Isabel Martorell* writes about Leveson; Bennett latest - up creek and paddleless

http://www.thelawyer.com/isabel-martorell-partner-carter-ruck/1014742.article

Isabel Martorell, partner, Carter Ruck

Acted for Gerry and Kate McCann, parents to missing child Madeleine McCann, in their successful libel battles with the Daily Star and Daily Express and their sister Sunday titles



Isabel Martorell

It is almost universally accepted that Lord Justice Leveson will propose a far more stringent model of press regulation – after all, the Leveson Inquiry was established as the direct result of serious shortcomings in the current system. But as for the new landscape, the devil really is in the detail.

While the current PCC Editors’ Code includes provisions that appear to recognise and uphold a right of privacy, these are heavily qualified and in practice have been applied weakly.

There can be little doubt that the PCC has failed to provide adequate means of redress not just to phone hacking victims but to others who have clearly suffered from unjustifiable press intrusion.

A new regulator will need to have greater independence than the PCC, and will also need a crucial ‘bite’ - proper sanctions which will not only offer appropriate redress to complainants but will also be sufficient to deter the press from riding roughshod over privacy rights in the first place.

It’s expected that Leveson LJ will recommend changes along these lines, but whether they are sufficient for the new regulator to offer a credible alternative to the courts remains to be seen.

*nee Isabel Hudson

Re: MISSING APRIL JONES AGED 5......Feared Abducted in Wales
aiyoyo Today
In case people are keen to know what Isabel Martorell nee Hudson looks like....

And what relevance does that have to anything - unless they are some kind of stalker?

Speaking of Carter Ruck - Head Hounder seems to have gone awfully quiet on the subject, leaving one or two questions unanswered.

Like, What happened over the bill for his disgusting inventions concerning Ed Smethurst? Didn't he have till the beginning of September to challenge the bill?

Like, Has he found a civil legal aid lawyer daft enough to take his case? Indeed, has he even managed to get legal aid?

So many questions, so few answers......wonder why?

Aw, Head Hounder isn't having a good day....

http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/north-west/78216-commission-clears-kennedys-latium-and-epwin-merger/

Latium Building Products, the window manufacturer owned by Sale Sharks chief Brian Kennedy, has been given provisionally cleared by the Competition Commission (CC) to merge with Epwin Group.

It's all a far cry from those heady days when the hounders were hiding in Kennedy's shrubbery and photographing his security system, isn't it?

bb1 wrote:Aw, Head Hounder isn't having a good day....

http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/north-west/78216-commission-clears-kennedys-latium-and-epwin-merger/

Latium Building Products, the window manufacturer owned by Sale Sharks chief Brian Kennedy, has been given provisionally cleared by the Competition Commission (CC) to merge with Epwin Group.

It's all a far cry from those heady days when the hounders were hiding in Kennedy's shrubbery and photographing his security system, isn't it?

Always on the outside with his nose pressed up against the windows. Oops - quite literally.

Oh dear, he is in more trouble than you can shake a stick at, isn't he?

Seen his latest? Looks like he is going to get his wish - a full libel trial.

But he isn't going to get legal aid.

Oh, and putting words in the nice judge's mouth do not help his cause one bit.

The bad news for me is that there is simply no Legal Aid in any circumstances for those seeking to defend a libel claim. The costs of hiring a barrister to represent me during a libel trial, possibly lasting several days, will be utterly beyond me. Therefore I shall be on my own. It will be very difficult to conduct my own defence.

Beware of what you wish for - he wanted a libel trial, didn't he?

I am going to put this in Big Letters, as the Hounders are bound to be hanging around.

STOP TWISTING WHAT JUDGE TUGENHAT SAID TO SUIT YOUR OWN AGENDA AND KEEP THE HOUNDERCULT HAPPY

UNLESS ANYONE THINKS THAT BENNETT PUTTING WORDS IN THE JUDGE'S MOUTH IS GOING TO HELP HIS CAUSE?

Peter Davies ‏@Muttfan
@5haronl JudgeTugendhat If #McCann v Bennet libel issues were properly addressed we would need witness stmts & expert evidence on dogs

Sure about that, are you?

bb1 wrote:Peter Davies ‏@Muttfan
@5haronl JudgeTugendhat If #McCann v Bennet libel issues were properly addressed we would need witness stmts & expert evidence on dogs

Sure about that, are you?

In their dreams, Bonny. In their dreams.

I know, they're falling for it, too.

Not often you get to see turkeys voting for an early Christmas:

e: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012
Smokeandmirrors Today

Tony, this is a very stressful time for you and you truly have a job cut out. BUT....they will drop it and go away, or face having to deal with the trillions of inconsistencies being made public, because it won't just be your view that gets aired, it will be Amaral, Grimes, Spudgun, Blacksmith, Dr Martin Roberts, Pat Brown and the PdL investigation....so much will be able to be presented to a jury and ultimately the public in a way as never before. This will bring the whole contradictory list (and we'll all help get it compiled and NUMBERED) so that for the first time it won't be brushed under the carpet. It will come under scrutiny and dissected and finished.

