McCann v Bennett: Court documents in the case can be made public

With thanks to JILL HAVERN site:

Tony Bennett Today at 8:16 am

.A ruling this week by Mr Justice Eady in a libel case against the Sun newspaper means that I will be free to publish any of my documents and evidence in McCanns v Bennett.

The same doesn't apply to Smethurst v Bennett, though, since the day before he issued his libel claim in the High Court, he obtained, ex parte (in secret), a draconian court order forbidding anyone to reproduce any of the documents in the case without a court order, i.e. without the judge giving consent. That does not, however, restrict me or anyone else from publishing facts about or relating to Smethurst.


Anyway, here is the Eady ruling, kindly sent to me by a forum member here:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The right of journalists to report court documents without fear of being sued for libel has been upheld by the High Court after it struck out a libel claim against The Sun brought a pair of asylum seekers.

The pair sued The Sun for £850,000 in libel damages over a story it ran saying they were seeking a massive payout to take their children on holiday.

Afham Ismail and his wife Bibi sued over story the newspaper ran in July last year which was based on documents filed with the courts in a "discrimination" action they were seeking to bring against the UK Border Agency (UKBA).

The story, headlined "Asylum seekers: Pay for us to have a hol", said the couple were demanding a £100,000 payout, arguing that their two children had been deprived of their rights to have enough books, toys, food and holidays, and said they also wanted an extra £50 a week in handouts, as they could not live on benefits of £181 a week.

Mr Justice Eady gave the newspaper summary judgment in a decision handed down yesterday.

The judge said the couple, who assessed the worth of their claim at £850,000, believed they had been unjustly treated.

But they had not sufficiently taken into account the latitude which had long been permitted under English law for reports of court proceedings.

The content of the article was based on the pleadings in the UKBA case - which was struck out in April - and most of the elements comprising the article were reflected in those documents.

Privilege attached to "a fair and accurate copy of or extract from any register or other document required by law to be open to public inspection" by virtue of section 15 and Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Defamation Act 1996, the judge said.

"Minor errors will not undermine such a defence. The headline was of course intended to be punchy and eye-catching.

"The basic facts were given a 'tabloid tweak', in the sense that the passing reference to 'holidays' had been rather buried away as part of a more general illustration of the family's limited circumstances; they were not actually 'demanding a £100,000 payment - so they can take their two kids on holiday'. But I do not regard such a gloss as falling outside the permitted leeway."

Granting summary judgment to News Group Newspapers, he said that, overall, there was no allegation in the article which would not be capable of being defended by way of justification or fair comment on the basis of the case pleaded in the UKBA case.

END

Interesting

Let's hope that this will have the McCanns running for the hills and withdrawing from their vindictive lawsuit for fear of what will be made public.

Hope so NBY but I'm not holding my breath....when has the Scum or any other paper printed anything negative against these bullying disgusting Doctors since they shut the Express up years ago.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Let's hope that this will have the McCanns running for the hills and withdrawing from their vindictive lawsuit for fear ohat will be made public.

I've been reading about the Savile scandal from 'across the pond' (I had never heard of the guy before) and based on all that has been covered up until now, I am hopeful that the press will look closely at what the McCanns have not wanted made public. I have become more optimistic lately now that the dreadful past of Savile is being exposed.

I fear that 'what happened to Madeleine' goes just as high up the food chain as Savile's depravity and moral perversion.

It's been a surprise to hear that Jimmy Savile was unknown outside the U K. He was one of those larger than life characters you somehow assumed was known the world over.

I agree with Interested that the McCann case could also involve people in very high places with secrets they need to keep hidden at all costs.

I'm not at all sure this benefits Tony, more likely Amaral . As we have established , this case is about Tony breaking undertakings not to write anything about the McCanns. He was forced to close his blog and write from Jill Havern's Forum and twice gave undertakings not to write about the McCanns. If he had been convinced that he was merely repeating info already in the PJ Files why did he not refuse to close his Blog and continue with his crusade.? Sorry for bursting your bubble, but let's get this right, Carter Ruck and the McCanns must be pretty sure of their ground, so all I am saying is don't build up your hopes.

Tony has replied to Panda's last posting.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5903-another-mm-misunderstanding-this-time-by-panda-#131065

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Tony has replied to Panda's last posting.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5903-another-mm-misunderstanding-this-time-by-panda-#131065

why did he just not reply on this forum directly. is it that tough?

He isn't a member here and, for reasons that I don't know, new ones aren't being accepted at the moment.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:He isn't a member here and, for reasons that I don't know, new ones aren't being accepted at the moment.

That's a shame. It would be nice for him to join. It would also be nice to see some new blood in this forum, even if they are the pro's as the information which the pro's are most sensitive about are nearly always nearer the truth. Also, nows a good time to get new people in due to the Jimmy conspiracy no longer being a theory, but fact.

Loopdaloop wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:He isn't a member here and, for reasons that I don't know, new ones aren't being accepted at the moment.

That's a shame. It would be nice for him to join. It would also be nice to see some new blood in this forum, even if they are the pro's as the information which the pro's are most sensitive about are nearly always nearer the truth. Also, nows a good time to get new people in due to the Jimmy conspiracy no longer being a theory, but fact.

Agreed. Though maybe TB has enough on his plate posting on just one forum plus all the other things he`s got going on in his life - he probably knows people flit between the two forums.

Tony was a member here but he was banned by the end of 2009.
That's why/when the jillhavern forum was set up.
Is Amber still around? She's a nice lady.

I'm not sure if anybody [Tony/McCanns] needs Judge Eady's ruling to be free to publish/read any of the documents and evidence in McCanns v Bennett.
Aren't these documents usually [online] available after paying a small fee?

"The content of the article was based on the pleadings in the UKBA case - which was struck out in April - and most of the elements comprising the article were reflected in those documents."

It looks like the journalist had access to the files to write the article, so why wouldn't we, the public, have access too?