Tony Bennett - new court date

T4two wrote:

tanszi wrote:somebody please tell me what a Directions?procedure hearing is, does someone know.

Hope this helps, but I have to admit that I'm still not certain.

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/566.cfm

I googled Directions Procedure Hearing and got this:

http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/community/going_to_court/civ_direct.html

[Last Updated 04/08/2010]

What is a directions hearing?

A directions hearing is an informal court appearance. It will take place if you have not been able to resolve the dispute yourselves after the formal legal action has started. A directions hearing is held to look at the direction that the matter is heading in the courts and to discuss with the parties their options to resolve the matter. The purpose is to discover the position of each party and whether there is any possibility of settling any of the issues. If the matter cannot be settled, it may be set down for mediation or for a trial.

The court will post a notice to both parties with the date and time of the directions hearing once a defence has been filed with the court. The directions hearing will usually be held about three weeks after the defence has been filed.
- top -

Will it cost me anything?

No, it won’t cost you anything upfront to attend a directions hearing. However, if you are not successful in the end, you might have to pay the other party a small fee for the inconvenience of them attending court. This will be included in the costs of the other party that you will pay if they are successful.

What will happen at the hearing?

The hearing will determine where each party stands in the action and whether there is any possibility of a resolution. The hearing will encourage both parties to come to an agreement and will provide some assistance to help this happen. If this doesn’t look like happening at the directions hearing, the matter can be sent to mediation if both parties agree to it or a date for a trial will be set. A directions hearing may be able to resolve some of the issues between the parties in order to limit the issues to argue about at the trial.
- top -

Do I have to attend?

If a directions hearing is set, you must attend. If the person who brought the claim (plaintiff) doesn’t attend, the defendant may ask the court to dismiss the claim. If the defendant doesn’t attend, the plaintiff can ask the court to enter judgment against them and be awarded the amount they claimed plus any costs incurred.

If you have genuine problems in attending on that day contact the call centre on 8204 2444 and they will be able to assist you in what steps you will need to take. It is very important that you call and let the court know if you won’t be able to attend so as to avoid having your claim dismissed or having judgment entered against you. Try to call as soon as you know that you won’t be able to attend and don’t wait until the morning of the hearing, if you know in advance. If you are ill, it is a good idea to obtain a medical certificate from a doctor in case the court wants to see proof as to why you didn’t attend.
- top -

What do I have to bring?

Bring any documents to support your claim to the directions hearing. You don’t need to bring your witnesses to the hearing. It is a good idea to bring a pen and paper to make notes.

What happens next?

If you come to an agreement at the directions hearing, the matter will be resolved between the parties.

If you do not come to an agreement, the matter will be listed for mediation or for a trial. The arrangements for mediation or the trial will be made at the directions hearing and you will also receive a letter from the registry with the date in writing.

T4two wrote:

pennylane wrote:What dirty tricks are the gruesome twosome up to now with this postponement following GA's postponement?

I really hope this backfires horribly on the pair, and helps Tony Bennett immensely!

Could the two postponements be linked, as in: after Dr. Amaral had his appeal case postponed they had to find a trick way to get the hearing of the case against Tony Bennett postponed as well, because they want them to clash? Why would they want them to clash? Perhaps it's a PR thing; focus media attention on the Bennett case using press releases and articles to divert attention away from what goes on in Portugal. Why is it so important to do this? Because the Bennett case holds no surprises and they want to create an intimidating example, whereas in the Amaral case - surprises could be in store. Desperate times then and 'legal' intimidation at its worst.

McCanns are turning out to be as serious a threat to free speech, the media and the Internet as the Chinese government are. I hope that many people's resolve to leave them no peace until their part in all this has been exposed and a stop has been put to their machinations will be strengthened by this obvious attempt to restrict freedom and threaten the very livelihood of someone who doesn't buy their story and isn't afraid to question them publicly.

T4two

I totally agree the McCanns are a serious threat to free speech! They are also a threat to justice, and a walking talking promotion for child neglect! And that's just for starters......

thanks T4two and Margaret, is much clearer now.

being on this forum is like attending open university we, well I do, learn something new and of value every day. Thanks to you all.

And their sycopant-in-chief, the lavicious Lorraine, is on the front page of GH this month, telling us all about the importance of her "me time".

So there you go.

I wonder if the new libel reform laws will have any bearing on this case with TB ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/15/libel-law-reforms

Eli - I don`t think it will be passed as Law for ages, as its only a draft Bill and has to go through loads of stages before it becomes law. I believe it can take a year to go through all the discussion stages before it`s eventually passed, so probably won`t affect TB`s case.

