The purpose of
this site is for information and a record of Gerry McCann's Blog
Archives. As most people will appreciate GM deleted all past blogs
from the official website. Hopefully this Archive will be helpful to
anyone who is interested in Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann. Many
Thanks, Pamalam
Note: This site does not belong to the McCanns. It belongs to Pamalam. If
you wish to contact the McCanns directly, please use
the contact/email details
campaign@findmadeleine.com
Mr Justice Tugendhat's Secretary has informed me that
judgment in the case of McCanns v Bennett will be pronounced
at 12noon on Thursday 21 February atthe Royal Courts of
Justice.
If he finds that I have breached any undertakings, I will
then be allowed time to make a short speech in mitigation.
As has correctly been stated on the other thread, Court rose
at just before 1pm, after 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.
1. It's always best to arrive in good time,
to go through security, find the Court (it's big,
labyrinthine building and many people get lost) and of
course the loo (be careful not to spend an exceptionally
long time on the loo)
2. You are permitted to enter the Court room
late. On entering, you should make a simple bow or curtsy to
the judge and then quietly find a seat.
Once again, so many thanks for all the
messages, 'pm's, e-mails, 'phone calls and texts, etc. see
all of you there tomorrow Deo Volente (getting into practice
for all the Latin legal points that will crop up tomorrow.
Here's one that you might not have come
across before:
Res ipsa clametis
I'll let one of our classical scholars
explain that one!
Today I've received a further letter from Carter-Ruck, dated
yesterday, which explains why the McCanns are spending a further
£32,000 hiring Adrienne Page Q.C. to try to prove that I am in
contempt of court.
They say, and I quote verbatim:
"Your self-represented status means that the Court is likely to
require significant assistance from Counsel. Becaue of the
serious consequences which the matter in issue may have for you,
and for our clients, it is appropriate that such assistance is
given at a senior level. There is no intention to create an
inequality of arms, nor to obtain any unfair advantage. Indeed,
the position is precisely the opposite. We consider that the
Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted,
to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"
Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett
By Tony Bennett
Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Today Carter-Ruck have informed me of their total costs in the case of
McCanns v Bennett, which they expect to claim from me if they win on
Wednesday, i.e. prove me guilty of contempt of court. They are as
follows:
1. Solicitors' fees of Carter-Ruck to date:
£181,245
2. Disbursements: Court fees, process servers & couriers:
£1,484
3. Fees of Jacob Dean, barrister, for all hearings to date and advice:
£25,475
4. Fees of Adrienne Page Q.C., for advice and a 2-day hearing:
£32,250
5. VAT on all the above
£48,049
GRAND TOTAL:
£288,503
So much for this sentence on pages 289-290 of 'madeleine', by Dr Kate
McCann:
"Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount
of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes"
I have been quietly beavering away today preparing my notes
for the trial and for my cross-examination of Isabel
Martorell and M*** G*****, which will probably take place
on Tuesday.
Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half
ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with
another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with
about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the
last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument'
of their legal submission to the Court.
My equivalent went in to the Court on Friday, in good time.
By Tony Bennett
Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 9:41 pm
News Update
I have just finished reading the McCanns' lawyers' 'Skeleton
Argument', which runs to 15 pages.
Up until now, I thought I was just up against:
Isabel Martorell, Partner of Carter-Ruck and her support
staff, including an Assistant Solicitor
PLUS
Adam Tudor, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck
PLUS
Jacob Dean, barister.
Apparently these already mighty legal resources are not
considered strong enough to overwhelm me.
So, at the hearing on Tuesday 5 February, Jacob Dean will
merely be the Junior barrister in the proceedings.
The McCanns have also appointed a Senior barrister to lead
their case to imprison me...
Adrienne is joint head of chambers and a leading
defamation and media law silk. She acts for both
claimants and defendants in high-profile and heavyweight
litigation. A number of her cases have had a medical
angle, including the recent cases of
Singh v BCAand Taranissi. In recent years she has been
involved in many of the leading cases that have helped
to shape the 'offer of amends' procedure.
I have quoted from an AFFIDAVIT of Isabel Martorell, NOT
from a letter.
