The Madeleine Foundation newsletter, Feb. 2012,11, 1-8

The Madeleine Foundation
Asking the questions about what really happened to Madeleine McCann
Email: themadeleinefoundation@gmail.com
Tel: 07503 353941 or 07786 635375

Dear Member/Supporter,

Thank you once again for supporting our work.

Here is our latest newsletter updating you on what your Committee and members have been doing, since our last newsletter.

1.   Recent libel actions against Tony Bennett by the McCanns and Edward Smethurst 

Tony settled the libel claim made against him by Edward Smethurst at a Case Management hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) on 7 December on the following basis: Tony to pay him damages of £2,500 and his reasonable costs. Tony made no admission of liability. A hearing to assess the costs payable by Tony will take place in the RCJ on 29 February.

Of far greater significance for our ongoing work was the decision of the McCanns to bring contempt of court proceedings against Tony for allegedly breaching undertakings he gave to the McCanns and the High Court on 25 November 2009. These proceedings are for the committal of Tony to prison. The committal bundle was served on him on 1 December 2001 in a large cardboard box weighing around 2 stone delivered by two gentlemen in a limousine to his house. The Court has the following possible remedies: a term of imprisonment, a suspended sentence, a fine, seizure of assets, or any combination of these.

Simply to get advice on 2,000 pages of documentation from a solicitor and barrister, let alone be legally represented in the proceedings and trial, would have cost Tony many thousands of pounds, which he cannot afford. He has therefore been representing himself so far.

On 8 February, Tony was summoned to a Case Management Hearing at the High Court before Judge Michael Tugendhat. He represented himself. The McCanns were represented in court by Jacob Dean, barrister, Adam Tudor, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck, and Isabel Hudson, Partner of Carter-Ruck, and a legal assistant. Tony has written up an account of this hearing, which we reproduce below on the next two pages of our newsletter:

The hearing was only ever about getting the matter ready for trial.

The hearing lasted around 1 hour and 50 minutes. The McCanns were represented by Jacob Dean (barrister), Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and two assistants. Carter-Ruck had proposed a timetable for serving and filing evidence ahead of the trial and proposed that the trial would last for 1-2 days, to be held as soon as practicable on or after 10 April.

I made a number of applications at the hearing, which out of courtesy I notified to Carter-Ruck by hand on 2 February. My application to have a ‘McKenzie friend’ [lay helper] with me at the hearing was granted by consent, and I thank my friend who acted as my McKenzie helper today.

I made an outline application to be allowed to apply for one part of the original undertaking I gave to be rescinded. This was granted. I have until 22 February to submit that application. That involves paying a Court fee of £80.00 and submitting detailed reasons for that application. At this point I will say that I do not propose to seek to rescind any of the following undertakings, all of which I have abided by except for the sale of one book to Mr Michael Gunnill (see below):

To deliver up all hard copies of “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” (known in short as ‘60 Reasons’) to Carter-Ruck
To deliver up all hard copies of the leaflet entitled “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted
To destroy any electronic version of ‘What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted”.
To destroy any electronic version of the leaflet entitled “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted
To close our website, whose domain name was: ‘www.madeleinefoundation.org‘
To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net

To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website

http://democracyforum.co.uk

To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website

http://www.anorak.co.uk

To use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any and all defamatory allegations about the Claimants published by him on the website
www.truthformadeleine.com
To pay £440.00 towards the Defendant’s costs [subsequently reduced to £400.00.

I applied for an Order that ‘the Claimants [the McCanns] do specify which words they allege constitute alleged breaches of my undertaking’. This was because of what I claimed was a lack of clarity in the McCanns’ application. The Practice Rules are very specific in requiring that in a contempt of court allegation, the Claimants must be precise and full in explaining to the Defendant precisely why he is alleged to be in breach of an undertaking to such an extent that he deserves to be sent to prison.

I had also asked for more time to prepare my defence. The Judge was concerned about the volume of paperwork I was faced with [153 alleged breaches of the undertaking] and said that ‘there is considerable force in Mr Bennett’s request for more time to prepare his defence’.

