McCann Related Libel Actions

I came across a list of McCann-related libel actions on Jill Havern's Forum, compiled by Tony Bennett, and was absolutely astounded by how many there have been to date. At this rate it's only a matter of time before the McCanns and associates will become better known for their court actions rather than being the parents of a missing child. Hope it's ok to post it here, if not Mods please remove.


McCanns v Tal & Qual - 31 August 2007.

Why? They said they were libelled.

Result - McCanns had to abandon their legal action because the newspaper went out of business throiugh falling sales.



McCanns v 24Horas - October 2007

Why? Various ‘smears’ against the McCanns including claims that Dr Gerald McCann was not Madeleine’s father.

Result? Action threatened but not begun.




Justine McGuiness v Mirror Group Newspapers - Late 2007.

Why? An article in The People, October 2007, suggesting she’d overclaimed expenses by £20,000.

Result? Settled out of court for £5,000 damages. The lawyers (see below) claimed £78,000 costs under: ‘No Win, No Fee’. Ms McGuiness had the money paid into a charity.



McCanns v Media - Claim made early 2008?



Result? £550,000 gained, settled out of court, front-page apoloigis prineyed Wednesday 19 March 2008 amd Sunday 23 March



Murat v Media - Claim made early 2008?

Why? Claims he was libelled by suggestions in dozens of newspaper articles that he was somehow involved in Madeleine’s disappearance

Result? The Scotsman apologised to Murat 15 May, paying no damages, £600,000 gained from the other newspapers on 18 July 2008, settled out of court



Michaela Walczuk & Sergei Malinka v Media - Claim made early 2008?

Why? They claim they were libelled by suggestions in newspaper articles that they were somehow involved in Madeleine’s disappearance


Result? Reputedly £100,000 gained for each of them on 18 July 2008, settled out of court.



Tapas 7 v Media - Claim made early 2008?

Why? Claims they were collectively libelled by suggestions they were somehow involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Result? £375,000 gained in total (over £53,500 each).

Ref: Express Newspapers said at the time in an apology: “In articles…we suggested that the holiday companions of Kate and Gerry McCann might have covered up the true facts concerning Madeleine McCann's disappearance and/or misled the authorities investigating her disappearance. We also reported speculation that…Dr Russell O'Brien was suspected of involvement with Madeleine's abduction. We now accept that these suggestions should never have been made and were completely untrue…”

Murat v BSkyB - During 2008?

Why? Claims they accused him of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Result? Undisclosed damages, settled out of court 14 November 2008.




McCanns v Paulo Reis, Portuguese journalist - Summer 2008?

Why? Claims they were libelled in a series of articles by Reis in 2007 & 2008

Result? Paulo Reis mentioned his libel letter from the McCanns in an article dated Ocober 2008; he had already taken a break from writing about Madeleine McCann in order to concentrate on writing about other stories. It is not known if he withdrew any of his articles about Madeleine; probably not.



McCanns v Goncalo Amaral and TVI - Libel action was threatened in July 2008 when Mr Amaral published his book but it didn’t get under way until the McCanns served a writ in June or July 2009

Why? Claims they were libelled by suggestions they were somehow involved in Madeleine’s disappearance


Result? Complex! The main events so far:

· Sep 2009 Book banned, TV1 documentary banned, books impounded

· Dec 2009/Jan/Feb 2010 Hearing of Amaral’s appeal against the book ban; appeal failed

· Oct 2010 Portuguese Appeal Court upholds Amaral’s appeal; book unbanned

· Mar 2011 Portuguese Supreme Court hears appeal by McCanns against book unbanning’ appeal fails, Amaral’s book can be sold.

McCanns say they will appeal still further.




McCanns v T Bennett & D Butler - 27 August 2009

Why? Claims they were libelled in a book, a leaflet and on a website by suggestions they were somehow involved in Madeleine’s disappearance

Result? Bennett and Butler agreed not to distribute ’60 Reasons’ book and ’10
Reasons’ leaflet and not to libel the McCanns; Bennett required to pay £400 Court costs.

B & K Kennedy v T Bennett - 28 August 2009

Why? Claims he was libelled in internet articles on the 3As website.

Result? The offending articles were no longer available because 3As was taken offline; Bennett agreed not to libel Kennedy.


McCanns v Pamalam - 2009?