However there seem to be many rumblings of dissatisfaction regarding libel, defamation etc. so things will change.

Lets hope this Supreme Court Ruling of 2010 helps him

"The supreme court has changed a key test for defending libel cases, in another significant step by the judiciary to weigh into the highly political debate about libel reform.

In a unanimous decision on the defence of fair comment – a Victorian rule originally designed to protect art critics from being sued for libel – the court said the law should be updated to make it more simple, and to take account of changes in technology and the modern media.

"The defence of fair comment should be renamed honest comment," said Lord Phillips, the president of the supreme court.

"Today the internet has made it possible for the man in the street to make public comment about others in a manner that did not exist when the principles of the law of fair comment were developed," he added. "Millions take advantage of that opportunity."

Phillips, who described the issue as "a storm in a teacup", said the defence of fair comment was "one of the most difficult areas of the law of defamation".

The law on fair comment has been developed by judges in cases going back to the 19th century, and originated to protect art critics who were critical of books, plays and performances.

But the rules determining when a defendant can invoke fair comment to protect themselves from libel have become increasingly complicated as judges have considered whether the defence could apply to a wider range of comment.

The defence was a key issue in the case brought by science writer Simon Singh, after he was sued over comments in the Guardian about the British Chiropractic Association.

Overturning high court judge Mr Justice Eady's decision that Singh could not use fair comment, the court of appeal ruled in April that judges should be slower to draw the line between fact and comment in contentious areas of journalism and debate.

But today's decision by five members of the UK's highest court will have even further-reaching implications for the future of the law on libel.

"The defence is clearly going to feature more significantly now," said Sarah Webb, partner and head of media, libel and privacy at Russell Jones & Walker. "Whilst the Singh case widened the understanding of what was comment rather than an assertion of fact, today's judgment states that the comment must now only explicitly or implicitly indicate at least in general terms the facts upon which it is based."

"It is clearly going to be easier for defendants to now rely on this defence although the supreme court have still said it needs further refinement by the Law Commission".

The case was brought by a group of musicians called The Gillettes and Saturday Night at the Movies after a promoter posted a notice on its website stating it would no longer work with the group because the musicians were "not professional enough".

The musicians sued the company for libel, claiming that the notice on its website implied that they were unprofessional and unlikely to honour future bookings, damaging their reputation.

The supreme court ruled that the company should be entitled to the defence of fair comment, because the statement posted on its website identified the facts on which the comment was based.

The court also considered human rights protections for free speech under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that a defendant in libel cases could not be expected to prove whether a value judgment involved in a statement defended as fair comment, was true.

"A value judgment is not susceptible of proof so that a requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil, and thus infringes article 10," said Lord Phillips.

But the court stopped short of radical reforms to the law, by refraining from adopting a wholly objective test for fair comment.

"While the court agreed to a small bit of modernisation in stating that the defence should be renamed honest comment … the court did not accept suggestions that the defence should be expanded to embrace facts which were not known to the defendant, or even in existence when he made his comment," said Gill Phillips, head of legal for the Guardian, which was one of the media organisations that intervened in the case. "Rather they suggested that the onus should be on a defendant to show that he subjectively believed that his comment was justified by the facts on which he based it.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/dec/01/supreme-court-fair-comment-libel-defence-change

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html


Relevant comments, with Tony Bennett's replies:

Kololi wrote: Surely if your fees are likely to run to such a huge amount then the costs of their legal support is also likely to be massive too.

REPLY: Someone at Carter-Ruck has had to take instructions from the McCanns, probably Senior Partner Adam Tudor, but it is usually Isabel Hudson's name that the letters go out from.

Someone at Carter-Ruck has had to read, select, photocopy many times and collate 2,000 pages of 149 alleged breaches of my undertaking.

Someone put Mike Gunnill up to trying to buy a book in the name of Michael Sangerte (Alleged Breach of Undertaking No. 1, by the way).

Carter-Ruck and the McCanns probably had to read every single one of my 3,700-odd posts on Jill's forum before deciding which 50 or so, in their terms, breached my undertaking (the other 3,650 or so presumably were not breaches of my undertaking) and they had to presumably read every single one of our articles on our website before deciding which 10 out of the 60 breached my undertaking). It looks like the McCanns think I crossed some 'line' in 50 postings here, but not the other 3,650. I have to say it is very hard to know where the line should be drawn.

Carter-Ruck have written three letters to me before August 2011 and they and the McCanns would have had to read and deal with my replies.

