Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

UPDATE: Source : Jill Havern, with thanks

As has correctly been stated on the other thread, Court rose at just before 1pm, afer closing submissions, Adrienne Page Q.C. first, then mine.

The judgment of Mr Justice Tugendhat will be given in open court, probably in more like 2 weeks' time than one. At that hearing, should he find that I breached one or more undertakings, I will be given the chance to enter a plea of mitigation, i.e. argue for a lighter punishment for any contempt.

Once again, Mr Justice Tugendhat made it quite clear that court orders, injunctions and undertakings must be strictly obeyed until set aside one way or the other, varied or revoked, whatever may be said about the circumstances under which they were obtained, about how oppressive or restrictive they were, and no matter how many police officers, officials, journalists, authors, bloggers, forum owners, websites, YouTube video-makers and other individuals say exactly the same as I do and as Dr Goncalo Amaral does.

Adrienne Page Q.C., did make one important submission right at the end of the proceedings.

As far as I can recall, she said:

"My Lord, my clients wish to make clear in the light of press reports today that they do not wish for Mr Bennett to be sent to prison, nor do they want to punish him in any way; all they want to do is to ensure that he stops what he has been doing".

After coming out of court, I was caught by a journalist from BBC East Midlands (it might have been the one who falsely accused Dr Amaral of saying 'F___ the McCanns', I am not sure) and I was interviewed on camera for a few minutes outside the High Court. I think I gave reasonably clear and coherent answers. There may be a small item about it on BBC TV East Midlands tonight.

I was also interviewed by James Murray from the Daily Express who was a pleasant enough gentleman who was especially interested in my reference in court to the McCanns having spent so much money (around £4 million) using 17 different solicitors I gave him a print-out of the article on this forum which lists them all.

Once again, the support for me in Court was wonderful. On both days they had to put 'COURT FULL' notices outside Court 14 - only about 30 people are allowed on the back three tiers of benches, and they soon filled up.

Finally, please don't expect any further replies from me here, nor am I likely to be able to reply to any more e-mails, 'pm's or 'phone calls for at least a few days, I am going away for a complete break.

END

I think the indications are that Healy & McCann, although they may get the technical result they want, have harmed their cause irreparably.

Karen wrote:

UPDATE: Source : Jill Havern, with thanks

As has correctly been stated on the other thread, Court rose at just before 1pm, afer closing submissions, Adrienne Page Q.C. first, then mine.

The judgment of Mr Justice Tugendhat will be given in open court, probably in more like 2 weeks' time than one. At that hearing, should he find that I breached one or more undertakings, I will be given the chance to enter a plea of mitigation, i.e. argue for a lighter punishment for any contempt.

Once again, Mr Justice Tugendhat made it quite clear that court orders, injunctions and undertakings must be strictly obeyed until set aside one way or the other, varied or revoked, whatever may be said about the circumstances under which they were obtained, about how oppressive or restrictive they were, and no matter how many police officers, officials, journalists, authors, bloggers, forum owners, websites, YouTube video-makers and other individuals say exactly the same as I do and as Dr Goncalo Amaral does.

Adrienne Page Q.C., did make one important submission right at the end of the proceedings.

As far as I can recall, she said:

"My Lord, my clients wish to make clear in the light of press reports today that they do not wish for Mr Bennett to be sent to prison, nor do they want to punish him in any way; all they want to do is to ensure that he stops what he has been doing".

After coming out of court, I was caught by a journalist from BBC East Midlands (it might have been the one who falsely accused Dr Amaral of saying 'F___ the McCanns', I am not sure) and I was interviewed on camera for a few minutes outside the High Court. I think I gave reasonably clear and coherent answers. There may be a small item about it on BBC TV East Midlands tonight.

I was also interviewed by James Murray from the Daily Express who was a pleasant enough gentleman who was especially interested in my reference in court to the McCanns having spent so much money (around £4 million) using 17 different solicitors I gave him a print-out of the article on this forum which lists them all.

Once again, the support for me in Court was wonderful. On both days they had to put 'COURT FULL' notices outside Court 14 - only about 30 people are allowed on the back three tiers of benches, and they soon filled up.

Finally, please don't expect any further replies from me here, nor am I likely to be able to reply to any more e-mails, 'pm's or 'phone calls for at least a few days, I am going away for a complete break.

END

Tony, enjoy your break. You have truly earned it.

The End Is Nigh wrote:I think the indications are that Healy & McCann, although they may get the technical result they want, have harmed their cause irreparably.

I think TIEN that Tony will not get off scot free and I don't think he should have mentioned the £4 million to the Press outside the Courthouse, circumspection until the Judge gives his verdict would have been better. How does he know the McCanns didn't pay some of that money out of the advance on the Books ????

Well done Mr. Bennett - you are a true champion for Madeleine. Enjoy some time to decompress, you have certainly earned it.

"all they want to do is to ensure that he stops what he has been doing".

And what EXACTLY has he been doing?

Other than trying to help the McCanns to find out the truth and get justice for Madeleine and other children.
I would have thought they would be absolutely delighted he wanted to get to the truth of their daughters 'disappearance'
How ungrateful can you get?

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:I think the indications are that Healy & McCann, although they may get the technical result they want, have harmed their cause irreparably.

I think TIEN that Tony will not get off scot free and I don't think he should have mentioned the £4 million to the Press outside the Courthouse, circumspection until the Judge gives his verdict would have been better. How does he know the McCanns didn't pay some of that money out of the advance on the Books ????

He can mention the moon is made of cheese...if he so wishes,did he actually mention it to the press or raise the subject in court?

