*NEW!* Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.12 10:12

At the sixth time of asking over a period of five weeks, in a 'phone call this morning, I have managed to extract from Mr James Tipp, Deputy Court Manager and Court Co-ordinator for the Queens Bench Division Judges Listing Office to give him his full title, the following information:

1. The 2-hour Directions Hearing on 8 February will be in open court, absolutely anyone can attend to observe, media included, McCann-sceptics and McCann-believers alike

2. I can have someone with me to record the proceedings (in writing) and have made provisional arrangements for someone to do that.

As stated before, decisions as to the Court room number for the hearing and time of the hearing won't be taken until the day before. I have to ring the Court Listing Office after 2pm on 7 February and they will give me that information.

I will post up that information here as soon as I get it a week on Tuesday.

In view of the costs of legal representation, and because only very expensive barristers are allowed to represent Defendants in High Court proceedings, I shall have to represent myself.

Thanks once again by the way for all advice received and expressions of support, they have all been much appreciated.

One final point: the law on freedom of speech in this country i.e. what one can reasonably say about another without crossing the indistinct line between fair and honest comment on the one hand, and libelling someone on the other, has been changed as a result of the decision two years ago in Spiller v Joseph. There, five Supreme Court judges unanimously extended the rights of those who might be making adverse comment on others. It is well worth a careful read, but does run to 48 pages, here's the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0210_Judgment.pdf

by kikoraton 27.01.12 11:58

Tony . I admire your resolve, and your dedication to finding out the truth about Madeleine.
You are zealous in your determination to discover the smallest detail, which you can then bring to the case.
By comparison, I'm not sure whether I am a surface-skimmer, or a bottom-feeder.
In either case, you will have my best wishes on 8 February and in future developments.
Kiko

by Guest 27.01.12 12:10

Tony Bennett wrote:I will post up that information here as soon as I get it a week on Tuesday.

In view of the costs of legal representation, and because only very expensive barristers are allowed to represent Defendants in High Court proceedings, I shall have to represent myself.

Tony, don't understand this, why are only very expensive barristers are allowed You can't just have any barrister? Surely that is a very unfair situation. How many people can afford very expensive barristers?

by Guest 27.01.12 12:15

Tony Bennett wrote:2. I can have someone with me to record the proceedings (in writing) and have made provisional arrangements for someone to do that.

Tony, all I can say is, please ensure that this is someone who you would trust with your life.

by **spudgun** 27.01.12 13:01

Tony, I have tried to call you but I guess your pre-occupation with everything has made you a very busy man! I am desperately trying to re-shuffle things so that I can attend this hearing in the PRESS gallery, where I will be able to take extensive notes. I shall also wish to press Counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McCann on a few issues, which I am sure they will not answer, but which will pose them at least some annoyance.

Good luck and well done my friend.

Mike

by Ollie 27.01.12 13:14

Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:2. I can have someone with me to record the proceedings (in writing) and have made provisional arrangements for someone to do that.

Tony, all I can say is, please ensure that this is someone who you would trust with your life.

You are so right Stella, as has been shown too often now people that you think are trustworthy have been the complete opposite and have in fact been working for the McCanns.

by Liz Eagles 27.01.12 13:36

Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:2. I can have someone with me to record the proceedings (in writing) and have made provisional arrangements for someone to do that.

Tony, all I can say is, please ensure that this is someone who you would trust with your life.

Please listen to Stella, Tony. Someone skilled at taking notes, someone with precision attention to detail, someone you can trust with your life.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.12 14:22

Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:2. I can have someone with me to record the proceedings (in writing) and have made provisional arrangements for someone to do that.

Tony, all I can say is, please ensure that this is someone who you would trust with your life.

It is someone I have known for a number of years whom I have represented at a Tribunal in the last two years and is a successful business person in a professional field

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.12 14:28

spudgun wrote:Tony, I have tried to call you but I guess your pre-occupation with everything has made you a very busy man! I am desperately trying to re-shuffle things so that I can attend this hearing in the PRESS gallery, where I will be able to take extensive notes. I shall also wish to press Counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McCann on a few issues, which I am sure they will not answer, but which will pose them at least some annoyance.

Good luck and well done my friend. Mike

I am not sure yet whether the Directions Hearing will take place in a Court room (large) or a Master's room (small). I hear that some of the McCann-believers are planning to attend, so there might be quite a crowd. If there are too many to crowd into a Master's room, I have no idea what will happen. The venue and time of the hearing will be published on what is known as the Daily Cause List, and from 2.00pm onwards on 7 February, ANYONE can find out the venue and time by ringing the Queen's Bench Listing Officer, 020 7947 6528 or by ringing the High Court switchboard 020 7947 6000.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.12 14:51

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I will post up that information here as soon as I get it a week on Tuesday.