Why? Claims that Dr Gerald McCann’s blogs were copyright and that there was libellous content on the blog.

Result: Unsuccessful. Pamalam retained the entries complained of as her hosters required the McCanns’ lawyers to obtain a Court Order. The lawyers did not apply for one.



McCanns v Madeleine Foundation - January 2010.

Why? Claims the McCanns were libelled by an article by Barbara Nottage in which she said the abduction could not have happened in the claimed time slot of 3-4 minutes

Result: Half of the article removed.



McCanns v Madeleine Foundation - February 2010.

Why? Claims that a leaflet about Goncalo Amaral was libellous

Result: Distribution of the leaflet suspended for four months.



Marcos Aragao Correia v Madeleine Foundation - April 2010

Why: Claimed he had been defined by an article on The Madeleine Foundation

Result: Correia took no further action after Madeleine Foundation replied defending content of its article.



McCanns & Jon Corner v McCann Exposure & Wordpress - 2 June 2011

Why? Claims the blog breached copyright and was libellous

Result: Copyright photos removed and some changes made to the blog’s content.




Brian Kennedy v McCann Exposure & Wordpress - 3 June 2011

Why? Claims the blog libelled him When? 3 June 2011

Result: Some changes made to the blog’s content.



McCanns v Paulo Sargento, Hernâni Carvalho and Manuel Luis Goucha and TVI - 15 June 2011

Why? Claims they libelled the McCanns in a TV discussion

Result: Action only just begun.



McCanns v Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler - mid-July 2011

Why? Claims her new e-book, 'Profiling the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann', libelled them


Result: Amazon have stopped listing her book, claiming that the McCanns have alleged that her book is defamatory and that, as they haven't the resources to say whether a book is libellous or not, they're removing it from sale. Pat Brown is suing for 'tortious interference with business' because the McCanns caused her book to be withdrawn from sale on Amazon.




Edward Smethurst (McCanns' Co-ordinating lawyer) v Tony Bennett - Libel writ in the High Court issued 9 Augsut 2011

Why? Claims that three threads on 'Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' libelled him, especially references to comments made by some of his 'Facebook friends'.

Result: Smethurst obtained a secrecy order on 9 August 2011 from Master Eyre, forbidding disclosure of Court documents to third parties. Detailed Particulars of Claim have not yet been filed by Smethurst. The claim is for damages 'not exceeding £100,000'. Preliminary hearing on 7 December 2011



McCanns v Tony Bennett - When? Letter written 12 Augsut 2011.

Why? They claim that Tony Bennett has breached his undertaking not to accuse the McCanns of any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter and is therefore guilty of contempt of court. They have said they will shortly issue contempt proceedings. They also demanded the remove of around 50 articles and postings by him.

Result: Contempt proceedings served on Tony Bennett when a large cardboard box was delivered to him by limousine on 1 December 2011. . The articles and postings to which the McCanns objected have been removed.



Brian Kennedy v Tony Bennett - Libel letter sent 2nd September 2007

Why? Claims that ten articles on The Madeleine Foundation website libelled him.

Result: Matter settled as follows: (1) Tony Benentt apologised for libelling Brian Kennedy. Tony Bennett agreed to withdraw, and not re-publish, a number of articles about Brian Kennedy on the Madeleine Foundation website. Brian Kennedy asked for costs but Tony Bennett successfully refused to pay them. No other payment was made by Tony Benentt to settle this action.



Steve May (Business associate of the McCanns' 'co-ordinating lawyer', Edward Smethurst) v Jill Havern - Libel letter sent 2nd October 2011

Why? Claims that a thread on the 'Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann forum' were libellous of him.


Result: Jill Havern removed the thread in question but did not reply to the letter. There was no further action.




OTHER LEGAL ACTIONS

In September 2009, Bindmans LLP, Solicitors for Henri E___, who worked or still works for the security services, requested several websites including Joana Morais’ blog and The Madeleine Foundation website us to remove what they alleged to be ‘confidential information’ in observance of a Category 5 ‘D Notice’. He had been named in an article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard newspaper. Most websites/blogs complied with the request by removing his name from their sites.

