The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Mm11

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Regist10

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Page 1 of 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Tony Bennett on 11.10.12 19:48

McCANNS v BENNETT
Queens Bench Division
High Court
Case No. HQ09 D05196

Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat
11 October 2012
10.30am

Representing Carter-Ruck:
Jacob Dean (barrister)
Isabel Martorell (formerly Hudson) (Partner, Carter-Ruck
Two junior members of Carter-Ruck staff.


This morning saw another interlocutory hearing in the McCanns’ attempt to have me imprisoned for contempt of court. I’m sorry, this was all rather complicated, but I’ll try to explain today’s outcome as concisely as I can.

The hearing today resulted from an application by the McCanns in August to move the case forward to a final hearing. It had been mutually agreed by the parties to adjourn the hearing listed for 9 & 10 May, to give me a realistic opportunity to see if I could be legally represented on the committal-to-prison hearing. To be fair to the McCanns and their advisers, they gave me every opportunity to have time to explore this possibility. It turned out that with savings of over £8,000, my current net income was just above the limit at which I qualified for Legal Aid.

In advance of the hearing, I applied for a ‘split’ trial. I asked for my application to vary the terms of my undertakings to be heard first, following which the contempt trial should take place. This was so that the Court could first hear the evidence I was seeking to bring in support of my application to vary, before they determined the contempt of court application.

I also asked for a further adjournment to allow me an opportunity to apply for Legal Aid, on the grounds that if Edward Smethurst succeeded in even only being awarded one-half of the costs he is claiming against me (£52,713.26) in separate legal proceedings, my savings would then be below the magic £8,000 limit and, on my current income, I would then be able to claim Legal Aid.

By contrast, the McCanns came up with some novel arguments at the last minute. Two days before the hearing, a Polish motorbike rider from ‘Courier Express’ brought up to me a new bundle with an additional 350 pages of documents. Not content with that, the following day, a Russian motorbike rider from a different courier firm arrived with another bundle, this time containing a whole new set of legal arguments, and a court judgment in another libel case, Frank Warren v The Random House Group Limited. As I didn’t receive this until 7pm, it was too late to study it and take it all in.

Apparently Ricky Hatton had, in a book, accused the boxing promoter (Frank Warren) of dishonestly conning a boxer, Vince Phillips, into accepting a pitiful fee for a fight. Warren, as the promoter of the fight, sued.

Anyway, the McCanns’ barrister, Jacob Dean, tried to argue that my giving of an undertaking to the McCanns in November 2009 was just like making a voluntary contract and that any breaches of the undertaking by me should be treated just like an ordinary breach of contract. He tried to suggest that there was no effective legal argument in defence of breaching an undertaking. He wanted an immediate committal hearing. If that hearing held that I had committed a breach, he would then go on to make a new application, at a separate hearing, that my application to vary three of the 16 undertakings I gave would (on the basis of the evidence I had so far provided) stand no chance of success.

Mr Justice Tugendhat throughout the hearing thought that a full libel trial was the appropriate forum for resolving the issues as between the McCanns and myself. He asked Jacob Dean: “Why are these proceedings the appropriate forum?” He added that if these issues were to be addressed in the proper forum, there would have to be “Full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…” He added that he had “never come across a case quite like this, where an application to vary undertakings could be dealt with without it becoming an issue in a libel action…Mr Bennett’s application does require the re-opening of the libel proceedings…these current proceedings do not have the necessary structure to deal with the issues…this can only be resolved in a libel action. He also noted that although the McCanns began their correspondence in August 2009 alleging harassment, they had never pursued that allegation.

