McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

by **Tony Bennett** 02.01.13 17:14

On 31 December (Monday) I replied to a letter from Carter-Ruck in the Smethurst v Bennett case. Carter-Ruck had asked for my consent to adjourn the costs hearing listed for 11 January. The grounds were that their partner with conduct of the case would be absent at this time. They also asked for a list of dates to avoid between now and mid-March.

I consented, and in doing so gave them a short list of a few dates that would not be convenient. These dates included 29 and 30 January.

Today (Wednesday) I received a short and rather curt note from Carter-Ruck which informed me:

“The Queens’ Bench Listing Office had at the end of November already listed the contempt hearing for one and a half days on 29 and 30 January 2013, having taken into account the dates to avoid which you previously provided to us and to the Court. The Listing Office has confirmed that a Notice of Hearing containing formal notification of these dates was sent to both parties on 4 December 2012. As such, we are surprised that you now suggest that the dates of 29 and 30 January are not convenient for you.

“If you now wish to adjourn this hearing it will be necessary for you to contact the Court formally to apply for an adjournment and to provide an explanation of your reasons for doing so. We must reserve our clients’ rights to seek payment from you of their costs in dealing with any adjournment application”.

Why has this situation arisen?

For two reasons.

First, no Notice of Hearing has reached me from the High Court Queens Bench Listing Office. On previous occasions, despite my constantly making sure they have the right address, they sent out a Notice of Hearing to the wrong address. Quite possibly this has happened again despite my best efforts. I have asked urgently for a copy of the Notice.

Second, it is customary for the prosecuting solicitors to ensure that the defendant is made aware of the dates of any hearings. On all previous occasions, Carter-Ruck have sent me a covering letter enclosing the Notice of Hearing. On this occasion, they failed to do so.

The current position

I have suggested that in view of the facts that (a) I did not get a Notice of Hearing from the High Court and (b) Carter-Ruck also failed to tell me about the hearing date, that Carter-Ruck re-arrange the two day hearing at the earliest convenient date for both parties. I am waiting to hear from them.

Therefore at this stage I simply can’t say whether the hearing will be on 29 & 30 January or not.

How did Ian West, a part-time photographer from Norwich, also known as ’muratfan’, know the date of the hearing over three weeks ago?

Those of you who follow these things will know that Ian West (known on the internet as ‘muratfan’) made a number of comments on the internet with words to this effect: “Bennett isn’t telling people that his contempt of court hearing is on 29 & 30 January”. I responded truthfully by saying that I had not yet been notified of any date. It is clear I think now beyond all doubt that this man, who for over four years has conducted a relentless internet campaign against me constantly repeating foul and indeed sometimes obscene lies about me, is in very close contact with the McCanns and the McCann Team, despite Carter-Ruck on a previous occasion claiming that they knew nothing about him.

As soon as I know the agreed date of the hearing, I shall let you all know. In the meantime, no date is agreed yet.

Tony

by **PeterMac** 02.01.13 17:19

Why not tell them that on reflection you do not agree to the change of date from 11th January and insist it go ahead without their partner.
Nice to find out about West though.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.01.13 17:33

PeterMac wrote:Why not tell them that on reflection you do not agree to the change of date from 11th January and insist it go ahead without their partner.

If I did oppose the their adjournment application, I would probably have lost.

A lot of money is at stake here. Edward Smethurst has claimed over £52,000 in costs, despite not following the procedures laid down in the Defamation Protocol (which could lead to many of his costs being disallowed).

In addition, Edward Smethurst tried to claim (huge) costs in respect of my voluntary offer to remove 'disparaging' postings by others about him on CMOMM. This was entirely outwith the issue at stake, namely my own alleged libelling of him by referring to the seedy messages of his Facebook friends Ben Murphy and James Halley. I am pleased to say that those costs, at least, have been removed.

At stake is Edward Smethurst's conduct in (allegedly) flouting the Defamation Protocol and also trying to sneak in a claim he was not entitled to. There are other issues about his claim as well.