In 2010 the McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte made a complaint that Gonçalo Amaral had 'giving false statements about his financial affairs (assets and income) to the Social Security Department in order to obtain legal support. On 15 April the Public Ministry in Portimão rejected her complaint on behalf of the McCanns. The Public Ministry said there was no evidence that Gonçalo Amaral had commited any crime. Afterwards [in Correio da Manhã, April 16, 2011, page 14, paper edition:
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/04/maddie-case-mccanns-lose-another-legal.html , Gonçalo Amaral was quoted as saying: "This is another defeat for the McCann couple. It is another setback in their attempts to destroy me by legal action"


http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2900-a-compendium-of-mccann-related-libel-actions

This came out in the Leveson Inquiry

Viscount Rothmere's testimony (major sharehold of Associated Newspapers)

"Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail and formerly of the Evening Standard, made a substantial donation to the McCanns in 2008 after they sued for libel. The Daily Mail agreed to carry free adverts on behalf of the Find Madeleine campaign but refused to apologise, according to Gerry McCann. The Evening Standard agreed to publish an apology."

And

"Asked again whether he had any concerns before the McCanns sued, Rothermere said: "I am very deeply sympathetic to everything the McCanns have gone through."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/12/daily-mail-madeleine-mccann-viscount-rothermere?newsfeed=true

McCanns v Paulo Sargento, Hernâni Carvalho and Manuel Luis Goucha and TVI - 15 June 2011

Why? Claims they libelled the McCanns in a TV discussion

Result: Action only just begun.

Morning Autumn.......I didn"t know about this. There must be a reason why the McCanns keep trying to stop any oral or written comments about them.
They are clearly paranoid but if they didn't keep making T.V. appearances and giving Press interviews this wouldn't be happening. Instead of spending
Fund money on suing everyone the Public would have more respect for them if they retreated from the limelight and concentrated on trying to find out
what happened to their Daughter Madeleine .

When you see just how many gagging orders they've made it's quite frightening. Certainly GB is not the land of the free (speech).

This must be, as Gerry referred to as the 'wider agenda'

dazedandconfused wrote:When you see just how many gagging orders they've made it's quite frightening. Certainly GB is not the land of the free (speech).

I cannot think of any case which has resulted in so much litigation nor subservience to the Mccanns . Nobody has yet explained why Madeleine is still a Ward of Court, why the Press is so quick to retract anything the McCanns object to, remove a photograph of them laughing etc, it really is puzzling.

Panda wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:When you see just how many gagging orders they've made it's quite frightening. Certainly GB is not the land of the free (speech).

I cannot think of any case which has resulted in so much litigation nor subservience to the Mccanns . Nobody has yet explained why Madeleine is still a Ward of Court, why the Press is so quick to retract anything the McCanns object to, remove a photograph of them laughing etc, it really is puzzling.

I think its an indication of how deep this goes
within the British establishment, the string-pullers
are controlling all aspects of the media, police and
legal fraternity. Joe Stalin would have relished this
kind of ultimate control and fear.

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:When you see just how many gagging orders they've made it's quite frightening. Certainly GB is not the land of the free (speech).

I cannot think of any case which has resulted in so much litigation nor subservience to the Mccanns . Nobody has yet explained why Madeleine is still a Ward of Court, why the Press is so quick to retract anything the McCanns object to, remove a photograph of them laughing etc, it really is puzzling.

I think its an indication of how deep this goes
within the British establishment, the string-pullers
are controlling all aspects of the media, police and
legal fraternity. Joe Stalin would have relished this
kind of ultimate control and fear.

Terrifying thought isn't it.

I hope the fund is going to be investigated. A helluva lot of money poured into it in just a few days. It would be interesting to find out whether it had all come from sympathetic donors or if maybe the fund was a way of channeling money to the McCanns without arousing suspicion about where they had suddenly got a couple of million from.

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:When you see just how many gagging orders they've made it's quite frightening. Certainly GB is not the land of the free (speech).

I cannot think of any case which has resulted in so much litigation nor subservience to the Mccanns . Nobody has yet explained why Madeleine is still a Ward of Court, why the Press is so quick to retract anything the McCanns object to, remove a photograph of them laughing etc, it really is puzzling.

I think its an indication of how deep this goes
within the British establishment, the string-pullers
are controlling all aspects of the media, police and
legal fraternity. Joe Stalin would have relished this
kind of ultimate control and fear.

Hi marxman.......BUT WHY!!!!!!!!!! There was talk that Gerry was a Fundraiser for the Labour Party and might have had information about some of the Donors which would have embarassed the Labour Party, but this is a Conservative Government which has authorised a £3.5 million review.