At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

Mr Justice Tugendhat made certain rulings at the conclusion of the case, and said he would set out his reasons in full in due course (these by the way have to be set out in draft form and sent to each of the parties, to make sure that the two parties agree that the judgment accurately expresses the judge’s decision. It is merely an opportunity to correct any typos, missing commas, wrong names or dates, things like that). Once any corrections have been sent to the judge, he then issues his formal ruling. At that stage, he will make any formal orders for the further conduct of proceedings, to be drafted and agreed between the parties if possible. When his final written ruling is handed down, I’ll scan it and upload it here

His main decisions were:

1. My application for a further adjournment was rejected.

2. The McCanns’ application to commit me to prison would be heard as soon as practicable, but under the very unusual circumstances of this case, if the Court were to find that I had breached any of my undertakings, any penalty against me would be determined only after a full libel trial.

3. That my application to vary three of the undertakings I gave in November 2009 should be treated as, in effect, an application to ‘lift the stay’ on the libel proceedings. To explain: On 25 November 2009, the McCanns simultaneously issued a libel claim and at the same time accepted my offer of giving various undertakings. That meant that the libel claim was effectively adjourned (= ‘stayed’), so long as I did not then break any of my undertakings. ‘Lifting the stay’ means that the McCanns’ libel claim now becomes ‘live again’.


That means the McCanns will in due course need to serve on me what is called ‘Particulars of Claim’, setting out in minute detail what libels against them I am said to have committed.

I will then be able to enter a defence. Possible defences open to a libel defendant include: ‘justification’, ‘public interest’, ‘fair comment’ or (following the Supreme Court case of Spiller v Joseph [2010]), the defence of ‘honest comment’.

Once the libel trial is concluded, either I will be found not to have committed libel, or I will be found to have committed libel. In the latter case, I will then face potential damages and a very large bill of costs.

Following that, the committal-to-prison Court will meet and (assuming that I have been found to have breached the undertaking) will decide what penalty I should suffer. It is certainly possible that even if I were to win the libel trial, the Court could nevertheless still punish me for having (if I have) broken my undertakings. The Court takes any breach of undertaking very seriously, especially as this was a so-called ‘penal’ undertaking, which has more serious consequences.

What has happened today, in effect, is that the core of this whole case has now been taken substantially out of the hands of a High Court judge, and put in the hands of an English jury of twelve persons.

The bad news for me is that there is simply no Legal Aid in any circumstances for those seeking to defend a libel claim. The costs of hiring a barrister to represent me during a libel trial, possibly lasting several days, will be utterly beyond me. Therefore I shall be on my own. It will be very difficult to conduct my own defence.

Last night, a true supporter wrote some words to encourage me. I told him that Mr Justice Tugendhat would again be conducting today’s hearing. His reaction was, and I quote:

“It's before Mr Justice Tugendhat again? That is music to my ears. I have faith that this gentleman will bring a sense of calmness, proportion, realism and basic common sense back into focus!”

I am not going to disagree.

Finally, once again, many thanks to all true supporters who may read this report of today’s proceedings. I’m sorry I didn’t let anyone know in advance about this hearing. I felt embarrassed that people came at their own expense and time to support me last time. I’d prefer you to save your coppers to be with me on Day One of the McCanns v Bennett full libel trial. Please don’t let anyone think for one moment that I am relishing the prospect of having to defend myself in a full-blown libel trial against the might of Team McCann and Carter-Ruck.

Because I am not.



TB 11/10/12

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Guest on 11.10.12 20:10

@Tony Bennett wrote:McCANNS v BENNETT
Queens Bench Division
High Court
Case No. HQ09 D05196

Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat
11 October 2012
10.30am

Representing Carter-Ruck:
Jacob Dean (barrister)
Isabel Martorell (formerly Hudson) (Partner, Carter-Ruck
Two junior members of Carter-Ruck staff.


This morning saw another interlocutory hearing in the McCanns’ attempt to have me imprisoned for contempt of court. I’m sorry, this was all rather complicated, but I’ll try to explain today’s outcome as concisely as I can.

The hearing today resulted from an application by the McCanns in August to move the case forward to a final hearing. It had been mutually agreed by the parties to adjourn the hearing listed for 9 & 10 May, to give me a realistic opportunity to see if I could be legally represented on the committal-to-prison hearing. To be fair to the McCanns and their advisers, they gave me every opportunity to have time to explore this possibility. It turned out that with savings of over £8,000, my current net income was just above the limit at which I qualified for Legal Aid.