In view of the costs of legal representation, and because only very expensive barristers are allowed to represent Defendants in High Court proceedings, I shall have to represent myself.

Tony, don't understand this, why are only very expensive barristers are allowed You can't just have any barrister? Surely that is a very unfair situation. How many people can afford very expensive barristers?

candyfloss, I perhaps could have expressed myself better. I should have said: 'barristers, who are very expensive'.

The position is this.

The only people allowed to represent people at the Royal Courts of Justice are barristers (except for a handful of solicitors who have gained 'rights of audience' in that court).

The other part of what I was trying to say is this.

If I was to instruct a barrister, I would end up having to pay both solicitor and barrister. And I couldn't hire just any barrister. It would have to be someone who was an expert, sufficient to match the 'firepower' of Carter-Ruck and their barrister. Any barrister I hired would have to be knowledgeable in the following fields:

* libel

* contempt of court

* Articles 6(1) and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (rights to a fair trial and freedom of speech).

There aren't many of those about.

And they are very expensive.

Not only that, but I would have to pay them to read 2,000 pages of Carter-Ruck's 5 Lever Arch files before they would even offer me one word of advice

by HFS 27.01.12 16:16

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused here now.
This trial is about Contempt of Court, am I right about that?
And when that's done it's still possible Mr Bennett will have to go to Court for libel?

A conviction for Contempt of Court might help the McCanns/CR when they file a complaint about libel after that.
So are you, Mr Bennett, intending on fighting the Contempt of Court and wouldn't that make it more expensive for you in case you lose? (I'm thinking of you paying for CR's costs as well)

ETA I forgot to ask: is Mr Smethursts case finished now? Sorry if it's already posted, I may have missed it.

by kikoraton 27.01.12 16:39

"2,000 pages of Carter-Ruck's 5 Lever Arch files"
Who has been paying Adam and Isabel to compile this stuff? Does it represent the vast majority of their work?
It's an important question, because if it has cost a vast sum of money, has it come from the "Fund to find Madeleine" or have the McCanns other wealthy patrons?

by Miraflores 27.01.12 16:52

kikoraton wrote:
"2,000 pages of Carter-Ruck's 5 Lever Arch files"
Who has been paying Adam and Isabel to compile this stuff? Does it represent the vast majority of their work?
It's an important question, because if it has cost a vast sum of money, has it come from the "Fund to find Madeleine" or have the McCanns other wealthy patrons?

Ah, you haven't read the book. *NEW!* Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February 847771

In that Kate assures us that Carter-Ruck continue to work for them behind the scenes for nothing!

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.12 23:26

HFS wrote:I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused here now. This trial is about Contempt of Court, am I right about that?

Yes, and if I can explain that, the McCanns asked me to give several Undertakings to the court not to do this and that. And I gave that series of Undertakings to the Court. The McCanns are bringing this back to Court basically because they say that a certain number of my publications over the past two years (articles and forum posts) have breached those Undertakings. If the Court decided that I have acted contemptuously, i.e. defiantly broken my Undertakings without reasonable excuse, they will punish me somehow. Their powers are mainly to imprison, to fine, and to seize assets - and to impose a costs order.

And when that's done it's still possible Mr Bennett will have to go to Court for libel?

Indeed, The McCanns could at any time thereafter sue me for libel damages as well - even if the Court has already puninshed me for contempt of Court.

A conviction for Contempt of Court might help the McCanns/CR when they file a complaint about libel after that.

Possibly. That's a legal question I can't answer.

So are you, Mr Bennett, intending on fighting the Contempt of Court and wouldn't that make it more expensive for you in case you lose? (I'm thinking of you paying for CR's costs as well).

I believe I have a valid defence to the McCanns' contempt of court application. So I will present that defence to the Court.

ETA I forgot to ask: is Mr Smethursts case finished now? Sorry if it's already posted, I may have missed it.

No. The issue of what Mr Smethurst can reasonably claim by way of costs against me is yet to be decided. There will be a further hearing about this in a few weeks' time. I have also agreed in principle, and subject to the forum-owner's agreement, to seek to remove postings by others on this forum which Mr Smethurst considers have libelled him. I have just been provided with a list of the postings to which he objects - and it is my intention over the next few days to remove all those postings as per my agreement.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.12 23:36

kikoraton wrote:"2,000 pages of Carter-Ruck's 5 Lever Arch files".

