|
|
| |
|
Having navigated through security Mr Morsal and I met up
with familiar faces in the lobby along with
Grenville Green.
There we waited for Mr Bennett to arrive. We then headed
upstairs to court 14.
Mr
Morsal and I sat at the back row of the gallery – which
soon filled. People were turned away because there was
no standing room permitted. Some had travelled huge
distances to show their support, including one lady who
flew over from the Netherlands and who had kindly
brought a bunch of tulips for Mr Bennett’s wife. I
believe a couple of so-called ‘Pro McCanns’ also
attended although I’m unsure who they may have been
(except for one who we later met on Day 2). All who
attended were well behaved.
On
the morning of Day 1, Adrienne Page Q.C started the
proceedings. To me she seemed slightly quaky at first
but then I had previously formed high expectations of
how someone who charges a staggering £32,000 for advice
and two-day hearing would perform in court. That aside,
Adrienne Page Q.C picked up momentum. She delivered the
reasoning’s behind the McCann choice of bringing Tony
Bennett to court in a professional and coherent manner.
Her colleagues listened intently while periodically
scanning the public gallery.
When
Tony Bennett gave his opening statements he was told,
politely, by Mr Justice Tugendhat that some of his
offerings were not relevant to the matter in hand and
mentioned a few times that if a libel trial ensues then
he may find that he will be able to make his points
then. In my personal opinion Mr Justice Tugendhat was
being fair while working within the (restricted)
boundaries of what could and could not be permitted
within this particular hearing. But he did at least
allow Mr Bennett to have his say before intervening even
if what he had proposed were not permissible.
Court
ended at 1pm for lunch. We didn’t join Mr Bennett and
others, instead choosing to use the canteen within the
Royal Courts of Justice to save having to go through the
scanners again on re-entering the building.
The
afternoon session was when Tony Bennett came into his
own. I admit that I was quietly impressed with the way
Mr Bennett confidently, with professionalism, directed
his questions. |
| |
M*** G****** took his oath at 2.15pm.
TB = Tony Bennett
MG = M*** G******
P = Prosecution
Mr G admitted that he had used the aliases ‘Peter
Tarwin’ on 20 August and also ‘Jason Peters’ when
writing emails to Mr Bennett in an attempt to obtain the
banned booklet “60 Reasons.”
TB: Take
this through with you briefly, email from Peter
Tarwin dated 20 Aug. Is that you?
MG: It is my
Lord TB: quotes from email re Deborah Butler…..you
said keep up the good work…….was that a true
statement?
MG: that was
not a true statement my Lord
TB: reply to
email from Peter Tarwin ….Peter I don’t know who you
are but the address is incorrect and number 4 at the
bottom as Peter Tarwin on holiday until Sept and
can't reply. 5, 22nd Aug. Over the page…..item 5
from Jason Peters…to Mr Bennett new address provided
to the BBC…Keep up the good work
TB: Jason
Peters is you, is it not?
MG: it is,
yes.
TB: Quoting
from Mr G******’s email (20th August?): “Jason
Peters was entered in error… you see my name is
Peter Tarwin.” That is you.
MG: It is my
Lord
TB: email
dated 26 Aug, Dear Sec Bennett I would like to
attend the Madeleine McCann meeting - please add
details, would like to attend...” Again not you is
it and you did not intend to attend the meeting did
you?
MG I did
intend to attend the meeting, yes.
TB: no 9, email from me to others, G****** fake
email 27 August 2009….Tony reads this out……facts
again….you devised that false email address did you
not?
MG: No I did not, my Lord
TB: now 10 on page 4, this is from Mr Bennett just
for info……reads out email… re Kent police.
TB: The email purports to come from Debbie Butler
but it’s not. Did you devise that email?
MG: I did not my Lord
TB: Did you make a complaint to Kent police about
Deborah Butler?
MG: I did my Lord
TB: Do you know the outcome of the police enquiry?
