McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Welcome :: Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Amaral / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy Libel Trials and Lawsuits
Page 1 of 10 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 
McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
The two-day trial in the case of McCanns v Bennett, due to be heard on 9 & 10 May 2012, was adjourned at my request and by mutual consent, in order for me to explore the possibility of being granted Legal Aid under exceptional circumstances. This because there was a gross inequality of arms in the case, the McCanns’ lawyers, carter-Ruck, having anon on 19 April that they had already spent ‘well over £120,000’ in costs on the case so far. The McCanns are employing a barrister, their most senior partner Adam Tudor, and another partner, Isabel Hudson in their application to commit me to prison. I was unrepresented at the hearing on 8 February before Mr Justice Tugendhat.
LEGAL AID
On 4 May, Mr or Ms Ka Poh Ling, of the Legal Services Commission (LSC)’s Central Complaints Handling Team, wrote to me confirming the LSC’s original decision NOT to consider me for Legal Aid. S/he wrote:
“I can confirm that if you have capital above £8,000, after any relevant deductions, then legal aid will not be available to you. However, it remains open to you to submit an application to our Special Cases Unit through a contracted solicitor if your financial circumstances change”.
However, it appeared that Mr/Ms Ka Poh Ling had ignored what is called ‘the pensioner’s disregard on capital’, as set out in Paragraph 7-4 and Appendix 2 of the LSC Manual, which applies to those aged 60 or over.
To cut a long and complex story short, it appears that the effect of the pensioner’s disregard could entitle me to Legal Aid.
AN APPEAL
I therefore appealed.
On 24 May I received a further letter from the LSC, this time from Ms Helen Riley, Director of Case Management.
The LSC reversed their previous decisions in December last year and on 4 May this year.
This time, Ms Riley wrote: “We can formally confirm whether you can receive Legal Aid when we receive an application from a Legal Aid solicitor, acting on your behalf…The next step you need to take is to find a Legal Aid solicitor to take on your case and to submit an application [for Legal Aid] on your behalf”.
I have now made applications to a number of solicitors and given them an outline of the case. I expect to be able to instruct someone fairly soon to apply for Legal Aid on my behalf.
As I agreed with Carter-Ruck on 3 May, I have kept them fully informed of all these developments.
I should add for the record that Carter-Ruck, on behalf of the McCanns, have always accepted that I should be represented, this being a formal application to imprison me, and they themselves suggested I apply for Legal Aid. Carter-Ruck themselves seemed to be surprised that the LSC refused my initial application, and have agreed that I should have sufficient time in which (a) to see if I qualify for Legal Aid and (b) if I do, to be able to fully instruct a solicitor and barrister (in which case they will have to start by reading around 5,000 pages of documentation from Carter-Ruck and a further 440 from me.
I should also add, for the record, that in their last letter to me dated 18 May, carter-Ruck themselves suggested the names of three Lon don firms of solicitors known to do Legal Aid work in human rights-type cases, and I shall also be writing to each of them.
Finally, in Carter-Ruck’s last letter, they asked me to make clear that in this case Adam Tudor is charging ‘only’ £660 an hour, inclusive of VAT, and Isabel Hudson ‘only’ £540 an hour (including VAT).
SUMMARY
To sum up:
- I need to find a Legal Aid solicitor who will agree (no doubt for a fee) to apply on my behalf to the LSC for Legal Aid.
- The LSC will then consider whether or not to grant me Legal Aid, and if so on what terms. They will consider both my means, and the ‘merits’ of the case. On the latter point, Carter-Ruck do not in any way dispute that, subject to a test of my means, I should be able to receive Legal Aid for the simple reason that I face serious consequences if I lose, namely imprisonment, a fine, seizure of assets, or even a combination of all three.
- If I can qualify for Legal Aid, I shall no longer have to represent myself.
- If I do not qualify for Legal Aid, I shall have to represent myself, as there is no way I can afford to match the McCanns’ enormous fire-power.
- It is likely to be a few weeks before the court is able to fix a new date for the 2-day trial. It may even be that he trial will need longer than two days.
One more point.
On this thread: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5140-blacksmith-another-cracking-piece#111737
…‘Newintown’ wrote (and I am very grateful to her/him for pointing this out):
“Tony, you are probably well aware of the fact, but I thought I would just mention it, that the showing of the videos of Martin Grime, Eddie & Keela in Praia da Luz should be mentioned by your solicitor/barrister in your witness statement/court proceedings prior to the trial, as they may not be able to be used in evidence if they are not mentioned in the paperwork put before the judge for him to read up on on your behalf beforehand. I hope that makes sense.
If any facts/items are brought into a trial which the Judge was not aware of previously, they may be classed as inadmissable by the other side.
Having been through a very long, protracted court case myself I know how the other side's solicitor/barrister will try all they can to dismiss any evidence that goes against their client, especially if it hasn't been put through the proper legal procedure”.
REPLY: That is quite right and, in general terms, neither side is allowed to bring up new points at the trial. All thje evidence should be laid out beforehand so that neither side, nor the court, is taken by surprise.
Fortunately I had anticipated this, and Paragraph 119 of my Applciation to be released from one of my undertakings reads as follows:
QUOTE
An extended video of Martin Grime taking his cadaver dogs around the McCanns’ holiday apartment has been made public (during the latter half of 2008) as part of the release of around 80% of the evidence collected by the Portuguese police. It is submitted with the very greatest of respect that before the court makes a decision as to what action if any to take in response to the Claimants’ committal application it might wish to view the entire original footage of Martin Grime’s visits with his dogs to the McCanns’ apartment, accompanied as it is by Mr Grime’s commentary on the alerts of his dogs. The video of this event has been placed on the internet where hundreds of thousands of people have already viewed it.
UNQUOTE
THANK YOU
Thank you once again to all those who have wished me well, and especially to all those who have offered me practical help one way or another, including many on this forum.
“The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate” - Dr. Wayne Dyer.
____________________

