Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

by Guest 27.02.13 6:03

Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application 210

Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application 310

Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application 410

Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application 510

Hopefully a better version of this will be along soon.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.13 6:35

The documents above were a DRAFT order, sent to me on Friday.

There have been three minor amendments to the final Committal Order.

I pointed out to Jacob Dean, Counsel for the McCanns, that in the case of items 3, 7 and 13, these were conversations to which I contributed, rather than original posts of mine starting a new thread.

He agreed - and sent me this reply:

"Dear Mr Bennett,

I am happy to agree your suggested changes to items 3, 7 and 13, as it appears on those occasions you were posting in a thread created by another..."

If a contemnor receives an actual prison sentence, rather than a suspended sentence, he is delivered directly from the Court into Pentonville Prison.

The Order for Directions sets out precisely what will happen next.

There will be a one day hearing, probably in May, when the Court will consider whether to lift the 'stay' (= suspension) on the Libel Claim brought to the Court by the McCanns on 25 November 2009. On that day, the McCanns' claim against me for damages not to exceed £50,000 was issued, but then immediately suspended by Master Leslie, when he was shown a letter sent by me to Carter-Ruck a few days earlier in which I consented to giving 16 undertakings as to future conduct.

The purpose of this next hearing is (as I understand it) is to see if I [Drs Gerry and Kate McCann have objected to the next 21 words in this posting and told Tony Bennett that they are worthy of him being committed and conveyed immediately to Pentonville Prison. We have therefore agreed to remove them - Admin.]

This will mean setting out in open court, and in detail [Drs Gerry and Kate McCann have objected to the next 46 words in this posting and told Tony Bennett that they are worthy of him being committed and conveyed immediately to Pentonville Prison. We have therefore agreed to remove them - Admin.]

This latter matter was essentially confirmed by Dr Kate McCann in her book: 'madeleine', on page 290, where she refers to "the widespread defamatory material circulating on the internet", adding that: "...it has proved almost impossible to get this stuff removed from some of them, particularly those hosted in the U.S.A...You could spend your whole life doing nothing but trying to shut down crank websites with little prospect of success".

The McCanns say that my application has no realistic prospect of success and they oppose it vigorously

by **tigger** 27.02.13 7:31

From above:
There will be a one day hearing, probably in May, when the Court will consider whether to lift the 'stay' (= suspension) on the Libel Claim brought to the Court by the McCanns on 25 November 2009. On that day, the McCanns' claim against me for damages not to exceed £50,000 was issued, but then immediately suspended by Master Leslie, when he was shown a letter sent by me to Carter-Ruck a few days earlier in which I consented to giving 16 undertakings as to future conduct. unquote

As I understand it, this claim would not have been brought had the content of that letter been known to the McCanns. Is this because CR received it too late or didn't pass the contents on in time, or because once initiated, the libel claim could not be cancelled, only suspended?

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.13 7:44

tigger wrote:From above:
There will be a one day hearing, probably in May, when the Court will consider whether to lift the 'stay' (= suspension) on the Libel Claim brought to the Court by the McCanns on 25 November 2009. On that day, the McCanns' claim against me for damages not to exceed £50,000 was issued, but then immediately suspended by Master Leslie, when he was shown a letter sent by me to Carter-Ruck a few days earlier in which I consented to giving 16 undertakings as to future conduct. unquote

As I understand it, this claim would not have been brought had the content of that letter been known to the McCanns. Is this because CR received it too late or didn't pass the contents on in time, or because once initiated, the libel claim could not be cancelled, only suspended?

No that's not correct.

The McCanns wanted all copies of my book, '60 Reasons', and our leaflet, '10 Reasons', destroyed. They wanted our website closed. They wanted me to remove postings about them on four other websites/forums. They wanted me to promise not to repeat any allegations against them that they had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance. They wanted to put all those commitments into a Court undertaking. They wanted me to pay their Court costs of £440.00 (subsequently reduced to £400.00). I agreed to all of this in a letter dated 13 November 2009. The subsequent actions on 25 November merely confirmed all the concessions I had made in that 13 November letter. Earlier, on 2 October, and as a result of a four-hour meeting with four lawyers in Liverpool, I had agreed in principle to accept the McCanns' demands.

by Lostfridge 27.02.13 10:09

The McCanns say that my application has no realistic prospect of success and they oppose it vigorously

Well, they would wouldn't they. Tony, can we assume you are still going to move forward to have the restrictions on your freedoms lifted?. I do not see how you could lose given that everyone in the world but you appears to be able to discuss the same theories! even the Judge can write it up in the committal report which was repeated on Sky news and numerous other major news websites.

