LATEST CARTER RUCK LETTER TO BENNETTT

Direct Email: stephen.loughrey@carter-ruck.com
Direct Fax: 02073535553
Our Ref: ATIIHlSVU13837.5

15 July 2010
And by email: ajsbennett@blinternet.com
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Mr Tony Bennett
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM170DJ

MOST URGENT
Dear Sir
Gerry and Kate McCann
Carter-Ruck
Carter- Ruck Solicitors
6 St Andrew Street
London EC4A 3AE

As you are of course aware, we act for Gerry and Kate McCann.
You will recall that on 13 November 2009 you formally undertook (amongst other things) not to repeat any allegations about our clients to the effect that they were
guilty of, or to be suspected of causing the death of Madeleine McCann; and/or of
disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to
cover up what they had done. These undertakings were enshrined by way of Court
order of 25 November 2009.

You have continued to 'campaign' on issues relating to the disappearance of our
clients' daughter, and while you have purported since then to have abided by your
undertakings, it is clear that you have on a number of occasions breached those
undertakings.

For example, it has been brought to our clients' attention that in a post entitled "A
short letter to Theresa May about her proposed re-investigation into the
disappearance of Madeleine McCann" you referred to a letter you apparently sent the
Home Secretary on 4 July 2010. This post continues to be published at the following
page:

http://iillhavern.forumotion.net/mccann-....ut-herproposed-
re-investigation-into-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-t1151. htm

The text of the letter you quote states:

"Could you please let me know in Writing whether any such re-investigation will
actively pursue the line of enquiry mentioned in the interim and final reports of the
Portuguese Police that Madeleine may have died in the McCanns' apartment and
her body hidden?"

In the post you make it clear that your intention in publishing the letter is to
encourage others to adopt it as a template so that they will send similar letters to the
Home Secretary. You then go on to state:

"Well, the letter-writing to the Home Secretary has begun, let's make the early
trickle into a mighty flow from all those who do not believe that the McCanns are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the disappearance
of Madeleine McCann. "

Your actions in respect of the so-called "Goncalo Amaral Support Project" have also
been brought to our clients' attention, in particular the so called 'Goncalo Amaral
Awareness Day" which is scheduled to take place this Saturday 17 July 2010 and your
leaflet which has been circulated by way of email and is headed:

"Your questions answered about Gonr;alo Amaral
The man who declared the McCanns suspects over the disappearance of
Madeleine"

This publication goes on to state that

"Mr Amaral stunned the world by pulling in the McCanns for questioning as
suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. Three days later, an interim
report from Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, the senior investigating officer
in the case, gave reasons for the police's belief that Madeleine had died in her
parents' apartment'

and

"In [Amaral's book, 'The Truth about a Lie], he explains why he and his team
had good grounds for believing Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment
and covered up her death. "

The rest of the piece is dedicated to defending Mr Amaral, to correcting the "many lies"
allegedly told about him in the media, and to rebutting criticism made of him generally
and in particular in connection with the investigation into the abduction of Madeleine
McCann.

There can be little doubt that, as you no doubt intended, readers of this publication will
have understood it to mean that there are indeed strong grounds to support Amaral's
suspicion that Madeleine McCann died in our clients' care and that they subsequently
conspired to cover up her death.

Similarly, our clients are aware of a posting you published at 1:03am on 12 July 2010
in which you state:

"Goncalo Amaral is a Portuguese detective who has sacrificed the rest of his
career to bring us what he sees as the truth about a missing three-year-old
British girl, Madeleine Beth McCann."

As we note above, Mr Amaral is well known for having espoused the view that
Madeleine McCann died in our clients' holiday apartment, and that our clients covered
up her death to evade any liability - this is, of course, a central thesis of his book "The
Truth about a Lie." As such, readers would again have understood this posting to
suggest that Amaral's theory is correct and that our clients did indeed conspire to
cover up the death of their daughter. This theory is, however, completely untrue and
simply does not withstand proper scrutiny.

In case you are labouring under a misunderstanding as to the law, you cannot hide
behind quotes or purported quotes from other people when publishing outrageous
slurs of our clients.