Tony Bennett- Posts: 5777
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
She and her cohorts are apparently whooping with delight because they think I've misunderstood the 'pensioner captial disregard' provisions in the LSC Manual. They think that the term 'pensioner' means aged 60 for women and 65 for men. And they think I am stringing this out until 7 September, when I will be 65.
Well, it doesn't say that in the LSC Manual. On the contrary, it says, and I quote from Paragraph 7-4 (page 3D-097):
There are additional capital disregards on assessments where either the claimant or partner is aged 60 years or over at the date of computation..."
bonnybraes, let me say something - two things - very gently to you:
You're WRONG about Joana Cipriano - she and her brother DID brutally murder little Joana, hide her body, and falsely claim abduction
and
You're WRONG about the LSC pensioner's disregard.
____________________

Tony Bennett- Posts: 5777
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
____________________

PeterMac- Researcher
- Posts: 3946
Join date: 2010-12-06
Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
____________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
Bertrand Russell

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath- Posts: 2887
Join date: 2011-03-27
Location: Over the hills and far away
Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
I view with suspicion C-R seemingly offering you "help".
Also, don't feed the proverbial by responding to them.
ShuBob- Posts: 986
Join date: 2012-02-07
Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012


coppernob- Posts: 41
Join date: 2010-02-03
Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
PeterMac wrote:Tony. They are cretins. Don't encourage them !
I echo PeterMac Tony, They are cretins. Don't encourage them! They are not worth it
And my first feeling was that I too view with suspicion C-R seemingly offering you "help". Personally I would't trust a single thing C-R say or do...wolves in sheeps clothing who will have friends in other legal practices. Personally I would find your own solicitors independent of any of C-R suggestions

jd- Posts: 3651
Join date: 2011-07-22
Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl- Posts: 740
Join date: 2012-02-04
Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

tiny- Posts: 613
Join date: 2010-02-03
This is the latest - for a little while
In response:
* I prefer to give as full an account of developments here as I am able to, I feel I owe this to those who've kindly supported me, and to the forum-owner and Mods who have done much to help me
* I don't think I've actually 'given away' anything. Carter-Ruck have seen my Affidavits over two months ago, so quoting one paragraph from one of them tells them nothing about my case that they don't already know
* I won't be rushing into the arms of one of the firms of Solicitors recommended by Carter-Ruck
* The information supplied by Carter-Ruck is probably not because they WANT to help me. However, Solicitors' rules of conduct about dealing with unrepresented defendants are quite tight - and have recently been tightened (April 27). Up to a point, they MUST assist me with certain matters. And they dare not overstate their case because this could lead to a complaint to the Solicitors' regulatory bodies (there are two of them).
But I'll take all your advice - I'll be keeping quiet for a bit. If I succeed in getting Legal Aid and being legally represented, I'll let you all know here starightaway.
Equally, I'll let you all know if I fail to be granted Legal Aid.
____________________

Tony Bennett- Posts: 5777
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Page 1 of 10 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 
Similar topics» Nancy Grace - June 30, 2011
» Latest Nike Air Max Skybline Shoes, Men Evisu Short Jeans discount sale on gobizsale.com
» [1/10/2012] SNSD Tiffany
» اعلانات وظائف جريدة الاتحاد الاحد 30\12\2012-
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Welcome :: Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Amaral / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy Libel Trials and Lawsuits
