Well, it looks like Bennett will get his day in Court. And after reading his summary it is no wonder that he got someone to post it on his behalf. I think I would be sitting there with my head in my hands wondering what the heck was going to happen.
He did state a while back that he made an offer to the McCanns, but it seems after todays hearing that the offer has not been accepted and the trial will be going to court.
SharonL of the Madeleine Foundation has posted this (screenshot):
The hearing was only ever about getting the matter ready for trial.
The hearing lasted around 1 hour and 50 minutes. The McCanns were represented by Jacob Dean (barrister), Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and two assistants.
Carter-Ruck had proposed a timetable for serving and filing evidence ahead of the trial and proposed that the trial would last for 1-2 days, to be held as soon as practicable on or after 10 April.
I made a number of applications at the hearing, which out of courtesy I notified to Carter-Ruck by hand on 2 February.
My application to have a ‘McKenzie friend’ [lay helper] with me at the hearing was granted by consent, and I thank my friend who acted as my McKenzie helper today.
I made an outline application to be allowed to apply for one part of the original undertaking I gave to be rescinded. This was granted. I have until 22 February to submit that application. That involves paying a Court fee of £80.00 and submitting detailed reasons for that application. At this point I will say that I do not propose to seek to rescind any of the following undertakings, all of which I have abided by except for the sale of one book to Mr Michael Gunnill (see below):
• To deliver up all hard copies of “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” (known in short as ‘60 Reasons’) to Carter-Ruck
• To deliver up all hard copies of the leaflet entitled “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted
• To destroy any electronic version of ‘What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted”.
• To destroy any electronic version of the leaflet entitled “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted
• To close our website, whose domain name was: http://www.madeleinefoundation.org‘
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://democracyforum.co.uk
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://www.anorak.co.uk
• To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website http://www.truthformadeleine.com
• To pay £440.00 towards the Defendant’s costs [subsequently reduced to £400.00.]
I applied for an Order that ‘the Claimants [the McCanns] do specify which words they allege constitute alleged breaches of my undertaking’. This was because of what I claimed was a lack of clarity in the McCanns’ application. The Practice Rules are very specific in requiring that in a contempt of court allegation, the Claimants must be precise and full in explaining to the Defendant precisely why he is alleged to be in breach of an undertaking to such an extent that he deserves to be sent to prison.
I had also asked for more time to prepare my defence. The Judge was concerned about the volume of paperwork I was faced with [153 alleged breaches of the undertaking] and said that ‘there is considerable force in Mr Bennett’s request for more time to prepare his defence’.
This was resolved as follows. The Judge invited Jacob Dean [the McCanns’ barrister] to take a 5-minute adjournment to consider whether he wished to reduce his 153 alleged breaches to, say, ‘the 10 most serious breaches’. He said that if the McCanns could prove those breaches, it was unnecessary to prove the other 143. After 15 minutes, the McCanns’ legal team came back into Court and said that they would submit a new application based on ‘around 25’ of the most serious breaches. The trial will then be confined effectively to an examination of just those 25 alleged breaches. The Judge gave them until 4pm on Friday 17 February to serve this new application on me. He also suggested to Mr Dean that Carter-Ruck needed to be much more precise than they had been about the words I used that were said to be in breach of the undertaking and which term of any undertaking they were alleged to breach.
The Judge granted me until 9 March to reply to the McCanns’ revised application [the McCanns had originally asked for my response by 22 February.
The McCanns will then have the right to reply to my response. They will have to serve this on me by 5 April.
I applied for an Order that Michael Gunnill be produced as a witness and was able to inform the Judge in outline of how Mr Gunnill had obtained a ’60 Reasons’ book from me by entrapment, and how Mr Gunnill had boasted about doing this ‘on behalf of a third party’ which I believed to be the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck. I was granted permission to apply for a Witness Order against Mr Gunnill requiring to attend the trial and give evidence. I shall be doing that shortly.
I had applied for an Order that one of the McCanns make a Witness Statement to (a) state what evidence there is that Madeleine McCann was abducted and (b) to state what evidence there was, as claimed in Isabel Hudson’s Affidavit, that any of my actions had, as the McCanns claimed, ‘harmed the search for Madeleine’. These applications were refused. The Judge said that it was for the Claimants to give whatever evidence they felt was necessary to support their application to commit me to prison and that if I felt there was insufficient evidence that an abduction had occurred I would have the right to make submissions about this in my closing speech at the trial.