Who has been paying Adam and Isabel to compile this stuff? Does it represent the vast majority of their work?
It's an important question, because if it has cost a vast sum of money, has it come from the "Fund to Find Madeleine" - or have the McCanns other wealthy patrons?

kikoraton, you'll recall that on many occasions the McCanns have referred to how they wish to be as 'open and transparent' as possible regarding the way the Fund money is spent, the conduct of their private investigations, their search for Madeleine, who is funding them etc., etc. To fulfil those statements, a good start would be for both the McCanns and Carter-Ruck to give a full account of just who is funding this truly vast operation of:

* visiting this forum and our website, almost daily for months,

* analysing hundreds, quite possibly thousands, of posts for possible libels,

* seeking counsel's opinion on whether post 'x' or 'y' is libellous or not, or has breached an undertaking ir not,

* seeking client's instructions,

* instructing Mike Gunnill to use deception to get hold of a copy of '60 Reasons', then sending down a courier to collect a book and an incriminating envelope, and taking a statement from him,

* collating all that information,

* photocopying it,

* making up multiple bundles of Lever Arch files, all bound in Carter-Ruck livery,

* writing all the letters.

Without doubt it's a gigantic search for possible libels.

by littlepixie 27.01.12 23:59

I find it all really strange Tony. If they take you to Court and take every penny you have it will NOT make any difference whatsoever to what happened to their daughter.

It will not make one iota of difference to the "search" for her.

The Police will still think what they think and the Public will still think what they think.

Long gone are the days when the Majority would be cowed by the actions of those who think they have power over a single individual.

They are fooling themselves and wasting lots of money doing it.

by pauline 28.01.12 0:12

littlepixie wrote:I find it all really strange Tony. If they take you to Court and take every penny you have it will NOT make any difference whatsoever to what happened to their daughter.

It will not make one iota of difference to the "search" for her.

The Police will still think what they think and the Public will still think what they think.

Long gone are the days when the Majority would be cowed by the actions of those who think they have power over a single individual.

They are fooling themselves and wasting lots of money doing it.

Little pixie - a brilliant summing up.

Their motives are not to help the search for Madeleine but

1) to shut Tony up
and
2) if possible, get money out of him

It is ALL about money.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.12 0:19

littlepixie wrote:I find it all really strange Tony. If they take you to Court and take every penny you have it will NOT make any difference whatsoever to what happened to their daughter.

But the McCanns insist, via Iasbel Hudson's Affidavit to the Court, that my activities are actively 'harming the search for Madeleine', precisely the same claim they made in the libel writ issued in July 2009 in Lisbon against Dr Goncalo Amaral, though of course he was also accused of directly causing the following:

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both suffering from 'permanent anxiety'

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate Mccann both suffering from insomnia

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both suffering from lack of appetite

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both suffering from irritability

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both suffering 'indefinable fear'

* Dr Kate McCann being 'deeply and seriously depressed'

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both being 'totally destroyed'

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both being 'irreparably damaged', and

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both being 'totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotioanl and family point of view'.

Well, that is what the writ specified, according to a number of news reports not denied by the McCanns.

None of these sufferings, it seems, were caused by the loss of their daughter, nor anxiety about whatever fate befell Madeleine. They were purely caused by Dr Goncalo Amaral.

It will not make one iota of difference to the "search" for her.

The McCanns disagree with you there, littlepixie. Indeed, I think that may be the ONLY reason why they have set Carter-Ruck on a 6-month trawl through articles and postings on our website and on this forum.

The Police will still think what they think...

Or whatever David Cameron has told them to think

...and the Public will still think what they think.

Long gone are the days when the Majority would be cowed by the actions of those who think they have power over a single individual. They are fooling themselves and wasting lots of money doing it.

It is always good to see your posts on here, littlepixie, thank you again for your past and present support - and also for those delicious sandwiches

by Pershing36 28.01.12 0:20

I am afraid I don't seem to be able to offer you anything but saying "Good Luck". Hope it all goes well for you.

by aiyoyo 28.01.12 2:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
littlepixie wrote:I find it all really strange Tony. If they take you to Court and take every penny you have it will NOT make any difference whatsoever to what happened to their daughter.

But the McCanns insist, via Iasbel Hudson's Affidavit to the Court, that my activities are actively 'harming the search for Madeleine', precisely the same claim they made in the libel writ issued in July 2009 in Lisbon against Dr Goncalo Amaral, though of course he was also accused of directly causing the following:

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both suffering from 'permanent anxiety'

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate Mccann both suffering from insomnia

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both suffering from lack of appetite

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both suffering from irritability

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both suffering 'indefinable fear'

* Dr Kate McCann being 'deeply and seriously depressed'

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both being 'totally destroyed'

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both being 'irreparably damaged', and

* Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann both being 'totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotioanl and family point of view'.