I was also interviewed by James Murray from the Daily Express who was a pleasant enough gentleman who was especially interested in my reference in court to the McCanns having spent so much money (around £4 million) using 17 different solicitors I gave him a print-out of the article on this forum which lists them all.

Why shouldn't he mention the solicitors fees Panda? The McCann's have spent that, and it's not like the McCann's can deny it, even if it doesn't show up in the fund, it will sure as heck show up in the accounts of all of the lawyers they have used, so it's not a great secret and it's a totally different matter to the one Tony is in court for, e.g. repeating the allegations the Madeleine died in 5A and Kate and Gerry McCann concealed her body, so it should have no bearing whatsever,

And I think the judge in Tony's case will be all too aware how much money has been spent pursuing a ridiculous claim, after all, at the moment Tony was in court, accused effectively of harming the search for Madeleine, the news is reporting about DNA samples being sent for, so clearly Tony's actions have not made one iota of a difference to the search..

Carter Ruck weren't too shy about telling everyone about how much THEY had forked out on some legal bigwig were they?
£32,000 i think they said ......................for an appearance at court to tell the Judge because he wouldn't possibly be able to grasp the gist of the McCanns case!

matthew wrote:I was also interviewed by James Murray from the Daily Express who was a pleasant enough gentleman who was especially interested in my reference in court to the McCanns having spent so much money (around £4 million) using 17 different solicitors I gave him a print-out of the article on this forum which lists them all.

I wonder if it is too much to hope Mr Murray might be feeling a bit sore having been duped with a cut-price Brazilian or an Ibizan as it more popularly known.

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:I think the indications are that Healy & McCann, although they may get the technical result they want, have harmed their cause irreparably.

I think TIEN that Tony will not get off scot free and I don't think he should have mentioned the £4 million to the Press outside the Courthouse, circumspection until the Judge gives his verdict would have been better. How does he know the McCanns didn't pay some of that money out of the advance on the Books ????

Panda TB has nothing to lose apart from not speaking about was has gone on in the courts over the last 2 days, I think its good that TB has mentioned this amount because we all know that is how the McCanns and CR have stopped anyone reporting by threatening to take them to court, hense they have used this £4m in doing so.

Well done Tony, enjoy your rest!

So all off a sudden , after all the twitter remarks , they don't want tony to be sent to prison .


The penny has dropped.....too late Mccanns.......your loathed.

A lot of money spent on lawyers and not a lot on looking for their daughter. I'm sure a judge would notice this.

Kitti,

You are so right!

kitti wrote:So all off a sudden , after all the twitter remarks , they don't want tony to be sent to prison .


The penny has dropped.....too late Mccanns.......your loathed.

I really don't think they ever did intend for him to be incarcerated - that's just Forum hyperbole arising from the inescapable fact that the only available next stage in the Legal recourse was Committal Proceedings. It doesn't necessarily mean that the outcome is likely to be that a guilty Defendant is in fact Committed.

I still believe (and have said so very many times) that the proportionate outcome is likely to be a technical "win" by the Plaintiffs, but with some form of Discharge (which actually is a form of Conviction).

And, again, I rather think Healy-McRuck are going to be well out of pocket. Notional Costs only against TB.

So two days in court, thousands spent on lawyers, un-imaginable pain and suffering for Tony Bennett and what do we get ?

Their own legal reps cannot state as fact that Madeleine was abducted and they do not want Tony to go to prison. Am I missing something ?

As my mother would say, they have more money than sense.

They ask that he be imprisoned or made subject to such penalty as the court thinks appropriate.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2876.html


The first bit of that sentence is the 'frightener'.
The second bit is the 'climb-down contingency'.

mossman wrote:So two days in court, thousands spent on lawyers, un-imaginable pain and suffering for Tony Bennett and what do we get ?

Their own legal reps cannot state as fact that Madeleine was abducted and they do not want Tony to go to prison. Am I missing something ?

As my mother would say, they have more money than sense.

More of other peoples money than sense. If they had had to earn every penny it would not be so easy to let trickle through their fingers!

fuzeta wrote:

mossman wrote:So two days in court, thousands spent on lawyers, un-imaginable pain and suffering for Tony Bennett and what do we get ?

Their own legal reps cannot state as fact that Madeleine was abducted and they do not want Tony to go to prison. Am I missing something ?

As my mother would say, they have more money than sense.

More of other peoples money than sense. If they had had to earn every penny it would not be so easy to let trickle through their fingers!

Quite right Fuzeta....."a fool and his money are easly parted"

Let's face it, if the McCanns did not have the Fund money they would not have taken Tony to Court....and to think it was mostly PUBLIC money they have been so free with.

Panda wrote:Let's face it, if the McCanns did not have the Fund money they would not have taken Tony to Court....and to think it was mostly PUBLIC money they have been so free with.

I thought it was claimed that Healy-McRuck were acting on a No Win No Fee basis?

If so, they are going to find themselves passing the hat round next week!

If the McCann's really had a lawyer "working for free behind the scenes", no wonder she stood up and said that she didn't know whether Madeleine was abducted. You get what you pay for.

If so, they are going to find themselves passing the hat round next week!

they have probably already arranged it at Everton FC

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Panda wrote:Let's face it, if the McCanns did not have the Fund money they would not have taken Tony to Court....and to think it was mostly PUBLIC money they have been so free with.

I thought it was claimed that Healy-McRuck were acting on a No Win No Fee basis?

If so, they are going to find themselves passing the hat round next week!

Yes, that's right...Adam said that when asked at the PCC Meeting.