AnnaEsse wrote:I hope the fund is going to be investigated. A helluva lot of money poured into it in just a few days. It would be interesting to find out whether it had all come from sympathetic donors or if maybe the fund was a way of channeling money to the McCanns without arousing suspicion about where they had suddenly got a couple of million from.

AnnaEsse, there is no way the Fund paid £300,000 to Halligen . Iv"e asked this before......do you remember a Member of 3a"s whose avatar was a big
black dog? The user name was short and I would remember it if I saw it. Anyway, when the Halligen fiasco was being discussed she/he posted that the
money was placed in one of Kennedy"s holding Companies and transferred the following day to another of his Companies. Typical money laundering., there was never another post from him/her.

Panda wrote:

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:When you see just how many gagging orders they've made it's quite frightening. Certainly GB is not the land of the free (speech).

I cannot think of any case which has resulted in so much litigation nor subservience to the Mccanns . Nobody has yet explained why Madeleine is still a Ward of Court, why the Press is so quick to retract anything the McCanns object to, remove a photograph of them laughing etc, it really is puzzling.

I think its an indication of how deep this goes
within the British establishment, the string-pullers
are controlling all aspects of the media, police and
legal fraternity. Joe Stalin would have relished this
kind of ultimate control and fear.

Hi marxman.......BUT WHY!!!!!!!!!! There was talk that Gerry was a Fundraiser for the Labour Party and might have had information about some of the Donors which would have embarassed the Labour Party, but this is a Conservative Government which has authorised a £3.5 million review.

Hi Panda, all we can do is speculate, but whatever
'it' is, it appears to cross party lines! Didn't a raft
of FoI requests with regard to this case get returned
stamped exempt due to 'National Security'?
Regarding the two main GB political parties...
they really are two cheeks of the same arse, same
old, same old. (excuse my choice of anology)

two cheeks of the same arse".....well that's one way of putting it.

There has been speculation that they are all Brothers in Arms, but I think even the Freemasons would draw the line at covering up an accidental death.

How could Gerry say the plans to publicise Madeleine's disappearence would be for over a year.How could they know that setting up the Company,
appointing Directors, buying Mercandise etc all within 12 days would all be in vain because Madeleiene would be found?

Panda wrote:two cheeks of the same arse".....well that's one way of putting it.

There has been speculation that they are all Brothers in Arms, but I think even the Freemasons would draw the line at covering up an accidental death.

How could Gerry say the plans to publicise Madeleine's disappearence would be for over a year.How could they know that setting up the Company,
appointing Directors, buying Mercandise etc all within 12 days would all be in vain because Madeleiene would be found?

Yes indeed Panda, the 'fund' is key to unravelling
this mystery. 'Follow the money' just hope the SY
'feel a few masonic collars' and the fund will open
up like a stinking onion.

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:two cheeks of the same arse".....well that's one way of putting it.

There has been speculation that they are all Brothers in Arms, but I think even the Freemasons would draw the line at covering up an accidental death.

How could Gerry say the plans to publicise Madeleine's disappearence would be for over a year.How could they know that setting up the Company,
appointing Directors, buying Mercandise etc all within 12 days would all be in vain because Madeleiene would be found?

Yes indeed Panda, the 'fund' is key to unravelling
this mystery. 'Follow the money' just hope the SY
'feel a few masonic collars' and the fund will open
up like a stinking onion.

I wonder if there's a stealth band of powerful Freemasons with a perverse penchant for children?

My guess is there is.

[quote="pennylane"][quote="marxman"]

Panda wrote:two cheeks of the same arse".....well that's one way of putting it.


I wonder if there's a stealth band of powerful Freemasons with a perverse penchant for children?

My guess is there is.

I'd guess something along those lines too.

pennylane wrote:

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:two cheeks of the same arse".....well that's one way of putting it.

There has been speculation that they are all Brothers in Arms, but I think even the Freemasons would draw the line at covering up an accidental death.

How could Gerry say the plans to publicise Madeleine's disappearence would be for over a year.How could they know that setting up the Company,
appointing Directors, buying Mercandise etc all within 12 days would all be in vain because Madeleiene would be found?

Yes indeed Panda, the 'fund' is key to unravelling
this mystery. 'Follow the money' just hope the SY
'feel a few masonic collars' and the fund will open
up like a stinking onion.

