The Verdict: McCann & anr. vs Bennett

The other Threads are getting a bit lengthy and the time is now upon us, so here's a new Topic for announcing and discussing the Verdict.

Gael ‏@GaeMar01

#mccann penalty about to be given #leveson

That was 11 minutes ago. Nothing else yet, fingers crossed as much as possible

Gael ‏@GaeMar01

Carter ruck work probono for #mccann # leveson
----

Just now....

Interesting. I mentioned the Pro Bono arrangement a few days ago and think we agreed it was actually No Win No Fee.

Ah, well!

Facts are good.

I wish His Honour would get a wiggle on: I'm a bag of nerves!

The End Is Nigh wrote:Interesting. I mentioned the Pro Bono arrangement a few days ago and think we agreed it was actually No Win No Fee.

Ah, well!

Facts are good.

I wish His Honour would get a wiggle on: I'm a bag of nerves!

While we're waiting TEIN, do you trust your source? How long do you think we'll be waiting long for a conclusion?

Source for what in particular, Margaret? I suspect the source for the Pro Bono thing is Dicky Memory!

How long? Well the Breach of Undertaking itself should be a relatively simple decision, so the rest will be peripheral (but no doubt important for the future ..........). Short answer: No idea.

Now announced TB Guilty of Contempt.

The Sentence is 3 months Imprisonment, Suspended for 12 months.

Costs not yet detailed.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Source for what in particular, Margaret? I suspect the source for the Pro Bono thing is Dicky Memory!

How long? Well the Breach of Undertaking itself should be a relatively simple decision, so the rest will be peripheral (but no doubt important for the future ..........). Short answer: No idea.

No LOL, l saw the other night you mentioned your source when you were saying a poster would be gobsmacked soon

i got this off twitter

just finished. (Tweeting as allowed).

Three months, suspended for one year. Bennett to pay costs.

so no jail??????????? this is a good thing!!!!

the no jail part anyway

GUILTY OF CONTEMPT

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html

margaret wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Source for what in particular, Margaret? I suspect the source for the Pro Bono thing is Dicky Memory!

How long? Well the Breach of Undertaking itself should be a relatively simple decision, so the rest will be peripheral (but no doubt important for the future ..........). Short answer: No idea.

No LOL, l saw the other night you mentioned your source when you were saying a poster would be gobsmacked soon

That was about the Fund being an element of the Review, in fact: The answer is Absolutely.

Karen wrote:GUILTY OF CONTEMPT

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html

I've just speed-read that (Gosh it's long!) ....... nothing unexpectedly significant leaps out.


But a second look might tell a different story.

thank god tony isnt going to jail -- the mcanns will be in the press saying it was their idea --just watch the headlines

The Assessment Of Costs is going to be interesting.

The End Is Nigh wrote:The Assessment Of Costs is going to be interesting.

Yes indeed. Particularly as it appears that Carter Ruck served a detailed assessment on TB at the end of January.

The End Is Nigh wrote:The Assessment Of Costs is going to be interesting.

Yes, the most interesting bit of the lot IMHO.

None of the rest of it was entirely unexpected, in fact it is actually quite encouraging. We all knew that technically, he was guilty. Contempt of court normally does carry a custodial sentence (in Scotland, anyway) so he's got off extremely lightly with a suspended.

Now all we need is for the judge to award costs against him, but give him the option to pay it off at £1 a week.

Palmeras16 wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:The Assessment Of Costs is going to be interesting.

Yes indeed. Particularly as it appears that Carter Ruck served a detailed assessment on TB at the end of January.

Why "particularly"? Surely that's par for the course?

im on at least 5 places at min posting on and off -- the mcanns have money backing and unless sy and portugal reopen the case - this is freedom of speech gone -- it wont be long before every forum owner and website is taken down -- i feel sad today

cass wrote:im on at least 5 places at min posting on and off -- the mcanns have money backing and unless sy and portugal reopen the case - this is freedom of speech gone -- it wont be long before every forum owner and website is taken down -- i feel sad today

Impossible to take down every forum/website - especially where web space provider is abroad - would be an extremely complicated and costly process.
And how does one take down Twitter or Facebook?

In any case, no-one else would be in breach of undertakings as IIRC no-one else has signed any.

JMO.

cass, Healy & McCann may well have financial resources, but they do not have public support or any form of moral compass and there are simply too many around the world who do not believe them.

So, far from letting them wear us down, be positive and carry on helping to wear them down

cass wrote:im on at least 5 places at min posting on and off -- the mcanns have money backing and unless sy and portugal reopen the case - this is freedom of speech gone -- it wont be long before every forum owner and website is taken down -- i feel sad today

Never going to happen. As Tonys judgement was handed in it was announced Lord McAlpine has dropped his 'case' against twitter users.

You can't sue someone for their opinion, and that's not what today was about.

If Tony is to pay costs then it would be court costs.


After all...carter ruck are working for free, remember.


I think the court costs were roughly £2,000 or less.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:The Assessment Of Costs is going to be interesting.

Yes indeed. Particularly as it appears that Carter Ruck served a detailed assessment on TB at the end of January.

Why "particularly"? Surely that's par for the course?

I am no expert, but I believe there are two types of assessment: Summary and Detailed.

Summary Assessment: both parties provide brief details of the costs they are claiming, the Judge hears from the parties and then reaches a decision.

Detailed Assessment: detailed costs are drawn up and served on the other side. The other party has 21 days from service to provide Points of Dispute, thus raising challenges to the bill. If no Points of Dispute are raised, then a Default Costs Certificate is normally obtained for the full amount of the bill.

It would seem that Carter Ruck served the Detailed Assessment on TB at the end of January. I do not know if he challenged the costs.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:The Assessment Of Costs is going to be interesting.

Yes indeed. Particularly as it appears that Carter Ruck served a detailed assessment on TB at the end of January.

Why "particularly"? Surely that's par for the course?

Yes, why "particularly"? That happens with every case.

There are people in the nick here who got fined for not having a TV licence (and the fine was less than the cost of the TV licence), and then when they didn't pay the fine, they got jailed for contempt. That's how seriously the Courts can take it, so looking at it in context, I think Judge Tugendhat gave a very sensible and fair verdict. In fact he couldn't really have done anything else, in the circumstances, because Tony was guilty, like it or not.

And as he has rightly been judged to be guilty, he would automatically have the Court costs awarded against him. The Judge is under no obligation to order him to pay all, or any, of Carter Rucks costs as well, no matter how many "reports" or other materials they may present.