Madeleine McCann: Robert Murat, Newspapers Escape And Libel
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
ROBERT Murat has won libel actions against Sky, The Daily Express, The Sunday Express, The Daily Star, The Daily Mail, The Evening Standard, The Metro, The Daily Mirror, The News of the World, The Sun and The Scotsman.
His case against the media was due to be heard tomorrow, but he has reached a settlement out of court.
You can read a round-up of the matter here, an search for “Robert Murat” on Anorak, which has been highlighting the media campaign againt the expat for over a year.
This settlement saves the media fighting a battle they had no chance of winning and legal fees. The cost is about £50,000-a-head, which is something of a bargain.
And how have these papers responded to the news? With an apology?
THE SCOTSMAN: “Murat’s £½m damages in Madeleine case”
The Scotsman has already apologised to Mr Murat and paid his legal costs for that part of his complaint. It now feels able to report on the latest development.
The paper reminds its readers: “He is still an official suspect – or arguido – in Portugal.” But he’s no Ian Huntley.
Anorak can find no similar apology in any other organ, but if you do see one please let us know. For now the Scotsman is the only paper to take it on the chin (Surely limit damage? – Ed).
The other papers - those not involved in the matter - do report on Murat’s victory:
Robert Murat, an official suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, has settled his libel action against a number of British newspapers over claims he was involved in her disappearance.
ROY GREENSLADE: “A small price for the press to pay for irresponsible behaviour
Eleven newspapers libelled Robert Murat. Unfortunately, it will take more than a £50,000 penalty to deter them in future…
The reason for the capitulation of 11 newspapers before the case reached court are very clear. All have very expensive legal teams and were advised by their separate batteries of lawyers that they had no hope of winning. Indeed, they might well end up paying out much more in terms of legal fees and, more tentatively, might also suffer from a loss of credibility among their audiences too (not that the credibility of most of the 11 is that high anyway).
Greenslade gets a dig in early.
The facts of the matter are unarguable. Murat was libelled. Not once, but many times over. Scores of reports, and many headlines too, defamed him. Like Kate and Gerry McCann, he was often treated not as a suspect by papers but as a culprit.
How did they fall into the trap of publishing so many wild and inaccurate stories in the aftermath of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance?
Question asked, question answered:
I think there are three clear reasons. First, it happened overseas. Editors and reporters appeared to think that the overriding rule – the one based on that long-held British judicial precedent that regards everyone as innocent until proven guilty – was no longer relevant because it was a Portuguese case.
Second, the level of competition among all these newspapers meant that they outbid each other in an attempt to attract readers by printing ever more lurid allegations against the people supposedly connected to the girl’s disappearance. Many of the stories, culled from anonymous sources (and, quite possibly, no sources at all) were utterly irresponsible and, most certainly, unprovable.
Papers were also competing against 24-hour news on TV and radio. Therefore they felt under pressure to get new angles on a story which has only ever had a couple of facts: a child vanished; the police named one man as a suspect – on the thinnest of evidence; the police later named the McCanns as suspects. Everything else was speculation.
Third, and this goes to the heart of the problem, these papers have been pushing at the boundaries of the British contempt rule for years. More is published about British crime suspects in advance of their being charged (and sometimes afterwards) than was ever the case 20 years ago. Why? Because they have got away with it. In very, very rare cases only have papers suffered for breaking the rules.
Lawyers for Robert Murat, who owns a villa 150 yards from the flat where Madeleine went missing while on holiday with her family in Portugal, confirmed yesterday that he had settled his claim for defamation against at least eight papers.
A spokeswoman for Sky said the TV station was not involved in the current settlement and has not been served papers by Mr Murat’s lawyers.
Sky has reported the news.
Sky’s involvements is unclear.
A spokeswoman for Murat’s law firm, Simons Muirhead & Burton, says to one and all:
“Robert Murat is due in court for the settlement hearing at 10am on Thursday, after which it’s expected either he or his legal representative will give a statement to the press.”