I wonder if there's a stealth band of powerful Freemasons with a perverse penchant for children?

My guess is there is.

Morning pennylane and dazedand confused,

As I say, I think the freemasons would draw a line at covering up Madeleines death and probably the reason the McCanns have received sush support is because they are both Doctors, Gerry was a Member of COMARE, had just received a Research Grant from the British Heart Foundation so it was assumed they were beyond reproach

[quote="dazedandconfused"][quote="pennylane"]

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:two cheeks of the same arse".....well that's one way of putting it.


I wonder if there's a stealth band of powerful Freemasons with a perverse penchant for children?

My guess is there is.

I'd guess something along those lines too.

and mine....scotland anyone

Gordon Browns brother Robert was also on the board of COMARE with gerry....oh what a coincidental world we live in eh!

jd16 wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:

pennylane wrote:


I wonder if there's a stealth band of powerful Freemasons with a perverse penchant for children?

My guess is there is.

I'd guess something along those lines too.

and mine....scotland anyone

Gordon Browns brother Robert was also on the board of COMARE with gerry....oh what a coincidental world we live in eh!

I think we are all on the same page!

btw Andrew Brown is the bro's name.

[quote="jd16"][quote="dazedandconfused"]

pennylane wrote:

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:two cheeks of the same arse".....well that's one way of putting it.


I wonder if there's a stealth band of powerful Freemasons with a perverse penchant for children?

My guess is there is.

I'd guess something along those lines too.

and mine....scotland anyone

Gordon Browns brother Robert was also on the board of COMARE with gerry....oh what a coincidental world we live in eh!

HI jd16 The I wonder bit was written by pennylane...I don"t necessarily agree with that theory about children.

Panda wrote:
AnnaEsse, there is no way the Fund paid £300,000 to Halligen . Iv"e asked this before......do you remember a Member of 3a"s whose avatar was a big
black dog? The user name was short and I would remember it if I saw it. Anyway, when the Halligen fiasco was being discussed she/he posted that the
money was placed in one of Kennedy"s holding Companies and transferred the following day to another of his Companies. Typical money laundering., there was never another post from him/her.

Can't remember that but if true what are the chances of police looking into his other 'activities' since his arrest?

Quite high l suspect and l believe that is what started this 'review'.

Panda wrote:

pennylane wrote:

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:two cheeks of the same arse".....well that's one way of putting it.

There has been speculation that they are all Brothers in Arms, but I think even the Freemasons would draw the line at covering up an accidental death.

How could Gerry say the plans to publicise Madeleine's disappearence would be for over a year.How could they know that setting up the Company,
appointing Directors, buying Mercandise etc all within 12 days would all be in vain because Madeleiene would be found?

Yes indeed Panda, the 'fund' is key to unravelling
this mystery. 'Follow the money' just hope the SY
'feel a few masonic collars' and the fund will open
up like a stinking onion.

I wonder if there's a stealth band of powerful Freemasons with a perverse penchant for children?

My guess is there is.

Morning pennylane and dazedand confused,

As I say, I think the freemasons would draw a line at covering up Madeleines death and probably the reason the McCanns have received sush support is because they are both Doctors, Gerry was a Member of COMARE, had just received a Research Grant from the British Heart Foundation so it was assumed they were beyond reproach

Morning Panda,

I agree your average Freemason would draw the line, but I was referring to a "stealth" band of Freemasons from within the organisation.

I definitely agree that Gerry's links with COMARE played a major part, and have always maintained that this aspect was dismissed too quickly as a reason for all the hefty initial help.

Panda wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I hope the fund is going to be investigated. A helluva lot of money poured into it in just a few days. It would be interesting to find out whether it had all come from sympathetic donors or if maybe the fund was a way of channeling money to the McCanns without arousing suspicion about where they had suddenly got a couple of million from.

AnnaEsse, there is no way the Fund paid £300,000 to Halligen . Iv"e asked this before......do you remember a Member of 3a"s whose avatar was a big
black dog? The user name was short and I would remember it if I saw it. Anyway, when the Halligen fiasco was being discussed she/he posted that the
money was placed in one of Kennedy"s holding Companies and transferred the following day to another of his Companies. Typical money laundering., there was never another post from him/her.

I'm most likely wrong but was it 'Tripz' the poster?