In advance of the hearing, I applied for a ‘split’ trial. I asked for my application to vary the terms of my undertakings to be heard first, following which the contempt trial should take place. This was so that the Court could first hear the evidence I was seeking to bring in support of my application to vary, before they determined the contempt of court application.

I also asked for a further adjournment to allow me an opportunity to apply for Legal Aid, on the grounds that if Edward Smethurst succeeded in even only being awarded one-half of the costs he is claiming against me (£52,713.26) in separate legal proceedings, my savings would then be below the magic £8,000 limit and, on my current income, I would then be able to claim Legal Aid.

By contrast, the McCanns came up with some novel arguments at the last minute. Two days before the hearing, a Polish motorbike rider from ‘Courier Express’ brought up to me a new bundle with an additional 350 pages of documents. Not content with that, the following day, a Russian motorbike rider from a different courier firm arrived with another bundle, this time containing a whole new set of legal arguments, and a court judgment in another libel case, Frank Warren v The Random House Group Limited. As I didn’t receive this until 7pm, it was too late to study it and take it all in.

Apparently Ricky Hatton had, in a book, accused the boxing promoter (Frank Warren) of dishonestly conning a boxer, Vince Phillips, into accepting a pitiful fee for a fight. Warren, as the promoter of the fight, sued.

Anyway, the McCanns’ barrister, Jacob Dean, tried to argue that my giving of an undertaking to the McCanns in November 2009 was just like making a voluntary contract and that any breaches of the undertaking by me should be treated just like an ordinary breach of contract. He tried to suggest that there was no effective legal argument in defence of breaching an undertaking. He wanted an immediate committal hearing. If that hearing held that I had committed a breach, he would then go on to make a new application, at a separate hearing, that my application to vary three of the 16 undertakings I gave would (on the basis of the evidence I had so far provided) stand no chance of success.

Mr Justice Tugendhat throughout the hearing thought that a full libel trial was the appropriate forum for resolving the issues as between the McCanns and myself. He asked Jacob Dean: “Why are these proceedings the appropriate forum?” He added that if these issues were to be addressed in the proper forum, there would have to be “Full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…” He added that he had “never come across a case quite like this, where an application to vary undertakings could be dealt with without it becoming an issue in a libel action…Mr Bennett’s application does require the re-opening of the libel proceedings…these current proceedings do not have the necessary structure to deal with the issues…this can only be resolved in a libel action. He also noted that although the McCanns began their correspondence in August 2009 alleging harassment, they had never pursued that allegation.

At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

Mr Justice Tugendhat made certain rulings at the conclusion of the case, and said he would set out his reasons in full in due course (these by the way have to be set out in draft form and sent to each of the parties, to make sure that the two parties agree that the judgment accurately expresses the judge’s decision. It is merely an opportunity to correct any typos, missing commas, wrong names or dates, things like that). Once any corrections have been sent to the judge, he then issues his formal ruling. At that stage, he will make any formal orders for the further conduct of proceedings, to be drafted and agreed between the parties if possible. When his final written ruling is handed down, I’ll scan it and upload it here

His main decisions were:

1. My application for a further adjournment was rejected.

2. The McCanns’ application to commit me to prison would be heard as soon as practicable, but under the very unusual circumstances of this case, if the Court were to find that I had breached any of my undertakings, any penalty against me would be determined only after a full libel trial.

3. That my application to vary three of the undertakings I gave in November 2009 should be treated as, in effect, an application to ‘lift the stay’ on the libel proceedings. To explain: On 25 November 2009, the McCanns simultaneously issued a libel claim and at the same time accepted my offer of giving various undertakings. That meant that the libel claim was effectively adjourned (= ‘stayed’), so long as I did not then break any of my undertakings. ‘Lifting the stay’ means that the McCanns’ libel claim now becomes ‘live again’.