Finally, your video recording entitled "Madeleine McCann: The 48 Police Questions Kate
McCann Refused to Answer' has been brought to our clients attention. The video,
uploaded to You Tube on 13 July 2010 continues to be published at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZQOlx7WAMA&feature=player embedded
peR 1•488421.1 2

In light of the conduct to which we refer above, there can be no doubt whatsoever that
notwithstanding your undertakings, you remain intent upon continuing to allege at
every available opportunity that there are strong grounds to suspect our clients of
being responsible for the death of their daughter, and of conspiring to cover it up.

We have advised our clients that your conduct represents a number of clear breaches
of your undertaking to the court.

Our clients have exercised extraordinary restraint to date, and from the outset have
been reluctant to dignify your utterly misguided 'campaign' by engaging with you.
However, they are extremely concerned that your misconceived and deeply offensive
attacks against them are harming the search for their daughter Madeleine. Indeed
your behaviour often appears deliberately designed to do just that. As such, they
cannot and will not allow you flagrantly to continue to libel them and to continue to
breach the undertakings which you gave to the Court.

The purpose of this letter is to require your immediate confirmation:

1) that you will not republish (or authorise anyone else to republish) the leaflet to
which we refer above concerning Goncalo Amaral, and in particular that you
will not distribute (or allow others to distribute) any hard copies of the leaflet;

2) that you will remove the leaflet from your website(s), from where we
understand it can be downloaded;

3) that you will immediately remove the video referred to above from You Tube
and will undertake never to publish it again; and

4) that you will not otherwise breach the terms of the undertaking you gave,
whether by suggesting that Goncalo Amaral's widely-publicised (and entirely
baseless) suspicions about our clients are correct, or in any other way
whatsoever.

We look forward to hearing from you by no later than 4pm on 16 July 2010 and in the
meantime must expressly reserve all our clients' rights against you, and in particular
their right to bring proceedings for contempt of Court against you.

No doubt you will show this letter to your fellow members of the "Madeleine
Foundation". Should they, or indeed anyone linked to them, disseminate serious
falsehoods about our clients, we shall advise our clients to pursue those individuals
directly for appropriate legal relief.

We would urge you to seek legal advice upon this letter and in particular on the
consequences of your repeated breaches of the Court undertakings you gave.
Yours faithfully
Carter-
Ruck
peR 1-488421.1 3

Well done, CR!

I just wish they would get on with it.....................this CRETIN needs slapped down and hard !!

Brilliant letter. Just what we have all be waiting for.
He is on his way to the county jail. It still won´t stop him ranting and raving but there will be a limit to the damage he can then do. Soon enough people will be dropping him and laffin at him.

I see it as they are giving him yet another chance. It is time they were done with second, third or fourth chances, it's time the twisted pig was hauled over the coals and made to pay for his crimes.

I feel it is more of a legal indication of intent Vee. Intent meaning legal action. I feel they know he will not agree to everything.

My favourite part.

In case you are labouring under a misunderstanding as to the law, you cannot hide
behind quotes or purported quotes from other people when publishing outrageous
slurs of our clients.

How many times has he been told that? I find it hard to believe he doesnt understand this very simply point. One thing missing from the letter is that Amaral is under an injunction not to promote his thesis, as it is pending libel action. Once that libel action is finished, then it will be a very simple matter to take down anyone who has failed to remove the libellous material.

Also, I believe that CR is about to take Bennett to court. And why? He has been asked to comply with his own undertaking that he made to the court. They have given him very little time to remove the offending material, and I dont believe he is able to. It is in places that he has no control over. BUT he is still responsible for this. Secondly, he has still not complied with their requests. He acts as though it is a forum game, and he gets points for pretending to comply but not actually doing so.

I believe the next step will be court action. EVen if he was able to remove the offending material, he has shown by his actions (as stated in the letter) that he has no intention of ceasing his activities.

IMO, his goose is cooked.

rosemary wrote:I feel it is more of a legal indication of intent Vee. Intent meaning legal action. I feel they know he will not agree to everything.

These are my thoughts too Rosemary.

The letter reads to me as if Carter Ruck are just awaiting Kate and Gerry's go ahead. In the meantime they are spelling it out to Bennett ensuring he is left in no doubt of what the law is and where he is heading. Brilliant!