I applied for the McCanns to produce certified English translations of the two judgments against them in the Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011). The Judge refused, after asking the McCanns’ barrister if Dr Amaral’s book was now freely available in Portugal, to which of course he agreed. He said that if I considered these relevant, I should produce these myself. One of my supporters at the hearing kindly volunteered afterwards to see if she could obtain these for me.
The trial is scheduled for 2 days, any time on or after 17 April 2012.
In conclusion, I would like to thank each and every one of the eight people who kindly troubled to attend court to support me, and it was a pleasure to buy them all lunch at the Dulcis Cafe afterwards.
Also attending the court proceedings was Justine Spencer who posted this on Facebook (screenshot)
Tony Bennett made a complete fool of himself at the High Court today. His turn out of supporters amounted to a pathetic 5 largely uneducated and ungroomed carrier bag carrying OAP’s who could not even restrain themselves during the 5 minute break from banging on about sedatives and various conspiracy theories which not only offended me immensely but showed total lack of respect for proceedings which is why I had to loudly tell them to shut up and save their ignorant gossip for the pub rather than in the High Court. The so called big guns failed to show yet are now apparently experts on what went down. From someone who was there it didnt go well for Bennett. He floundered as he attempted to represent himself, making wildly irrelevant points, muddying the waters, lacking clarity/focus and showed generally himself up to be a total fool who was way out of his depth. He cut a pathetic and a very lonely figure. He was denied an attempt to delay proceedings and made laughable promises that he had not recently made any libellous comments. He also admitted that he took all the into for his book from Amarals book. Isn’t that plagerism? Amaral should probably sue Bennett for ripping off his book. To not put a finer point on it, Bennett was pissing in the wind. Body language of the judge clearly displayed that he was not impressed with Bennett. It’s not looking good for Bennett.
How dare he ask for the McCanns to write a witness statement outlining the evidence to prove their daughter has been abducted and to ask them to state what evidence there was as stated in Isabel Hudson’s Affidavit, to show his comments have ‘harmed the search for Madeleine’.
What part of – if people believe what he writes and they start to believe that Madeleine is deceased, actually does harm the search because they are ceasing to look for a living child – doesn’t this man understand?
It is obvious as the nose on your face, if people believe that Madeleine is in fact deceased they won’t bother looking. There is NO evidence to prove that Madeleine McCann is anything other than a FINDABLE MISSING CHILD and Bennett should respect that and stop trying to convince people otherwise.
Roll on April, when hopefully the McCanns can finally stop Bennett in his tracks and the law deals with him appropriately.
One more thing Bennett, are you sure you want to call Mike Gunnill as a witness? Remember you and others are implying in your numerous posts that you think it was an entrapment and the McCanns via Carter Ruck were behind it, you could end up with real egg on your face if your accusations, like many others, are unfounded and proven unfounded in a Court of Law.
Remember witnesses are under oath. And the first thing that any decent Barrister will want to ascertain from Mike Gunnill will be whether Carter-Ruck or the McCanns were involved in or coerced him into trying to purchase that book from you. And you do remember that this will be all recorded like the statement you made today:
I applied for an Order that Michael Gunnill be produced as a witness and was able to inform the Judge in outline of how Mr Gunnill had obtained a ’60 Reasons’ book from me by entrapment, and how Mr Gunnill had boasted about doing this ‘on behalf of a third party’ which I believed to be the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck.
Has it never occurred to you, Bennett, that anyone could have been a third-party, and it could have been someone not even connected to this case and I do hope you have the evidence to prove your allegations? Oh well the truth will emerge in April or thereabouts.. not many weeks to wait.
Oh well you being the ex-solicitor must realise the risks you are running by calling certain witnesses…
Have they not told you when you cock-up big time, put your hands up admit your folly and hope the Judge is lenient.
Luckily for you Bennett, or should I say unluckily for you, when you made that statement in Court it was under privilege and nobody could sue you for libel. Now you have got someone to post it on your behalf on a forum you have possibly left yourself wide open for futher libel proceedings.
Remember Louise Mensch’s comment about Peirs Morgan and why she refused to repeat it in public?