That means the McCanns will in due course need to serve on me what is called ‘Particulars of Claim’, setting out in minute detail what libels against them I am said to have committed.

I will then be able to enter a defence. Possible defences open to a libel defendant include: ‘justification’, ‘public interest’, ‘fair comment’ or (following the Supreme Court case of Spiller v Joseph [2010]), the defence of ‘honest comment’.

Once the libel trial is concluded, either I will be found not to have committed libel, or I will be found to have committed libel. In the latter case, I will then face potential damages and a very large bill of costs.

Following that, the committal-to-prison Court will meet and (assuming that I have been found to have breached the undertaking) will decide what penalty I should suffer. It is certainly possible that even if I were to win the libel trial, the Court could nevertheless still punish me for having (if I have) broken my undertakings. The Court takes any breach of undertaking very seriously, especially as this was a so-called ‘penal’ undertaking, which has more serious consequences.

What has happened today, in effect, is that the core of this whole case has now been taken substantially out of the hands of a High Court judge, and put in the hands of an English jury of twelve persons.

The bad news for me is that there is simply no Legal Aid in any circumstances for those seeking to defend a libel claim. The costs of hiring a barrister to represent me during a libel trial, possibly lasting several days, will be utterly beyond me. Therefore I shall be on my own. It will be very difficult to conduct my own defence.

Last night, a true supporter wrote some words to encourage me. I told him that Mr Justice Tugendhat would again be conducting today’s hearing. His reaction was, and I quote:

“It's before Mr Justice Tugendhat again? That is music to my ears. I have faith that this gentleman will bring a sense of calmness, proportion, realism and basic common sense back into focus!”

I am not going to disagree.

Finally, once again, many thanks to all true supporters who may read this report of today’s proceedings. I’m sorry I didn’t let anyone know in advance about this hearing. I felt embarrassed that people came at their own expense and time to support me last time. I’d prefer you to save your coppers to be with me on Day One of the McCanns v Bennett full libel trial. Please don’t let anyone think for one moment that I am relishing the prospect of having to defend myself in a full-blown libel trial against the might of Team McCann and Carter-Ruck.

Because I am not.



TB 11/10/12

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 321268

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 770110


McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 281194
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Guest on 11.10.12 20:12

The very best of luck to you. I feel very worried about the way free speech is going in this country. People are being jailed for making tasteless jokes and wearing offensive T shirts while "comedians" get community service for abusing their partners and serial paedophiles are knighted and die rich and comfortable, surrounded by their famous friends having been fed a lifelong sexual diet of teenage flesh by the BBC.
I think you are very brave to take these people on and to try and bring the murky details of this case into the cold light of day. I only hope that the series of police, press and political exposures in recent times will eventually extend to this dreadful case, though I cannot quite believe it will. I wish I had your courage and decency. Thank you.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Guest on 11.10.12 20:22

Thank you Tony. I am sad to hear you kept it to yourself and went on your own,McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 173510 I'm sure there would have been members who would have gone with you to support you. So this is now going to be a full libel trial is that correct. If so, surely reading the passage below, it can only be better news for you?



[quote]

Mr Justice Tugendhat throughout the hearing thought that a full libel trial was the appropriate forum for resolving the issues as between the McCanns and myself. He asked Jacob Dean: “Why are these proceedings the appropriate forum?” He added that if these issues were to be addressed in the proper forum, there would have to be “Full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…” He added that he had “never come across a case quite like this, where an application to vary undertakings could be dealt with without it becoming an issue in a libel action…Mr Bennett’s application does require the re-opening of the libel proceedings…these current proceedings do not have the necessary structure to deal with the issues…this can only be resolved in a libel action. He also noted that although the McCanns began their correspondence in August 2009 alleging harassment, they had never pursued that allegation

and......

