Oh I see, I got another 5 points for explaining myself.
I still never said anything libellous though.
The McCanns didn't make the e-fits public. They weren't in Kate's book, or on their website.
3 October 2014
Kate and Gerry McCann hit out at "same old press
abuse" by newspapers
https://www.carter-ruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.pdfThe couple receive £55,000 in libel damages from
Sunday Times
Kate and Gerry McCann today hit out at the continued failure of the UK newspaper
industry to put their house in order after the Sunday Times agreed to pay £55,000 in
libel damages (all of which they will donate to charity) for allegations made at a time
when the Sunday Times was proclaiming that press abuse was at an end and there
was no need for the independent regulation proposed by Leveson a year previously.
The McCanns were libelled in a front-page article by the Sunday Times' "Insight"
team in October 2013.
Gerry McCann pointed out that the newspaper's behaviour typified all that was wrong
with journalistic practices.
• the Sunday Times team did not provide the McCanns with any proper
opportunity to comment on these appalling allegations before they were
published. They withheld important aspects of the allegations they were
intending to make and chose not to publish key parts of the McCanns'
response. Above all, the Sunday Times was on express notice that the
allegations were false, yet they still went ahead and published them.
• Initially, the McCanns sought to resolve the complaint amicably by writing to
the Editor direct. However, the half-baked, inadequate response they
received meant that they were left with no choice but to instruct their lawyers,
Carter-Ruck
• Faced with the grotesque and utterly false suggestion that they had, in effect,
deliberately hindered the search for their daughter and thereby let the trail go
cold, Mr and Mrs McCann had no alternative but to bring a libel complaint in
order to correct falsehoods which could only serve to damage the search for
their daughter
• Eventually, two months later, the Sunday Times acknowledged that its article
had been completely false and published a full retraction and apology. But
even then the apology was tucked away on an inside page. The newspaper
even refused to include the word "apology" in its headline.
• It then took a further 9 months, and the issuing of Court proceedings by the
McCanns, to require the Sunday Times to make sensible proposals to
compensate them and to allow them to make that fact public. Every penny of
the damages will be going to charity and the Sunday Times will also be
paying the McCanns' legal fees.
1
McCann/Sunday Times - Press Release - 3.10.2014
1652465_1
Speaking today, Mr and Mrs McCann said
"The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any "postLeveson improvement" in the behaviour of newspapers like this.
"Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many
newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story
last year and then force us to instruct lawyers - and even to start Court proceedings -
before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been
done and the Sunday Times can sit back enjoy its sales boost based on lies and
abuse"
"This is exactly why Parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective
independent self-regulation of newspapers - to protect ordinary members of the
public from this sort of abuse."
"It is also why the provision of low-cost arbitration for libel and privacy claims is so
important. We were able to use our lawyers, Carter-Ruck, who were willing to back
our complaint and who agreed to act on a "no win, no fee" basis - but even that form
of access to justice is currently under threat. The fact is that most families could not
take the financial and legal risk of going to the high Court and facing down a big
press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed
Leveson's reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it. "
"It is why the latest industry poodle, IPSO, which the Times editor was allowed to
help appoint, does not even have the power to insist on its members providing
arbitration that Leveson required."
"It is time for Parliament to remind the newspaper owners that it is the people and
their elected representatives who run the country, not the moguls, and if they
continue to reject Leveson then as Lord Justice Leveson himself said, it will be
imposed on them to protect the public and public interest journalism."
Notes to editors
The defamatory article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann had kept secret from
the investigating authorities crucial evidence (primarily consisting of "e-fits"
obtained by private investigators) relating to their daughter's abduction.
2. The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false.
3. As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having
sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the
private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and
Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report
(including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly
after it commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
2
McCann/Sunday Times - Press Release - 3.10.2014
1652465_1
4. The Sunday Times refused to apologise or to make a prompt and prominent
correction. The correction they printed 6 weeks later was on an inside page and
was inadequate.
5. The McCanns were forced to make a legal claim in the High Court because of
the Sunday Times' refusal to accept responsibility.
6. Only after the newspaper was sued did the it accept liability and offer to settle
the case.
3
McCann/Sunday Times - Press Release - 3.10.2014
1652465_1