MG: They told me they gave her a caution
Mr G stated that he had contacted the Sunday Express
asking if they would be interested in buying his story
regards obtaining the booklet. When Mr Bennett said that
Mr G had intended to sell his story for monetary gain,
Mr G****** agreed, admitting that he wanted to make
money from the story that Tony Bennett had sold his
booklet while under obligation to the court.
TB: A
courier arrived this morning at 8am to collect the
envelope…quotes from … admitted selling “60 Reasons”
to me…..quotes on….is that the date that the courier
came to collect the envelope?
MG: yes my Lord
TB: paragraph 16 of your affidavit…directing to
witness...Are you at page 16? So if I can just read
that out…I sent £5 in cash...quotes from that
affidavit. Are we talking about received on the 1st
or 4th February…in this posting website courier
called this morning at 8am but in the letter you are
saying Monday 1st Feb…Just asking when you received
this booklet
MG: I think it was on the Monday
P: interrupts regarding apparent discrepancy with
dates.
TB: I just want to ask him his recollection - you
say you received it on Monday 1st February and
having got it what did you then do…what was your
next action?
MG: I contacted the Sunday Express
TB: They were having a conference at 11am?
MG: Sunday Express said they’d be interested in the
story... yes
TB: Point 1 cash sent…because Mr G****** did not
want to send a cheque to Mrs Bennett.
MG: From my memory that was in one of the emails,
yes.
TB: We will see it in a moment and I said I got a
copy of the book from my mother- it was her copy –
and you say there are two further examples. What are
the two further examples?
MG: Not sure, I can’t remember now…..I think of one
selling in Wales but I don’t recall
TB: I put it to you there is no other examples
MG: I have no reason to lie
In his affidavit Mr G also states that besides the
booklet which he obtained via Mr Bennett he had also
acquired two other copies via other sources. When
questioned he replied that he had not lied about the
other two copies and that he “only needed proof of one
purchase and that I obtained from you” [Tony Bennett].
TB: You
obtained this booklet and made public with
allegations that there are two further
MG: I don’t have my paperwork with me
TB: Do you concede that it might not be true - there
are not two further examples
MG: As I said I only need proof of one purchase and
that was from you. (Denies he lied about obtaining
two other copies.)
TB: I will refer to the Affidavit in more detail...
in paragraph 4 you say that in Aug 2009 you were
commissioned by the Sunday Express to take a
picture...this was commissioned by Debbie Butler. I
received hate mail and late night calls...and a fake
website set up in my name. As confirmed in paragraph
8.... Tony Bennett was not responsible for this
website.
MG: As far as I am aware I had no involvement in
that
Mr G****** admitted that under one of his aliases:
“I was monitoring your [Tony Bennett’s] website.”
(Note: In the transcript it states '...monitor the
websites'. Mr Bennett was only on one forum at the
time. Either way, Mr G****** was monitoring a
website or websites)
Then directing his words to Mr Justice Tugendhat he
continued: “Mr Bennett seemed to be breaching his
court application” – he had no proof to offer.
TB: You then go on to say in paragraph 11 that you
continued to follow the story and it appeared that
the defendant was not honouring his undertakings –
How would you do that…what would you look for?
MG: Under one of my aliases I was using to monitor
the websites - the general conversation between
members on the forum as Tony Bennett seemed to be
ignoring his court undertaking. Mr Bennett seemed to
be breaching his court application.
TB: You threw it into your affidavit
MG: I did my Lord
(When asked, MG has no proof to offer)
TB: There is nothing that appears to be particular
…but you have put in your affidavit - paragraph 12,
I thought that the Sunday Express might be
interested in reporting it further
MG: Exactly what I did say
TB: What did you mean by it?
TB: You, Mr Bennett
TB: What me personally?
MG: yes
TB: page 3, bottom photo journalist and pitch ideas
to newspapers and paid commissions. You were
prepared to buy this booklet from me if you could
make money
MG: yes
TB: Quote - I spoke to my contacts on the Sunday
Express and then you said I emailed using fake ID’s
Exhibit MG2 refers to…on page 4 of MG2…page 385 –
386, pages 4 and 5 of exhibit. Can you look at the
email you first sent to me on 13th Jan 2010…
MG: Yes that is correct
Mr G****** also admitted on oath that he used
another alias ‘Michael Sangerte’ offering a ‘good
price’ for a copy of the booklet 'as a historical
document’. Mr Bennett asked if by stating ‘good
price’ it was to entice him, he replied “no, it
certainly wasn’t.”
