Judge Tugendhat's Ruling

Judge Tugendhat's ruling can be read here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html

setting out his reasoning. The McCann-haters would be well advised to read it carefully.

In effect, the Defendant's submission is a straightforward denial of the Claimants' rights to equal treatment and protection under the law. His attitude that fundamental or human rights are only for himself is one that is by no means unique to himself. It brings the law of human rights into disrepute. The true position is obvious: there can be no human rights unless those claiming them also acknowledge their responsibility to respect the rights of others, as Art 10 specifically provides.

I find that he was deliberately flouting the Undertakings, and that his apology is insincere.

That's a very polite way of saying, Hunnybunch Hounder is a liar.

And that he cannot be trusted.

I am satisfied that the Defendant has been in breach of the Undertakings in each of the thirteen instances which the Claimants set out to prove at the hearing of their application to commit him for contempt of court.

Bennett lost every single one.

Yes he did. Not just those three he mentioned........

Re: ***TONY BENNETT Statement re: COURT DRAFT JUDGEMENT***
sardinehater Today at 1:02 pm

I have to say that I am rather puzzled that Tony posted on this forum (even if it was within the Admin section where most members cannot read) something like that statement above.

Surely by revealing so many precise details of the draft judgement Tony was breaking the confidentiality regarding the document and that would have been another possible contempt of court?

Didn't the Judge say only a couple of weeks ago during the hearing that posting stuff anywhere on a forum was putting it in the public domain because the members of the forum are simply members of the public with access to it?

I hope this thread isn't getting Tony into even more trouble with the court.

And that is a very good point. I can seen Bennett ending up in jail, he seems incapable of behaving himself.

Joana Morais ‏@xklamation
The #McCann couple & Carter Ruck have successfully undermined the right to freedom of speech of an UK citizen today. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/332.html …

The silly moo seems incapable of grasping that there is NO right to 'freedom of speech' which over-rides other basic human rights, and the rights of other people.

She needs to read the judgement and educate herself on reality.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/332.html

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
21/02/2013
B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
____________________

Between:
(1) GERRY MCCANN (2) KATE MCCANN
Claimant
- and -

TONY BENNETT
Defendant
____________________

Ms Adrienne Page QC and Mr Jacob Dean (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the Claimants
The Defendant appeared in person
Hearing dates: 21 Febraury 2013
____________________

HTML VERSION OF SENTENCING REMARKS

See Judgment: [2013] EWHC 283 (QB) Judgment

Mr Justice Tugendhat :

Mr Bennett, for reasons set out in the judgment which I handed down this morning (Neutral Citation Number [2013] EWHC 283 (QB)) I have found you to be in breach of the undertakings you gave to the court in the order dated 25 November 2009. My findings relate to thirteen breaches. I have made no finding in relation to the very large number of other breaches which the Claimants have alleged. The Claimants did not ask me to, for reasons explained in my judgment.
The Claimants have made clear that they consider that the question whether to impose a penalty, and if so what penalty, is a matter for the court alone to decide. Their objective in bringing this committal application has not been to see you punished, but to put a stop to the repeated conduct which you undertook to the court that you would not repeat.
Ms Page has made submissions to the court. But apart from making clear the stance which the Claimants adopt, these submissions are directed to reminding the court of the statutory powers and relevant case law, with a view to assisting the court to dispose of the matter in accordance with the law.
By the Contempt of Court 1981 s.14 the Court has power to impose a custodial sentence limited to a maximum of two years. A custodial sentence may be immediate or it may be suspended. The court also has power to impose a fine.
Matters which are relevant to the punishment in this case include the following. The Claimants have suffered injury to their reputations and feelings by the repetition of the allegations which you have repeated in breach of your undertakings. I have found that you have acted intentionally in the manner explained in my judgment. You were deliberately flouting the Undertakings, and the apology that you offered when giving your evidence was insincere. I am sure that you appreciated the seriousness of what you were doing, not least because you trained to be a solicitor.
It is also important to record, as I did in my judgment, that the Claimants and their solicitors have repeatedly warned you of the seriousness of your actions and of the consequences. They resorted to this court only when you made clear by your conduct that there was nothing else that the Claimants could do to persuade you to comply with your undertakings. The consequence of the Claimants showing this restraint has been that they have incurred very large legal costs. These costs do not reflect any complications or difficulties in the case other than the difficulties that you have intentionally put in their way.
In mitigation I take into account the letters which I have read from your brother and from others. You have much in your life to help others. At this hearing you have apologised again. And on this occasion I accept that your apology is sincere.
The overriding consideration is that the purpose of committal proceedings is to ensure that a contemnor complies in future with the undertakings which he has flouted. Your conduct in this case has been so serious that I am satisfied that nothing less than a custodial sentence would reflect the seriousness of your breaches and the harm that you have done. The sentence will be one of three months custody.

However, I am also satisfied that I can suspend the sentence for one year, on condition that you comply with your undertakings in the future for so long as they remain in force during that period of suspension. The effect of that will be that if you breach the undertakings during that period, you may be brought back before the court and committed to prison to serve this sentence of imprisonment and any other sentence that may be imposed upon you for the further breach.
I order that you pay the costs of the proceedings to be the subject of a detail assessment if not agreed.
The directions for the hearing of your application to vary or discharge your undertakings will be set out in an order to be drawn up.