The court would regard it as reasonable for the partner responsible for these matters to be present in court to explain them. Particularly as the Bar Council is investigating Jacob Dean (barrister)'s conduct in this matter and the Solicitors' Regulation Authority is investigating the conduct of Isabel Martorell of Carter-Ruck in the handling both of the litigation and of the exorbitant costs claim.

by statsman 02.01.13 17:53

At stake is Edward Smethurst's conduct in (allegedly) flouting the Defamation Protocol and also trying to sneak in a claim he was not entitled to.

If he is found to have sneaked in a claim he was not entitled to then could he be prosecuted in a criminal court for it?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.01.13 17:59

statsman wrote:
At stake is Edward Smethurst's conduct in (allegedly) flouting the Defamation Protocol and also trying to sneak in a claim he was not entitled to.

If he is found to have sneaked in a claim he was not entitled to, then could he be prosecuted in a criminal court for it?

No. The remedy is (a) in the court disallowing that claim and (b) with the regulatory bodies for barristers and solicitors. I have brought the conduct of Smethurst and his legal representatives (in trying claim costs they were not entitled to claim) to the attention of both bodies.

by **PeterMac** 02.01.13 21:17

Tony Bennett wrote:. . . Particularly as the Bar Council is investigating Jacob Dean (barrister)'s conduct in this matter and the Solicitors' Regulation Authority is investigating the conduct of Isabel Martorell of Carter-Ruck in the handling both of the litigation and of the exorbitant costs claim.

But do they all wield the Silver Trowel and ponce about in the blue apron ?
Good luck, though I wish luck did not enter into it.

by aiyoyo 03.01.13 4:36

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:. . . Particularly as the Bar Council is investigating Jacob Dean (barrister)'s conduct in this matter and the Solicitors' Regulation Authority is investigating the conduct of Isabel Martorell of Carter-Ruck in the handling both of the litigation and of the exorbitant costs claim.
But do they all wield the Silver Trowel and ponce about in the blue apron ?
Good luck, though I wish luck did not enter into it.

That might explain (a) their failure for the first time (deliberate?) to notify TB of the Notice of Hearing and (b) their subsequent Curt Note. Playing dirty or losing confidence? Sore loser comes to mind.
Every dog (even ferocious and nasty ones) will have its day...so fingers crossed.........

by Guest 03.01.13 9:09

It is hard to understand how correspondence could suddenly be wrongly addressed. In the past C-R has managed to deliver mountains of paperwork personally to Tony. His address must be etched permanently in the minds of Kevin and Co.

This reeks of what is known as playing silly b*ggers for no reason other than causing as much inconvenience and stress as possible.

by aiyoyo 03.01.13 16:40

Jean wrote:It is hard to understand how correspondence could suddenly be wrongly addressed. In the past C-R has managed to deliver mountains of paperwork personally to Tony. His address must be etched permanently in the minds of Kevin and Co.

This reeks of what is known as playing silly b*ggers for no reason other than causing as much inconvenience and stress as possible.

I think you misunderstood.
It is the High Court Queens Bench Listing Office that did not note TB's correct address, and not CR.
CR merely conveniently omits to inform TB of the Notice of Hearing this time around, when it has been their past practice to notify him, so what has changed this time around?

by Guest 03.01.13 16:52

Apologies - yes indeed, I misunderstood.

by rainbow-fairy 03.01.13 18:38

Tony Bennett wrote:SNIPPED:How did Ian West, a part-time photographer from Norwich, also known as ’muratfan’, know the date of the hearing over three weeks before.... (Sorry, snipped too much - r-f) Those of you who follow these things will know that Ian West (known on the internet as ‘muratfan’) made a number of comments on the internet with words to this effect: “Bennett isn’t telling people that his contempt of court hearing is on 29 & 30 January”. I responded truthfully by saying that I had not yet been notified of any date. It is clear I think now beyond all doubt that this man, who for over four years has conducted a relentless internet campaign against me constantly repeating foul and indeed sometimes obscene lies about me, is in very close contact with the McCanns and the McCann Team, despite Carter-Ruck on a previous occasion claiming that they knew nothing about him.

