McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Tony Bennett wrote:

Miraflores wrote:Will the McCanns have to attend court? They seem not to have had to in any of their legal actions to date.

Actually, Mr Justice Tugendhat dealt with that point at the last hearing, as I had asked for an order that the McCanns attend and give evidence at my trial. Mr Justice Tugendhat refused, explaining that: "It is entirely up to the Claimants in a case to decide what evidence they wish to bring in support of theor case". He added, in terms (i.e. I am not quoting his actual words) that in any closing speech one could certainly ask the court to take account of the fact that the Claimants were unwilling to give evidence in person in support of ther own application.

In their claim, they said, via Carter-Ruck Partner Isabel Hudson, who has made several sworn statements on the McCanns' behalf in these proceeedings, that my publications 'harmed the search for Madeleine'.

This means that I can cross-examine her about this claim, but if the McCanns are not at the hearing, I could not ask them directly to justify that claim.

Indeed, that is the centrepoint of the McCanns' claim. The main reason they are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on this, they say, is because people read my articles and then, apparently, stop searching for Madeleine.

I am rather hoping that at the full libel trial, both Dr Kate McCann and Dr David Payne will give evidence about the truth of what they said in their witness statements. Then we might get closer to finding out whether...



SNIPPED. I have to be careful



ETA: P.S. McCanns' estimated costs so far in McCanns v Bennett: £165,000

If you have harmed the search you have to wonder why they keep paying Mitchell to put false sighting reports in the media - Leh for example.

Haven't read all of this thread, but just want to say........GOOD LUCK Tony.

I don't envy you taking on TM and CR in court alone. Is there really no lawyer out there who is willing to take this on pro bono ?

It doesn't really follow does it? People read your articles, but they were never searching anyway, so they can't stop searching. A McCann funded search shouldn't be necessary because NSY is spending a fortune reviewing the case, which ought to turn up leads if any are to be had. Then there are the profits from the books, which are probably only about a tenth of the cover price, but should still yield a decent amount of money.

OK, so with all that, people might decide that they can't put their hands in their pockets to fund the McCanns. And that it's your fault Tony. Hmm.

I really don't know how Tony can be said to have harmed the search. The majority of people in this country and elsewhere will have never heard of him (or think it's his American namesake!) thanks to the media not publishing anything that doesn't match the official version.

Could the McCanns be worried that some of the things he says are actually true..........

Jean wrote:I really don't know how Tony can be said to have harmed the search...

This is one of the actual quotes from Isabel Hudson's (now Isabel Martorell) in these proceedings:

[Paragraphs 15 & 16]

"When there have been instances where the Claimants have feared that the publication of defamatory allegations about them may threaten to hamper the search for their daughter (because if the public are led to believe that Madeleine is dead, they are unlikely to report any potential sightings or other leads to the authorites), they have taken action...the Claimants have brought only a handful of libel complaints against the national press, in additon to a small number of requests to media outlets and Internet Service Providers to remove defamatory postings from internet discussions forums or 'readers' comments' websites...the Claimants have tried to take action only where absolutely necessary".

The McCanns leaving Portugal, refusing to do a re-construction and allowing the case to be shelved has harmed the search for Madeleine.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Jean wrote:I really don't know how Tony can be said to have harmed the search...

This is one of the actual quotes from Isabel Hudson's (now Isabel Martorell) in these proceedings:

[Paragraphs 15 & 16]

"When there have been instances where the Claimants have feared that the publication of defamatory allegations about them may threaten to hamper the search for their daughter (because if the public are led to believe that Madeleine is dead, they are unlikely to report any potential sightings or other leads to the authorites), they have taken action...the Claimants have brought only a handful of libel complaints against the national press, in additon to a small number of requests to media outlets and Internet Service Providers to remove defamatory postings from internet discussions forums or 'readers' comments' websites...the Claimants have tried to take action only where absolutely necessary".

Let us pretend this is true - surely this is relevant only up to a certain point in time, in so far as we "the public" no longer know who we are looking for, given the lenght of time the child has been missing.

Thank Tony for letting us know the latest. I reiterate other posters and hope that there is an "at the eleventh hour" scenario for you. I don't really understand most of what has occurred but surely the last statement from Mr Justice Tugendhat show his frame of mind towards this case.

At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

And

” He added that if these issues were to be addressed in the proper forum, there would have to be “Full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…”

I am still hoping that there is a Barrister somewhere who will stand up with you and support you at this time when you are in need.

Miraflores wrote:Ah I see, so in the course of the proceedings it might be established that the McCanns were lying about something - not that they have already lied. Things could get very interesting if that were to be proved.

I must say, if he cuts through all the obfustication which has gone on, he will be a better person than many of us.

