A misunderstanding by t4two
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 1 of 1 • Share
A misunderstanding by t4two
by Tony Bennett 03.11.12 8:44
This posting by t4two has appeared in another place (MM):
QUOTE
Mr Justice Tugendhat underlined the vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed and directed that the couple’s case against Mr Bennett should be heard "as soon as practicable".
The case is not about whether the McCanns are guilty of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction - it is about whether Mr Bennet has breached undertakings given to the court that he would desist from publicly making certain allegations in this respect. I fear that as far as the court is concerned, the question of whether Mr. Bennett's suspicions about the McCanns are well founded or whether the undertakings were given under duress will be of little interest and that it is actually more important from their point of view that they set an example here irrespective of the background as to why the court was allegedly not obeyed.
UNQUOTE
It seems pretty obvious that t4two has not read the Tugendhat judgment. If he had done, he would have realised that the committal trial (whether I have breached any of the undertakings given) will be followed by my application to 'lift the stay' i.e. an application to reinstate the libel proceedings against me which were adjourned, i.e. suspended, back in November 2009.
It remains of course to be seen as to whether I have a valid defence for any apparent breaches of any of the 16 undertakings given.
Maybe a member here who is also a member on MM could put him right?
QUOTE
Mr Justice Tugendhat underlined the vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed and directed that the couple’s case against Mr Bennett should be heard "as soon as practicable".
The case is not about whether the McCanns are guilty of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction - it is about whether Mr Bennet has breached undertakings given to the court that he would desist from publicly making certain allegations in this respect. I fear that as far as the court is concerned, the question of whether Mr. Bennett's suspicions about the McCanns are well founded or whether the undertakings were given under duress will be of little interest and that it is actually more important from their point of view that they set an example here irrespective of the background as to why the court was allegedly not obeyed.
UNQUOTE
It seems pretty obvious that t4two has not read the Tugendhat judgment. If he had done, he would have realised that the committal trial (whether I have breached any of the undertakings given) will be followed by my application to 'lift the stay' i.e. an application to reinstate the libel proceedings against me which were adjourned, i.e. suspended, back in November 2009.
It remains of course to be seen as to whether I have a valid defence for any apparent breaches of any of the 16 undertakings given.
Maybe a member here who is also a member on MM could put him right?
____________________
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 McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Guest- Guest
Re: A misunderstanding by t4two
by uppatoffee 03.11.12 9:36
Jean wrote:t4two is also a member here, Tony.
One of the mm members has posted it already anyway.
uppatoffee- Posts : 626
Activity : 645
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-09-14
Re: A misunderstanding by t4two
by T4two 03.11.12 18:07
Hello Tony Bennett,
I actually did read the Tugendhaft judgement and the sentiment concerning the "vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed" did rather jump out of the legalese. As I understood it, the case as to whether undertakings to the court have been obeyed or not is to be held first. Are you saying that there will be no judgement on this point because you have applied for the libel proceedings to be reinstated?
I actually did read the Tugendhaft judgement and the sentiment concerning the "vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed" did rather jump out of the legalese. As I understood it, the case as to whether undertakings to the court have been obeyed or not is to be held first. Are you saying that there will be no judgement on this point because you have applied for the libel proceedings to be reinstated?
T4two- Posts : 166
Activity : 171
Likes received : 5
Join date : 2012-01-22
Age : 76
Location : Germany
Similar topics» Joana Morais - The PJ will conduct the questioning that was requested by the English police - 14/8/2013
» Let's Not Forget Brenda
» Another MM misunderstanding, this time by 'Panda'
» Let's Not Forget Brenda
» Another MM misunderstanding, this time by 'Panda'
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