Tinkerbell43 wrote:

rosemary wrote:I feel it is more of a legal indication of intent Vee. Intent meaning legal action. I feel they know he will not agree to everything.

These are my thoughts too Rosemary.

The letter reads to me as if Carter Ruck are just awaiting Kate and Gerry's go ahead. In the meantime they are spelling it out to Bennett ensuring he is left in no doubt of what the law is and where he is heading. Brilliant!

Well I certanly hope so, it's long overdue!

From: Anthony Bennett
Tel: Harlow (01279) 635789 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (01279) 635789 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
e-mail: ajsbenentt@btinternet.com
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ

Carter-Ruck Wednesday 21 July 2010
Solicitors
6 St. Andrew Street
LONDON
EC4A 3AE

Your ref: Stevie Loughrey

AT/IH/SVL//13837.5


Dear Sirs

re: Your clients Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann - Your letter of 16 July

This letter follows my responses to your e-mail of 15 July by telephone from Bournemouth on Friday 16 July at 10.28am and again at 1.28pm and my e-mail to you dated 19 July (reproduced below) and timed at 7.36am.

Further actions following receipt of your letter

In addition to the actions mentioned in my previous e-mail that we have already taken in response to your letter of 15 July, we have made several further changes to the material on our website concerning Mr Gonçalo Amaral, Gonçalo Amaral Day etc. In specific response to the demands you made about our leaflet, The Madeleine Foundation has decided in addition not to distribute this leaflet any further nor print further copies of it. Several thousand copies had already been distributed in the weeks leading up to Saturday 17 July which we termed ‘Gonçalo Amaral Awareness Day’.

The claims of breaches of my undertakings given on 13 November 2009

I have carefully studied your letter.

You claim that: “We have advised our clients [the McCanns] that your conduct represented a number of clear breaches of your undertaking to the court…it is clear that on a number of occasions you have breached [your] undertaking…there can be no doubt whatsoever that notwithstanding your undertakings, you remain intent upon continuing to allege at every available opportunity that there are strong grounds to suspect our clients of being responsible for the death of their daughter, and of conspiring to cover it up”.

In support of this claim, your letter refers specifically to the following six matters only:

(1) My letter to Theresa May, Home Secretary, dated 4 July 2010, a copy of which you and your clients have clearly seen

(2) A posting on a thread on a forum now called ‘The complete mystery of Madeleine McCann’, run by a Mrs Jill Havern. The title of this forum was I understand named after your clients’ Chief Public Relations Officer, Mr Clarence Mitchell, himself referred to the disappearance of Madeleine as ‘a complete mystery’ in a Channel 4 TV interview in March this year

(3) The contents of The Madeleine Foundation’s recent leaflet: ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’, of which you claim “…readers of this publication will have understood it to mean that here are indeed strong grounds to support Amaral’s suspicions that Madeleine McCann died in our clients’ care and that they subsequently conspired to cover up her death…”

(4) An internet posting by me on a forum, said to have been made at 1.03am on 12 July which you said “…would lead readers to have understood that Amarals’ theory is correct and that our clients did indeed conspire to cover up the death of their daughter. This theory is, however, completely untrue [your underlining] and simply does not withstand proper scrutiny’. You based this on my words that “Amaral…has sacrificed the rest of his career to bring us what he sees as the truth [my underlining] about… Madeleine…”

(5) Allegedly ‘hiding behind’ quotes or purported quotes from other people ‘when publishing outrageous slurs of our clients’ (although you do not cite a single example in your letter)

(6) The video recording: ‘Madeleine McCann: The 48 Police Questions Kate McCann Refused to Answer’.

You do not give particulars of any other alleged breaches of my undertakings.

You also in the penultimate paragraph of your letter advised that any individual ‘linked to’ The Madeleine Foundation’ who ‘disseminates serious falsehoods’ about your clients places her/himself at risk of being pursued for ‘appropriate legal relief’.

On page 3 of your letter, you made four demands. I respond as follows:

Demand 1. The Madeleine Foundation has agreed not to republish ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’ nor to authorise anyone else to republish it. We shall not be making any further distribution of the leaflet.