Then there are the hours every day they spend on this forum hunting for possibly libels - Jill has all the daily records from Peter Carter-Ruck's I.P. address.

The question has certainly been asked before: exactly who is paying for all this?

According to Dr Kate McCann on page 289 of her book 'madeleine', all the work of Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudosn is being given 'without payment'. Until they decided to bring contempt proceedings against me, it seems.

I understand a retainer agreement to be a sum of money placed up front with the solicitor. It is placed in a trust fund and drawn upon as work is completed. Where would the money that was required up front have come from?

REPLY: As a matter of law, Solicitors and their clients cannot, except in truly exceptional cases, be forced to disclose their source(s) of funding. The McCanns could make a voluntary disclosure; if so, that would of course sit very well with their oft-repeated claim to be 'open and transparent' about all that they do (excepting of course Clarence Mitchell's oft-repeated dictum that nothing may be disclosed about all their private investigations 'for operational reasons').

I am guessing from Madeleine's fund or from one of the people who it is said is sponsoring their legal costs. Heck I am just working class so maybe that sort of money with no strings attached is a spit in the ocean for a wealthy sponser but it still seems odd to me when you start to see the potential amount in black and white.

With no offence meant to you Mr Bennett why would they spend all this money on attacking somebody that, in the great scheme of things, is potentially small fry. The newspapers makes more sense but your reach to Joe Public is not as big as a daily or weekly paper.

REPLY: I think there may be two elements as to why the McCanns have, in their words, picked me for their 'battle'. One is that they may have a perception that our 'reach' with our booklets, leaflets, website, petitions etc., is greater than it actually is. The second reason may be [withheld for legal reasons].

Good luck and no sneering from me if you are able to settle this without going to court.

REPLY: I doubt it this time, though I have made an offer to the McCanns which I am not at liberty to disclose.

You have your family, your home and livelihood to think of so do what you need to do to look after yourself.

Did you see a piece in the paper this morning.....a blogger has had a 10 year gagging order imposed on him for 'outing' people that do wrong......and he's a pensioner and ex reporter.

I wonder if the Daily Express know, or will pick up on this story, surely Richard Desmond would be interested in what the McCanns are up too with their suing/bullying and their desperation of wanting to stick Tony in the Queens Hotel!!!

After his bashing at the Leveson Inquiry, whats stopping him reporting this, its not libel.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:I wonder if the Daily Express know, or will pick up on this story, surely Richard Desmond would be interested in what the McCanns are up too with their suing/bullying and their desperation of wanting to stick Tony in the Queens Hotel!!!

The narcissist seeks to destroy anyone who threatens their constructed image of themselves and their entitlement.

Tony is small fry and can't really fight back (as Tony said "I have made an offer to the McCanns which I am not at liberty to disclose" obviously it wasn't enough for the McCanns) but Richard Desmond surely has his own axe to grind regarding the McCanns, he has the money and the power.

Annabel wrote:

The question has certainly been asked before: exactly who is paying for all this?

According to Dr Kate McCann on page 289 of her book 'madeleine', all the work of Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudosn is being given 'without payment'. Until they decided to bring contempt proceedings against me, it seems.

I understand a retainer agreement to be a sum of money placed up front with the solicitor. It is placed in a trust fund and drawn upon as work is completed. Where would the money that was required up front have come from?

So how can Kate McCann say the work is completed without payment if there's a retainer?

Lillyofthevalley wrote:Tony is small fry and can't really fight back (as Tony said "I have made an offer to the McCanns which I am not at liberty to disclose" obviously it wasn't enough for the McCanns) but Richard Desmond surely has his own axe to grind regarding the McCanns, he has the money and the power.

Good morning Lilly,

I wouldn't blame Mr Bennett for making an offer to the McScams at this juncture. Whilst I am hugely in awe of his efforts, I think the risks are enormous... especially having seen the sickeningly biased rubbish being spouted at the Leveson inquiry where the McCanns are concerned!


Dear Mr/s McC, I apologise as I now believe all your lies are true.

kitti wrote:Did you see a piece in the paper this morning.....a blogger has had a 10 year gagging order imposed on him for 'outing' people that do wrong......and he's a pensioner and ex reporter.

Here's a link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090567/Blogging-pensioner-gets-Asbo-appalling-slurs-police-counclillors.clergy.html

pennylane wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:Tony is small fry and can't really fight back (as Tony said "I have made an offer to the McCanns which I am not at liberty to disclose" obviously it wasn't enough for the McCanns) but Richard Desmond surely has his own axe to grind regarding the McCanns, he has the money and the power.