At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 11.10.12 20:24

Tony, this is a very stressful time for you and you truly have a job cut out. BUT....they will drop it and go away, or face having to deal with the trillions of inconsistencies being made public, because it won't just be your view that gets aired, it will be Amaral, Grimes, Spudgun, Blacksmith, Dr Martin Roberts, Pat Brown and the PdL investigation....so much will be able to be presented to a jury and ultimately the public in a way as never before. This will bring the whole contradictory list (and we'll all help get it compiled and NUMBERED) so that for the first time it won't be brushed under the carpet. It will come under scrutiny and dissected and finished.

I bet they wuss out of it in any case.

____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2427
Join date : 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Guest on 11.10.12 20:28

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Tony, this is a very stressful time for you and you truly have a job cut out. BUT....they will drop it and go away, or face having to deal with the trillions of inconsistencies being made public, because it won't just be your view that gets aired, it will be Amaral, Grimes, Spudgun, Blacksmith, Dr Martin Roberts, Pat Brown and the PdL investigation....so much will be able to be presented to a jury and ultimately the public in a way as never before. This will bring the whole contradictory list (and we'll all help get it compiled and NUMBERED) so that for the first time it won't be brushed under the carpet. It will come under scrutiny and dissected and finished.

I bet they wuss out of it in any case.

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 259100
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Nina on 11.10.12 20:38

candyfloss wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Tony, this is a very stressful time for you and you truly have a job cut out. BUT....they will drop it and go away, or face having to deal with the trillions of inconsistencies being made public, because it won't just be your view that gets aired, it will be Amaral, Grimes, Spudgun, Blacksmith, Dr Martin Roberts, Pat Brown and the PdL investigation....so much will be able to be presented to a jury and ultimately the public in a way as never before. This will bring the whole contradictory list (and we'll all help get it compiled and NUMBERED) so that for the first time it won't be brushed under the carpet. It will come under scrutiny and dissected and finished.

I bet they wuss out of it in any case.

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 259100

Tony you have made history this day believe and as Smokeandmirrors says you have many people behind you and I for one will do anything I can do to help put the facts we already know together to support you, because the truth, the real truth will out and if I may I send a empathy
Keep strong and all good wishes to your wife and family through these very difficult times.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
Nina
Nina

Posts : 2861
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 76

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Miraflores on 11.10.12 20:44

I don't know whether the McCanns will 'wuss out' but it does seem that Mr Justice Tugendhat is trying to see that the law is properly enforced and not just letting the McCann's and their bully boys CR make the laws up as they see fit.
Miraflores
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Join date : 2011-06-20

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by justathought on 11.10.12 20:47

Mr Bennett

An interesting aspect of what you have written, is the way CR served court papers on you at the last minute. not so long ago they were trying to help you in your quest for LA. how significant? trying to rachet up pressure on you and/or possibly trying to fast track things? they are very keen to settle this case quickly.one thing i am sure of is that CR wont want their ultimate clients to become embroiled in a court hearing. you are in a stronger position than you were last night even if involves defending yourself personally in court. or going through the motions of being willing to do so.
avatar
justathought

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Guest on 11.10.12 20:47

Some tweet messages on mccann hashtag



Peter Davies@Muttfan

Looks like #McCann v Bennett will be full trial with witness statements, experts on dogs, & full jury Good luck Mr Bennett



Rothley Pillowcase@RothleyPillow

LIKE LIKE LIKE >> Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?'' #mccann s @zampos



MOM OF TWO@GILLYSPOT

@Muttfan IMO Tony has the best (most unbiased against defendant) Judge in UK in Justice Tugendhat - He has shown this many times. #McCann
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Miraflores on 11.10.12 20:51

I'm a bit confused - are the Claimants the McCanns? Who has said they lied and about what exactly?
Miraflores
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Join date : 2011-06-20

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Claimants make a claim

Post by Tony Bennett on 11.10.12 21:02

@Miraflores wrote:I'm a bit confused - are the Claimants the McCanns? Who has said they lied and about what exactly?
Yes, the McCanns are called the Claimants here because they have made a libel claim. In olden times (i.e. when I was a lad), plaintiffs served a writ. Nowadays Claimants serve a claim.

