bennett in trouble again!

The SRA are not best pleased with our Tone!

The allegations against TB which were considered by the adjudicator:

1) Anthony John Stuart Bennett posted an item entitled "Song for Christmas" on the internet at 5:54pm on 7 December 2007 and further published a booklet entitled "What really happened to Madeleine McCann - 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted", which constituted acts likely to diminish the trust the public placed in Mr Bennett as a solicitor and/or the legal profession, thereby causing him to act in breach of Rule 1.06 Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007.

2) Anthony John Stuart Bennett failed to deal with the Solicitors Regulation Authority in an open and co-operative way, thereby acting in breach of Rule 20.05 Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007.



In summing up the adjudicator said:

"I consider the impact of this particular matter to be grave. The issues concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are high profile and have remained so and I consider Mr Bennett's decision not to respond properly to his professional regulator to be extremely serious. He is fortunate that I have decided today not to refer his conduct for disciplinary proceedings although I had considered that option within the course of making my decision. I do not know whether it is Mr Bennett's intention to return to practise at any stage in the future but I am satisfied that should he choose to do so, his professional regulator should have an opportunity to consider whether any condition or conditions should be attached to a practising certificate if he chose to seek one. I therefore propose to vest a discretion in that respect in addition to the sanction which I have decided to impose today"


So, if he should choose to return to his original profession, all this would count against him. In all likelihood he would be barred.

Would you like to comment bennett? Are you ashamed of the way you corrupted that beautiful classic carol now?

Aw, Bennett has so much to be ashamed of - the song, the many times he went to the police with people he alleged were harrasing him and making libelious comments about him. Who's sorry NOW, Anthony?

What a silly, silly man. A complete waste of a life.

But on the plus side........if he goes to Court over anything he'll no doubt defend himself.....

Catkins wrote:But on the plus side........if he goes to Court over anything he'll no doubt defend himself.....

......badly!

vee8 wrote:

Catkins wrote:But on the plus side........if he goes to Court over anything he'll no doubt defend himself.....

......badly!

If his previous forays into legal matters have anything to go by..........

I don't know if he'll be able to defend himself - I read somewhere that if he tries to renew his solictor's license, it will be denied. He could always get Gonc to represent him. Oops, is he a lawyer?

Any idiot can defend him/herself in court in the UK, but as a wise man once said "Any man who represents himself has a fool for a client":-

Representation


The rules and procedures governing the Court system are nothing short
of a mystery to the majority of people, no matter how many crime dramas
you watch. That is why it is always in your best interest to obtain
your own legal representation. There is nothing stopping you defending
yourself, in fact you have a right to do so if you wish, but the
situation is likely to be emotionally charged, as well as complex, and
it may be best to have someone who is not as close to the situation as
you are; someone who can guide you through it all with a clear head.

http://www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/your-rights-defendant-court.html

Ted Bundy defended himself and I don't think he even finished his law degree.

If my guess is right it´s his massive ego that will attempt to defend himself.

Yes he will probably try to defend himself, but I dont think it will help him much.
He has done wrong-he needs to accept that.

It seems he is still being presented as a solicitor as well. He must know about it as he posted a link to the article, but doesn't say anything on there about being misrepresented

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/uk-news-f29/the-death-of-lee-balkwell-accident-or-murder-t4445.htm

The death of Lee Balkwell, accident or murder?

Tony Bennett on Mon 31 Aug 2009, 2:56 am


http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/content/havering/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=newsRomford&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsromford&itemid=WeED14%20Aug%202009%2010%3A05%3A45%3A393
Les's solicitor Tony Bennett hit back at the claims, saying: "I believe this is a deliberate attempt to frustrate three outstanding experts from getting to the truth about what really happened to Lee Balkwell. These are excuses, not reasons."

Im sorry but Tony Bennett cannot be Les Balkwell's solicitor, as according the judgment from the SRA he does not hold a practising certificate.

In Britain to be a solicitor, then a person must hold a practising certificate.

Q4. Are you held out, explicitly or implicitly, as a solicitor?
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 provides as follows:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence…”

For the purpose of the Solicitors Act, to be qualified to act as a solicitor, a person must:
- have been admitted as a solicitor, and
- be on the roll, and
- hold a current practising certificate (see section 1 of the Act)

Bearing in mind the wording of section 21, whether you are being explicitly or implicitly held out as a solicitor will depend to a large extent upon your individual circumstances, but the view of Professional Ethics is as follows:

This is taken from the law society.

There is more interesting information about practising solicitors if any one is interested. Here is the link.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/PC_nonsolicitor_org.pdf

'hold a current practising certificate;

of which TB does not??? Is that right?

Vee, when was this case?

He seems to have a few of these doesn't he?

christabel wrote:Vee, when was this case?

He seems to have a few of these doesn't he?

Not sure, it was on PFA2 earlier. I'll try and find out.

MMMm the man died in 2002, the inquest was 2008.
Be very interesting to hear if TB was still being a pretendy solicitor in 2008...........WITHOUT A CURRENT LICENCE TO PRACTISE?

	Re: Mr Bennett « Reply #1864 Today at 1:57pm »
Thanks Tony, did you know that Bennett has an entry on the Solicitors from Hell website : {Link Removed due to Trojan warnings} Majic Quote: Has not had a 'Solicitors' practising certificate since 1999, thus not qualified to act as a solicitor.

Poached from 'Just a thought' forum

ooohh that's small text!
It says TB has not held a licence to practise since 1999!

Peaceful1 wrote:

	Re: Mr Bennett « Reply #1864 Today at 1:57pm »
Thanks Tony, did you know that Bennett has an entry on the Solicitors from Hell website : {Link Removed due to Trojan warnings} Majic Quote: Has not had a 'Solicitors' practising certificate since 1999, thus not qualified to act as a solicitor.

Poached from 'Just a thought' forum

Really? I wonder who put that up there?


Tuesday, 28 July 2009


Oh Dear Someone Else Thinks Bennett Is The Solicitor From Hell Too



Posted by Rosiepops at 16:07



http://justice4mccannfam.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-08-14T15%3A35%3A00%2B01%3A00&max-results=7

Fame...well he got it alright!