Good morning Lilly,

I wouldn't blame Mr Bennett for making an offer to the McScams at this juncture. Whilst I am hugely in awe of his efforts, I think the risks are enormous... especially having seen the sickeningly biased rubbish being spouted at the Leveson inquiry where the McCanns are concerned!


Dear Mr/s McC, I apologise as I now believe all your lies are true.

ps...i now think eddie barked because he was hungry & then wanted to play with cuddlecat
i come in peace

matthew wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:Tony is small fry and can't really fight back (as Tony said "I have made an offer to the McCanns which I am not at liberty to disclose" obviously it wasn't enough for the McCanns) but Richard Desmond surely has his own axe to grind regarding the McCanns, he has the money and the power.

Good morning Lilly,

I wouldn't blame Mr Bennett for making an offer to the McScams at this juncture. Whilst I am hugely in awe of his efforts, I think the risks are enormous... especially having seen the sickeningly biased rubbish being spouted at the Leveson inquiry where the McCanns are concerned!


Dear Mr/s McC, I apologise as I now believe all your lies are true.

ps...i now think eddie barked because he was hungry & then wanted to play with cuddlecat
i come in peace

Welcome Matthew!

They want to prosecute Tony because he is 'one off us' the 'small man'...it's a warning to 'us' from the mccanns....print things we don't like and we will sue..then we have mr amaral.....he's not the 'small man' he's the coordinator of the investigation ....he's believable and that worries them.....so they sue him...they go from one extreme to the other...they won't take any notice off Tonys pleas because they don't care, they don't care that he is suffering, they don't care that mr amarals children are suffering....they have NO feelings whatsoever about people's suffering....they are devoid off 'feelings', they only care that people give to the fund to pay to help people suffer ...end off.

Oldartform wrote:Eli - I don`t think it will be passed as Law for ages, as its only a draft Bill and has to go through loads of stages before it becomes law. I believe it can take a year to go through all the discussion stages before it`s eventually passed, so probably won`t affect TB`s case.

However there seem to be many rumblings of dissatisfaction regarding libel, defamation etc. so things will change.

I see what you mean Oldartform, I'm not sure what stage it is at., here's a link to the Bill itself for those interested.

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/draft-bill-lester-libel.pdf

and also the petition .

http://libelreform.org/sign

"People are still being threatened by a law that allows the rich and powerful to bully critics and shut down public debate. Libel reform needs urgent action. The campaign and all its supporters have worked hard to persuade the Ministry of Justice to draw up an effective Defamation Bill, but if it is not in the Queen’s Speech in the spring, then libel reform will be delayed for at least another year, which will be a victory for those who want to silence honest criticism. We can’t bear to let this opportunity slip away.


Maybe Tony should consider asking for a trial by a jury which I believe he would be entitled to do under the current system, he might get a fairer hearing.

Deleted as I just found what I was querying.

I think I have previously indicated that the McCanns claim I have
breached the undertaking I gave the High Court in November 2009 in 149
instances, once by selling a book to Mike Gunnill, and on 148 other
occasions by words I have used in postings, articles and leaflets
published between January 2010 and August 2011."

Couldn`t Mike Gunnill`s actions be considered as `entrapment`. The Wiki references mainly refer to Police entrapment, but there is a piece under Wiki`s `Agent Provocateur` Common Usage :-

"Agent provocateur activities raise ethical and legal issues. In common law jurisdictions, the legal concept of entrapment may apply if the main impetus for the crime was the provocateur."

But hopefully TB has sussed this one.

Oldartform wrote:Couldn`t Mike Gunnill`s actions be considered as `entrapment`. The Wiki references mainly refer to Police entrapment, but there is a piece under Wiki`s `Agent Provocateur` Common Usage :-

"Agent provocateur activities raise ethical and legal issues. In common law jurisdictions, the legal concept of entrapment may apply if the main impetus for the crime was the provocateur."

But hopefully TB has sussed this one.

Does anyone know who this Mike Gunnill is and is this his real name ? I understand he was supposed to be doing some research and wanted a copy of TB's book , if he gave a false name or used false information to obtain the book then it might been seen as a form of coercion ?

"The lowest level of coercion is to use misrepresentation or fraud to induce someone to do something (usually harmful to themselves) that they wouldn't do if they knew all the relevant facts. "

As far as I know this is his real name. This is his entry on the LinkedIn site.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikegunnill

You'd think that as someone in gainful employment he would have better things to do.