I was encouraged to see that it was him, after he refused Freddie Starr a superinjunction the other day.

Im also encouraged... this is the Judge that put an end to Star's injunction. This injunction prevented people from knowing the serious paedophile allegations made against Star.

Will the McCanns very expensive injunction also be lifted one day,? lets hope so!

Like I have said before..... Paul MacMullan NOTW journalist could be telling us all something........

Leveson Inquiry......

"Privacy is the space bad people need to do bad things in. Privacy is for paedos; fundamentally nobody else needs it."

You can have all the fancy ideas in the world about what happened to Madeleine.... but in my honest opinion, it all comes down to the physical/sexual abuse of a minor.

Dear mr. Bennett, I wish all the best in these proceedings. You are in my thoughts!
Is there not someplace where you can get a lawyer/barrister interested in this case? And maybe help you pro bono? Like an association of lawstudents or a society for freedom of speech? (Clutching at straws here..)

Tony Bennett wrote:

Miraflores wrote:Will the McCanns have to attend court? They seem not to have had to in any of their legal actions to date.

Actually, Mr Justice Tugendhat dealt with that point at the last hearing, as I had asked for an order that the McCanns attend and give evidence at my trial. Mr Justice Tugendhat refused, explaining that: "It is entirely up to the Claimants in a case to decide what evidence they wish to bring in support of theor case". He added, in terms (i.e. I am not quoting his actual words) that in any closing speech one could certainly ask the court to take account of the fact that the Claimants were unwilling to give evidence in person in support of ther own application.

In their claim, they said, via Carter-Ruck Partner Isabel Hudson, who has made several sworn statements on the McCanns' behalf in these proceeedings, that my publications 'harmed the search for Madeleine'.

This means that I can cross-examine her about this claim, but if the McCanns are not at the hearing, I could not ask them directly to justify that claim.

Indeed, that is the centrepoint of the McCanns' claim. The main reason they are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on this, they say, is because people read my articles and then, apparently, stop searching for Madeleine.

I am rather hoping that at the full libel trial, both Dr Kate McCann and Dr David Payne will give evidence about the truth of what they said in their witness statements. Then we might get closer to finding out whether...



SNIPPED. I have to be careful



ETA: P.S. McCanns' estimated costs so far in McCanns v Bennett: £165,000

in the county I originally came from, we liked to put a figure on things, like

a. what happened to Maddie McCann:
b. is she still alive?
c. where is she?
d. why is she not findable, if she lives?

OK.

That said:

Can a search to find her, bring her back into the public arena?
Does it make sense to conduct that search?

If so:

What does it take to have that search?

Who could conduct it?

Who will conduct it?

Who had conducted it?

Why had no one found her yet?

How in the name of bleeding Jezus, have the efforts of dt Gonsalo Amaral and Antony Bennett MP hindered in any way finding her, given that she's dead?

So why should dr Amaral and mr. Bennett MP be requested to pay a single penny to this wild goose chase?

Find the body and prove we did it.

No. We will find out who did it. Body or not. All 1600 plus of us.
And justice will prevail.

No 3 year old will end up on a dung heap, without Justice spreading her wings and enfolding those who sought to find out who dunnit? Right?

Tony Bennett faces PRISON at the Request of the McCanns!

It's just a thought, but it was actually the behavior of the McCanns that made me think Madeleine was dead and that was long before I'd ever read anything that Tony Bennett wrote. I'm also sure that many others can say the same.

I don't know if this can be used in Tony's defence but I am thinking if enough people sign their names to a statement like the one I've written above, it must be damaging to the McCann's libel suit.

I'm also sure that it wouldn't take long to make a list of the things that the McCanns have said (or not said, e.g., not answering questions) and done (or not done, e.g., physically searching or supporting a reconstruction) that have made us come to that conclusion, and thus harming the search for Madeleine if she is by any chance still alive.

Does anyone think that this idea is worth developing?

Just a thought - if Madeleine has been made a ward of court, just exactly how many parental rights do her parents still have?
I'm unclear on this - I had assumed that being made a Ward of Court automatically gave parental rights to the court, as in role of legal guardians.
If this is the case, do the McCanns have any legal right to be raising money in Madeleine's name, or suing Tony for allegedly hindering the search?
If anything he had written had interfered with the search, would it not be for the courts to pursue it if they had a problem with it, not the McCanns, since they presumably handed over control of Madeleine to the court system?

Just a thought - if Madeleine has been made a ward of court, just exactly how many parental rights do her parents still have?

They don't. The courts decide, the mccanns gave up their rights to Maddie within 2 weeks of her disappearing. So glad to see someone finally get it

Tony Bennett wrote:

Miraflores wrote:Will the McCanns have to attend court? They seem not to have had to in any of their legal actions to date.

