Carter-Ruck explain why they've appointed Adrienne Page Q.C. to beef up their legal firepower

jay2001 wrote:What a generous offer, so heart warming. Have they seen the light after posting a quote by the Dalai Lama on one of their website/facebook yesterday. The gist of which is if you can't help someone don't hurt them. We know the abductor is forgiven so why the vicious, vindictive vendetta against TB and Dr A?

If Tony loses and is bankrupted and/or imprisoned what happens about the libel trial? Will it go ahead or will tm change their minds as they've done with Dr A? Sadly I doubt the UK media will report on this and it's only us in forumland who know far more than the papers and news tell us. At least twitter is getting the message out there, will that be the next cause for tm & Co?

Monty Heck wrote: C.Edwards Today at 4:49 pm


"It is possible - maybe even probable - that, should Tony be able to make a good enough representation, the judge (if not Tugendhat) will agree with Tugendhat's words that the proper way to resolve this is a full libel trial and this *may* help explain just why the McCanns side appear to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They will in all probability be going all out to try and dissuade the judge from going anywhere near this course of action. At the very least I would expect any judge to ask the question along the lines of, "why are you so determined to nail this particular person...?""

This may indeed go some way to explain the extent of the legal might employed against Mr Bennett. The latest CR letter is quite explicit on how grave these proceedings are for their clients as well as TB and a judgement that there will be a hearing to decide whether any libel has in fact occurred would be a serious consequence indeed for the McCs. The purpose of the additional QC may therefore be to ensure that possibility is minimised as far as is humanly possible. Nobody racks up an additional £32 in legal costs to be fairer to their opponent and all that is being done is making "inequality of arms" even more so. It would be interesting to hear the answer if the judge did ask the above question but perhaps the team would need an adjournment to take clients' advice before answering.

C.Edwards wrote:Judges ask counsel for advice, legal references and case citation references (i.e. which page in the book is that...?)

Counsel has to be honest in answering any questions even if it harms the argument for "their" side.

It is an entirely valid legal argument that Carter Ruck are putting forward, even if it doesn't look that way at face value.

This is a committal hearing, there is nothing to settle. I believe the McCanns could withdraw their application for contempt of court but I doubt that Tony would insist on appearing in court to argue his case in that event.

As to the case being thrown out of court:

STRIKING OUT

5. The court may, on application by the respondent or on its own initiative, strike out a
committal application if it appears to the court:
(1) that the committal application and the evidence served in support of it disclose no reasonable
ground for alleging that the respondent is guilty of a contempt of court;
(2) that the committal application is an abuse of the court’s process or, if made in existing
proceedings, is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of those proceedings; or
(3) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.
(CPR Part 3 contains general powers for the management by the court)

and

8. A committal application may not be discontinued without the permission of the court.

I'm sure that I will be accused of spreading doom and gloom again, but I'm just explaining how these sorts of proceedings work for those (there appear to be many) who don't know.

Whilst researching this, I found an interesting (to me) point of law on the committal proceedings that I didn't know was there. I'm sure Tony "already knows this" but just in case there are others that don't:

If you consider the allegations are not true you must tell the court why. If it is established that
they are true, you must tell the court of any good reason why they do not amount to a
contempt of court, or, if they do, why you should not be punished

What is interesting in this is that it clearly demonstrates an opportunity for Tony to "have his say" regardless of whether he is found to be in contempt or not. I didn't realise that this opportunity existed at a committal hearing. Whether or not he is able to demonstrate his case to a sufficient level of proof or not, he will at least be able to raise his arguments he's mentioned on here. It is possible - maybe even probable - that, should Tony be able to make a good enough representation, the judge (if not Tugendhat) will agree with Tugendhat's words that the proper way to resolve this is a full libel trial and this *may* help explain just why the McCanns side appear to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They will in all probability be going all out to try and dissuade the judge from going anywhere near this course of action. At the very least I would expect any judge to ask the question along the lines of, "why are you so determined to nail this particular person...?"

sonic72 wrote:Wow! They are spending more money on legal costs on this case, than they have spent on trying to 'find' Maddy!

They have no intention of really searching for her, they have not done anything that even suggests they are really looking for maddy.

I hope they get screwed in court.

Portia wrote:snip...

What is interesting in this is that it clearly demonstrates an opportunity for Tony to "have his say" regardless of whether he is found to be in contempt or not. I didn't realise that this opportunity existed at a committal hearing. Whether or not he is able to demonstrate his case to a sufficient level of proof or not, he will at least be able to raise his arguments he's mentioned on here. It is possible - maybe even probable - that, should Tony be able to make a good enough representation, the judge (if not Tugendhat) will agree with Tugendhat's words that the proper way to resolve this is a full libel trial and this *may* help explain just why the McCanns side appear to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They will in all probability be going all out to try and dissuade the judge from going anywhere near this course of action. At the very least I would expect any judge to ask the question along the lines of, "why are you so determined to nail this particular person...?"