Muratfan is from NORWICH??? I. Feel. Sick. 15 miles is way too close for my liking. Ugh. Definitely gonna move now!!!

by **Tony Bennett** 03.01.13 18:47

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:SNIPPED:How did Ian West, a part-time photographer from Norwich, also known as ’muratfan’, know the date of the hearing over three weeks before.... (Sorry, snipped too much - r-f) Those of you who follow these things will know that Ian West (known on the internet as ‘muratfan’) made a number of comments on the internet with words to this effect: “Bennett isn’t telling people that his contempt of court hearing is on 29 & 30 January”. I responded truthfully by saying that I had not yet been notified of any date. It is clear I think now beyond all doubt that this man, who for over four years has conducted a relentless internet campaign against me constantly repeating foul and indeed sometimes obscene lies about me, is in very close contact with the McCanns and the McCann Team, despite Carter-Ruck on a previous occasion claiming that they knew nothing about him.

Muratfan is from NORWICH??? I. Feel. Sick. 15 miles is way too close for my liking. Ugh. Definitely gonna move now!!!

Yes, here he is, if you ever want your photo taken!

http://ianwestphotography.bttradespace.com/

by IAmNotMerylStreep 03.01.13 18:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:SNIPPED:How did Ian West, a part-time photographer from Norwich, also known as ’muratfan’, know the date of the hearing over three weeks before.... (Sorry, snipped too much - r-f) Those of you who follow these things will know that Ian West (known on the internet as ‘muratfan’) made a number of comments on the internet with words to this effect: “Bennett isn’t telling people that his contempt of court hearing is on 29 & 30 January”. I responded truthfully by saying that I had not yet been notified of any date. It is clear I think now beyond all doubt that this man, who for over four years has conducted a relentless internet campaign against me constantly repeating foul and indeed sometimes obscene lies about me, is in very close contact with the McCanns and the McCann Team, despite Carter-Ruck on a previous occasion claiming that they knew nothing about him.

Muratfan is from NORWICH??? I. Feel. Sick. 15 miles is way too close for my liking. Ugh. Definitely gonna move now!!!
Yes, here he is, if you ever want your photo taken!

http://ianwestphotography.bttradespace.com/

But don't let him photograph your children RF.

by ShabbyTiger 03.01.13 19:58

Why didn't you just walk away from all this back in 2009 Tony?

I am no fan of the McCanns and their "childcare" arrangements, and IMO the abduction story is crap. But don't you think that it's time that you stopped this obsession? The letters to Social Services, the leaflet campaign, the attempts to get the McCanns struck off the medical register... trying to dig up "dirt" on Smethurst... Why?

Why?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.01.13 21:01

ShabbyTiger wrote:Why didn't you just walk away from all this back in 2009 Tony?

I am no fan of the McCanns and their "childcare" arrangements, and IMO the abduction story is crap.

You can say that. I can't.

But don't you think that it's time that you stopped this obsession?

I've been working on the Lee Balkwell case for a fraction over 6 years now, probably spent more time on that than on the McCanss. We keep on because, though nearer the truth, we haven't got near enough yet

The letters to Social Services,

One letter, 4 years ago

the leaflet campaign,

No new leaflets for a while

the attempts to get the McCanns struck off the medical register...

They claimed in the libel writ against Goncalo Amaral that they were so ill, tormented and emotionally disturbed that the General Medical Council was bound to look at what they claimed. However, it seems as though the GMC thought that their alleged medical problems in their libel claim were a gross exaggeration, maybe to inflate their claim

trying to dig up "dirt" on Smethurst... Why?

Trying to 'dig up dirt'? Why, the attempts he made to flout planning laws in Rochdale was plain for all to see. The attempt by Smethurst and his partner from Palladium to stitch up Clive Garrad and get him banged up fell into my lap when Clive Garrad contacted me and told me the full story. No digging by me involved
Why?

Let’s put it this way.

You switch on the telly.

You hear about an English couple whose 3-year-old child has been abducted from a bedroom where she had been sleeping with younger children whilst her parents were out wining and dining with their friends.

You sit up in your chair.

You learn that the wicked abductor jemmied open the shutters and smashed the window etc. to get in to the apartment.

As reporters start beaming their reports in from Praia da Luz, you hear various stories…the parents were checking every hour, no, every 15 minutes, no, every half-hour etc.

