LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2

PeterMac wrote:So Jacob Dean, a Barrister, has misled the judge in a vitally important material particular. Possibly though pure ignorance, since barristers simply present the case a solicitor has prepared.
So Carter-Ruck have prepared a case which contains a significant error of fact. An error crucial to the entire case. They may also have done this through pure ignorance, since they may have simply taken their instructions from their client, but their role is to also to research.
In which case Smethurst has presented a significant error of fact, through the medium of solicitor and Barrister. In his case, since he is the one who had the Facebook page, it cannot be ignorance.
He knows perfectly well, his solicitor should have found out, and his barrister ought to have been advised, that what they were telling the judge was wrong.
I hope this matter, which is after all the central plank of Smethurst's case against TB, is brought to the attention of the judge, in open court, with all present - Barrister, Solicitor, legal supporters and researchers - to be examined under oath as to why they made this statement to the detriment of TB.

jd wrote:To quote smethurst on his libel case v Amarals book "“We are currently demanding €1.2 million in damages, but we are reserving the right to increase this value as soon as we can ascertain what profits have been generated from the sale of this book.”.....following the exact same line as with Tony, focused only on trying to get the maximum amount of money as possible

PeterMac wrote:So Jacob Dean, a Barrister, has misled the judge in a vitally important material particular. Possibly though pure ignorance, since barristers simply present the case a solicitor has prepared.
So Carter-Ruck have prepared a case which contains a significant error of fact. An error crucial to the entire case. They may also have done this through pure ignorance, since they may have simply taken their instructions from their client, but their role is to also to research.
In which case Smethurst has presented a significant error of fact, through the medium of solicitor and Barrister. In his case, since he is the one who had the Facebook page, it cannot be ignorance.
He knows perfectly well, his solicitor should have found out, and his barrister ought to have been advised, that what they were telling the judge was wrong.
I hope this matter, which is after all the central plank of Smethurst's case against TB, is brought to the attention of the judge, in open court, with all present - Barrister, Solicitor, legal supporters and researchers - to be examined under oath as to why they made this statement to the detriment of TB.

bobbin wrote:Smokeandmirrors, good idea.
I don't know if anyone knows how one would go about contacting the papers but the Independent and the Guardian at least should be looking at this. They seem to be the only major national newspapers that I know of, capable of telling it as it is and who seem to have some b**ls.

Tony Bennett wrote:

PeterMac wrote:So Jacob Dean, a Barrister, has misled the judge in a vitally important material particular. Possibly though pure ignorance, since barristers simply present the case a solicitor has prepared.
So Carter-Ruck have prepared a case which contains a significant error of fact. An error crucial to the entire case. They may also have done this through pure ignorance, since they may have simply taken their instructions from their client, but their role is to also to research.
In which case Smethurst has presented a significant error of fact, through the medium of solicitor and Barrister. In his case, since he is the one who had the Facebook page, it cannot be ignorance.
He knows perfectly well, his solicitor should have found out, and his barrister ought to have been advised, that what they were telling the judge was wrong.
I hope this matter, which is after all the central plank of Smethurst's case against TB, is brought to the attention of the judge, in open court, with all present - Barrister, Solicitor, legal supporters and researchers - to be examined under oath as to why they made this statement to the detriment of TB.

I hesitate to respond, for obvious reasons, and have no wish to get sucked in to any criticism of Jacob Dean - least of all Carter-Ruck - but this is how the conversation in court went yesterday:

++++

The judge said: "I don't really understand Facebook, is it the case that depending on the settings, some people can become your friends without you knowing?"

Jacob Dean (Smethurst's barrister): "That is our understanding, yes".
'our understanding' so more than one person claiming this?

I piped up: "The position is that you have to make a conscious decision whether to accept or ignore a friend request".

