Tony Bennett - court case CONFIRMED

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013
Tony Bennett on Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:15 pm

.There have been urgent communications between the High Court and Carter-Ruck both on Friday and today.

It is certain that Carter-Ruck did not let me know the proposed date of the hearing. It looks likely that the High Court either did not do so, or made a mistake with my address.

Be that as it may, the case will now be listed for 1.5 days:

EITHER on 4th and 5th February

OR 5th and 6th February.

I should be able to let you you know one way or another by the close of play tomorrow.

About the court case:

Can I just make one or two matters clear about the case.

This hearing is ONLY about WHETHER I have been guilty of contempt of court by breaching any of the 16 undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, and IF SO, how I should be punished for any such contempt.

It is NOT a libel trial as such.

It will NOT determine my application to revoke or vary the three 'free speech' undertakings I gave, i.e. not to suggest that the McCanns have done certain things.

If you read Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment carefully, he DOES say that this hearing next month should consider whether there should now be a FULL LIBEL TRIAL to follow. If YES, then that libel trial would consider any and all of the following:

1. Whether, in the '60 Reasons' booklet, or in the '10 Reasons' leaflet, or elsewhere, I committed any libel at all against the McCanns in the first place

2. Whether since then (i.e. since the undertakings were given) I have committed any further libels, and

3. Whether or not I should be released from one or more of the undertakings I gave which essentially impacted on my freedom of speech (Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights).

The current position of the two parties is as follows:

The McCanns say that I am guilty of repeated and serious breaches of a solemn court undertaking not to libel them, and should be punished accordingly. In all fairness I would remind everyone that Isabel Martorell (formerly Hudson), partner of Carter-Ruck, did say in her original Affidavit to the Court that though the McCanns had applied for me to be sent to prison, because they said they had 'no option', they would be reluctant to see me actually jailed.

The McCanns, though having initiated a formal LIBEL CLAIM against in November 2009, and then asked for the proceedings to be STAYED (= adjourned), now OPPOSE even the formal hearing of my request for three of the undertakings to be varied. Their position appears to be (I hope I am not being unfair to them): "You voluntarily gave these solemn undertakings, you are bound by them FOR LIFE, whatever happens".

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that the appropriate forum to hear my counter-application would be to LIFT THE STAY on the libel proceedings - and THEN begin a formal, full libel trial (which I reluctantly concede I would have to face, and for certain without the benefit of Legal Aid, as Legal Aid is NEVER EVER awarded to defend a libel claim). I need the STAY to be lifted, so that I can (A) run my defence of 'fair or honest' comment to the original allegation of libel and (B) apply for my undertakings to be revoked or varied.

I have applied for the 'stay' on the libel proceedings to be lifted SO THAT I can then make my case for the three undertakings to be revoked.

The McCanns strongly oppose this.



I'm sorry it's complicated. But then, even Mr Justice Tugendhat at the last hearing when he made his various rulings, said, and I quote:


"I don't think there's ever been a case like this"

You can't make it up can you?

I like especially this bit:


"You voluntarily gave these solemn undertakings, you are bound by them FOR LIFE, whatever happens"


A bit like having Children, really.



Whoops.

The End Is Nigh wrote:I like especially this bit:


"You voluntarily gave these solemn undertakings, you are bound by them FOR LIFE, whatever happens"


A bit like having Children, really.



Whoops.

Even when a freebie plonk night gets in the way of responsible child care?

Hop Tony doesn't leave his notes in the cafe he is in before the court case. Still if he does it will be the British Police' fault won't it?

malena stool wrote:Whoops.Even when a freebie plonk night gets in the way of responsible child care?

Even after the "abduction story", gerry mccann was taking full advantage of the MW hospitality (in between running to the top of the hill in just 19 mins, playing tennis even though he is a golfer, sucking lollipops at the police station) by going to the Tapas bar taking free beers and free bottles of wine!! New Zealand white wine I must point out...Don't want to try and associate the wine to the most famous Portuguese wine merchants whom just happen to be also part owners of Ocean Club...Symingtons. Ssssh! The mccanns both made a point and could very clearly remember it was New Zealand white in their very first statements (more than details of their daughter) whilst in total shock & distraught of their daughter being abducted.... that it was New Zealand White!!

malena stool wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:I like especially this bit:


"You voluntarily gave these solemn undertakings, you are bound by them FOR LIFE, whatever happens"


A bit like having Children, really.




Whoops.

Even when a freebie plonk night gets in the way of responsible child care?

Yes.

