In the UK what constitutes a libel? Any takers?

[Montclair]

his comtempt of court was to  repeat libel. there would have been no court order had he not committed libel in the first place

There was no libel trial against Tony Bennett. He was badgered by Carter Ruck into signing a court order but the McCanns never took him to court for libel. Now, why is that? I would have thought that they would have done so.

As for the Express papers handing over money, that never saw the inside of a court room either. Later, during the Leveson hearings, one of the witnesses for the Express (I think David Pilditch) stated that, although they paid to the McCanns, all their articles proved to be true accounts of the investigation, confirmed by the released official police files.

BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages.

[Alice Purjorick]

his comtempt of court was to  repeat libel. there would have been no court order had he not committed libel in the first place

How does this materially affect the sense and substance of my post? Is your post merely an adjunct to mine?

[Carana]

his comtempt of court was to  repeat libel. there would have been no court order had he not committed libel in the first place

That is my understanding as well.

[Montclair]

That is my understanding as well.

No court gave a verdict that Tony Bennett was guilty of libel, it's that simple. It's easy to bully someone into signing an undertaking. Just the threat of a libel trial, even if the defendent knew he was innocent, is enough to scare anyone, least of all, for financial reasons. The legal costs would be very high even if he won.

[Carana]

No court gave a verdict that Tony Bennett was guilty of libel, it's that simple. It's easy to bully someone into signing an undertaking. Just the threat of a libel trial, even if the defendent knew he was innocent, is enough to scare anyone, least of all, for financial reasons. The legal costs would be very high even if he won.

There wasn't a hope in hell that he would have won a libel trial. He could have stopped his spoutings before it got to the stage of choosing to sign the undertakings and he could have stopped once he had. He chose not to.

[Alice Purjorick]

Bennett is an irrelevance and a very foolish man.

This is so!

[DCI]

No court gave a verdict that Tony Bennett was guilty of libel, it's that simple. It's easy to bully someone into signing an undertaking. Just the threat of a libel trial, even if the defendent knew he was innocent, is enough to scare anyone, least of all, for financial reasons. The legal costs would be very high even if he won.

Bennett wasn't  bullied into anything, he cut his own throat!

21 February 2013

Madeleine McCann contempt case: Tony Bennett guilty

Tony Bennett has pledged never to speak about the McCanns in public again

A man who claims he is campaigning to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann has been convicted of contempt of court at the High Court in London.

Tony Bennett was found to have breached an earlier court undertaking not to publish allegations linking Madeleine's parents with her disappearance.

Bennett, who is behind the Madeleine Foundation, was given a three-month prison sentence, suspended for a year.

He was also ordered to pay Kate and Gerry McCann's court costs.

Bennett, 65, of Harlow in Essex, was found to have breached on at least 13 occasions the undertaking not to publish allegations linking the couple, from Rothley in Leicestershire, with their daughter's disappearance.

'Last resort'
The breaches included letters he wrote to Home Secretary Theresa May and Prime Minister David Cameron, which Bennett posted on the internet.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said the retired solicitor had deliberately flouted the order and that his conduct was so serious that nothing less than a custodial sentence would suffice.

Finding Bennett guilty of contempt of court, the judge said: "I am sure that he intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done."

After the hearing, Bennett said: "I'm sorry for the distress I've caused to them - I'm hoping the way forward will result in both of us drawing a line under the situation."

Bennett apologised to Kate and Gerry McCann for the distress he had caused

Adrienne Page QC, representing the McCanns, had previously said there was no complaint about Bennett writing the letters.

She said: "The complaint is the publication to the world at large."

Clarence Mitchell, the McCann family spokesman, said: "Kate and Gerry McCann brought these committal proceedings very much as a last resort.

"Mr Bennett has pursued an incessant campaign against them, repeatedly making false accusations against them.

"Concerned for the effect that Mr Bennett's campaign may have on the ongoing search for their daughter and the likelihood of new leads coming forward, the McCanns concluded they had little choice but to seek the court's intervention.

"The McCanns continue to focus their efforts on the ongoing search for their daughter Madeleine."

Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 in Praia da Luz on the Algarve, days before her fourth birthday.

In July 2008 the Portuguese attorney general said there was no evidence linking her parents to any crime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21534603

From the man himself
In November 2012, lawyers for the McCann family went to the High Court to argue that Bennett was not abiding by the terms of his undertaking and was continuing to spread false allegations against them. Bennett, in an interview with the Harlow Star, said that he still had valid arguments and that "Britain's libel laws are so oppressive that I had no alternative but to agree to the terms of the formal undertakings set out by the McCanns' lawyers in November 2009".[37] Bennett was found guilty ofcontempt of court and, on 21 February 2013, given a three-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay the McCanns' court costs.[38] The court had considered 13 representative instances relating to breaches of his undertakings "on well over 100 occasions."[39]


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bennett_(politician)

[jassi]

Why bother with Bennett ?

He lost the plot along time ago.

Indeed, but probably a case of 'once an enemy, always an enemy'   

[Alice Purjorick]

Indeed, but probably a case of 'once an enemy, always an enemy'   

It would indeed appear so and of course derisory comments about Mr Bennett , who is indeed an irrelevance, fill up space and add to the list of posts. It remains very tedious for some of us however.