Actually, Mr Justice Tugendhat dealt with that point at the last hearing, as I had asked for an order that the McCanns attend and give evidence at my trial. Mr Justice Tugendhat refused, explaining that: "It is entirely up to the Claimants in a case to decide what evidence they wish to bring in support of theor case". He added, in terms (i.e. I am not quoting his actual words) that in any closing speech one could certainly ask the court to take account of the fact that the Claimants were unwilling to give evidence in person in support of ther own application.

In their claim, they said, via Carter-Ruck Partner Isabel Hudson, who has made several sworn statements on the McCanns' behalf in these proceeedings, that my publications 'harmed the search for Madeleine'.

This means that I can cross-examine her about this claim, but if the McCanns are not at the hearing, I could not ask them directly to justify that claim.

Indeed, that is the centrepoint of the McCanns' claim. The main reason they are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on this, they say, is because people read my articles and then, apparently, stop searching for Madeleine.

I am rather hoping that at the full libel trial, both Dr Kate McCann and Dr David Payne will give evidence about the truth of what they said in their witness statements. Then we might get closer to finding out whether...



SNIPPED. I have to be careful



ETA: P.S. McCanns' estimated costs so far in McCanns v Bennett: £165,000

I would certainly question what right they have to presume anyone at all is searching for Madeleine beyond the national police (whom they have refused to cooperate with). National police forces are the public's response to emergencies. It is through them that missing people are searched for. They will continue to search, on behalf of the public, for as long as those in charge deem it practicable, so if the McCanns are concerned about the search being damaged, they should be asking themselves why the national police stopped searching for their child. It's my understanding that their reasons are quite clear, and that the McCanns themselves have the power to change this. Private individuals expressing opinions are surely quite irrelevant to the official search.

"At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?"

Shame on him ! Do we now wait for a writ for libel against Tugendhat.
Carter-Ruck take note. Your own judge has libelled your clients.

The prospect of a full libel trial with witnesses in attendance and a jury too must strike the fear of God into the imo 2 serial liars. I suspect their legal agents will advise them to drop their claim and run like the wind back to whence they came. However, their character flaws may not allow common sense to prevail and they may therefore not heed the advice of their lawyers. Their arrogance may be their undoing.

In the event that they go to a full libel trial some of the witnesses will feel very uncomfortable. I think there will ultimately be 2 winners, the defendant and the liars lawyers!

Just a few rambling thoughts which are all in my own opinion.

I can't help but wonder what will be achieved by the McCann lawsuit in terms of finding Madeleine. As I understand it, TB could possibly face a term in prison. If that happens, I wonder how good that will look in the campaign to find Madeleine. The press may well pick it up or it could possibly go viral on the internet. Wouldn't that present an image problem? Could it affect the role of ambassador to a charity? would a well respected charity feel comfortable with a litigious ambassador who went as far as to have someone jailed?

If financial settlement is what is really being pursued wouldn't that still be a possible image problem? 3 million plus of UK taxpayers money and the fund coffers swollen by bringing a senior citizen (sorry Tony) to poverty?

Wouldn't it be better to drop the lawsuit and get on with the business of finding Madeleine? There is also the possibility that the McCann's may not be successful. Wouldn't that be another image problem? If the costs of the law firm cannot be reclaimed, how can it be explained that the Fund is footing the bill? It might not be the Fund footing the bill of course but someone is going to ask the question.

My heart sinks when underneath all this is a missing girl called Madeleine. To lose a child must be the worst nightmare of any parent. It is such a shame that Madeleine's disappearance has taken things to litigation levels of this degree. There will always be people who disbelieve the McCanns. There will always be more people who support them. Isn't it better to concentrate and nurture the good things in order to search for Madeleine?

Just my opinion.

Well if he is their judge, then he'd given them a good chance to prove their charges properly. Cant be more impartial than that!

Aha ....Aha...Aha.....YES..thumb up to Mr Justice Tugendhat. I am warming up to his wisdom.

It's a first round victory for Mr Tony Bennett....Congratulations Tony!

All is not lost despite the current climate of cover up. There's still hope for Free Speech.

Effectively, the mccanns are stuck between a rock and CR's fat bum - cant retreat nor advance without adversity to them IMO.

Even if the law cannot compel them to testify in persons, their absence (if they choose that) wont look good for them.
Imagine when you persist relentlessly you are searching for Madeleine, yet you don't have the guts to swear an affidavit for the sake of your missing child, instead you used a thirty party in the form of your lawyer to prepare and to swear an affidavit on your behalf against the person you want to commit to prison- where is Madeleine in all this? What has your search for your own flesh and blood got anything to do with the Isabel Hudson that it is down to her to put her name and signature on the affidavit?