And talking about "bound for life", mccann would have got £1000 from Amaral when ever he mention their names, but it was lifted. Injustice can be made right, and people cleared. In law there is no just a thing: bound for life "what ever happens" It's rubbish. Law is made to serve people, not other way round.
(only thing what come close to that is double jeopardy, if you are spoken free, you can't be put in a jail later for your crime, even if new evidence found, you will walk, like Casey Antony.Stupid system really.)

I'm sure that when the McCanns took their wedding vows in church, they solemnly swore that they would be 'bound' to each other 'for life, whatever happens'.
I'm sure that they have stuck rigidly to those vows, being upright, god-fearing citizens and all.
Any future mention of a lapse in that undertaking, whether in press articles or (heaven forfend) a new book, would be very disappointing indeed.
For one should always, I believe, exhibit the the same dutiful steadfastness that one so vehemently demands in others.
Anything else would be seen as rank hypocrisy ......

jd16 wrote:

malena stool wrote:Whoops.Even when a freebie plonk night gets in the way of responsible child care?

Even after the "abduction story", gerry mccann was taking full advantage of the MW hospitality (in between running to the top of the hill in just 19 mins, playing tennis even though he is a golfer, sucking lollipops at the police station) by going to the Tapas bar taking free beers and free bottles of wine!! New Zealand white wine I must point out...Don't want to try and associate the wine to the most famous Portuguese wine merchants whom just happen to be also part owners of Ocean Club...Symingtons. Ssssh! The mccanns both made a point and could very clearly remember it was New Zealand white in their very first statements (more than details of their daughter) whilst in total shock & distraught of their daughter being abducted.... that it was New Zealand White!!

jd16, this mention of personal best means that they had done that run before. Now they didn't run the day they arrived and the abduction story broke on the thursday so including that day, the 3rd, they only had 5 days. Did they do this run every day, or go on other routes, and wouldn't they have passed the church, that Gerry had to ask directions for? This area just makes me

They were in the tapas the next day, with the twins, getting their freebie lunch.


The only thing they payed for is the £1500 for the holiday, bet they didn't pay fees for the creche or the 4 months they stayed in the villa.

freebie mcann that sums them up doesnt it

kitti wrote:They were in the tapas the next day, with the twins, getting their freebie lunch.


The only thing they payed for is the £1500 for the holiday, bet they didn't pay fees for the creche or the 4 months they stayed in the villa.

Where have you read that kitti, re the freebie lunch and the other freebies, if true it shows what free loaders they really are, Gerry with his short arms and long pockets. Of course in the early days there were many who had sympathy with them and would pay for stuff just as their way of supporting tham.
Was Gerry on extended paid or unpaid leave do we know? A big expensive house to run even if on full pay imo.

Bobsy wrote:

kitti wrote:They were in the tapas the next day, with the twins, getting their freebie lunch.


The only thing they payed for is the £1500 for the holiday, bet they didn't pay fees for the creche or the 4 months they stayed in the villa.

Where have you read that kitti, re the freebie lunch and the other freebies, if true it shows what free loaders they really are, Gerry with his short arms and long pockets. Of course in the early days there were many who had sympathy with them and would pay for stuff just as their way of supporting tham.
Was Gerry on extended paid or unpaid leave do we know? A big expensive house to run even if on full pay imo.

Both on 6 months compassionate leave. Gerry did go back to work after six months - sort of.
The villa didn't come free although they did say so once. It was about 600 a week - also heard it was paid for by 'friends'.
Gave me the impression that it rankled that it wasn't free. They were made to leave OC 's free apartments (they were given two) so the move wasn't what they wanted.
The also had collection boxes all over OC - which wasn't too popular with the staff. Gather they weren't popular with the staff anyway.
I think the creche for the twins continued to be free and was used all through their stay. That's why we read about the 'Family days' in Gerry's Blog.
No creche on Saturdays you see....
Although the bulk of the money was only 'promised' - so not actually in the Fund (that must have hurt as well!) there was nearly a million in it by July I think. Plus all the cash sent to Rothley.

Well they had a good example from the Blairs - wasn't there an amusing instance of the Blairs not paying the rent on a holiday villa?

I've just been banned from the Jill Havern forum for challenging the Rothley leaflet drop and the nasty letter to the GMC as a bridge too far.

Seems like there is no freedom of speech on the Jill Havern board. So why are they promoting Tony Bennett as some kind of free speech champion?

The villa didn't come free although they did say so once. It was about 600 a week - also heard it was paid for by 'friends'.

Wonder if it was one of the villa's advertised in the Catenians monthly...The Catholic "Freemasons" society that director of No Stone Unturned Ltd Michaal Linnett belongs to!