I like this bit, Bonny

I would add that the court will generally never know why a litigant is self-represented. The court does not have to take the explanation put forward by the litigant at face value. Communications between lawyers and litigants are privileged, so no questions can be asked about attempts that a litigant may have made to obtain legal representation. A self-represented litigant may have funds in excess of the limit for eligibility for public funding, and choose not to spend his own funds on legal representation. A self-represented litigant may have had the benefit of legal advice, and chosen to reject that advice. If that is the case, the litigant is under no obligation to inform the court or his opponent. There can be no presumption in favour of self-represented litigants that, but for the unavailability of public funding, they would be represented by an advocate who would be willing to advance, and better able to advance, the submissions that the self-represented litigant has himself put before the court. There are no presumptions one way or the other as to whether there is an inequality of arms. The court must decide each case on the basis of the evidence and submissions which are in fact before it. In a case where one party is self-represented the court will be bound to look for points that the litigant may have missed, and counsel for the other party is under a duty to the court to assist by reminding the court of points of law which may be available to the litigant. Ms Page included such points in her submissions.

A self-represented litigant may have funds in excess of the limit for eligibility for public funding, and choose not to spend his own funds on legal representation. A self-represented litigant may have had the benefit of legal advice, and chosen to reject that advice.

Bennett didn't fool the judge for one minute, did he?

the Defendant posted on the JH website words attributed to a lady called Pat Brown

He doesn't seem very impressed by Bushmeat.

Oh for a mind like that, I would give all of my teeth. Not so much because Judge Tugendhat spotted every devious trick that we have seen over the last five long and often confusing years, but because he did it in such an incredibly short space of time. I am truly over awed. Not one single thing did he miss. I could cry for the joy of watching such a mind in action.

And for Ms. Page who did precisely what our own Sans Souci tried to do, as noted by Judge Tugendhat. I am so sorry that he was treated so badly, even by some of his own. Thank God this Forum did not subscribe to that. Those who did, know exactly who they are.

Sabot, I second what you have posted. What a mind the Judge has - so old school, to me. I remember when I first started work that I felt that Justice in our High Courts was typically seen to be done. I also was in awe of the Judges, the QC's and so on. I remember those days with affection.

Sans is a gentleman who has our complete respect Sabot, and as you know, we would rather leave the forum than treat him as badly as some others have done.

lily wrote:Sabot, I second what you have posted. What a mind the Judge has - so old school, to me. I remember when I first started work that I felt that Justice in our High Courts was typically seen to be done. I also was in awe of the Judges, the QC's and so on. I remember those days with affection.

Sans is a gentleman who has our complete respect Sabot, and as you know, we would rather leave the forum than treat him as badly as some others have done.

Some of us did leave, Lily, albeit with little choice. But thank God for that. Sans Souci did exactly what The Judge commended Ms Page QC for doing. It is inherent in the mind of any decent Barrister.
I thought that I had put this aside, but obviously I haven't. This was another joy to me to see Sans Souci vindicated.

Some of us did leave, Lily, albeit with little choice. But thank God for that. Sans Souci did exactly what The Judge commended Ms Page QC for doing. It is inherent in the mind of any decent Barrister.
I thought that I had put this aside, but obviously I haven't. This was another joy to me to see Sans Souci vindicated.

That is very true about leaving.

Would have loved to have witnessed Sans in court during his heyday. We were lucky enough to share forum space with him.

Sabot, oh what a day!!

lily wrote:Some of us did leave, Lily, albeit with little choice. But thank God for that. Sans Souci did exactly what The Judge commended Ms Page QC for doing. It is inherent in the mind of any decent Barrister.
I thought that I had put this aside, but obviously I haven't. This was another joy to me to see Sans Souci vindicated.

That is very true about leaving.

Would have loved to have witnessed Sans in court during his heyday. We were lucky enough to share forum space with him.

Sabot, oh what a day!!

What a day indeed, Lily. But mainly for The Law, which is what it is all about. I am still in a state of shock for what The Judge has said. Never could I have hoped for so much.
But I am not holding my breath.

On behalf of the old man, thanks. I will pass it on to him this weekend. He wants a blow by blow account!

What the pitchforkers do not seem to appreciate is that there are rules of engagement and they are there for a very good reason! Justice not only needs to be done but also needs to be seen to be done!

Thanks J-P and would you mind blowing your old man a big kiss from here please?

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:On behalf of the old man, thanks. I will pass it on to him this weekend. He wants a blow by blow account!

What the pitchforkers do not seem to appreciate is that there are rules of engagement and they are there for a very good reason! Justice not only needs to be done but also needs to be seen to be done!

This could depend on who's looking. Fortunately, I doesn't actually matter since A Judgement is A Judgement. So I am trying really hard to just see this as A Judgement.
I have never wanted to decimate Mr. Bennett because it is not my place. Although I have on occasions felt great anger for his lies. But it is not for me to glory in his defeat. I only glory in the mind of a man who has left me bereft because I will never be so clever. And so, I am sad tonight.

Isn't it amazing the difference a PROPER, PROFESSIONAL, translation makes?

Amateur version of a key section of the Archiving Dispatch as translated for the Morais site:


The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics’ conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Proper, professional translation as used in court:

The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless

Which led to:

b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

Subtly different, aren't they - and they are far from the worst examples. Does Bennett really feel like taking his chances on the Dodgy Translations With Bits Left Out?

More fool him if he does.

Subtly different, aren't they - and they are far from the worst examples. Does Bennett really feel like taking his chances on the Dodgy Translations With Bits Left Out?

More fool him if he does.
There is far worse translation of the files than that, Bonny.
In some it is just a sentence, in others it is whole paragraphs.

He was testing them with false or disingenuous assurances and demands for explanations to which, as a member of the public with no responsibility for law enforcement, he was not entitled.

We've often commented on their bizarre sense of entitement, haven't we?

bb1 wrote: He was testing them with false or disingenuous assurances and demands for explanations to which, as a member of the public with no responsibility for law enforcement, he was not entitled.

We've often commented on their bizarre sense of entitement, haven't we?

Too many times. We also noted how their apparent sense of entitlement grew out of all proportion.