It rather feels like they have taken your actions very personally indeed, perhaps its just to close to home.

best of luck and I hope you are released from your undertakings soon

by aiyoyo 27.02.13 11:04

There will be a one day hearing, probably in May, when the Court will consider whether to lift the 'stay' (= suspension) on the Libel Claim brought to the Court by the McCanns on 25 November 2009. On that day, the McCanns' claim against me for damages not to exceed £50,000 was issued, but then immediately suspended by Master Leslie, when he was shown a letter sent by me to Carter-Ruck a few days earlier in which I consented to giving 16 undertakings as to future conduct.

.

Firstly, can you appeal against the Contempt of Court verdict, or would that be pointless, and your freedom to speech better addressed after the lift of stay?

I wonder what basis the Judge will use to decide whether or not to lift the stay.

by Spaniel 27.02.13 11:51

Tony Bennett wrote:
tigger wrote:From above:
There will be a one day hearing, probably in May, when the Court will consider whether to lift the 'stay' (= suspension) on the Libel Claim brought to the Court by the McCanns on 25 November 2009. On that day, the McCanns' claim against me for damages not to exceed £50,000 was issued, but then immediately suspended by Master Leslie, when he was shown a letter sent by me to Carter-Ruck a few days earlier in which I consented to giving 16 undertakings as to future conduct. unquote

As I understand it, this claim would not have been brought had the content of that letter been known to the McCanns. Is this because CR received it too late or didn't pass the contents on in time, or because once initiated, the libel claim could not be cancelled, only suspended?
No that's not correct.

The McCanns wanted all copies of my book, '60 Reasons', and our leaflet, '10 Reasons', destroyed. They wanted our website closed. They wanted me to remove postings about them on four other websites/forums. They wanted me to promise not to repeat any allegations against them that they had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance. They wanted to put all those commitments into a Court undertaking. They wanted me to pay their Court costs of £440.00 (subsequently reduced to £400.00). I agreed to all of this in a letter dated 13 November 2009. The subsequent actions on 25 November merely confirmed all the concessions I had made in that 13 November letter. Earlier, on 2 October, and as a result of a four-hour meeting with four lawyers in Liverpool, I had agreed in principle to accept the McCanns' demands.

Hello Tony, hope your GP was right and you're feeling better since the trial ended.
I wasn't on this forum back in 2009 so I tried to get the background from Googling into how all this started in the first place.
It seems that this was originally aimed at The Madeleine Foundation and was served on yourself and one other. How then has it all been laid at your feet only? I know the other didn't sign an undertaking, so why did she never face a libel trial and how come she's on twitter saying whatever it seems she likes?
Surely as the action was aimed at a pair, a pair should have or have not signed an undertaking.

I believe you signed to avoid a libel trial due the great financial cost, was she aware a libel trial could follow if she didn't sign?
Did the solicitor whose name I won't quote, say you wouldn't be eligible for LA for a libel trial? Were you given time to research that before agreeing to sign?
I ask, because the McLibel Two couldn't get LA either until they applied to Strasbourg. I understand it was Mark Stephens who gave them advice.

Please don't even reply if doing so may jeopardise your situation.

by plebgate 27.02.13 14:58

Hello Tony, nice to see you around and hope you are ok.

We read on here last week that you were going to offer to drop the suspension on the libel claim in negotiations with TM if they agreed to reduce the amount of costs the judge awarded them at your trial.

Reading this from the first sentence of your post: "There will be a one day hearing, probably in May, when the Court will consider whether to lift the 'stay"
Does this mean that you are not in a position to offer to drop the suspension on the libel claim and only the Court can decide on that matter?

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.13 15:34

plebgate wrote:Hello Tony, nice to see you around and hope you are ok.

We read on here last week that you were going to offer to drop the suspension on the libel claim in negotiations with TM if they agreed to reduce the amount of costs the judge awarded them at your trial.

Reading this from the first sentence of your post: "There will be a one day hearing, probably in May, when the Court will consider whether to lift the 'stay'.

Does this mean that you are not in a position to offer to drop the suspension on the libel claim and only the Court can decide on that matter?

The sequence of events is as follows.

On 18 February I put forward a genuine offer to withdraw from all further legal action in pursuit of my application to vary the undertakings, etc., in exchange basically for the McCanns reducing their costs bill drastically so as not to make me bankrupt.

Carter-Ruck replied the following day saying they were 'interested' in a possible settlement along the lines I suggested but would wait until after the hearing on 21 February.

At the hearing on 21 February C-R asked the judge for a delay of 21 days to see if the parties could reach a settlement. Mr Justice Tugendhat therefore ordered the case to be listed for hearing if no agreement could be reached by Thurdsay 14 March.

If there is to be a hearing of my application to lift the 'stay' on the libel proceedings, there has to be an exchange of evidence first - and the judge has ordered that to be done during March and April.