[The letter in Portugal was sent
by Isobel Duarte on or about 8 January 2013].
What I have quoted from the Affidavit is verbatim and leaves
nothing important out regarding the propsed settlement.
* It is ADMITTED by Carter-Ruck that the McCanns, via Isabel
Duarte, wrote to Dr Amaral and to the Lisbon Civil Court,
two weeks ahead of the final trial, asking for an
adjournment
* It is CLAIMED by Carter-Ruck that this is to enable the
parties to try to reach a settlement
* It is ASSERTED by Carter-Ruck that the McCanns seek a
settlement which "gives the [McCanns] sufficent vindication
and protection in the future".
That's it.
No more than that.
EXCEPT THAT IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN whether or not, having
themselves having sought an adjournment, the McCanns can now
extract a settlement which gives the McCanns
'sufficient vindication and protection'.
The McCanns WERE asking for COMPLETE vindication, and
1,200,000 euros (I make that £1,010,760 at the current rate
of exchange - see NOTE).
They have changed their position.
Thet are now merely seeking SUFFICIENT vindication.
I am not sure how they could be 'protected' from Dr Amaral's
facts and his hypothesis, given that Amaral's book has been
back on sale in Portugal for 2 years and 3 months, has been
translated into nine European languages, is on sale in 32
countries, and is freely available in an English translation
on the internet.
Unless, that is, Dr Amaral agrees that:
* his book be banned again
* his book be no longer sold in any of the 32 countries
where it is now being sold, and
* he uses his best endeavours to remove all English
translations of his book from the internet.
NOTE: Every time the value of the euro goes
up against the pound by one-hundredth of a cent, the value
of the McCanns' claim against Dr Amaral goes up by £120. Or
down by £120 for every one-hundredth of a cent the euro
falls against the pound.
The McCanns have done really well in the past few months
because the euro has recovered from a low point of 77.82
euros to the pound to 84.23 euros to the pound.
If...
1. the case does go to trial, and
If...
2. the McCanns win, and
If...
3. the Court agrees that the McCanns are entitled to what
they claim, viz. 1,200,000 euros damages, THEN the McCanns
will have gained a handsome £76,920 during the past few
months, due to the euro's recovery.
That could give the Find Madeleine Fund a much-needed boost.
Below is a letter sent today to Carter-Ruck and to the High
Court regarding the implications of the McCanns suddenly
withdrawing from the final trial of their action against Dr
Goncalo Amaral and, instead, seeiking a settlement with him.
COURT DETAILS 5th & 6th FEBRUARY
The trial is likley (but not absolutely certain) to be
before Mr Justice Tugendhat, who adjudicated at a Case
Management hearing in February, and issued a ruling in the
case on 24 October 2012.
It is likely (but not absolutely certain) to start at
10.30am on Tuesday 5 February and is scheduled to last 1.5
days.
I have to check with the Queen's Bench Listing Clerks after
2pm on Monday 4 February to find out which court the hearing
is in, and for confirmation of the name of the judge.
For anyone thinking of attending part or all of the trial:
* The hearing is at the Royal Court of Justice, The Strand
* To find out where the case is to be heard, report to
reception (just after you've cleared security) or check the
noticeboards just behind reception
* The case is in open court. Anyone can attend
* Mobile 'phones, blackberries, smartphones and laptops are
all ALLOWED within the Court precincts. In the Court room
itself, mobile 'phones and anything esle with a ringtone
must be switched off. No audio or visual recording may be
made of the proceedings. Laptops are normally allowed and
may be used in Court although the judge has discretion to
refuse that depending on the circumstances
* Lunch break is normally 1pm to 2pm, courts normally rise
at 4.30pm
* There are various cafes around. I hope to meet with known
supporters for breakfast at around 9am on the first day of
the trial, for more details of the vensue please contact me
by e-mail or 'phone below.