You asked who said the McCanns had lied.

No-one.

This is what I reported, faithfully, accurately, word for word:

At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?"


He then proceeded to say (verbatim quote): "At that point, Mr Bennett would come back and ask for his undertakings to be varied".




____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Guest on 11.10.12 21:02

Would it be the same judge (Judge T) for the libel trial?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Miraflores on 11.10.12 21:16

Ah I see, so in the course of the proceedings it might be established that the McCanns were lying about something - not that they have already lied. Things could get very interesting if that were to be proved.

I must say, if he cuts through all the obfustication which has gone on, he will be a better person than many of us.

I was encouraged to see that it was him, after he refused Freddie Starr a superinjunction the other day.
Miraflores
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Join date : 2011-06-20

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by coppernob on 11.10.12 21:25

I may not post a lot but i'm behind you all the way Tony, just wish I was as brave as you McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 725573
coppernob
coppernob

Posts : 58
Join date : 2010-02-03

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Tony Bennett on 11.10.12 21:37

candyfloss wrote:Would it be the same judge (Judge T) for the libel trial?
I am really not sure how these things work, so...maybe, maybe not

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by ShuBob on 11.10.12 21:42

Popcorn wrote:The very best of luck to you. I feel very worried about the way free speech is going in this country. People are being jailed for making tasteless jokes and wearing offensive T shirts while "comedians" get community service for abusing their partners and serial paedophiles are knighted and die rich and comfortable, surrounded by their famous friends having been fed a lifelong sexual diet of teenage flesh by the BBC.
I think you are very brave to take these people on and to try and bring the murky details of this case into the cold light of day. I only hope that the series of police, press and political exposures in recent times will eventually extend to this dreadful case, though I cannot quite believe it will. I wish I had your courage and decency. Thank you.

Amen.

Good luck Tony McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 725573
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Guest on 11.10.12 21:48

Here's hoping that the McCanns will run for the lawless hills rather than face being cross-examined in court.

Good luck Tony.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Tugendhat - and Essex Police corruption

Post by Tony Bennett on 11.10.12 21:54

Just as an aside, here's a case that Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled on back in 2006, when he came up - smack! - agaisnt serious corruptin in Essex Police. By way of background, David Clark, an honest and hard-working police office as you could hope to fund in these islands, was invesigating a major jewellery robbery. Quite rightly, he arrested a suspect. His boss, Kreyling (below), ordered Clark to de-arrest him. There was active police involvement in the jewellery robbery. David Clark protested, with the results that came before Mr Justice Tugendhat in 2006. Later, Tugendhat approved a £96,000 offer of compensation made by Essex Police (but which of course was paid for by the taxpayer).

To deal with the last point in the article, Essex Police in the end did not appeal.



Policeman was bullied

12:58pm Tuesday 19th September 2006

by Michael Clarke


A former policeman was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign after reporting a senior colleague for misconduct, a High Court judge has ruled.

David Clark, from Westcliff, who retired on medical grounds after he was constantly bullied by senior officers, has spoken of his relief at winning his case.

Mr Clark, who had served both in Rayleigh and Hadleigh, had claimed the Chief Constable of Essex Police was vicariously liable for his injuries.

Mr Justice Tugendhat accepted he suffered "bullying, harassment, humiliation, intimidation, oppression and victimisation" at work after he made a complaint about a senior officer's handling of a case.

On top of the £18,000 general damages to cover pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, the former detective constable will receive damages to reflect loss of earnings, which could run into six figures.

Mr Clark, 50, who won many commendations during his career, told the Echo: "It's come as a huge relief. I left with depression and a pulse rate of 203, when it should have been 75. I'm about to have a heart operation that will hopefully make me back to normal.

"It was a nightmare. My locker was broken into, my desk searched, there was shouting, constant undermining and humiliation.

"There was a police car parked down my road morning and night observing my comings and goings."