On 22 February I visited C-R's offices, provided them with a 'Statement of Means' (capital and income) and reiterated my willingness to reach an agreement along the lines suggested.

To date there has been no further response from C-R.

Accordingly, and until such time as there is a settlement, naturally I must continue to prepare for the hearing in May. I have to submit my evidence in writing first. Then C-R have three weeks to respond.

by plebgate 27.02.13 15:41

Thanks very much for your reply Tony.
I hope that things go the way you wish and bankrupcy is avoided.
I am sure we are all praying that this will be the case.

by **PeterMac** 27.02.13 16:55

". . . an exchange of evidence . . "
That means they might have to provide you with some.
You have the accumulated evidence of several Portuguese Senior investigating officers, several British police officers with packs of hounds, detailed analysis of statements made by and on behalf of TM, calculations of the window of opportunity, and lots more. More than would fill two books.
They have two words "I knew", repeated in italic, thus "I knew".
Even Mattorrell was not foolish enough to pretend that this was evidence.
So an exchange may be very interesting indeed.
What it may do, of course is demonstrate to the solicitors the paucity not to say total absence of evidence for their clients, and the very real possibility of their clients' being exposed as liars on various points, which could lead to a wholly proper and professional decision to advise their clients go no further.

by Bob Southgate 27.02.13 20:33

Tony Bennett wrote:The McCanns say that my application has no realistic prospect of success and they oppose it vigorously.

To put it another way, The McCanns are opposing your right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

by loopzdaloop 27.02.13 21:04

PeterMac wrote:". . . an exchange of evidence . . "
That means they might have to provide you with some.
You have the accumulated evidence of several Portuguese Senior investigating officers, several British police officers with packs of hounds, detailed analysis of statements made by and on behalf of TM, calculations of the window of opportunity, and lots more. More than would fill two books.
They have two words "I knew", repeated in italic, thus "I knew".
Even Mattorrell was not foolish enough to pretend that this was evidence.
So an exchange may be very interesting indeed.
What it may do, of course is demonstrate to the solicitors the paucity not to say total absence of evidence for their clients, and the very real possibility of their clients' being exposed as liars on various points, which could lead to a wholly proper and professional decision to advise their clients go no further.

At which point to save face they would take Tony up on his offer and this whole thing will be swept under the carpet and Tony will never be able to speak about this again nor have the chance of having a decent Judge like the one he has preside over a fair trial.
It was clear the outcome of the contempt trial would go the way it did but i really feel the outcome of the libel trial will be different, for the reasons you state above.

Evidence vs hearsay.
Professional investigation vs collusion & contradiction.

I can only see the Mccanns bluffing and bluffing on this o e until the last minute and then offering a deal with terms of such that it is not even going to be able to be discussed.
I hope Tony see's through it all and takes them all the way to court.
The whole world will then know the Gaspars perspective on David Payne and the corroboratory evidence of Yvonne Martin! Plus imo the fake photos, the dogs etc etc

by Tombraider 27.02.13 21:18

I can't see how the McCann's can provide any evidence that madeleine was abducted, only speculation. She is Officially classified by the Authorities as a Missing Person....... not an abducted person. big grin

by hippywippywoo 27.02.13 22:02

Bob Southgate wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:The McCanns say that my application has no realistic prospect of success and they oppose it vigorously.
To put it another way, The McCanns are opposing your right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 10 is more than one sentence though isn't it? It states that to enjoy free speech you must accept certain responsibilities. I also thought that you cannot claim another citizen has breached your human rights, it must be a government body. I may be wrong and as an ex-policeman I am sure you will be able to correct me if I have missunderstood it.

by hippywippywoo 27.02.13 22:11

I don't understand law very well but wouldn't this be a civil case and if so, don't the rules change for who has to prove what?

In criminal cases it is up to the prosecutoer to prove beyond doubt that the defendant did wrong but in a civil case doesn't it change so that the claimant has to prove nothing and the defendant has to prove that they didn't do wrong. Not to the level of beyond any doubt but on the balance of probabilities.

If I am right then the McCanns wouldn't need to prove anything.

by 6RB 27.02.13 22:39

Tombraider wrote:I can't see how the McCann's can provide any evidence that madeleine was abducted, only speculation. She is Officially classified by the Authorities as a Missing Person....... not an abducted person.

I am not sure that Tony has explained this very clearly.

There will be no reason for the McCanns to provide any evidence of anything in any forthcoming McCann v Bennett trial. They won't be in the dock.

They are not accused of libel.

The questions will be posed to Tony. He has to show that everything he has said is true or that he genuinely believes they are true.

Yes hippywippywoo you are absolutely right.

by Guest 27.02.13 22:53

Surely in the event of a libel trial, the McCanns would have to answer questions on oath as to what they claim happened in PDL?

by 6RB 27.02.13 23:26

Jean wrote:Surely in the event of a libel trial, the McCanns would have to answer questions on oath as to what they claim happened in PDL?