I bet they wuss out of it in any case.

-------------

Oh, it's going to be finished all right

Stunning, that Bennett's walked right into the worst possible situation for himself; no wonder he isn't telling them the truth.

Must remember to get a stock of Bolly in.

What has happened today, in effect, is that the core of this whole case has now been taken substantially out of the hands of a High Court judge, and put in the hands of an English jury of twelve persons.

I do believe that means he has to PROVE his looney allegations to each and every one of them. Why, it's almost as if he is going to be on trial!

Ah well, he got what he wanted - didn't he?

They are as gullible as can be.


I bet they wuss out of it in any case.

Yep. Someone will want to wuss out....

bb1 wrote:What has happened today, in effect, is that the core of this whole case has now been taken substantially out of the hands of a High Court judge, and put in the hands of an English jury of twelve persons.

I do believe that means he has to PROVE his looney allegations to each and every one of them. Why, it's almost as if he is going to be on trial!

Ah well, he got what he wanted - didn't he?

Oh yes he has.

A jury trial. I wonder how much that is going to set him back?

Forgive me for butting in but; I believe Bennett is in court for breaching an order he so willingly signed?
By signing the order in the first place, surely he admitted to the libel he was accused of?
Perhaps I misunderstood the initial signing?

Why do these gullible idiots carry on falling for this guff? It's only weeks since he barefacedly lied to them about who owned the official hounders' site - ie, HIM.

Yet the lemmings appear to think he is telling them the truth about today's events. Oh well, not our problem. They are in for a few nasty shocks, though.

Oh, and what is the state of play with Ed Smethurst's bill? Or are they all still more interested in discussing the Smethursts' soft furnishings?

crazytony wrote:Forgive me for butting in but; I believe Bennett is in court for breaching an order he so willingly signed?
By signing the order in the first place, surely he admitted to the libel he was accused of?
Perhaps I misunderstood the initial signing?

Quite, Tony - remember, we only have his version of events, which on past performance, isn't exactly true...

I see he put the most relevant section in small letters;

This is in normal type:

3. That my application to vary three of the undertakings I gave in November 2009 should be treated as, in effect, an application to ‘lift the stay’ on the libel proceedings. To explain: On 25 November 2009, the McCanns simultaneously issued a libel claim and at the same time accepted my offer of giving various undertakings. That meant that the libel claim was effectively adjourned (= ‘stayed’), so long as I did not then break any of my undertakings. ‘Lifting the stay’ means that the McCanns’ libel claim now becomes ‘live again’.

He posted this sentence in small type:

That means the McCanns will in due course need to serve on me what is called ‘Particulars of Claim’, setting out in minute detail what libels against them I am said to have committed.

There, that's better, everyone can see it clearly now!

This is really one for one of our legal peeps, but I think that Bennett has caused such chaos, the judge has held back on the contempt and allowed the libel claim to take precedence?

Which means he is totally and utterly kerflucked.

Rothley Pillowcase ‏@RothleyPillow
@Muttfan :-) The #mccann s will be v pissed off now, coz they only want @zampos JAILING to frighten off all other justice-seekers @5haronl

I seem to remember Sans saying that Bennett trying to get the contempt varied would mean that the stayed libel trial would become active again?

Bewildered hounder:

I'm a bit confused - are the Claimants the McCanns? Who has said they lied and about what exactly?

1. Of course the Claimants are the McCanns - who else would the Claimants be?

2. Bennett has repeatedly and falsely stated that they have lied.

3. The whole list of his libellous falsehoods will be presented to him by CR.

4. Even his letter to the PM was overflowing with libel.

lily wrote:I seem to remember Sans saying that Bennett trying to get the contempt varied would mean that the stayed libel trial would become active again?

That's right! So he did! Sans tried to warn Bennett repeatedly, and got called a 'troll' for his pains by that half-witted woman who calls everyone - except her fellow-loonies - trolls.

If Bennett is unsure of the libelous words he has uttered; I, will gladly repost the screen-shots bearing the foul lies.

bb1 wrote:Bewildered hounder:

I'm a bit confused - are the Claimants the McCanns? Who has said they lied and about what exactly?

1. Of course the Claimants are the McCanns - who else would the Claimants be?

2. Bennett has repeatedly and falsely stated that they have lied.

3. The whole list of his libellous falsehoods will be presented to him by CR.

4. Even his letter to the PM was overflowing with libel.

That's why he's gerflucked.

If Bennett is unsure of the libelous words he has uttered; I, will gladly repost the screen-shots bearing the foul lies.

I don't think there will be any need, Tony. I suspect the High Court of England and Wales is going to get to see them, and after them, the good citizens of the UK will see for themselves just what Bennett has been spewing out all this time.