A REMINDER OF WHY BENNETT IS IN THE DOCK THIS WEEK

.....It is for contempt of court. For breaking his word. For ignoring undertakings he himself freely agreed to, in the offices of Kirwans of Liverpool.

At any time, Bennett was free to request that the terms of the agreement he made with the court be varied.

He chose not to; he chose, instead, to drive a coach and horses through the agreement.

Remember what Judge Tugendhat said about the matter a few months ago?

26. It is a rule of law of great importance that undertakings to the court (like injunctions) must be obeyed so long as they are in force. If a party restrained by such an order wishes to contend that the order ought not to have been made, or ought not to remain in force, it is not open to that party to ignore the order and then, if faced with a committal application, to ask for that committal application to be adjourned pending the determination of an application to vary the undertaking or injunction. If that were permitted, the administration of justice would be seriously undermined: injunctions and undertakings would not be the effective remedies that they are required to be.

Bennett makes a promise to Carter Ruck less than a year ago:

TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012
Tony Bennett on Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:10 pm

I informed Carter-Ruck on 23 February that I would be making no further comment of any kind about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann until after the conclusion of the committal-to-prison trial.

Anyone who trusts a wretch who can break his word so easily, is a purblind fool, who deserves all they get.

Why, it's almost as though he doesn't know a thing about law?

He isn't the only one. Gob-smacking exchange on MM:

Re: The talks in Portugal in McCanns v Amaral - Carter-Ruck's version of events
Loopdaloop Today

[quote="Panda"][quote="Iris"]
AnnaEsse wrote:
.but why would Carter Ruck be sending Tony a copy, it is about the McCanns/Amaral case, surely nothing to do with Tony's case.


Tony would be entitled a copy because if the Mccann's have given ground over what Goncalo Amarel has said it would have a direct baring upon his case.

Goncalo says X Y Z,
Tony says that Goncal says X Y Z

If the Mccan's now say its okay for Goncalo to say X Y Z,
Then... there is not harm in Tony saying X Y or Z as if the Mccann's now say its okay for Goncalo, then it should be okay for Tony and anyone else.

What?

WHAT IS GOING ON BETWEEN PORTUGUESE CITIZENS, LAWYERS AT THAT, IS NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER OF BENNETT, IN ENGLAND.

The McCanns have NOT said it's 'OK for Gonc to say XYZ', and the forkers and hounders are in for some nasty shocks if they are still falling for that spin.

Bennett is NOT 'entitled to a copy' of correspondence between Portuguese citizens.

And shouldn't they be asking themselves why St Goncalol hasn't furnished Bennett with any information? Doesn't that tell them anything?

The McCann/Amaral case has NOTHING to do with Bennett committing contempt of court in England. And I am staggered that they think they are entitled to demand that Portuguese lawyers hand over confidential correspondence to a private citizen in England.

The arrogance of it!

Oh dear. No wonder Bennett has had to issue strict instructions about their behavior at court.

Can't grasp much, can they?

Apart from anything else, I am sure Gonc's lawyers are fully aware that the first thing Bennett would do with any such confidential information is....

Post it on the internet.

They must know how untrustworthy Head Hounder is. As Gonc is trying to get out of this with the shirt on his back, the very last thing he needs is Bennett blundering around.

Bennett seems to have NO grasp of reality, or law.

Where does he store the shopping trolley in court?

Will he have one of his supporters take care of it when he is sent down?

Wouldn't you think he'd spend some time with his loved ones in these last few days of freedom before he finally gets his come uppance and becomes someone's prison biatch?