever, would indeed be regarded by many people as an act of very great generosity.
I cannot conclude this statement without giving an honourable mention to Mr Mike Gunnill of Kent, a past member of Jill Havern’s forum, and, for all I know, a present one, under one of his many personas, aliases, and ‘socks’. Mike Gunnill, it may be recalled, was the photojournalist who took the photograph of Debbie Butler (near whom he lives), used by the Sunday Express alongside their front-page headline: ‘The McCanns’ Stalker’ on 16 August 2009. His website at the time was remarkable for including over 100 photos he took at the gruesome ‘House of Horror’, Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, scene of decades of child abuse and possibly even child murders by depraved paedophiles. Some on this forum may recall how Gunnill e-mailed me in January 2010 under one of his many pseudonyms, ‘Michael Sangerte’, claiming he lived in ‘Berkshire’, asking to buy a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ (other names used by Gunnill in previous correspondence with me (before I knew his real identity) were Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin).
I refused. He then wrote me a further begging letter stating that he really wanted an original copy of ‘60 Reasons’ because of his ‘historical research’, adding that he was ‘willing to pay a high price’ for a copy. I then offered to obtain a copy belonging to a close relative and asked him to send £5 including postage, which he did. He asked me to send the book to Michael Sangerte - not in Berkshire, but at an address in Kent. Subsequent enquiries showed that this was Mike Gunnill’s home near Maidstone, Kent. The very day after the book was sent to him, he bragged on a McCann-believer forum that he had obtained a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ and had already sent it to Carter-Ruck, who were apparently ‘delighted’ to receive it. He later openly stated on that same forum that he was being employed ‘on a mission’.
This, however, is how this incident is reported in Isabel Hudson’s affidavit, paragraph 37:
“We continued to monitor the situation, and in early February 2010 we received evidence (again from a well-wisher) which suggested that the Defendant had sold at least one further copy of the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet (one of the publications specifically complained about in the libel claim form which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining undertakings to the court)…I exhibit a copy of the e-mail thread between this well-wisher and the defendant (which should be read from top to bottom) at page 26 of Exhibit IJH5”.
+++++++++++
To deal with these two separate court actions will require a great deal of time and attention. For that reason, and for other reasons, I have decided not to contribute any further postings to the publicly-viewable part this forum until at least these two sets of court proceedings are concluded. Depending on the outcome of those two court cases, I will then consider my position in relation to whether or not to rejoin in any public discussions in the future (or even whether the court will allow me to). In the meantime, and subject as always to the consent of the forum-owner, I shall continue to remain a member of the forum and to contribute where I can to those parts of the forum which are not publicly-viewable.
This withdrawal, whether temporary or permanent, comes at a time when Jill Havern’s forum has remained the most visited Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet for the past four months, and its membership has grown to nearly 1,500 members. Very informative discussions are taking place on the forum, to which many contribute.
As Clarence Mitchell himself said nearly a year ago, even the McCanns admit that Madeleine’s abduction is but ‘an assumption’ or a ‘working hypothesis’. Moreover, despite over four years of searching, using private investigators that have cost the McCann Team millions of pounds, the McCann Team are still unable to give us one single usable piece of information about who is supposed to have abducted her, and, if she was abducted, where she was taken. Nor do we really know which of 18 suspects, ‘persons of interest’ and ‘people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries’ (two of whom are women) we are supposed to still be looking out for.
In those circumstances I wish all of you on here committed to discussing what happened to Madeleine every success in getting ever closer to the truth.
Statement by Tony Bennett, Secretary, 9pm, 3 December 2011
BRIAN KENNEDY
Brian Kennedy’s concerns that I had libelled him have now been settled on terms acceptable to both parties. No court order or undertaking is involved and I did not pay any of Mr Kennedy’s costs.
EDWARD SMETHURST
In Thursday’s post (1 December), I received a costs estimate (as per High Court procedures) of the likely costs incurred by Edward Smethurst if he pursues his libel claim against me, assuming I continue to defend his claim. I would be liable to pay all those costs if I lose (i.e. if the court holds that any one of my statements about him on Jill's forum libelled him).
In their letter, Carter-Ruck say that Smethurst's costs to date are £28,390 and that his future costs, assuming a three-day libel trial, will be £143,086.50, making the total £171,476.50.
This is based, as set out in a 10-page document, on much of the legal work being done by a Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck who charges £562.50 an hour for his time (inclusive of VAT).
Faced with such huge costs, I clearly must think carefully about my options in advance of a Case Management and Costs Management hearing in the High Court next Wednesday.
MCCANNS
Application for committtal to prison
At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns, and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files. They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.
There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.
I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.
Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.
In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous. They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not. That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.
There is a reference to all of this in Dr Kate McCann’s book: ‘madeleine’. She wrote (pp. 289-290):
“Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.
