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

Stella wrote:I agree T4two. All they needed to send to court yeasterday was a Barrister, without the entourage. Even a high profile murder trial does not have that level of people in attendance. Talk about overkill.

I have a feeling that as the Judge asked for only 10 of the most serious claims to be used at the trial and Carter Ruck came back with 25, this will already be working against Carter Ruck, for not following the Judge's request.

Willo wrote:I'm happy that the day went well and I'm hopeful of a fair trial thus TB's aquittal but......... It all feels too neat. C/R are not stupid. That nagging feeling that something from left field will emerge is in my head. I'm sure I was never so skeptical before Team McCann evolved.

aiyoyo wrote:
The wise judge no doubt had arrived at a conclusion that the relationship between mccanns and CR has gone beyond professional capacity.
At the end of the day although lawyers have to follow clients instruction, nonetheless the pivotal role of good lawyers is to advise their client appropriately. And, no sensible client will go against sound and good advice, especially if advised that going against Judge's recommendation would look unreasonable.

This countering of the Judge's suggestion will look bad alike for both mccanns and CR to the Judge, in that the mccanns came across as small minded difficult, unreasonable, and determined to compound the case, when 10 would be sufficient for their purpose. While CR came across as either unable to persuade their clients, or didn't persuade their client but in it together with the clients to overkill the defendant, when there is no need to weigh him down with boxes and boxes of unnecessary paper works to go through.

The entourage of 5 legal attendants representing mccanns would not have gone unnoticed by the Judge.
All this display of legal might just to take on TB - Goliath vs David springs to mind.
Can anyone imagine what would be the size of their legal entourage if they were on trial for the criminal act/s we cannot mention?

Willo wrote:I'm happy that the day went well and I'm hopeful of a fair trial thus TB's aquittal but......... It all feels too neat. C/R are not stupid. That nagging feeling that something from left field will emerge is in my head. I'm sure I was never so skeptical before Team McCann evolved.

Tony should seek to have the McCann couple declared vexatious litigants the next time he appears before a High Court Judge.

justme3 wrote:Why won't they take a lie detector test and clear this up, once and for all?

Stella wrote:Don't listen to Keir, he knows what side his bread is buttered.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

And how utterly disgusting that neither of the Mc's had the integrity to attend - says it all really.

tsk tsk you know full well they are both distraught, they no longer laugh or smile the actions of Tony have left a permanent mark - its a damn good job

Madeleines disappearance didnt affect them or they would be in a fine mess

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

And how utterly disgusting that neither of the Mc's had the integrity to attend - says it all really.

tsk tsk you know full well they are both distraught, they no longer laugh or smile the actions of Tony have left a permanent mark - its a damn good job

Madeleines disappearance didnt affect them or they would be in a fine mess

Pershing36 wrote:I other words they have finished their multi-million pound paper shuffle (with a few trips to make it look authentic) and they are ready to wind it up. If he is right and they expect it to be completed in a few months and they haven't yet interviewed a single witness, you can't honestly believe anything new has been added or is likely too be.

sharonl wrote:Tony has asked me to post this brief resume of today’s Case Management hearing.

QUOTE TONY:

The hearing was only ever about getting the matter ready for trial.

The hearing lasted around 1 hour and 50 minutes. The McCanns were represented by Jacob Dean (barrister), Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and two assistants.

Carter-Ruck had proposed a timetable for serving and filing evidence ahead of the trial and proposed that the trial would last for 1-2 days, to be held as soon as practicable on or after 10 April.

I made a number of applications at the hearing, which out of courtesy I notified to Carter-Ruck by hand on 2 February.

My application to have a ‘McKenzie friend’ [lay helper] with me at the hearing was granted by consent, and I thank my friend who acted as my McKenzie helper today.