TB: You sent it to me from Michael Sangerte 13th Jan
at 3.52pm…quotes from that email…
MG: Yes, I lied my Lord. That was a lie –
TB: Why urgently to be purchased
MG: It was not
TB: So you could make money
MG: yes, (MG admits he wanted to make money from the
story of TB selling his booklet while under
obligation to the court)
TB Quote – Email from ‘Michael Sangerte’: I will pay
a good price - why would you pay a good price?
MG: To purchase it from you
TB: was it to entice me?
MG: No, it certainly wasn’t.
TB: reply which is on the previous page…13th Jan
2010 at 4.19pm. Dear Mr…Then you reply 18 minutes
later from Michael Sangerte...Dear Mr
Bennett...quotes... an important book “as a
historical document” that was your claim….was that
true?
MG: No, it was not true my Lord
TB: Nine days later I sent you a further one, Dear
Mr Sangerte...please send a cheque made payable to
my mother Mrs M Bennett…quotes from. At that stage
you sent me the £5 note.
J: Would prosecution like to cross examine?
P: No
Mr G****** released 2.30pm
Interestingly Adrienne Page Q.C did not want to cross
examine M*** G******.
Carter-Ruck's lawyer and partner, Isabel Martorell, took
her oath at 2.35pm.
*Mr Bennett held up the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case
Files: Vol. 1'
Mr Justice Tungenhadt intervenes; explaining that Ms
Martorell is here as a witness and that Adrienne Page
Q.C is the one to question regards this matter.
Through further questioning it transpires that although
Ms Martorell is aware that the PJ Files have been
translated into English she apparently does not know
anything about the PJ documentation. She seemed adept at
avoiding any definitive answers, one way or the other,
to Mr Bennett’s questioning. He states that with each
question Ms Martorell keeps relating to the booklet as a
whole when the contents are found on the internet. To
clarify, he asks “what
parts are you referring to?”
Ms Martorell replies that Mr Bennett had written the
introduction to the booklet but then struggles to recall
anything else as having being written by him.
She also admits that she has not read Mr Amaral’s book “The
Truth in the Lie.”
Mr Bennett states that Ms Martorell had no sufficient
concerns after 23rd July. She agrees that there are none
except the video of Mr Bennett reading out the 48
questions which Kate McCann had refused to answer. Mr
Bennett then points out: “Yet
you [Ms
Martorell] have
brought things to the court since that date.”
In her Affidavit, Ms Martorell had said that 'Madeleine
was abducted'. After Mr Bennett had questioned her
further she admitted that she had been told this by her
clients but didn't know whether or not that was true. In
all fairness, I doubt she could say any more than that,
after all, as she rightly pointed out, the McCann couple
are the clients of Carter-Ruck. I doubt it is up to them
to believe their clients, simply to act on their behalf.
But it does at least show that this case is rather
lopsided. If the McCann version of events is unproven
then how can Mr Bennett have breached anything?
It seems inconceivable that a law firm as highly paid as
Carter-Ruck has not at least read the
PJ files. Surely they would naturally want to be
furnished with all available evidence from their
clients? Even if they had no trust in the translated
files held on Pamalam’s site
then they could have obtained the ones which the McCann
couple say they have spent X amount having translated
(professionally)? Again, if they have not read the
official PJ Files then
how can they possibly know that Mr Bennett has breached
his undertakings?
When court closed on Day 1, we later met up with Tony
Bennett and others for informal discussions. Everyone
seemed in light spirits including Mr Bennett.