The judge said: "Well it seems to be disputed, in which case Mr Bennett you will need to provide relevant evidence from Facebook to prove your assertion".
that is provable , so hopefully this can be a turn around for you Tony, although I thought you agreed to settle yesterday , so it can change then? I know you may not be able to answer

++++

I must however also place on the written record here that throughout the correspondence and in the libel claim and his subsequent statement of claim, Mr Smethurst made no admissions as to knowing either Ben Murphy, or James Halley, or Greg Bailey. Please forgive me if I do not intervene on this thread again - Tony Bennett

ufercoffy wrote:

bobbin wrote:Smokeandmirrors, good idea.
I don't know if anyone knows how one would go about contacting the papers but the Independent and the Guardian at least should be looking at this. They seem to be the only major national newspapers that I know of, capable of telling it as it is and who seem to have some b**ls.

There is a journalist who is a member of this forum. His name is Mike Gunnill and he's visited this forum today. No doubt he is writing an article about this at this very moment.

Tony Bennett wrote:Libel cases update:

SMETHURST

Update - Summary: Edward Smethurst’s claim against me has been settled on the following agreed terms:

a) I will pay the sum of £2,500 agreed damages to Mr Smethurst, without any formal admission of liability. Mr Smethurst has said via Carter-Ruck that he will pay this sum into the Find Madeleine Fund
b) I will in addition pay Mr Smethurst’s reasonable legal costs to date, to be assessed by the court if not agreed between me and him (see below)
c) Carter-Ruck will draw up an undertaking for me to sign which will cover the contents of anything that I may or may not publish about him in the future; the terms of that undertaking to be agreed between us.

The hearing yesterday (7 December):

Carter-Ruck had four people representing them at yesterday’s hearing, which was in Room E117, the chambers of Master Victoria McCloud. They were:

(i) Jacob Dean, barrister
(ii) Isabel Hudson, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck
(iii) Two female assistants.

Mr Smethurst’s claim, issued by the court on 9 August 2011, was originally for £100,000 damages.

This was primarily a costs management hearing in which Carter-Ruck were asking the Master to approve their ‘costs budget’. This set out, in a series of complex tables, how they had calculated their costs to date (£28,390) and their likely future costs (£143,086.50), which totalled £171, 476.50.

Discussion about Carter-Ruck’s costs bill took up most of the 1¾ hour hearing. The Master queried the very high amount of costs in Carter-Ruck’s budget. The end result was that Carter-Ruck’s costs budget schedule, most unusually, was rejected by the Master, who ordered Carter-Ruck at their own expense to submit another one. Carter-Ruck were given leave to appeal if they wished.

The hearing opened with Jacob Dean, for Mr Smethurst, being able to make a half-hour opening summary of the case. In this address, he set out that the following legal issues to be settled in the case:

a) whether any or all of the comments I made about Mr Smethurst were justified (strictly true)
b) whether, if not justified, they were ‘fair comment’
c) what was the actual meaning of some of the words I used
d) whether I had acted promptly to remove any offending words.

He also claimed that Mr Smethurst had no control on Facebook over who became his friends on his Facebook page. That meant that I would have to have proved to the court that certain named friends of his were there as a matter of his conscious decision. Jacob Dean claimed that anyone could become Mr Smethurst’s ‘Facebook Friend’.

At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial. If the case had proceeded, there would have been a 1-day summary trial before a judge. If at that hearing the judge thought that I had an arguable case, the matter would have been set down for a 3-day trial at which all the legal arguments mentioned above would have been considered.

The Master was especially interested in the following aspects of the matter:

a) whether or not I had promptly removed any offending material
b) whether or not Mr Smethurst had followed the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which requires libel claimants to give potential defendants an opportunity to remove any allegedly libellous publications. The Protocol sets out quite clearly that court action should be ‘a last resort’
c) whether or not Mr Smethurst should have issued proceedings on 9 August when I had met all the demands of Carter-Ruck’s initial two letters of 4 August
d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request
e) whether the steps taken in the proceedings to date by Carter-Ruck were proportionate, having regard in particular to my prompt removal of any offending material.