This was resolved as follows. The Judge invited Jacob Dean [the McCanns’ barrister] to take a 5-minute adjournment to consider whether he wished to reduce his 153 alleged breaches to, say, ‘the 10 most serious breaches’. He said that if the McCanns could prove those breaches, it was unnecessary to prove the other 143. After 15 minutes, the McCanns’ legal team came back into Court and said that they would submit a new application based on ‘around 25’ of the most serious breaches. The trial will then be confined effectively to an examination of just those 25 alleged breaches. The Judge gave them until 4pm on Friday 17 February to serve this new application on me. He also suggested to Mr Dean that Carter-Ruck needed to be much more precise than they had been about the words I used that were said to be in breach of the undertaking and which term of any undertaking they were alleged to breach.

The Judge granted me until 9 March to reply to the McCanns’ revised application [the McCanns had originally asked for my response by 22 February.

The McCanns will then have the right to reply to my response. They will have to serve this on me by 5 April.

I applied for an Order that Michael Gunnill be produced as a witness and was able to inform the Judge in outline of how Mr Gunnill had obtained a ’60 Reasons’ book from me by entrapment, and how Mr Gunnill had boasted about doing this ‘on behalf of a third party’ which I believed to be the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck. I was granted permission to apply for a Witness Order against Mr Gunnill requiring to attend the trial and give evidence. I shall be doing that shortly.

I had applied for an Order that one of the McCanns make a Witness Statement to (a) state what evidence there is that Madeleine McCann was abducted and (b) to state what evidence there was, as claimed in Isabel Hudson’s Affidavit, that any of my actions had, as the McCanns claimed, ‘harmed the search for Madeleine’. These applications were refused. The Judge said that it was for the Claimants to give whatever evidence they felt was necessary to support their application to commit me to prison and that if I felt there was insufficient evidence that an abduction had occurred I would have the right to make submissions about this in my closing speech at the trial.

I applied for the McCanns to produce certified English translations of the two judgments against them in the Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011).

The Judge refused, after asking the McCanns’ barrister if Dr Amaral’s book was now freely available in Portugal, to which of course he agreed. He said that if I considered these relevant, I should produce these myself. One of my supporters at the hearing kindly volunteered afterwards to see if she could obtain these for me.

The trial is scheduled for 2 days, any time on or after 17 April 2012.

In conclusion, I would like to thank each and every one of the eight people who kindly troubled to attend court to support me, and it was a pleasure to buy them all lunch at the Dulcis Cafe afterwards.

2. The resignation of Tony Bennett as Secretary and from the Madeleine Foundation Committee

It is with regret that on the day after the hearing Tony resigned as Secretary and also from the Committee of The Madeleine Foundation. Tony has authorised us to say that he feels that, given the pressures he is under of having to fight a contempt of court action on his own, which could lead to his imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, he must disengage from the Madeleine Foundation which he set up over 4 years ago.

On Monday 6 February he saw two Doctors at his practice about a recent deterioration in his asthma condition. At that consultation, his blood pressure was significantly raised for the first time ever in his life. Given an extremely stressful 2-day trial ahead of him, and a huge amount of preparation he has ahead of him, he has to focus on defending himself. We would all like to emphasise that the work of the Madeleine Foundation continues as before, subject to what we say in the next section of our Newsletter.

3. The contents of The Madeleine Foundation booklets, website, and leaflets

We have seen the contents of the contempt proceedings against Tony. The following publications are alleged by the McCanns either to be a breach by Tony of his injunction, or otherwise libellous:
·    The current booklet we are selling: ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1’.
·     Our leaflet ‘Your Questions Answered About Goncalo Amaral’
·    Parts of several articles on our website
·    Tony’s recital on a video placed on YouTube of him reading out the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer when questioned by the Portuguese police on 7 September 2007.

The ‘50 Facts’ leaflet published by the Madeleine McCann Research Group is also viewed by the McCanns as libellous.

In August, when Tony was notified by the McCanns that they objected to part or all of the contents of 12 of our articles, we removed these immediately, whilst not conceding that any of them were libellous. Our articles consist of facts with a degree of what we say is fair comment on a matter clearly in the public interest (which is a defence to claims of libel). It will be prudent for us to await the outcome of Tony’s committal to prison trial until we know how the court views the published material which the McCanns say libels them or is a breach of Tony’s undertaking. It is therefore unlikely we shall publish much new material until the outcome of Tony’s  case – and, if we do, it is likely to be written with special caution.