[DCI]

It would indeed appear so and of course derisory comments about Mr Bennett , who is indeed an irrelevance, fill up space and add to the list of posts. It remains very tedious for some of us however.

Why bother answering then?

[stephen25000]

Why bother answering then?

Since if there is no response in some measure, mccann plaudits will continue to travel this well beaten and irrelevant line.

BENNETT IRRELEVANT. REMEMBER.

[Carana]

Since if there is no response in some measure, mccann plaudits will continue to travel this well beaten and irrelevant line.

BENNETT IRRELEVANT. REMEMBER.

Irrelevant in terms of what?

[Alice Purjorick]

Why bother answering then?

Why sir how charming you are.

[gilet]

There was no libel trial against Tony Bennett. He was badgered by Carter Ruck into signing a court order but the McCanns never took him to court for libel. Now, why is that? I would have thought that they would have done so.

As for the Express papers handing over money, that never saw the inside of a court room either. Later, during the Leveson hearings, one of the witnesses for the Express (I think David Pilditch) stated that, although they paid to the McCanns, all their articles proved to be true accounts of the investigation, confirmed by the released official police files.

BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages.

This quote is fascinating. It demonstrates so many problems that amateurs have in dealing with a case such as this.


"There was no libel trial against Tony Bennett. He was badgered by Carter Ruck into signing a court order but the McCanns never took him to court for libel. Now, why is that? I would have thought that they would have done so."

Of course "there was no libel trial against Tony Bennett". But what you fail to tell the readers is that there is a perfectly good reason for that.

That reason is simple. There was no libel trial against Tony Bennett because when previously challenged about his libellous claims, instead of defending those claime, the cowardly weasel chose to give a very specific undertaking to the High Court that he would not repeat those libellous claims. He could have very easily chosen not to take the coward's way out. Even the other challenger of the McCanns who was at the lawyer's office with him claims he should have defended his claims but he knew they were indefensible so chose to pay a fee, sign a very clear undertaking not to repeat the claims and scuttled back to Harlow (or was it Leverton or Ongar, his other two boltholes?).

Tony Bennett could not demonstrate the truth of his claims when he faced that lawyer in Liverpool so there was no need for a libel trial. His undertaking was the reason for there being no trial.  Just a shame that the man has absolutely no honour whatsoever and illegally broke the undertaking he had made. The result of that was his later appearance in court where his vile, criminal actions resulted in him being convicted and punished. His continued inability to act with any kind of honour will, no doubt, bring a further conviction and even heavier punishment.

"As for the Express papers handing over money, that never saw the inside of a court room either. Later, during the Leveson hearings, one of the witnesses for the Express (I think David Pilditch) stated that, although they paid to the McCanns, all their articles proved to be true accounts of the investigation, confirmed by the released official police files."

Another few sentences where you muddie the issues and attempt to defend the indefensible with lies, half-truths and omissions.

The reality, once again, is perfectly simple. The sued newspapers were (like Bennett) unable to defend what they had written. In order to avoid the costly trial, they gave in to the inevitable before the main court action commenced. The fact is the case did see the inside of a court room when the newspapers stated in front of the Judge that they were conceding that they were at fault and were willing to settle the claim for damages caused by the content of the articles published.  As for Pilditch, the thrust of his argument relates to the fact that the leaks from the Portuguese Police which he was reporting were accurate. He bemoans the fact that though his sources did exist and were connected to the PJ, he had no way to validate what they were telling him. In other words he is admitting that he did not really know if the content he was signing his name to was in fact true. He fully admits that fact.

But the nub of the issue with your quoting of Pilditch's statement to Leveson in this way is that he or she is simply taking the word of the journalist at face value. Perhaps you don't know that when this statement was discussed at Leveson the content was indeed challenged and shown to be untrue. It seems to be another example of not looking at things in context.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-21-December-20111.pdf

"BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages."

Another interesting sentence.

The word damages here is used as meaning "harm" whereas others have described this case more generally as a "damages case" in order to hide the libel issue. In legal terms 'damages' is often also used to refer to the monies (or other goods/services) paid in reparation to one who has been 'damaged/harmed'.

But your comment is significant in that it states that the trial is all about proving that the book (or to be more accurate, the content of the book and the documentary) have caused the McCann family some harm.

What you and others seem to forget is that the McCanns are dealing with the libellous content of the book (as they see it) and the effects of that libellous content. What you and others seem to forget is that the Judge in Portugal has to initially make a decision as to the content of the book in order to then proceed to make a further decision about any damage done and any damages due. If there is only absolute truth in the book it would seem highly unlikely that the Judge would have progressed the case thus far, knowing that the McCanns cannot receive any damages as Amaral had only told complete truth. The reality is that this trial relates to defamation and what effect that defamation may or may not have had on the McCanns and on the search for Madeleine.

[Mr Moderator]

Only posts on this thread relating to the UK please.

For Portuguese Civil Libel Law and the McCann case please go to >>  www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4852.msg172525#msg172525