Re: COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February

by Nina 05.02.13 15:59

Could it be there has been instructions given that there must be no information given from the court, I expected to hear from some friends who are there but nothing? No information given out because of the possibility of a libel trial?

by bobbin 05.02.13 15:59

bill516 wrote:I can understand reporting restrictions being in place but who instigates them, Proscution, Defence or the Judge. If one side can do it then do the other side have to agree to it or are they free to make an objection and have the restrictions lifted.

Bill

I wondered this earlier Bill. Wasn't there a case a year or so back, where a woman (under a restriction order placed by a footballer or something) let the story out. She got into trouble which would imply someone can fix an order on another without their accord. Tony will do what's best though.

by monkey mind 05.02.13 16:00

bill516 wrote:I can understand reporting restrictions being in place but who instigates them, Proscution, Defence or the Judge. If one side can do it then do the other side have to agree to it or are they free to make an objection and have the restrictions lifted.

Bill

Well there is no way that Tony would seek reporting restrictions and with nothing at all coming out during lunch recess it is looking like they may have been imposed.

by Nina 05.02.13 16:02

Lance De Boils wrote:No news yet, then....?

What time was it due to start? If it started first thing, it seems an awfully long time for a hearing of this nature... in my opinion. I fear that the longer it goes on, the worse for TB, but maybe that's just my pessimistic nature showing through!

Was anyone actually going with TB to support him?

Yes and I have a couple of friends in the group but have heard nothing from them, and they would have been in touch. I wonder if they have all been instructed that they mustn't give out information? Maybe a libel trial in the offing Mrs

by Nina 05.02.13 16:03

Sorry Candyfloss please delete as off topic.

by Lance De Boils 05.02.13 16:06

Oh. Well I'm glad there are a couple with him. However, if nothing's been heard from them, then I'll bet the judge has imposed a restriction on reporting. (Probably at the req of "The Machine".)

by bobbin 05.02.13 16:06

monkey mind wrote:
bill516 wrote:I can understand reporting restrictions being in place but who instigates them, Proscution, Defence or the Judge. If one side can do it then do the other side have to agree to it or are they free to make an objection and have the restrictions lifted.

Bill
Well there is no way that Tony would seek reporting restrictions and with nothing at all coming out during lunch recess it is looking like they may have been imposed.

In the meantime there are 586 watchers. COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 7 259100

by sombrero 05.02.13 16:09

I have no idea if there are reporting restrictions but I believe that Tony can win this case if he has the correct legal arguments. If Tony has the equivalent or even less of AP then he can win this case or at worse come out with a score draw.

by Nina 05.02.13 16:10

bobbin wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
bill516 wrote:I can understand reporting restrictions being in place but who instigates them, Proscution, Defence or the Judge. If one side can do it then do the other side have to agree to it or are they free to make an objection and have the restrictions lifted.

Bill
Well there is no way that Tony would seek reporting restrictions and with nothing at all coming out during lunch recess it is looking like they may have been imposed.

In the meantime there are 586 watchers.

Nerve wracking though isn't it?

by Spaniel 05.02.13 16:12

Some weeks ago when I looked at the High Court upcoming hearings, underneath Tony's was Elton John v (someone or other). It was a recognisable name, paper or TV station, can't remember, but I've seen no mention about that either in the press.
I daresay the rich and famous, have people combing the media looking for such things and far too frequent to be worth reporting.
Soon Tony will be half way through his ordeal Not to go home and relax of course, as today will have thrown up much to revise for tomorrow, but half way.

by sombrero 05.02.13 16:15

I would remind everyone that this case today is only about the TB undertaking and is it a contempt of court. It has nothing to do with what might or might not have happened to MM. That might be the issue on another day but it is not today.

by Guest 05.02.13 16:17

bobbin wrote: [...]
In the meantime there are 586 watchers.

***
605 at the moment and that may soon be more as I saw that 20 mins ago Pat Brown put a link to this website on her facebook page ....

by ShuBob 05.02.13 16:19

sombrero wrote:I would remind everyone that this case today is only about the TB undertaking and is it a contempt of court. It has nothing to do with what might or might not have happened to MM. That might be the issue on another day but it is not today.