4.  ‘Operation Grange’: The Scotland Yard Madeleine McCann Review Team and its remit

We have had no further contact with the SY Review Team, which has been in the news a number of times recently. However, Tony did ask the Metropolitan Police two Freedom of Information Act queries. He did so following the publication on 4 January of the official remit of the Scotland Yard Review, which caused us great concern (see below). He received this reply:

Dear Mr Bennett,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012010000814

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 5th January 2012 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on the same date. I note you seek access to the following information:

1. On what date was the Operation Grange remit agreed?
2. Who agreed the remit?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION:  To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within Operation Grange.

DECISION:  I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

The Operation Grange remit was formally agreed in December 2011, just prior to publication on the MPS website. The remit was taken from Lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Campbell in May 2011.The remit was agreed by Commander Simon Foy who has oversight of the Homicide Command.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email or contact me on telephone number 020 7230 2372 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

James Young, SCD Information Manager

In our last letter, we wrote: “The prospects of this ‘Review’ being a truly independent, robust, enquiry into the truth, without fear or favour, as police regulations require, did not look at all good. Your Committee nevertheless took the view that, given that there is such a review, now as we know called ‘Operation Grange’, that we should co-operate with it and seek to submit relevant evidence”.

It seems as though our fears that this Review will not prove to be a robust search for the truth are being been confirmed.

Here is an extract from the published remit of the Review:

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process. The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

If Scotland Yard had used the words ‘as if the reported disappearance occurred in the UK’, we would have been content. But they have referred to the abduction as a fact. It seems, therefore, that from Prime Minister David Cameron down through the Metropolitan Police Chief and his 30 police officers working on the Review, that it has been decided in advance that the McCanns’ claim of abduction will be upheld.

5. MMRG’s ‘50 FACTS’ leaflet

We have continued to help The Madeleine McCann Research Group (MMRG) with the distribution of their leaflet entitled: “What happened to Madeleine McCann? 50 Facts about the case that the British media are not telling you”.

You can read the contents of the leaflet here:

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2011/03/50-facts-about-case-that-british-media.html

Or you can view it on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MMcCannresearchgroup

There have so far been over 8,470 views of one or more parts of the video.

6. Petition calling for a full public enquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann: latest

We continue to support the petition begun by Alan-Marc Logoa on the ‘Care2 Petitions’ site, which calls for a full public enquiry, with the power to call witnesses, into all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Nearly 100 more have signed the petition since our last newsletter and the number now stands at 972 people.  To add your name, either:
visit http://tinyurl.com/28geav9 or
visit the home page of our website: www.madeleinefoundation.og.uk – click on the Care2 Petitions icon near the top of the page. Please also tell your friends and relatives about the petition.

7. Book: ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1 sales

As we stated above, the McCanns have said in their application against Tony Bennett that they view our latest book as libellous.
We should like members and supporters to appreciate the following very significant point. Our book was published at the end of January 2011. Not until 1 December 2012 – nearly two years later – when Tony received his large cardboard box of committal papers from Carter-Ruck, did the McCanns give any indication whatsoever either to Tony or to ourselves that they consider that the book libelled them.

Moreover, within the committal papers there is nothing to indicate on what basis the McCanns claim our book to be libellous. Judge Michael Tugendhat commented on this in the hearing on Wednesday and told the McCanns that if they thought that our booklet libelled them, they would have to specify why, according to the Court rules.

Given those circumstances, we believe that in the interests of informing the public about the contents of the Portuguese Police files, we should continue to sell our booklet. But we may have to review our decision after the verdict in Tony’s trial. So we invite you to buy copies of the book while you can. You can do so direct via our website or by e-mailing us, the cost is £4.00 including postage.

8. STOP PRESS: Donations towards Tony Bennett’s legal expenses 

Some of you have kindly asked about making donations towards Tony’s legal costs and a few of you have already made donations. Your new Committee is exploring ways of setting up a fund to help Tony with his costs and we expect to make an announcement about this within the next month.

Although Tony is not legally represented, he has taken legal advice, he has had the costs of travelling to lawyers and the High Court, there are the expenses e.g. of photocopying masses of material, and moreover he intends shortly to make an application to be released from one of his undertakings which will require a court fee and another round of extensive photocopying.

If you wish to help Tony with these expenses, please do not send anything to him direct, but make a donation to The Madeleine Foundation, either via our website, or if you e-mail us we will give you an address to which to send cheques, or our bank details if you want to pay by direct transfer.

9. Contact details

Website:
www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

E-mail:
themadeleinefoundation@gmail.com

’Phone:
07503 353941 or 07786 635375