COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

There have been urgent communications between the High Court and Carter-Ruck both on Friday and today.

It is certain that Carter-Ruck did not let me know the proposed date of the hearing. It looks likely that the High Court either did not do so, or made a mistake with my address.

Be that as it may, the case will now be listed for 1.5 days:

EITHER on 4th and 5th February

OR 5th and 6th February.

I should be able to let you you know one way or another by the close of play tomorrow.

About the court case:

Can I just make one or two matters clear about the case.

This hearing is ONLY about WHETHER I have been guilty of contempt of court by breaching any of the 16 undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, and IF SO, how I should be punished for any such contempt.

It is NOT a libel trial as such.

It will NOT determine my application to revoke or vary the three 'free speech' undertakings I gave, i.e. not to suggest that the McCanns have done certain things.

If you read Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment carefully, he DOES say that this hearing next month should consider whether there should now be a FULL LIBEL TRIAL to follow. If YES, then that libel trial would consider any and all of the following:

1. Whether, in the '60 Reasons' booklet, or in the '10 Reasons' leaflet, or elsewhere, I committed any libel at all against the McCanns in the first place

2. Whether since then (i.e. since the undertakings were given) I have committed any further libels, and

3. Whether or not I should be released from one or more of the undertakings I gave which essentially impacted on my freedom of speech (Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights).

The current position of the two parties is as follows:

The McCanns say that I am guilty of repeated and serious breaches of a solemn court undertaking not to libel them, and should be punished accordingly. In all fairness I would remind everyone that Isabel Martorell (formerly Hudson), partner of Carter-Ruck, did say in her original Affidavit to the Court that though the McCanns had applied for me to be sent to prison, because they said they had 'no option', they would be reluctant to see me actually jailed.

The McCanns, though having initiated a formal LIBEL CLAIM against in November 2009, and then asked for the proceedings to be STAYED (= adjourned), now OPPOSE even the formal hearing of my request for three of the undertakings to be varied. Their position appears to be (I hope I am not being unfair to them): "You voluntarily gave these solemn undertakings, you are bound by them FOR LIFE, whatever happens".

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that the appropriate forum to hear my counter-application would be to LIFT THE STAY on the libel proceedings - and THEN begin a formal, full libel trial (which I reluctantly concede I would have to face, and for certain without the benefit of Legal Aid, as Legal Aid is NEVER EVER awarded to defend a libel claim). I need the STAY to be lifted, so that I can (A) run my defence of 'fair or honest' comment to the original allegation of libel and (B) apply for my undertakings to be revoked or varied.

I have applied for the 'stay' on the libel proceedings to be lifted SO THAT I can then make my case for the three undertakings to be revoked.

The McCanns strongly oppose this.



I'm sorry it's complicated. But then, even Mr Justice Tugendhat at the last hearing when he made his various rulings, said, and I quote:


"I don't think there's ever been a case like this"

Tony Bennett wrote:
I'm sorry it's complicated. But then, even Mr Justice Tugendhat at the last hearing when he made his various rulings, said, and I quote:


"I don't think there's ever been a case like this"

I'm sorry Tony - was he refering to the disappearance of Madeleine or McCann v Benntt??

Tony Bennett wrote:
"I don't think there's ever been a case like this"

History in the making. Maybe not a bad thing to get it to a full libel trial? Surely the press would be interested in a historical case like this?

Or Ian Hislop?

If I remember correctly, I mentioned in a post yesterday that this case would be postponed. Now let me predict the next fake "SIGHTING" towards the end of January.

You come in with nothing...you go out with nothing...what you lost?...Nothing

Hope you win though

saltnpepper wrote:

You come in with nothing...you go out with nothing...what you lost?...Nothing

Hope you win though

Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

neeley111 wrote:

saltnpepper wrote:

You come in with nothing...you go out with nothing...what you lost?...Nothing

Hope you win though

Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

You don't mind if I quote you to Admin, do you?
This IMO is the kind of stuff you could have PM-ed.
Whatever your thoughts or feelings, I read this as offensive and aggressive, without having part or parcel with Tony. It just isn't the right way to ventilate whatever.
Good night.

You're wrong about that, neeley. people you've no idea even exist care what happens in that courtroom. Even people who don't see eye to eye with Tony care very much what happens in the Royal Court of Justice.

Tony, can you tell us why the three undertakings are so important to you? I'm not sure what they are, but I'm certain in saying whatever they are if they were lifted you still wouldn't be allowed to be as categorical about the cadaver dogs as you were on the Aussie forum. If Mr Grime were in the courtroom with you he couldn't be so categorical himself, and he's an expert.

So, are you really sure the three undertakings are worth fighting over?