To have spent hundreds of hours on Jill Havern’s forum for the past few months ‘painstakingly and time-consumingly’searching, and searching, for possible libels, without any payment whatsoever, would indeed be regarded by many people as an act of very great generosity.
I cannot conclude this statement without giving an honourable mention to Mr Mike Gunnill of Kent, a past member of Jill Havern’s forum, and, for all I know, a present one, under one of his many personas, aliases, and ‘socks’. Mike Gunnill, it may be recalled, was the photojournalist who took the photograph of Debbie Butler (near whom he lives), used by the Sunday Express alongside their front-page headline: ‘The McCanns’ Stalker’ on 16 August 2009. His website at the time was remarkable for including over 100 photos he took at the gruesome ‘House of Horror’, Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, scene of decades of child abuse and possibly even child murders by depraved paedophiles. Some on this forum may recall how Gunnill e-mailed me in January 2010 under one of his many pseudonyms, ‘Michael Sangerte’, claiming he lived in ‘Berkshire’, asking to buy a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ (other names used by Gunnill in previous correspondence with me (before I knew his real identity) were Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin).
I refused. He then wrote me a further begging letter stating that he really wanted an original copy of ‘60 Reasons’ because of his ‘historical research’, adding that he was ‘willing to pay a high price’ for a copy. I then offered to obtain a copy belonging to a close relative and asked him to send £5 including postage, which he did. He asked me to send the book to Michael Sangerte - not in Berkshire, but at an address in Kent. Subsequent enquiries showed that this was Mike Gunnill’s home near Maidstone, Kent. The very day after the book was sent to him, he bragged on a McCann-believer forum that he had obtained a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ and had already sent it to Carter-Ruck, who were apparently ‘delighted’ to receive it. He later openly stated on that same forum that he was being employed ‘on a mission’.
This, however, is how this incident is reported in Isabel Hudson’s affidavit, paragraph 37:
“We continued to monitor the situation, and in early February 2010 we received evidence (again from a well-wisher) which suggested that the Defendant had sold at least one further copy of the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet (one of the publications specifically complained about in the libel claim form which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining undertakings to the court)…I exhibit a copy of the e-mail thread between this well-wisher and the defendant (which should be read from top to bottom) at page 26 of Exhibit IJH5”.
+++++++++++
To deal with these two separate court actions will require a great deal of time and attention. For that reason, and for other reasons, I have decided not to contribute any further postings to the publicly-viewable part this forum until at least these two sets of court proceedings are concluded. Depending on the outcome of those two court cases, I will then consider my position in relation to whether or not to rejoin in any public discussions in the future (or even whether the court will allow me to). In the meantime, and subject as always to the consent of the forum-owner, I shall continue to remain a member of the forum and to contribute where I can to those parts of the forum which are not publicly-viewable.
This withdrawal, whether temporary or permanent, comes at a time when Jill Havern’s forum has remained the most visited Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet for the past four months, and its membership has grown to nearly 1,500 members. Very informative discussions are taking place on the forum, to which many contribute.
As Clarence Mitchell himself said nearly a year ago, even the McCanns admit that Madeleine’s abduction is but ‘an assumption’ or a ‘working hypothesis’. Moreover, despite over four years of searching, using private investigators that have cost the McCann Team millions of pounds, the McCann Team are still unable to give us one single usable piece of information about who is supposed to have abducted her, and, if she was abducted, where she was taken. Nor do we really know which of 18 suspects, ‘persons of interest’ and ‘people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries’ (two of whom are women) we are supposed to still be looking out for.
In those circumstances I wish all of you on here committed to discussing what happened to Madeleine every success in getting ever closer to the truth.
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 uppatoffee 03.12.11 21:48
So much for Freedom of Speech Gerry.
uppatoffee- Posts : 626
Activity : 645
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-09-14
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Guest 03.12.11 23:48
Tony, you have my sympathy and full support.
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
by Gillyspot 04.12.11 2:38
Tony we are all behind you and with you too.
Gerry & Kate if you are reading this. We will never give up until you show that you are innocent (if you can) by taking a lie detector test or a reconstruction or some other method. Trying to silence us is like trying to catch the wind in an egg cup.
Gerry & Kate if you are reading this. We will never give up until you show that you are innocent (if you can) by taking a lie detector test or a reconstruction or some other method. Trying to silence us is like trying to catch the wind in an egg cup.
____________________
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 jd 04.12.11 3:25
This post has been removed by Tony Bennett at the request of Edward Smethurst.
____________________
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 Jill Havern 04.12.11 8:33
Goncalo Amaral said he would be happy to fly to London to help NSY with their whitewash review, so I think you should invite him to give evidence at your trial. He seems quite interested in this case.
____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 29111
Activity : 41847
Likes received : 7716
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
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
Page 4 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 4 of 8
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