Day 2
– although up bright and early we were a few minutes
late arriving at the court due to traffic delays. By the
time we arrived the gallery was already full (again) so
we were unable to gain entry. Others turned up after us
and were also turned away. While we waited outside the
court room, another person arrived. She introduced
herself as a ‘Pro’ and was hoping to meet other fellow
‘Pros’. Regardless of her personal beliefs we invited
her to join us for a tea in the canteen on the proviso
that we do not discuss the case. (Grenville carried her
case down the stairs – which I thought was a rather nice
gesture). Of course, asking someone not to discuss a
case is easier said than done. She attempted on a few
occasions to get her views heard and unfortunately
mistook my smile as a ‘snigger’. But in her defence it
must have been an awkward situation for her considering
she was sitting with us three and perhaps was looking
for any tell-tale signs of disagreement. That was the
only uncomfortable moment. I excused myself, left the
woman (I’ve omitted her name because I do not have her
permission to share) with Grenville and Mr Morsal, and
headed for the court room again, thankfully I was
squeezed in – albeit very late on in the hearing.
Mr Bennett read an extract from the book (pages 289-290)
‘madeleine’
written by Kate McCann.
Mr Justice Tugendhat stated that he will hand down his
verdict in writing within a week or so, which, in my
personal opinion, is only fair considering the
complexity of the case. I would be worried if he had
entered a verdict immediately after both sides had been
heard.
A portion of Mr G's Affidavit referencing the above:
Source: Jill
Havern Forum
Written by Tony
Bennett:
In
paragraphs 12-17 of his Affidavit, G****** explains
why he schemed to try to get a booklet from me. Here
is his account, in his own words – verbatim:
"Hav[ing] previously covered the story, I thought
that the Sunday Express might be interested in
reporting on it further, if it...turned out that the
Defendant wasn't complying with his undertakings. I
should mention that while I am a photo journalist, I
also write articles occasionally and/or pitch ideas
for articles to newspapers. If a newspaper decides
to publish an article which I've suggested, I will
be paid a commission both for the original idea and
if any photographs of mine are used to illustrate
it.
"I spoke to my contacts at the Sunday Express, who
confirmed that they would consider publishing
another articles if I could obtain a copy of the '60
Reasons' booklet from the Defendant in order to
prove that he was breaching the undertaking.
"I therefore emailed the Defendant in January 2010,
using the pseudonym 'Michael Sangerte', requesting a
copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet. Given the use of
my photograph in the original Sunday Express
article...I thought it extremely unlikely that the
Defendant would agree to sell me the '60 Reasons'
booklet if I wrote in my own name, hence my use of a
pseudonym.
"As can be seen, the Defendant was initially
reluctant to sell me the '60 Reasons' booklet
because of the undertaking he had given...However,
when I pressed the Defendant further, he confirmed
he had been able to locate a copy...
"I informed by my contact at the Sunday Express that
I had been able to obtain a copy of the '60 Reasons'
booklet from the Defendant. My contact told me the
newspaper wished to consider a possible article at
their 11am editorial conference, so they sent a
courier round to my house to collect [the] package
which I had received from the Defendant, together
with my summary for a proposed article, first thing
in the morning. I was curious to see if I could get
the Defendant to admit publicly that he had been
breaching his undertakings..."
To tidy up any myths surrounding the hearing regards Mr
G****** it should be made clear that he was not working
under instructions of the McCanns when he attempted to,
and succeeded in, obtaining “60
Reasons”
booklet.
Point number
30 of the official
judgement
it states:
What the
Defendant wrote in the letter about Mr. G****** is
accepted by the Claimants and Mr G****** himself to
be correct, except for one important point. As the
Defendant now expressly accepts, Mr G****** was not
in contact with the Claimants. He wanted the book
for the purposes of journalism and he was in touch
with a newspaper publisher.
Note:
*Mr Bennett later informed me of the following regards
the book:
'The
Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol. 1' has been openly
sold since January 2010 by 'The Madeleine
Foundation' and consists of twelve key extracts from
the published Portuguese police files. At the time
of writing this it continued to sell steadily.
The McCanns have never attempted to adjunct the book
or otherwise stop it. The contents of this book were
said by Carter-Ruck to amount to a breach of one my
undertakings and no doubt Mr Justice Tugendhat will
rule in due course on whether it was or not.
|
| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