Good grief! All the manifest symptoms of a mental person. In this case, a deranged person with a cause.

Well, that is what the writ specified, according to a number of news reports not denied by the McCanns.

None of these sufferings, it seems, were caused by the loss of their daughter, nor anxiety about whatever fate befell Madeleine. They were purely caused by Dr Goncalo Amaral.

It will not make one iota of difference to the "search" for her.

The McCanns disagree with you there, littlepixie. Indeed, I think that may be the ONLY reason why they have set Carter-Ruck on a 6-month trawl through articles and postings on our website and on this forum.

The Police will still think what they think...

Or whatever David Cameron has told them to think

...and the Public will still think what they think.

Long gone are the days when the Majority would be cowed by the actions of those who think they have power over a single individual. They are fooling themselves and wasting lots of money doing it.

It is always good to see your posts on here, littlepixie, thank you again for your past and present support - and also for those delicious sandwiches

by Liz Eagles 28.01.12 2:29

Aiyoyo, sadly this is the state of the law. I find it digusting but that's how it is. To be on the sharp end of the bayonet of it is beyond belief from the parents of a missing child. I shall never understand how it came to this situation. I hope the McCanns put a stop to this, publish transparent accounts, tell us what exactly is being done in the search for Madeleine with donated money and money from libel cases. I can dream. I want Madeleine found. What a waste of time to sue people. IMO the McCanns would be better served by stopping suing people, publishing their accounts, telling people the situation in the search for Madeleine. I'm hoping for grace and humanity.

by jay2001 28.01.12 15:17

Aquila - completely agree with your comments. Isn't it tragic that these days 'ruthless' lawyers can allow guilty people to walk free on technicalities even though they know the culprit is guilty. I cannot believe that this pursuit of TB an GA has gone so far. IMO it's vindictive and for revenge. TM must know that their account of 3 May 2007 is just not believed by many people, but if you dare to question that account or print details of the police files you end up possibly losing your home and every penny you have. That is such an unchristian attitude. Why?

I notice Mike Spudgun wants to go to the press gallery. In such a small court/chambers I'm not sure there would be a press gallery. But if the press and Sky/BBC/ITN do not cover this there is definitely something wrong (yeah, we know that already). If this is in the media, even with CM spin I personally think it will show TM in a very bad light.

My thoughts are with Tony and his family. The sad thing is I presume Tony has to prove his writings were not in contempt or libellous and TM don't have to prove a thing. If they had to prove abduction by a stranger where is the evidence?

by aiyoyo 28.01.12 15:45

jay2001 wrote:Aquila - completely agree with your comments. Isn't it tragic that these days 'ruthless' lawyers can allow guilty people to walk free on technicalities even though they know the culprit is guilty. I cannot believe that this pursuit of TB an GA has gone so far. IMO it's vindictive and for revenge. TM must know that their account of 3 May 2007 is just not believed by many people, but if you dare to question that account or print details of the police files you end up possibly losing your home and every penny you have. That is such an unchristian attitude. Why?

I notice Mike Spudgun wants to go to the press gallery. In such a small court/chambers I'm not sure there would be a press gallery. But if the press and Sky/BBC/ITN do not cover this there is definitely something wrong (yeah, we know that already). If this is in the media, even with CM spin I personally think it will show TM in a very bad light.

My thoughts are with Tony and his family. The sad thing is I presume Tony has to prove his writings were not in contempt or libellous and TM don't have to prove a thing. If they had to prove abduction by a stranger where is the evidence?

Just as a matter of curiosity, is Mike Spudgun a freelance journalist? Or which newspapers is he working for? Does anyone know?
It will be good if he can make it to TB's hearing to do the recording then report on it.

by Guest 28.01.12 16:16

I think he's freelance. Here's a link to his Twitter page. http://twitter.com/spudgun01

by Guest 28.01.12 16:35

You beat me to it Jean - this is his profile on twitter............

Mike Spudgun

@spudgun01 UK

Investigative Journalist / Film-maker Partaken in Current Affairs documentaries and News reports/investigations for ITV, Channel 4, BBC and SKY News.

NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Very very expensive

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Replies to HFS

A gigantic search

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

It is all Goncalo Amaral's fault

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Mike Spudgun

Re: NEW! Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Log in for more topics