I made an outline application to be allowed to apply for one part of the original undertaking I gave to be rescinded. This was granted. I have until 22 February to submit that application. That involves paying a Court fee of £80.00 and submitting detailed reasons for that application. At this point I will say that I do not propose to seek to rescind any of the following undertakings, all of which I have abided by except for the sale of one book to Mr Michael Gunnill (see below):

• To deliver up all hard copies of “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” (known in short as ‘60 Reasons’) to Carter-Ruck
• To deliver up all hard copies of the leaflet entitled “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted
• To destroy any electronic version of ‘What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted”.
• To destroy any electronic version of the leaflet entitled “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted
• To close our website, whose domain name was: www.madeleinefoundation.org‘
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://democracyforum.co.uk
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://www.anorak.co.uk
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website www.truthformadeleine.com
• To pay £440.00 towards the Defendant’s costs [subsequently reduced to £400.00.]

I applied for an Order that ‘the Claimants [the McCanns] do specify which words they allege constitute alleged breaches of my undertaking’. This was because of what I claimed was a lack of clarity in the McCanns’ application. The Practice Rules are very specific in requiring that in a contempt of court allegation, the Claimants must be precise and full in explaining to the Defendant precisely why he is alleged to be in breach of an undertaking to such an extent that he deserves to be sent to prison.

I had also asked for more time to prepare my defence. The Judge was concerned about the volume of paperwork I was faced with [153 alleged breaches of the undertaking] and said that ‘there is considerable force in Mr Bennett’s request for more time to prepare his defence’.

This was resolved as follows. The Judge invited Jacob Dean [the McCanns’ barrister] to take a 5-minute adjournment to consider whether he wished to reduce his 153 alleged breaches to, say, ‘the 10 most serious breaches’. He said that if the McCanns could prove those breaches, it was unnecessary to prove the other 143. After 15 minutes, the McCanns’ legal team came back into Court and said that they would submit a new application based on ‘around 25’ of the most serious breaches. The trial will then be confined effectively to an examination of just those 25 alleged breaches. The Judge gave them until 4pm on Friday 17 February to serve this new application on me. He also suggested to Mr Dean that Carter-Ruck needed to be much more precise than they had been about the words I used that were said to be in breach of the undertaking and which term of any undertaking they were alleged to breach.

The Judge granted me until 9 March to reply to the McCanns’ revised application [the McCanns had originally asked for my response by 22 February.

The McCanns will then have the right to reply to my response. They will have to serve this on me by 5 April.

I applied for an Order that Michael Gunnill be produced as a witness and was able to inform the Judge in outline of how Mr Gunnill had obtained a ’60 Reasons’ book from me by entrapment, and how Mr Gunnill had boasted about doing this ‘on behalf of a third party’ which I believed to be the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck. I was granted permission to apply for a Witness Order against Mr Gunnill requiring to attend the trial and give evidence. I shall be doing that shortly.

I had applied for an Order that one of the McCanns make a Witness Statement to (a) state what evidence there is that Madeleine McCann was abducted and (b) to state what evidence there was, as claimed in Isabel Hudson’s Affidavit, that any of my actions had, as the McCanns claimed, ‘harmed the search for Madeleine’. These applications were refused. The Judge said that it was for the Claimants to give whatever evidence they felt was necessary to support their application to commit me to prison and that if I felt there was insufficient evidence that an abduction had occurred I would have the right to make submissions about this in my closing speech at the trial.

I applied for the McCanns to produce certified English translations of the two judgments against them in the Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011). The Judge refused, after asking the McCanns’ barrister if Dr Amaral’s book was now freely available in Portugal, to which of course he agreed. He said that if I considered these relevant, I should produce these myself. One of my supporters at the hearing kindly volunteered afterwards to see if she could obtain these for me.

The trial is scheduled for 2 days, any time on or after 17 April 2012.

In conclusion, I would like to thank each and every one of the eight people who kindly troubled to attend court to support me, and it was a pleasure to buy them all lunch at the Dulcis Cafe afterwards.

UNQUOTE TONY

sharonl wrote:The McCanns were represented by Jacob Dean (barrister), Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and two assistants.