Demand 2. The downloadable version of ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’ was removed on 18 July from The Madeleine Foundation website as a result of your request. The non-downloadable version has also been removed from our website since your letter. Other material about Gonçalo Amaral remains on our website though in view of the undertaking I gave to the court we do not on The Madeleine Foundation website link to his book nor indeed to the documentary he made, although as you must know, many other forums and blogs do so.

Demand 3. The YouTube video you refer to which went live on 13 July was removed by YouTube as you already know on 16 July. We have no plans to republish it on YouTube or elsewhere. Having said that, we do not accept that to reproduce what the Portuguese Police have themselves published as the official record of the questions they asked Dr Kate McCann can possibly be construed as ‘libellous’, especially since these have been in the public domain for almost two years and, so far as I am aware, your clients have made no challenge to date as to their authenticity. The BBC website carries exactly the same list of 48 questions that your client refused to answer; it can easily be found in its archive for 2008

Demand 4. I have endeavoured at all times to draw a distinction between the information which Mr Amaral gives in ‘The Truth About A Lie’ about his investigation and the deductions he makes from that information. For example, in explaining the ‘Gonçalo Amaral Support Project’, we wrote this: “Why is G.A.S.P. needed? ANSWER: Before giving you the details, why did we set up our new campaign on behalf of Mr Amaral? Our reasons include: The fact that without his book, A Verdade daMentira (‘The Truth About A Lie’) there is much important information [my underlining] surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann that otherwise we would not know”. To give one example, in one chapter of his book, Mr Amaral explains how your clients’ friend Jane Tanner on the afternoon of Sunday 13 May came to identify Robert Murat as the man wearing mustard chinos she said she’d seen carrying a child at around 9.15am on Thursday 3 May, the night Madeleine was reported missing. These and other facts, we say, are important to an understanding of the case, whether Mr Amaral is right, or mistaken, in his views on what really happened to Madeleine.

To give a second example, Mr Amaral explains how, when he was re-interviewed by police on 10 and 11 July 2007, Mr Murat gave a very different story about his movements from 1 to 4 May 2007 inclusive than he did when first taken in for questioning on 14 May. We are advised that there can be no ban on reasonablediscussion of these and other important facts in Mr Amaral’s book. His theory is another matter.

I am happy to repeat my undertakings given previously to the court. In particular, in the light of your e-mail, I will refrain from suggesting that Mr Amaral’s suspicions about your client may be correct, whilst at the same time we are advised that to continue reasonable discussion of the information he has provided us is not libellous.

So far as Mr Amaral is concerned, it must also be remembered that your clients’ libel action against him has not yet been heard. It could well be that the Portuguese libel court will not uphold your clients’ allegation of libel. He has just as much right to defend himself against what he sees as lies and smears against him in the British media (and to have people in Portugal, the U.K. and elsewhere support him), as your clients have a similar right to defend themselves against what they claim is libel.

In your clients’ case, they appear to have been able to call on the services of your firm with regularity. As your clients have but one wage-earner, it seems reasonably clear that your fees must be being paid from other sources, possibly unnamed benefactors (such payments would of course be liable to be declared to the Inland Revenue as income). One assumes that the donations made by the general public to the Find Madeleine Fund are not being used since we recall statements by your clients and their Chief Public Relations Officer that those donations would not be used to fund lawyers’ fees and court costs etc. Mr Amaral is in a very different and difficult financial position. There does not appear therefore to be an ‘equality of arms’ in the current libel action against Mr Amaral although this principle is now enshrined in British civil litigation. That is another reason behind our support for him.

Furthermore, the legal advice I have received is that neither myself nor anyone else can be prohibited by a libel court or otherwise from reporting on and making reasonable comment on information in the public domain, and especially so given that this information comes specifically from police sources. I give two examples. The interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, dated 10 September 2007, gives an accurate summary of the police investigation up to that point. It has been published. It can therefore be commented on, both by those who disagree with what he says, and those who agree.