FINALLY, at the last hearing, the eight people who kindly
came to support me behaved impeccably, which is as it should
be. The only person who misbehaved in Court was
McCann-supporter Justine Spencer who was reprimanded by Mr
Justice Tugendhat for using her rmobile 'phone. The rule is:
keep quiet, no talking or whispering, no tut-tutting or
other audible gasps or sounds
TONY to CARTER-RUCK 25 January 2013
This letter was sent earlier today:
From: Tony Bennett Tel: 07835 716537 e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Mr Adam Tudor,
for Carter-Ruck,
Solicitors
6 St. Andrew Street
LONDON
EC4A 3AE
Your ref: Adam Tudor/Isabel Martorell,
formerly Hudson
AT/IH/SVL/HMP/13837.5
or the attention of Adam Tudor & Isobel Martorell At adam.tudor@carter-ruck.com
Copied to: Mr James Tipp
Deputy Court Manager
Queen's Bench Division Listing Office
Strand
LONDON
WC2A 2LL
Claim No HQ 09 D 05196 Gerry McCann & Kate McCann v Tony
Bennett
For the attention of Mr Green or Mr James Tipp
At: qbjudgeslistingoffice
Dear Mr Tudor
re: McCanns v Bennett: Committal Proceedings - YOUR CLIENTS'
LETTER TO SNR SANTOS E OLIVEIRA, SOLICITOR FOR DR GONCALO
AMARAL, early January 2013, offering Dr Amaral a settlement
and asking for an adjournment
On this occasion, and for the first time in a four-year
history of correspondence between your firm and myself, I am
writing to you personally, on behalf of your firm, because
of the significance of the issue concerned.
You are a Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck and have many times
been publicly associated with your clients Dr Gerald and Dr
Kate McCann, not least when you attended the DCMS Select
Committee on press freedom and standards in March 2009, and
more recently in the book, 'madeleine', written by Dr Kate
McCann. On page 289 of her book, she paid personal tribute
to you, explaining that you and your colleague Ms Martorell
"continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without
payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes". She praises
you there for your "invaluable advice", whilst on page 382
she pays further tribute to you as someone who "has laboured
faithfully out of the goodness of his heart...regardless of
the day or the hour". She adds how much she has appreciated
your "priceless expertise and commitment". These are rare
words of tribute from a client to her lawyer.
The matter I wish to raise with you as a matter of some
urgency arises from your clients' conduct in withdrawing, at
the last minute, from pursuing their libel claim at the
final trial of their action against Dr Goncalo Amaral, which
was due to have started in the Lisbon Civil Court yesterday.
After your clients have been pursuing him in the Portuguese
civil courts for nearly four years, it has become clear in
the past few days that your clients have requested a
six-month adjournment of the case, in order to reach an
out-of-court 'settlement' with Dr Amaral. This raises, in my
judgment, significant questions in relation to their
conduct, both against him - and now, in 11 days' time, in
continuing to press the High Court to impose a term of
imprisonment on me for alleged contempt of court.
These are questions also for yourself, as your firm and you
personally have been advising them throughout. No doubt your
firm and Ms Isabel Duarte, your clients' Portuguese lawyer,
have been in very close contact with each other throughout
the four years of your clients' claim against Dr Amaral.
The history of the McCanns' claim against Dr Goncalo
Amaral
This has been the subject of much correspondence between us,
but in the current situation I will briefly set out the key
events:
• In July 2008, Dr Amaral published a book, the English
title of which was 'The Truth About A Lie'. In summary, the
book gives a history of the investigation into Madeleine
McCann's reported disappearance, under his leadership, for
the five months May to October 2007. The subsequent release
on DVDs by the Portuguese Police of the vast majority of the
huge amount of documentation in the case backed up the
assertions of fact he made in his book. He reached three key
main conclusions, and explains in the book precisely why:
a) That Madeleine McCann died in your clients' holiday
apartment in Praia da Luz
b) That your clients lied about what had happened to
Madeleine, and
c) That your clients covered up her death and, with or
without the help of others, hid her body.
Your clients maintain, as stated in one of your letters to
me, that 'there is not one scintilla of credible evidence'
to support his conclusions. As you know, many people
disagree, contending that there is credible
evidence to support Dr Goncalo Amaral's claims. I am one of
them, and that is why your clients are applying to the Court
on 5 & 6 February to impose a term of imprisonment on me.
I consider that my publications do not go beyond Dr Amaral's
hypothesis as set out briefly above. For example, Dr Amaral
suggests, in the absence of compelling evidence to the
contrary, that it is likely that Madeleine died as the
result of an accident, possibly when your clients were not
present with her. The same conclusion was set out, as you
know, in the interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida.
As you know from your firm's extensive perusal of my many
lengthy articles and internet postings, I have never
ventured beyond Dr Amaral's own main conclusions on what
really happened to your clients' daughter.
• Your clients threatened at the time to sue Dr Amaral for
libel, claiming the book was untrue, extremely hurtful and
would 'harm the search for Madeleine'. However, they did not
do so until either June or July 2009, around one year later.
By that time, Dr Amaral's book had sold some 200,000 copies,
an hour-long documentary based on his book had been seen by
2 million Portuguese people, and several editions of his
book in different European languages were in print or being
prepared.
• Your clients claimed 1.2 million euros damages (£1
million) against Dr Amaral, his publishers and the TV
company which showed his documentary. They both claimed to
have suffered emotionally and physically in a number of
ways, adding that they were 'irreparably damaged'.
• In September 2009, your clients obtained a draconian order
against Dr Amaral, banning his book, and requiring him and
his publishers to return all copies of it and physically
hand them over to the custody of your clients' Portuguese
lawyer, Isabel Duarte. I believe some sort of financial
order was also obtained against his assets.
• After four days of hearings in January and February 2010,
the Lisbon High Court dismissed an appeal by Dr Amaral
against the order made in September 2010.
• In October 2010, the Portuguese Appeal Court reversed that
decision. It determined that in considering the delicate
balance between freedom of speech and the right to
preservation of one's reputation, Dr Amaral's right to free
speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights had been violated. They ordered the immediate
unbanning of his book. They also ordered your clients to pay
Dr Amaral’s costs.
• Your clients appealed this decision to the Portuguese
Supreme Court. They lost again, in March 2011. The court
dismissed their appeal. Dr Amaral’s book remained unbanned.
As I understand it, your clients were again required to pay
his reasonable costs associated with the hearing.
• Your clients nevertheless continued with their claim that
Dr Amaral's book libelled them, continued to seek the
banning of his book, and continued to seek 1.2 million euros
damages. The final trial was scheduled to begin yesterday,
24 January. Both sides continued to prepare for this 'final
showdown'.
The letter sent by your clients' Portuguese lawyer to Dr
Amaral's lawyer and the Portuguese Civil Court earlier this
month
Just over a week ago, rumours circulated that your clients
had asked the Court and Dr Amaral's lawyer for an
adjournment so that a settlement could be reached. In the
Affidavit of your colleague Isabel Martorell sworn and
served on me today (paragraph 13), she states the following:
"...I understand that the trial, which had been due to take
place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of
the Claimants' lawyer, to allow the parties to explore
whether a settlement may be reached which gives the
Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the
future".
However, information I have now received this week,
confirmed in writing, from a source who has been very close
to Dr Amaral for many years, and to his solicitor, Snr
Santos e Oliveira, gives a fuller - and more concerning -
picture.
The source spoke personally to Snr Santos e Oliveira earlier
this week. He confirmed that your clients' Portuguese lawyer
wrote to him and to the Civil Court, on or about 8 January,
with these proposals:
1. To adjourn the trial for 6 months
2. To seek a settlement with Dr Amaral.
I am informed that after taking Dr Amaral's instructions,
Snr Santos e Oliveira agreed. That letter is significant in
relation to the parallel proceedings against me. I believe
that this letter is relevant to your clients' attempt to
jail me for contempt and, as requested in a letter written
by hand at your offices today, I should be grateful if you
could forward me a copy of it without delay by return. If I
do not receive a copy, I shall ask the judge if it ought to
be produced.
The current position vis-à-vis Dr Amaral and myself
For five years your clients and their spokesman have
regularly denigrated the Portuguese police and of course Dr
Amaral in particular. Using their legal might, they have
pursued Dr Amaral for four years, no doubt costing
themselves and Dr Amaral tens if not hundreds of thousands
of pounds in the process. Nor is there any doubt that the
legal onslaught on him has been emotionally, as well as
financially, very costly.
In addition, your clients have pursued Dr Amaral in the
criminal courts, arranging via Metodo 3 for lawyer Marcos
Aragao Correia to represent Ms Leonor Cipriano, the
convicted murderess of her own child, 8-year-old Joana, in a
claim of alleged torture against him and four other
detectives.
For the past 2 years and 3 months, Dr Amaral’s book has been
unbanned, based on the Portuguese Courts' interpretation of
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Your clients have maintained that Dr Amaral is a wicked man
who has libelled them and done untold damage to themselves
and the search for Madeleine. They have been claiming £1
million damages from him and his publishers.
Yet now, just two weeks away from the beginning of the final
trial of the action, as Snr Santos e Oliveira and Dr Amaral
were completing their extensive preparations for that trial,
it now seems clear that your clients are unwilling or unable
to prosecute their claim and are suing for peace.
A claimant seeking to settle a
case is most unusual - and I suggest, with respect, that the
prospects for your clients achieving any of their goals in
this very expensive litigation have as a result, without
doubt, receded significantly.
The prospect of your clients succeeding in banning Dr
Amaral's book must surely now be rated as negligible. As you
know, in the Court Documents submitted in this action, I
have pointed out that Dr Amaral's book has been:
* read by many in Portugal, with over 200,000 copies sold,
* has been translated into 9 European languages,
* is available to read in over 30 countries, and
* has been translated into English (albeit without the
publisher's consent) and is available at several places on
the internet (as you and your clients must be aware), and
* has been allowed by the top two courts in Portugal to go
back on sale, consistent with Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
The primary facts and arguments on which I rely for all my
publications about the reported disappearance of Madeleine
McCann are essentially derived from Dr Amaral's 220-page
book, 'The Truth About A Lie'. His conclusions (as set out
above) can be freely read and discussed in many countries
and in England. Your clients have been powerless to stop its
widespread distribution, yet you are pursuing one
individual, myself, for doing no more than what thousands of
others are also doing, namely, repeating Dr Amaral's central
three allegations.
Your clients have tried to sue him for libel, but have
failed after 4 years of litigation to do so, and their
prospects of succeeding look increasingly remote.
Your clients have tried to ban Dr Amaral's book (albeit that
they left it a year before suing him), and failed - but not
only failed, they have incurred large costs in doing so.
Many people doubt your clients' version of what happened to
Madeleine and openly say so on a regular basis. As is clear
from the Exhibits in my Affidavits, books have been written
by professionals in their field, such as criminologists,
police officers and psychologists, echoing the views of Dr
Amaral in one form or another. The list of websites, forums,
blogs and videos, including those on the popular
video-sharing website, YouTube (as per my Affidavit), which
openly doubt your clients' account of what happened to
Madeleine is large, and growing all the time. Your clients
are powerless to stop this amount of open dissent. You and
your fellow-lawyers at Carter-Ruck must know this as well.
Yet your firm persists in trying to convict me of contempt
of court, knowing that if they succeed, quite apart from any
term of imprisonment, payment of even a significant
proportion of your costs to date will inevitably involve
personal bankruptcy.
Your recorded costs in pursuing the committal application
against me were already 'well over £120,000' by 19 April,
and may well be reaching £200,000 by now.
I invite you to consider that given the circumstances
outlined above, a judge might well consider that to continue
to prosecute me for contempt, against the background I have
set out above, when only a few days ago your clients have
withdrawn from the final libel trial against the author of
what your clients maintain is the source the original
libels, might be considered an abuse of process. That is why
I believe the Court should see the letter sent on or about 8
January 2013 to the Court and to Snr Santos e Oliveira.
TONY
BENNETT-07-02-2012
U.S. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown in Windsor to discuss the complete
mystery of Madeleine McCann with Tony Bennett, Madeleine Foundation
Secretary
TONY BENNETT- 08-02-2012
Resume of today’s Case Management hearing. Queen's Bench Division:
McCann & anr v Bennett
TONY
BENNETT
Kate and Gerry McCann could face court action
over alleged child neglect after a lawyer
attempted to launch a private prosecution
against the couple. Anthony Bennett has faxed
six pages of "evidence" to Leicestershire
magistrates together with an application to
summons the couple.