At the conclusion of the case, the Master said that she was “fully seized of all the issues relating to the need for claimants to follow the pre-Action Protocol and as to proportionality”.

In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court.

Edward Smethurst, via his lawyers Carter-Ruck, has asked me to remove the last two sentences from this statement, and I have agreed to do so and removed them today, 4 February 2012 - Tony Bennett

DeltaSquad wrote:But Tony, you have been proclaiming that you have not had to pay any damages to anybody.

Nice try, but as forum-members here know very well, I have informed them paid agreed damages of £2,500 to the Find Madeleine Fund as part of a settlement with Edward Smethurst, and he is now coming after me for £1,000+ in respect of his costs

Problem is this, how can anyone start to believe what is said, when on other fora, you are contrdicting yourself when the posts are actually on here.

I strongly suspect you have been reading, if not contributing to, the BigFooty forum, where I said this:

QUOTE - The claim that I have been found to have been stalking or harassing anyone and been asked to pay anything, let alone £50,000, is wholly without any foundation whatsoever. A complete fabrication by ‘muratfan’.

That is a wholly truthful statement. The settlement with Smethurst was on account of alleged libel, not harassment or stalking

I actually joined up here to find for myself what evidence there was to suggest the parents were involved,

Pull the other one

...but it is just the same old things said over and over again with no basis to back anything up.

What?!*?*? No alerts by cadaver dogs? No flat contradictions? No changes of story? I should start reading this forum in depth if you are that ignorant

Evidence is not "such and such said this and such and such said that". Mr Bennett is supposed to be a lawyer, but even he would know that heresay

Hearsay

is useless.

Do you say the same about Martin Grime's report?

So I can guess I will be banned from here for not agreeing with you

Well, the Mods will decide that, but you'll have an almighty job on trying to restore your credibillity after making this comment: "I actually joined up here to find for myself what evidence there was to suggest the parents were involved..."

DeltaSquad wrote:I have read the BIGFOOTY pages but I myself am not a member of the site, and may I add, I do not want to be.

Ah! So that means you have read a monumental tissue of malicious lies about me by 'muratfan', and you have read my response. It is really strange how you try to nitpick about a perfectly accurate comment I made about not having had to pay any damages or costs for 'harassment' and 'stalking', as 'muratfan' falsely claimed, yet you say absolutely nothing about someone who, in his blind and obsessive hatred of me, is prepared to sink to fabricating one false claim after another about me.

I followed the link from here onto it, just to see what was being said. Both sides of the argument on there are as bad as each other,

Oh really? Well that helps me to determine which side of the 'fence' you're on.

and it does not really help with moving anything forward, and I mean that with both sides.

What I myself meant is you have said on the said forum, that you have not had to pay money to anyone on there, yet it says on here you have done, some my see that as not being truthful in the first place.

As you well know from my previous response above, 'muratfan' referred to my allegedly having to pay damages and costs for 'harassment' and 'stalking'. That claim was false, and I said so. Once again, let's have a look at who was really not being truthful over on 'BigFooty'.

Would it have been better to say "This is what I paid, and the amount, and why I did", you have the moral high ground then. Fair enough the amount was totally exaggerated on there.

What 'amount'? I have paid nothing, and been asked to pay nothing, in resepct of claims of harassment and stalking. As you well know.

You said that I should pull the other one, because I myself joined here to convince myself the evidence of parents involved in it...

Yeah, right!

Is that not the point of this forum, or do you only have to believe they did it to join? Not a way of winning people over I believe, but if that is the rules then so be it.

You know, I'm pleased you've signed up as a member here and made these daft postings. It goes to show that this forum can't be ignored, and that folk like you are willing to spend the time of day trying to undermine the work going on here. On this occasion, your attempts to do so have, however, been more futile than most