Whether we like it or not, the two are intertwined.

by sombrero 05.02.13 16:23

You might think that...You might want that.....No judge would allow such arguments in a case like this.....I repeat the case is about TB and the undertaking he signed and is it or is it not a contempt of court?

by Guest 05.02.13 16:24

I have merged LanceDeBoils posts and Nina's on the Trial Latest News thread with this one.

by ShuBob 05.02.13 16:28

sombrero wrote:You might think that...You might want that.....No judge would allow such arguments in a case like this.....I repeat the case is about TB and the undertaking he signed and is it or is it not a contempt of court?

No point in arguing. The trial has started and we'll find out what's what soon.

by hippywippywoo 05.02.13 16:32

If it's an open court then there shouldn't be any restriction on reporting. The public would not have been allowed in if restrictions had been placed.

by Lance De Boils 05.02.13 16:54

candyfloss wrote:I have merged LanceDeBoils posts and Nina's on the Trial Latest News thread with this one.

Thanks, Candyfloss. thumbup

Sorry I chose the wrong thread. As my teachers always used to say, "READ THE QUESTION!" (Topic, in this case!)

by espeland 05.02.13 16:55

"If
it's an open court then there shouldn't be any restriction on
reporting. The public would not have been allowed in if restrictions had
been placed."

That's not right. I was recently on a jury where the public were allowed in, but no reporting was allowed.

by Guest 05.02.13 17:01

espeland wrote:"If
it's an open court then there shouldn't be any restriction on
reporting. The public would not have been allowed in if restrictions had
been placed."

That's not right. I was recently on a jury where the public were allowed in, but no reporting was allowed.

That seems odd, if the public are allowed in, they would go and chat about it to friends etc. Are they told they cant? If so what is the pont of letting people in in the first place. I don't understand that.

by Fenscout 05.02.13 17:02

Maybe I'm being a bit dense here...but why WOULD there be reporting limitations in place in a case like this?

by WindsorBlue 05.02.13 17:03

There is a picture going around which people are saying is Tony out of court. I do not know if it is correct or not as I cannot tell. It is on Twitter but I do not know how to do links,or if I am allowed to do links to it. I will let others do it if they can find it, as I do not want to get into trouble over it.
Hopefully though Tony will be able to post soon

by Spaniel 05.02.13 17:04

sombrero wrote:You might think that...You might want that.....No judge would allow such arguments in a case like this.....I repeat the case is about TB and the undertaking he signed and is it or is it not a contempt of court?

Yes and no, more complicated than you care to believe.
If an undertaking (promise) is made but not kept, it is in breach (breaking) the promise. When that happens before a court, It is contempt.(Scornful of the court for better words.)
This is not a straightforward CoC case as has been demonstrated by what was ruled in the past hearing. You may wish it to be so sombrero, and Adrienne Page has been drafted in to attempt it. Her brief may be, "Do not let it stray from pure contempt and the examples we gave to the court."
I have my own thoughts on why that might be so, as yet CR have no ownership of my thoughts, so I'll leave them there.
Tony was not ordered by a court, but voluntarily gave an undertaking. Fear? Duress? who knows? That is what Mr Justice Tugendhat will attempt to establish, which is why he was willing to lift a stay so Tony could answer the above. It could well follow as a full libel trial.
I don't know the finer points and nor do you.

by stargazer59 05.02.13 17:05

WindsorBlue wrote:There is a picture going around which people are saying is Tony out of court. I do not know if it is correct or not as I cannot tell. It is on Twitter but I do not know how to do links,or if I am allowed to do links to it. I will let others do it if they can find it, as I do not want to get into trouble over it.
Hopefully though Tony will be able to post soon

yes the honest truthful sane MURATFAN posted it

by Guest 05.02.13 17:06

I can very well imagine that it could be the case that Tony didn't want fragmented and uncontrollable information going out and am, in fact, awaiting a well composed and formulated recording of Day 1. Or maybe, we even have to wait till the end of Day 2 [if any] ...