Similarly, in the interlocutory hearing in your clients’ libel action in Lisbon in January 2010, the Public Ministry Prosecutor, Magalhães e Menezes, who made the decision to archive the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, was quoted by the press as saying: “The death thesis is the most likely one to explain Madeleine McCann’s disappearance”. Furthermore, Inspector Tavares de Almeida, who was actively involved in the investigation, was quoted in the same hearing as saying: “Gonçalo Amaral does not usurp the conclusions of the investigation; his conclusions come from investigation itself”.

These comments were made on oath in a court of law. They cannot easily be dismissed. The legal advice I have received is that anyone is entitled to publish these statements (as the Portuguese press and media have done) and, within reason, comment on them. Similarly, as you will appreciate, the final report of the Policia Judiciara archiving the investigation specifically left on the table the two main theories in the case: (a) that Madeleine was abducted and (b) that Madeleine died in your clients’ apartment.

This incidentally is why I and others have raised perfectly legitimate concerns with the Home Office about the statements that have been made in the press since March about your clients having meetings with the former and current Home Secretaries and their senior civil servants about a possible ‘review’ or ‘re-investigation’ into Madeleine’s disappearance. It appeared to us (we may be wrong) that your clients were seeking to persuade the Home Office to approach an as-yet unnamed British police force to carry out a re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance which would have concentrated exclusively on your clients’ assertions that Madeleine was abducted, and would not examine other possibilities.

As I have done in the YouTube video of the ‘48 Portuguese Police Questions’ which your client refused to answer, I will in any comments on the disappearance of Madeleine give due prominence to your clients’ ‘take’ on any matter. In that YouTube video, I refrained from making any comment except to ensure that, right at the beginning, your client’s position was fairly explained, i.e. your client’s right to silence, your client having relied on legal advice in refusing to answer questions, and your client believing the police were wholly wrong to place her under suspicion instead of looking for Madeleine.

The Madeleine Foundation Committee has asked me to point out that under our Constitution, our objects include: “To pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007”. The Committee plans to continue to research and analyse all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine and that includes giving due prominence to all cogent evidence that Madeleine was abducted.

I reproduce my e-mail sent on Monday (19th) below.

Yours faithfully

Anthony Bennett

That reads like a load of waffle, interspersed with his retaining the right to continue to do what he wants for as long as he wants.

"I will agree to everything you say, but will continue to find new ways of doing what I want to do, for as long as I want to, and continue to tie up precious time and resources that could be better spent looking for Madeleine. I am a selfish, stupid, stubborn old idiot, with no thought for anyone else save myself, and there's nothing you can do to stop me, as long as I keep agreeing with each of your requests."

He is an unfeeling CRETIN.........an attention seeker....

The man is a shallow coward.

If he believes everything he has done is legitimate, why is he conceding left, right and centre ?

The same sick fantasies of a deranged person (TB).

I see this letter as a clear intention to seek legal redress, they clearly advise Bennett to seek legal advice, the reason being the are going to bring an action for libel against him. he has run out of chances.

Also if I were Jill Havern, I would look at the last paragraph, heed the waring and remove anything alluding to Bennett's rantings from her forum, if she doesn't, it looks very much like they are about to commence legal proceedings against her and anyone else who insists on spreading lies about them.

They know as we all know this will not shut Bennett up, he thinks he is above the law, he thinks also that somehow he will not be prosecuted, he was warned that he would be, indeed I told him a short while back to listen out for the thud on his doormat. If Jill Havern, The Greens and SharonL etc do not heed the waring in the above letter it will their turn to receive an injunction next!

On their heads be it, and like Bennett they cannot say that they were not warned!

Regarding the second letter, Bennett's reply:

Furthermore, the legal advice I have received is that neither myself nor anyone else can be prohibited by a libel court or otherwise from reporting on and making reasonable comment on information in the public domain, and especially so given that this information comes specifically from police sources. I give two examples. The interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, dated 10 September 2007, gives an accurate summary of the police investigation up to that point. It has been published. It can therefore be commented on, both by those who disagree with what he says, and those who agree

Does he not realise that nothing this policeman has said in court is proved or can be proved ergo it is hearsay and for Bennett to repeat it outside a court is actually committing libel and the same goes for everyone connected with Bennett.