You're wrong about that, neeley. people you've no idea even exist care what happens in that courtroom. Even people who don't see eye to eye with Tony care very much what happens in the Royal Court of Justice.

I second that, tcat.

Neeley111, what a waste of time and money it was sending you to charm school. You mentioned in your first post that you were not the person with a similar name on PFA2.

I presume that is a cesspit site - I'm sure you'll be welcomed there with open arms if so.

This case is a vital one for the preservation of free speech.

neeley111 wrote:

saltnpepper wrote:

You come in with nothing...you go out with nothing...what you lost?...Nothing

Hope you win though

Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

Firstly, the quote was from the Judge, so read the posts properly, and secondly if people didn't know about Tony Bennett before, they sure will shortly, as I am pretty sure it will be in the papers. If you are here only to attack Tony, then I suggest you go back from whence you came, and we can guess where that is.

Jean wrote:Neeley111, what a waste of time and money it was sending you to charm school. You mentioned in your first post that you were not the person with a similar name on PFA2.

I presume that is a cesspit site - I'm sure you'll be welcomed there with open arms if so.

This case is a vital one for the preservation of free speech.

You have just proved what everyone has said about you Jean!!

I'm probably going to regret asking this but what has everyone said about me?

Best to just ignore people with disordered personalities - it just wants a reaction.

neeley111 wrote:

Jean wrote:Neeley111, what a waste of time and money it was sending you to charm school. You mentioned in your first post that you were not the person with a similar name on PFA2.

I presume that is a cesspit site - I'm sure you'll be welcomed there with open arms if so.

This case is a vital one for the preservation of free speech.

You have just proved what everyone has said about you Jean!!

I think Tony's post about the new date for the case and the new forum header has got them frothing again Jean

Maybe so and perhaps also the topic about the latest bully boy tactics from Carter-Ruck has brought out a lot of life from all those unturned stones.

Folks, it's after midnight - don't feed the trolls as they turn into gremlins!

neeley111 wrote:

saltnpepper wrote:

You come in with nothing...you go out with nothing...what you lost?...Nothing

Hope you win though

Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

Aggressive and abusive newbie - what is your problem neeley? Do you no understand English?
A lot of people DO care about TB's and his Campaign for the Truth; and his basic human right to freedom of speech.

If you said his posts are mostly ignored, by who? Not you obviously else you would not be so worked up about it?

The wise Judge said that and I interpret it as "he's never seen a case like this ie where parents of a missing child bullied people into silence without their libel filing going to trial."
Since you said TB posts are mostly ignored, more so the Mccanns have nothing to worry about then? So why are they stalking TB every post then using them to prosecute him - have you written your children neglector-heros to ask why they waste time and money ( not from their own pocket) stalking and prosecuting TB when their priority should lie with the Search?
Remember they lost a child through neglect? Or did they?

Now who is persecuting who?
Think about it, why should the mccanns care what other people here or in the street said about them when they couldn't be arsed to clear their name by answering 48 SIMPLE questions or cooperating with investigators?

Bear in mind they could easily prove their non-involvement, if not total innocent since they did neglect her - they conceded that - by asking for the process to be reopened. AS in being proactive in asking, not just empty talk on papers and spin and NO ACTION.

What are they afraid of? Do you seriously think their litigations are about Madeleine?

Why all this stalling, are the mccanns waiting for Mr Amarals case to be heard first or will they try to stall that as well,or are they waiting to see what the review kicks up, I have said it before that the mccanns do not want this to go to court.

Isn't it likely that this court case, which has dragged on for years now, so far has only served to keep the interest in the case going?

I would estimate that quite a large percentage of guests visit this site regularly to see how this case is progressing. Over the years, that's quite a lot of information disseminated to the 'general public'.

Murder trials with no 'body' take less time to come to court. Isn't the April Jones trial due this month? correct me if I'm wrong.

The Depuy Court Manager in the High Court Queen's Bench Division Listing Office, Mr James Tipp, has just informed me that the hearing of McCanns v Bennett (case HQ 09 D 05196) is now listed for:

TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2013 and

WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY 2013

So that is confirmed.
New sighting, Monday 4th February.
But we still don't know where . . .

PeterMac wrote:So that is confirmed.
New sighting, Monday 4th February.
But we still don't know where . . .

Saturday 2nd February in time for the Sunday newspaper reports.

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:So that is confirmed.
New sighting, Monday 4th February.
But we still don't know where . . .

Saturday 2nd February in time for the Sunday newspaper reports.

I don't think they would want to draw attention to Madeleine or to themselves prior to the trials because the less the public knows about facts the bigger their scope for spinning the outcome and cashing in on their sympathy. So if they can arrange such a thing, they would go for a big headline totally unrelated to themselves imo.