A day or so later you learn that the shutters hadn’t been jemmied open after all, and that the parents now think the abductor calmly walked in through an unlocked patio door.

You see pictures of local people and police officers searching the countryside and outbuildings.

Then you see a press conference about a fund that’s been set up to ‘Find Madeleine’.

The parents ask everyone in Britain to make a donation.

So you make a donation.

Then you see Brian Kennedy (uncle) come on the telly in Rothley and say: ‘The money will be mostly used for lawyers’.

Then on your telly you see pictures of one pre-arranged photoshoot of the couple after another.

You see them jogging. You learn from a bland blog written by the male parent that such-and-such a job was achieved in 19 minutes and 11 seconds.

You see the parents visiting the Pope, the U.S., Germany, Morocco.

Then you hear about British sniffer dogs alerting to the scent of a human corpse in the parents’ apartment.

They react with excuses: signing lots of death certificates, taking Cuddle Cat on visit to patients in your handbag, rotting meat, dirty nappies.

Next you learn about a DNA match to Madeleine of blood and body fluids.

Then you see the parents pulled on for questioning. One, the female one, looks defiant. The other, the male one, looks petrified.

You begin to ask yourself if the parent’s story is true.

You look on the internet and discover that thousands of people share your doubts about the case. You join in and contribute your two penn’orth.

The detective who made the parents suspects is removed from the investigation.

There’s a constant supply of alleged ‘sightings’, some from dubious sources.

The investigation gets closed down, but in the process, thousands of documents on the case are released on the net.

You learn a lot more about contradictions and changes of story.

You lose track of the vast number of suspects, ‘persons of interest’ and ‘people we want to eliminate from our enquiries’.

The head of the initial police investigation writes a book giving chapter and verse of why he and his team believed that Madeleine died in her parents’ apartment and covered it up.

You discover a host of things about the private investigators the couple have been hiring. None of them have any track record of finding missing children. They seem more expert in fields such as fraud and money laundering. First, one is carted off to prison in Spain on serious charges.

Then another is exposed as a liar, fraud and cheat who was paid half a million quid and found out nothing, at the same time living the life of Riley with his girlfriend in London and New York.

You find out that two detectives employed by the McCanns are not employed by a detective agency called ALPHAIG after all.

You learn that the parents have taken out an expensive libel suit against the detective who wrote the book, and succeed in banning his book. You learn that just as the parents release a heavily-marketed book, the Prime Minister of your country, pushed into it by the News International CEO, orders the head of the Met to begin a review of the case which ‘could cost millions and last years’.

You realise that instead of the parents resorting to reasoned argument against the sceptics, they run to libel lawyers, clearly able to afford the best there is.

Then you learn that although the detective’s book was banned, the top two Portuguese courts have unbanned it.

You learn that it’s been translated into 9 European languages and has sold over ½ million copies.

Basically, with all this and more, most people would smell a rat.

And some of them would vow to keep on digging…

by ShabbyTiger 03.01.13 21:11

You really need to stop this, Tony. Even if it's only for the sake of your Mother and your family. The Madeleine Foundation could have been a good thing, a benevolent thing, to campaign against child neglect. Instead you made it personal, against two people that you had never met. OK, their "childcare" was appalling and IMO the abduction story is full of holes. You could have agreed to the terms of the court order in 2009 and walked away and have just forgotten about all this.

Why have you made this into a vendetta against them? They were strangers who had never done you any harm. Again, I am no fan but I would never have dreamed of targeting them personally by trying to get them struck off, leafletting their village or contacting Social Services.

Why... just why??? What is driving this?

PS) What about all the Facebook "dirt" that you tried to dig up against Smethurst and his family? WHY??

by **Tony Bennett** 03.01.13 21:19

ShabbyTiger wrote:Why have you made this into a vendetta against them?

Has it occurred to you that the McCanns' pursuit of Dr Goncalo Amaral is a 'vendetta'?

Or hasn't that thought crossed your mind yet?

I note that in your two posts you say that the McCanns' abduction story is 'crap' and 'full of holes' or, to put it in plain English, false.