I see he has specifically mentioned this point and Jill Havern by name and today I see Bennett is at it again, making long verbose posts that he has dug up, he just does not get it, not only is he dropping the authors of these posts in ti up to their necks, he is also doing the same to himself. I know the whole lot of them is going to end up in court.
Carry on Havern, you are next, believe me you are, you must be completely insane to allow him to regurgitate all of those posts on your forum! This should be such fun to watch, I cannot wait to se the looks on their faces when at least three of them pick up the prosection on

Bennett really is a stupid thick buffoon!

Rosiepops wrote:Regarding the second letter, Bennett's reply:

Furthermore, the legal advice I have received is that neither myself nor anyone else can be prohibited by a libel court or otherwise from reporting on and making reasonable comment on information in the public domain, and especially so given that this information comes specifically from police sources. I give two examples. The interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, dated 10 September 2007, gives an accurate summary of the police investigation up to that point. It has been published. It can therefore be commented on, both by those who disagree with what he says, and those who agree

Does he not realise that nothing this policeman has said in court is proved or can be proved ergo it is hearsay and for Bennett to repeat it outside a court is actually committing libel and the same goes for everyone connected with Bennett.

I see he has specifically mentioned this point and Jill Havern by name and today I see Bennett is at it again, making long verbose posts that he has dug up, he just does not get it, not only is he dropping the authors of these posts in ti up to their necks, he is also doing the same to himself. I know the whole lot of them is going to end up in court.
Carry on Havern, you are next, believe me you are, you must be completely insane to allow him to regurgitate all of those posts on your forum! This should be such fun to watch, I cannot wait to se the looks on their faces when at least three of them pick up the prosection on

Bennett really is a stupid thick buffoon!

It's coming!

In your clients’ case, they appear to have been able to call on the services of your firm with regularity. As your clients have but one wage-earner, it seems reasonably clear that your fees must be being paid from other sources, possibly unnamed benefactors (such payments would of course be liable to be declared to the Inland Revenue as income). One assumes that the donations made by the general public to the Find Madeleine Fund are not being used since we recall statements by your clients and their Chief Public Relations Officer that those donations would not be used to fund lawyers’ fees and court costs etc.

It is of no concern to Bennett who is paying Carter Ruck. And the only person/organisation required to declare the payments as income is Carter Ruck, nothing to do with the McCanns. Arrangement would be made on the fees, and this is a private matter between the McCanns and CR.

The Find Madeleine Fund is allowed to use funds to pay for libel action against Bennett, as Bennett's actions are directly affecting the search for Madeleine. Put simply, Bennett's actions could easily be construed to be preventing Madeleine from being found. For certain, they are not helping. The aim of the fund is to search for Madeleine, so removing impediments to the search, surely comes under its guidelines. ONce again, no business of Bennett's, and completely irrelevant to the purpose of his letter.

He is showing himself up to be very very uninformed here. It is like he 'wishes' something to be a certain way, so writes these ridiculous letters as though it is a reality. Imagine writing such rubbish to a firm of solicitors. How embarassing for Bennett!!!.

Im betting that the solictor at CR dealing with this matter, laughed out loud when reading this letter.

I bet CR have never before come across such a complete jerk who has the audacity to call himself (or once call himself) a lawyer!
It is clear to anyone with even half a brain, this man bennett, knows sweet FA about the law or about what happened to Madeleine.

I bet they are just dying over the "Stevie Loughrey" bit, instead of using the man's full given adult name and not his nickname.

His name could be "Bozo the Clown", he's still a lawyer and has the legal power to sue and go after you in court.

bluj1515 wrote:I bet they are just dying over the "Stevie Loughrey" bit, instead of using the man's full given adult name and not his nickname.

His name could be "Bozo the Clown", he's still a lawyer and has the legal power to sue and go after you in court.

And he's a successful lawyer, while TB is a failed solicitor, who can't even write a coherent, short, to-the-point, factual reply.
I know whom I'd prefer to represent me if I ever needed help.

tb will need help soon from a real lawyer!
He thinks by giving out names of others involved with leaflet drops and the like, he will get off lightly.
He wont.

He might decide to represent himself and give us all a good laugh!