Why? Its not up to them to prove what Tony has said is true. The McCanns don't have to prove anything at all. They are not on trial.

In the simplest terms this is what the libel trial will be about about.

Tony will be asked to show that everything he has said is true. He will have to offer evidence that what he says about the McCanns is the truth. If he can't do that then he will be judged to have libeled them.

by 6RB 27.02.13 23:50

hippywippywoo wrote:
Bob Southgate wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:The McCanns say that my application has no realistic prospect of success and they oppose it vigorously.
To put it another way, The McCanns are opposing your right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 10 is more than one sentence though isn't it? It states that to enjoy free speech you must accept certain responsibilities. I also thought that you cannot claim another citizen has breached your human rights, it must be a government body. I may be wrong and as an ex-policeman I am sure you will be able to correct me if I have missunderstood it.

Article 10

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

by Guest 28.02.13 0:02

Libel Landmark:Fair comment now Honest comment'

Spiller's solicitor David Price said today: 'The practical effect of today's judgment is the removal of the necessity to provide a full factual basis for opinions expressed when relying on a defence of fair comment.

"No longer is it incumbent on the defendant to provide the facts on which the comment is based in sufficient detail so as to leave the reader in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well-founded. In recognition of this the Supreme Court has re-named the defence from 'fair comment' to 'honest comment'."

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/46378

by 6RB 28.02.13 0:15

candyfloss wrote:Libel Landmark:Fair comment now Honest comment'

Spiller's solicitor David Price said today: 'The practical effect of today's judgment is the removal of the necessity to provide a full factual basis for opinions expressed when relying on a defence of fair comment.

"No longer is it incumbent on the defendant to provide the facts on which the comment is based in sufficient detail so as to leave the reader in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well-founded. In recognition of this the Supreme Court has re-named the defence from 'fair comment' to 'honest comment'."

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/46378

Yes that removes the need to present the full details of the facts within any published article or document. But it does not remove the need either to ensure that the facts exist or that they are honestly held to be true facts.

Honest comment is a much better description of the defence in that it shows that claims have to be honest and true not just fair. It cannot be held to be "honest comment" if you don't have facts to base your comment on or if you deliberately withold certain facts in order to damage a person's reputation.

by aiyoyo 28.02.13 0:48

PeterMac wrote:". . . an exchange of evidence . . "
That means they might have to provide you with some.
You have the accumulated evidence of several Portuguese Senior investigating officers, several British police officers with packs of hounds, detailed analysis of statements made by and on behalf of TM, calculations of the window of opportunity, and lots more. More than would fill two books.
They have two words "I knew", repeated in italic, thus "I knew".
Even Mattorrell was not foolish enough to pretend that this was evidence.
So an exchange may be very interesting indeed.
What it may do, of course is demonstrate to the solicitors the paucity not to say total absence of evidence for their clients, and the very real possibility of their clients' being exposed as liars on various points, which could lead to a wholly proper and professional decision to advise their clients go no further.

Indeed, that would truly be interesting.
Hmmmm... what are they going to come up with?
Not much to go on really from their side really. The swarthy egg-man JT saw, or they simply knew she couldn't have wondered off? Or the jemmied shutter and window? Cant tell me they are going to repeat the phantom did a trial run?
Can't tell me they are going to state they were cleared by the investigators - because that is not evidence Maddie was abducted.

by aiyoyo 28.02.13 1:14

6RB wrote:
Tombraider wrote:I can't see how the McCann's can provide any evidence that madeleine was abducted, only speculation. She is Officially classified by the Authorities as a Missing Person....... not an abducted person.

I am not sure that Tony has explained this very clearly.

There will be no reason for the McCanns to provide any evidence of anything in any forthcoming McCann v Bennett trial. They won't be in the dock.

They are not accused of libel.

The questions will be posed to Tony. He has to show that everything he has said is true or that he genuinely believes they are true.

Yes hippywippywoo you are absolutely right.

If burden of proof is on defendant how come the mccanns vigorously opposed the lift of stay. What have they got to fear then?
They instigated the case so surely on that premise they must have been prepared to go all the way to Court.

by ufercoffy 28.02.13 7:18

aiyoyo wrote:They instigated the case so surely on that premise they must have been prepared to go all the way to Court.

I doubt it very much. They wanted to put the fear of God up Tony to back off right from the start and to settle out of court. They have overwhelmed him with paperwork which would be enough for anyone to throw their hands up in the air and surrender. Not Tony.

It is Tony who has now done all the work to go all the way to a libel trial. It would be a shame for all that evidence to not see the light of day in a Court and for Tony to be free of his undertakings.

Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Log in for more topics