To compound that , if you cant be arsed to attend court to answer your charges against the man you sued, how will that look to Court.
If you have the flaming cheek to sue TB (to commit him to prison) you jolly well should have the balls to come and face him in Court!

When you send a bunch of mighty lawyers (a few of them - barrister, sr counsel et al) to tackle one lone individual without means for legal representation it is like a case of Goliath vs David. This wont be lost to the Court, Judge or Panel of Juries, alike.

The disparity in financial means cant be more glaring than that, which in turn begs the question, the source of mccanns finance for legal fees - would it be out of their own pocket or out of the Fund?
IMV, this is a relevant point to raise in Court, because it is in the public interest to know whether the mccanns had misrepresented their pte ltd co's Fund to the Public. If proven by their books that they spend a large chuck of it on legal costs suing their critics, and only a small fraction on the *Search* as they claimed, then even if not in breach of the Pte Ltd regulations, it is definitely in the public interest to know they had been lied to. When you solicit funds from the public your objective clearly stated should be fulfilled in the stated manner correctly.

p;s; why cant I use any of the emoticons?

The Rooster wrote:The prospect of a full libel trial with witnesses in attendance and a jury too must strike the fear of God into the imo 2 serial liars. I suspect their legal agents will advise them to drop their claim and run like the wind back to whence they came. However, their character flaws may not allow common sense to prevail and they may therefore not heed the advice of their lawyers. Their arrogance may be their undoing.

In the event that they go to a full libel trial some of the witnesses will feel very uncomfortable. I think there will ultimately be 2 winners, the defendant and the liars lawyers!

Nope, dont think they can back out now without adverse consequences for them.

Else it would be termed filing in bad faith. Moreover dropping out at this stage coming after a libel trial is called for would prove they fear their charges and theory cannot stand up to challenges and scrutiny in Court, and what would be the implication of that?
In that case, TB can ask for his undertakings to be rescinded unconditionally by default of their withdrawal,

It a win win case for TB and a lose lose case for mccanns if they withdraw....oh all imHO.

They are well and truly stuck between a very hard place and a rock.

aquila wrote:. . . Could it affect the role of ambassador to a charity? would a well respected charity feel comfortable with a litigious ambassador who went as far as to have someone jailed?

Would a well respected Charity feel comfortable with a litigious ambassador who went as far as to have someone - who was in fact attempting to discover the truth about the disappearance of a child - jailed.

Is there no-one who is prepared to take on helping Tony on a pro bono basis? Is Justice really all about money? Then it isn't Justice.

Tony, I sincerely hope you get the financial support you need, to take the McCann's all the way. There MUST be people out there who will contribute to your cause. I wish you all the luck in the world, and as someone has already stated, if justice is all about the ability to pay for it, then we are ALL doomed.

aquila wrote:Just a few rambling thoughts which are all in my own opinion.

I can't help but wonder what will be achieved by the McCann lawsuit in terms of finding Madeleine. As I understand it, TB could possibly face a term in prison. If that happens, I wonder how good that will look in the campaign to find Madeleine. The press may well pick it up or it could possibly go viral on the internet. Wouldn't that present an image problem? Could it affect the role of ambassador to a charity? would a well respected charity feel comfortable with a litigious ambassador who went as far as to have someone jailed?

If financial settlement is what is really being pursued wouldn't that still be a possible image problem? 3 million plus of UK taxpayers money and the fund coffers swollen by bringing a senior citizen (sorry Tony) to poverty?

Wouldn't it be better to drop the lawsuit and get on with the business of finding Madeleine? There is also the possibility that the McCann's may not be successful. Wouldn't that be another image problem? If the costs of the law firm cannot be reclaimed, how can it be explained that the Fund is footing the bill? It might not be the Fund footing the bill of course but someone is going to ask the question.

My heart sinks when underneath all this is a missing girl called Madeleine. To lose a child must be the worst nightmare of any parent. It is such a shame that Madeleine's disappearance has taken things to litigation levels of this degree. There will always be people who disbelieve the McCanns. There will always be more people who support them. Isn't it better to concentrate and nurture the good things in order to search for Madeleine?

Just my opinion.

You speak too much sense Aquila.

Of course, those are logical questions but one thing we've learnt about the McCanns if nothing else is that their actions defy logic. Jailing Tony and/or making him destitute by claiming damages helps Maddie not one iota. So why do they do these things? To send a message to others questioning their various versions of events? Surely, that can't be it as their actions so far have made little difference in that respect. So what is it? It could be the only thing driving them on in their pretence that they're searching for Maddie. If they are not fighting these legal battles, what is it they are actually doing to help their missing child? Nothing, as far as I can see!