The court heard Mr Clark left the force after 26 years in January 2002, after stopping work in October 1999, suffering from shingles and depression.

His troubles stemmed from his participation in Operation Orchid, an investigation into theft and handling stolen goods.

Mr Clark was appointed officer in charge in July 1997, but claimed he felt like a "marked man" after he complained the investigation had been seriously undermined by Det Sgt John Kreyling, who "de-arrested" a suspect Kreyling knew personally.

The suspect was later acquitted, along with several others.

Mr Clark's complaint of oppressive conduct through the force's grievance procedure was shelved and he was later posted to Hadleigh police station to perform beat duties.

The judge also found Det Chief Insp Graham Bird had been negligent in failing to protect Mr Clark.

Kreyling moved to Basildon police in 2002 before retiring from the force. Bird has also retired.

The judge said that Kreyling was "not capable of belief" and could not be regarded as a "candid witness".

Ruling in Mr Clark's favour, the judge said that he was a "careful and honest" witness.

Mr Clark told the Echo: "The police tried to cover it up. I hope other officers will not be deterred from coming forward and saying the right thing."

Lawyers for the chief constable denied liability and negligence, arguing Mr Clark's injury was not foreseeable and that he failed to take reasonable care for his own health.

A spokesman for Essex Police said: "In relation to this specific case, Essex Police is seeking leave to appeal the decision."

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by ShuBob on 11.10.12 21:54

Jean wrote:Here's hoping that the McCanns will run for the lawless hills rather than face being cross-examined in court.

Good luck Tony.

If it comes to it, I very much doubt they'll testify in a libel trial they themselves have initiated. Whether they can be compelled to is something I'll be interested in finding out.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Miraflores on 11.10.12 21:54

Will the McCanns have to attend court? They seem not to have had to in any of their legal actions to date.
Miraflores
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Join date : 2011-06-20

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by dazedandconfused on 11.10.12 21:58

Wishing you my very best wishes at this stressful time Tony.
dazedandconfused
dazedandconfused

Posts : 49
Join date : 2010-07-23

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by ShuBob on 11.10.12 22:00

@Miraflores wrote:I don't know whether the McCanns will 'wuss out' but it does seem that Mr Justice Tugendhat is trying to see that the law is properly enforced and not just letting the McCann's and their bully boys CR make the laws up as they see fit.

This is my take as well. Hope we are right.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

Post by Guest on 11.10.12 22:14

I've taken a real liking to Judge Tugendhat. I really have.
And I wish Mr. Bennett strength & courage, and success.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 Empty SNIPPED

Post by Tony Bennett on 11.10.12 22:16

@Miraflores wrote:Will the McCanns have to attend court? They seem not to have had to in any of their legal actions to date.
Actually, Mr Justice Tugendhat dealt with that point at the last hearing, as I had asked for an order that the McCanns attend and give evidence at my trial. Mr Justice Tugendhat refused, explaining that: "It is entirely up to the Claimants in a case to decide what evidence they wish to bring in support of theor case". He added, in terms (i.e. I am not quoting his actual words) that in any closing speech one could certainly ask the court to take account of the fact that the Claimants were unwilling to give evidence in person in support of ther own application.

In their claim, they said, via Carter-Ruck Partner Isabel Hudson, who has made several sworn statements on the McCanns' behalf in these proceeedings, that my publications 'harmed the search for Madeleine'.

This means that I can cross-examine her about this claim, but if the McCanns are not at the hearing, I could not ask them directly to justify that claim.

Indeed, that is the centrepoint of the McCanns' claim. The main reason they are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on this, they say, is because people read my articles and then, apparently, stop searching for Madeleine.

I am rather hoping that at the full libel trial, both Dr Kate McCann and Dr David Payne will give evidence about the truth of what they said in their witness statements. Then we might get closer to finding out whether...



SNIPPED. I have to be careful



ETA: P.S. McCanns' estimated costs so far in McCanns v Bennett: £165,000

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

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

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum