IS BENNETT A MENTALLY-ILL FORMER TURKISH SOLDIER?

Bennett tweeted this:

Anthony Bennett ‏ @zampos
#McCann v Bennett committal-to-prison case adjourned sine die at my request due to para. 23 of Alkan v. Turkey decision 7.2.12 ECHR 17725/07

Not an awfully good case to look to for rescue, old bean...

http://sim.law.uu.nl/sim/caselaw/Hof.nsf/1d4d0dd240bfee7ec12568490035df05/a43191bcac0a702dc125799d0034d622?OpenDocument

Publication:
Title: Alkan v. Turkey
Application No: 17725/07
Respondent: Turkey
Referred by:
Date of reference by Commission:
Date of reference by State:
Date of Judgment: 07-02-2012
Articles: 6-1 Conclusion: Violation of article 6-1
Keywords: ACCESS TO COURT

Summary:
(Press release)
The applicant in this case complained that he had been unable to bring compensation proceedings before the Turkish courts for his mental illness, which he alleged had been caused by ill-treatment during his military service, as he could not afford to pay the court fees and had been refused legal aid. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Violation of Article 6 § 1

We were right, Bennett is going to plead insanity

Oh, and it would appear that Arkan is the VICTIM.

Unlike Bennett, who is the AGGRESSOR.

Even if he does plead insanity

Is Bennett really comparing his plight to the unfortunate Mr Arkan?

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=86371644&skin=hudoc-en&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=96260&highlight=

Quote:

6. On 13 December 2002, after having completed his military service, the applicant was placed under the guardianship of his father, S.A., by a decision of the Sarıkamış Magistrates’ Court as he was mentally ill and needed constant supervision

You couldn't make it up.....

You can't be convicted if you are Insane, can you? That might help. But who is going to Supervise him? I wouldn't want the job.
Nope, it'll have to be a Psychiatric Hospital.

Hark! Are those peals of laughter I can hear coming from 6, St Andrew Street, London?

Sabot wrote:
You can't be convicted if you are Insane, can you? That might help. But who is going to Supervise him? I wouldn't want the job.
Nope, it'll have to be a Psychiatric Hospital.

Yeah Sabot, and you can't be "Power of Attorney" for anyone else either. So which one does he want?

Mommy's dosh, I'd say

Maggs wrote:

Sabot wrote:
You can't be convicted if you are Insane, can you? That might help. But who is going to Supervise him? I wouldn't want the job.
Nope, it'll have to be a Psychiatric Hospital.

Yeah Sabot, and you can't be "Power of Attorney" for anyone else either. So which one does he want?

Mommy's dosh, I'd say

Perhaps he will plead Temporary Insanity, Maggs. Or Temporary Turkish.

Sabot wrote:

Maggs wrote:

Sabot wrote:
You can't be convicted if you are Insane, can you? That might help. But who is going to Supervise him? I wouldn't want the job.
Nope, it'll have to be a Psychiatric Hospital.

Yeah Sabot, and you can't be "Power of Attorney" for anyone else either. So which one does he want?

Mommy's dosh, I'd say

Perhaps he will plead Temporary Insanity, Maggs. Or Temporary Turkish.

Of course, just for a fortnight, he'll be ok!

So, have I got this straight?

Bennett is now trying to exploit a poor, almost certainly Muslim, Turkish man who has mental health issues due to service in his country's armed forces?

You really couldn't make it up. Has Bennett no shame? Just how low is he prepared to go to postpone the day of his judgement?

What happened to all the big talk about cutting Carter Ruck down a peg, and being sure he was telling the truth and nothing but the truth, and all the rest of the bullsh*t?

No doubt all the thicko forkers and hounders will be impressed by 'sine die' and think it means forever....none of them are the brightest lightbulbs in the multipack.

I think they are overwhelmed with admiration. Not a peep anywhere about this.

Unless they've gone into shock. That could be it.

I hope I have the legal terms right...

Think Bennett , think stamps, er...money.....and how he needs to save his ass.

My guess is:

Pleading temporary insanity and request placing under Court Receivership to avoid financial responsibility.
And after a year or so request Court to eliminate Receivership when all this blows over....

Now he needs evidence that he is indeed poco loco, I mean, it is not enough saying:
M'lud, I keep seeing 114 Xmas trees on every corner of the street...in Springtime.

Wasn't Bennett a periode in his life taken into a mental institution in Leverton or so..???
If so, there is evidence he is

Oh look what I've found, , more evidence that he suffers from delusions of grandeur
XXXXX means: no need to libel people like Bennett does.

An answer to espeland
Tony Bennett Today at 12:57 pm

Quote
espeland wrote:

But if this is taken to court, won't you be able to call the McCanns to give evidence?

No, but if this case proceeds, then they will have to give evidence - for example, Carter-Ruck say in their letters that my activities 'harm the search for Madeleine'. That will entitle me or my lawyer to cross-examine them about the nature of their search e.g. why they chose two crooks as investiagtors who were both sent to prison as a result of crimes or alleged crimes - XXXXXXX. & XXXXX
The McCanns' alleged failure to follow up calls to their investigation hotline would come into it, as would their habit of giving stories about possible suspects to the media, thus giving suspects public notice that they were under suspicion - not to mention XXXXX allegedly interfering with witnesses.




Absolute rubbish. Bennett made solemn undertakings to HM the Queen as represented by the High Court of England.
The only question a court is going to be interested in is whether or not he broke those solemn undertakings.

And if it is still not enough evidence Bennett is loop-di-loop, here's this wonderful video to complete all evidence

Thanks, Rose, nice one.


No, but if this case proceeds, then they will have to give evidence - for example, Carter-Ruck say in their letters that my activities 'harm the search for Madeleine'. That will entitle me or my lawyer to cross-examine them about the nature of their search e.g. why they chose two crooks as investiagtors who were both sent to prison as a result of crimes or alleged crimes - XXXXXXX. & XXXXX
The McCanns' alleged failure to follow up calls to their investigation hotline would come into it, as would their habit of giving stories about possible suspects to the media, thus giving suspects public notice that they were under suspicion - not to mention XXXXX allegedly interfering with witnesses.


I actually hope he does try to pull a stupid stunt like that. The judge himself will dispatch Bennett to the cells for contempt of court, and leave him there till he grasps that he is in the High Court, not some skanky hate forum.

As you say, none of that guff is of the slightest relevance. No lawyer is going to be prepared to represent a lunatic like that.

What's he on about now? No one is going to question The McCanns about the alleged criminal activities of a Private Investigator that have nothing to do with them. Or about someone else allegedly interfering with witnesses.
He really is mad.

Sabot wrote:
I think they are overwhelmed with admiration. Not a peep anywhere about this.

Unless they've gone into shock. That could be it.

Still nothing in public. Why aren't they all gushing over Bennett, and praising him for his Cunning Plan to....what exactly is it he thinks he is doing?

Besides staving off the inevitable?

They could be looking up, "Sine Die", and trying to figure out what it means, Bonny. It isn't an easy one you know, and heaven forbid they should show their ignorance.

Just a reminder of the case - NOT Bennett's interpretation of it.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=86371644&skin=hudoc-en&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=96260&highlight=

Anyone else see why this simply does not apply to Bennett?

Contrary to the Government’s allegation, the applicant submitted a certificate issued by the office of the headman before the domestic court (see paragraph 8 above). It is clear from that certificate that the applicant’s father has no income and that he is in a poor financial situation. Although the certificate was issued for the applicant’s father, the Court notes that it also attested to the applicant’s poverty as the latter had been under the guardianship of his father and lodged the case through him.

Bennett is NOT poverty-stricken; the very fact that he has TOO MUCH MONEY to qualify for legal aid speaks for itself.

The unfortunate Mr Arkan and his family appear to be destitute, unlike Bennett.

Seriously, why on earth does Bennett think his situation is in any way similar? Apart from anything else, BENNETT IS THE AGGRESSOR.

And you have to love the irony of Bennett latching onto a poverty-stricken Turk, to try to use the European courts - when he loathes Europe as much as he does Muslims - to try to get himself out of the hole he himself dug.

No wonder the forkers and hounders are not discussing this in public.

the applicant submitted a certificate issued by the office of the headman

What, is Bennett thinking of getting a note from the head of Harlow council? More like, the Treasury will 'go through Bennett's finances with a fine tooth comb.

The full reasons McCanns v. Bennett was adjourned

The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Welcome :: Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Amaral / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy Libel Trials and Lawsuits
Page 1 of 1 • Share •

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The full reasons McCanns v. Bennett was adjourned

Post Tony Bennett Yesterday at 11:46 pm
The two-day trial fixed for 9 and 10 May was adjourned at my request.

The reason was because of new information received about the overwhelming necessity in all civil and criminal cases for the two parties to have 'equality of arms'. This is especially so where a court case may lead to a defendant's imprisonment, or have other serious consequences for her/him. This necessity of 'equality of arms' is insisted on by the European Court of Human Rights. The U.K. agreed to be bound by its decisions by virtue of the Human Rughst Act 1998.

A discussion by a Parliamentary Committee back in 2006 on the Steel & Morris case, which I found on the internet in mid-April, was relevant. Steel and Morris were two students who were served a libel writ by McDonalds for circulating leaflets criticising the content of McDonald's burgers. They could not afford lawyers and could not get legal aid, as legal aid did not (and still does not) cover defamation/libel cases. So they defended themselves, in what became known as the 'McLibel trial'. The High Court eventually said they had libelled McDonalds and ordered them to pay £60,000 damages. Steel & Morris then took their case to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.

The next three paragraphs are from a summary by the Parliamentary Committee of the issues in the Steel & Morris case:

24. Steel and Morris v UK concerned the non-availability of legal aid in defamation actions. The applicants in this case were the defendants in a libel action by the McDonalds Corporation (the "McLibel" case) arising out of leaflets which they distributed outside McDonalds restaurants. They were refused legal aid, and represented themselves throughout the case, with occasional voluntary help from lawyers. The trial was the longest in English legal history (lasting for 313 days) and was preceded by 28 interim applications. McDonalds were awarded £60,000 in damages against the applicants for libel. At the time of the action, the Legal Aid Act 1988 precluded the grant of legal aid in libel actions.

25. The Court held that, given the length, scale and complexity of both the factual and legal issues involved in the hearing, neither the sporadic help provided to the applicants by volunteer lawyers nor the judicial assistance and latitude granted to them during the proceedings, was sufficient substitute for competent, expert and sustained legal representation. The disparity between the representation available to McDonalds, and that available to the applicants, could only lead to unfairness in such exceptionally complex proceedings. Therefore the denial of legal aid had meant the applicants could not present their case effectively to the court and had led to inequality of arms in violation of the right to a fair hearing under Article 6.1.

26. The Court also found that the absence of legal aid amounted to a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression rights under Article 10, pointing to the importance to a democratic society of even small and informal campaign groups disseminating information and fostering public debate, including in relation to the activities of powerful commercial concerns. It further held that the size of the awards of damages made against the applicants (although never enforced against them) were so substantial compared to the applicants' very modest means, that they gave rise to a disproportionate interference with Article 10 freedom of expression rights.



The absolute necessity for there to be 'equality of arms' between contestants in a court case was recently re-iterated in another European Court judgment dated 7 February 2012, and only released a few weeks ago, namely Alkan v. Turkey (Ref: 17725/07 if anyone wants to look it up - the full decision is on the internet).

The crucial paragraph in the whole decision was this one, paragraph 23:

23. The Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee practical and effective rights. This is particularly so of the right of access to court in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial. It is central to the concept of a fair trial, in civil as in criminal proceedings, that a litigant is not denied the opportunity to present his or her case effectively before the court and that he or she is able to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom,no. 68416/01, § 59, ECHR 2005-II).

Thus in the current case, McCanns v. Bennett, it is plain that unless legal aid is to be granted to me, this cannot be a fair trial. In court against me on 8 February were Adam Tudor (charging rate £1,200 per hour including VAT), and Isabel Hudson (charging rate £960 per hour including VAT) PLUS a barristet, James Dean, PLUS a legal assistant, PLUS a porter to wheel a huge bundle of files into court from Carter-Ruck's offices a quarter-of-a-mile away.

In addition, in the Parliamentary Committee referred to above, reference was made to official Ministerial Guidance to the Legal Services Commission (formerly the Legal Aid Board) which allowed legal aid to be given to defendants in three specified instances, at least one if not all three of which apply to this case. It appears that in refusing me legal aid on the sole ground that my savings were under £8,000, the Legal Services Commission may not have applied the rules correctly, therefore I have asked them to reconsider.

Indeed, the grounds for granting me legal aid became much stronger when Carter-Ruck wrote to me on 19 April telling me that their costs to date were 'well over £120,000'.

So I applied for an adjournment on 27 April.

Carter-Ruck agreed on 2 May.

The Court agreed the following day, 3 May.

I have in effect been given a limited window of time to see if I can be granted legal aid.

In addition, I have the support of my M.P., Robert Halfon, who has kindly agreed to take up the issue of the denial of legal aid to me, and the wholly disproportionate legal resources available to the McCanns in this case - contrary to numerous strong rulings by the European Court of Human Rights - directly with Minister for Justice, Ken Clarke.

++++

Finally, I'd like to publicly thank the member of this forum, from abroad, and who wishes to remain anonymous, who kindly, three weeks ago, drew my attention to the very important recent case of Alkan v. Turkey.

++++++++

POSTSCRIPT: The judgment in the UK Supreme Court in Hammerton v. Hammerton (2007) is also pertinent. In that case, a man was sent to prison for three months because he repeatedly broke the terms of a court order.

On appeal to the Supreme Court against his sentence, he won, and was released immediately.

In its judgment, the Court said:

“In a case where a defendant has been deprived of his rights under Article 6, it would rarely if ever be necessary for the court to speculate as to whether representation would have made a difference. The procedural defects in the instant case were so serious that the interests of justice plainly required both the committal order and the consequential sentence of imprisonment to be to be set aside”.

_______________________________________________

Have you read that self-pitying drive?

He's glossing over the fact that legal aid is for people who CAN'T afford lawyers, not people who WON'T put their hands in their own pockets.

And he's enlisted an MP?

In addition, I have the support of my M.P., Robert Halfon, who has kindly agreed to take up the issue of the denial of legal aid to me, and the wholly disproportionate legal resources available to the McCanns in this case - contrary to numerous strong rulings by the European Court of Human Rights - directly with Minister for Justice, Ken Clarke.

Has Bennett no shame whatsoever? His MP is going to regret getting involved with him, everyone does.

The absolute necessity for there to be 'equality of arms' between contestants in a court case was recently re-iterated in another European Court judgment dated 7 February 2012, and only released a few weeks ago, namely Alkan v. Turkey (Ref: 17725/07 if anyone wants to look it up - the full decision is on the internet).

Done it already, chum.

The Turkish ex-soldier was the VICTIM, not the AGGRESSOR.

He and his family are also destitute, not sitting pretty on a chunk of real estate in Essex, with TOO MUCH MONEY TO GET LEGAL AID.

Bennett really has no shame, pride or dignity.

bb1 wrote:Have you read that self-pitying drive?

He's glossing over the fact that legal aid is for people who CAN'T afford lawyers, not people who WON'T put their hands in their own pockets.

And he's enlisted an MP?

In addition, I have the support of my M.P., Robert Halfon, who has kindly agreed to take up the issue of the denial of legal aid to me, and the wholly disproportionate legal resources available to the McCanns in this case - contrary to numerous strong rulings by the European Court of Human Rights - directly with Minister for Justice, Ken Clarke.

Has Bennett no shame whatsoever? His MP is going to regret getting involved with him, everyone does.

The absolute necessity for there to be 'equality of arms' between contestants in a court case was recently re-iterated in another European Court judgment dated 7 February 2012, and only released a few weeks ago, namely Alkan v. Turkey (Ref: 17725/07 if anyone wants to look it up - the full decision is on the internet).

Done it already, chum.

The Turkish ex-soldier was the VICTIM, not the AGGRESSOR.

He and his family are also destitute, not sitting pretty on a chunk of real estate in Essex, with TOO MUCH MONEY TO GET LEGAL AID.

Bennett really has no shame, pride or dignity.

Does Robert Halfon know what he's taking on? I very much doubt it.

Perhaps he would like a few emails and screenshots, of posts of the libel and filth Bennett has put on open forums. I think he might get rid of his barge pole

I think that is an excellent idea, Maggs. It's a piece of nonsense that Bennett is trying to pretend he is the victim here. Any man with an ounce of decency - or a spine - would be ashamed at the very idea of trying to exploid the Turkish gentleman and his family, who are in GENUINE need.

It says it all, doesn't it, Rose?

Summary:
(Press release)
The applicant in this case complained that he had been unable to bring compensation proceedings before the Turkish courts for his mental illness, which he alleged had been caused by ill-treatment during his military service, as he could not afford to pay the court fees and had been refused legal aid. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Bennett really does need to grasp that he is not the victim, it is the McCanns and others who have been the victims of his disgusting hate campaign.

the "man" is an absolute disgrace.

Why should a hounder and stalker(documented on film, documents, photos etc) think he should be given legal aid to fund his defence when he's got £90,000 salted away?

I will be brief. Bennett deserves no Legal Aid because he has sufficient finances to hire a lawyer. Period.
Bennett is desperate. He knows he's going to lose, so he is playing for time, up to a procedure ECHR.

He won't get it just by piggy-backing this Turkish man who is in genuine need, Rose.

The Treasury will want him to account for every penny going in and out; his financial affairs will be closely investigated, and if he has any income he hasn't paid taxes on, claimed a single thing he isn't entitled to, then they will be down on him like a ton of bricks.

He is liable to get himself into even more hot water if he pursues this.