Should we all just lie back and accept a false story?

by ShabbyTiger 03.01.13 21:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
ShabbyTiger wrote:Why have you made this into a vendetta against them?
Has it occurred to you that the McCanns' pursuit of Dr Goncalo Amaral is a 'vendetta'?

Or hasn't that thought crossed your mind yet?

I note that in your two posts you say that the McCanns' abduction story is 'crap' and 'full of holes' or, to put it in plain English, false.

Should we all just lie back and accept a false story?

I never mentioned Goncalo Amaral. As far as I know, Dr Amara just did the job that he was paid for and reported the conclusions.

You are doing "Justice for Madeleine" more harm than good with your personal vendetta.

Goncalo Amaral did not do the following:

Try and bring a private prosecution for child neglect.

Deliver leaflets around Rothley and environs.

Send letters to Leicestershire Social Services.

Try and get the McCanns struck off the medical register.

Why have you done all this against two strangers, Tony?

Goncalo was just doing his job. This case had nothing to do with you... so why have you done all this? Why didn't you just walk away?

by Guest 03.01.13 22:12

Is it definite that Ian West the photographer whose website is mentioned here is muratfan? It was mentioned on another topic that he (muratfan) is unemployed.

I simply cannot imagine pond life like muratfan being gainfully employed. Ian West is such a common name that I wonder if there is mistaken identity here.

by ShabbyTiger 03.01.13 22:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
ShabbyTiger wrote:Why have you made this into a vendetta against them?
Has it occurred to you that the McCanns' pursuit of Dr Goncalo Amaral is a 'vendetta'?

Or hasn't that thought crossed your mind yet?

I note that in your two posts you say that the McCanns' abduction story is 'crap' and 'full of holes' or, to put it in plain English, false.

Should we all just lie back and accept a false story?

You really need to stop this obsession, Tony. Think of your family.

by The Rooster 04.01.13 11:31

Quite often in life it's necessary to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty if you want a job done properly...

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Mr Bennett I am 100% in support of your stance on this matter. All the best.

by Guest 04.01.13 13:12

Could I also add the various versions of the "First they came for....." poem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

by **Tony Bennett** 04.01.13 13:55

The Rooster wrote:
Quite often in life it's necessary to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty if you want a job done properly...

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Mr Bennett I am 100% in support of your stance on this matter. All the best.

Thank you very much, 'The Rooster'.

The one and only 'Teesside Troubadour', the inimitable Vin Garbutt from Middlesborough, many years ago put a tune to this memorable poem of Rudyard Kipling. I've heard Vin live a few times, not least a few years ago at the Bishop's Stortford Folk Club, when I heard him perform this song. You have to listen to over 4 minutes of Vin's unique patter before you actually get to the song. It's worth a visit, the tune somehow sticks in the mind when once you've heard it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSaMvEZl3VY

ETA: @'The Rooster', I've tried to 'pm' you to say 'thank you' in a more personal way for your goodwill message, but I was unable to send to you by 'pm'. Many thanks again, anyway

by statsman 04.01.13 14:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSaMvEZl3VY

Thanks, Tony, that was a real treat.

Sometimes seeing something like that just makes a day!

by jay2001 04.01.13 18:45

I may well be wrong (Shabby Tiger) but I think that Tony did try and step back from this lawsuit in 2009 but the lawyers have made it impossible. Mainly due to someone 'buying' a leaflet that was against the 'rules' stipulated by the lawyers. This is from memory and I'm getting on a bit now so think it was something like that. But I think that Tony has no choice now but to continue with this case and I pray that justice will prevail.

Most of us on here want to see justice for Madeleine and for Tony and Dr Amaral to be exonerated. The doctors and their holiday friends should never, ever have been allowed to have brought these cases against 2 people who doubted their stories. Their accounts of that night have changed so much and their dogged chase against TB and GA is just unbelievable. Perhaps at long last the truth will out and the world will really find out just what happened in PDL.

I live in hope and pray that 2013 will see justice for a little girl who none of us knew. Happy New Year!

McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

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

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

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

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

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

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

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

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

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

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

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

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Ah say ah say Boy... YOU REPEATING YOURSELF?

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

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

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

Log in for more topics