Stay tuned…
Posted: 16th, July 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, TV & Radio, Tabloids Comments (248) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on British Law Elevates Climate Change Belief To Same Status As Relgion
- Clive on Judge Rules Transexual Burglar Has Rotten Life And Must Remain Free
- June on British Law Elevates Climate Change Belief To Same Status As Relgion
- yampster on British Law Elevates Climate Change Belief To Same Status As Relgion
- dairy on Katie Price And Peter Andre Burnt At The Stake, In Pictures
July 16th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
There is a new thread . . . .
July 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Monday will be the end of the Tapas Cup.
Madeleine lost it, 0 x 7.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
“It may well be true, but we can’t comment because we haven’t heard. We’re not going to prejudice anything.”
An other pathetic distortion of news and more lies….Esay to say “we are not to prejudice anything
What about the endless spins,sightings,denial,refusal to go for the reconstruction et…etc…??
and then….
“When questioned by the journalists about what solution will be announced concerning the “Maddie case”, the Attorney General refused to anticipate an answer, merely saying that it will be “the one that will be read out to you”.
THIS is not quiet the same as in the telegraph article is it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2304526/Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-could-be-cleared-on-Monday.html
July 16th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
238 chenier
wow
you are very posh and very smart
if you “really” are a woman i’d like to meet you
i’m a arse man but quite nice
i could play a tune for you at breakfast
i did exactly that in plymouth about a month ago
some canadians thought it was stanard b and b
such fun
July 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
evenin’ all
well done mr murat
half a mill
and no having to resort to 70 grand pinkie-shirts
excellent sport
go fuckk the mccons
wonderful fffun
off ter bed - nite all
July 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Where has everyone gone on this momentous day?
July 16th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
241-remember the motto-leave no stone unturned…….and if you need to go jogging-try and look pissed off….until the cameras stop rolling anyway.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Getting to the Ascension Islands in an inflatable - Voyager mark 2 - dingy could be a bit tricky. You’ll be saying whoops more than once I should imagine!
July 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
238-so is that a yes or a no???? …….only joking-just can’t do smiley faces!
July 16th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
just in case the case is shelved on Monday and you lot have nothing to talk about any more. I will go missing-I live in the South of the UK-so the Ascension islands would be a good place to start looking.
I can’t offer you a private jet , but I have an inflatable dingy-Voyager mark 2 from Argos-that you can have full use of.
There is a sweaty running vest in the laundry basket, so if you care to wash it at 90 degrees-or on a boil wash–(bold 3-Lavender and cammomile) -I’m sure the DNA will remain intact and you won’t lose any lingering memories of moi.
I want Chenier and C&C at the crime scene-(to add drama) -preferably having drunk 23 bottles of ouzo………….and let the story commence…………
July 16th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
232
whoops Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
231-Hey Chenier I sort of see your point-but-if he was -god forbid found guilty in relation to the dissappearance-but never had anything untoward on his computer-couldn’t he keep the damages from the papers who said that he had?-or anything else that was stated that waasn’t true-say the medication-or pretending to help the police?
——————————————–
That is a truly staggering series of speculative non-sequiturs, since we don’t know the terms of the reported settlement.
Why not address it to the Mccanns, since we know the terms of their settlement?
What would be the position say, if it transpired that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 had indeed been ’swingers’ as was alleged?
Would it make a difference if they were not swingers but had indeed been responsible for the death of their daughter?
What would be the case if the Mccanns were practising paedophiles but were not responsible for the death of their child?
What would be the case if the McCanns were negligently responsible for the death of their child, but were not paedophiles?
What would be the position if they had been responsible for the deliberate murder of their child but were not paedophiles or swingers?
I’m fairly sure that the papers would ask for their money back in just about all those cases, since they were required to publish denials of those allegations.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the most insidious allegations of all are the most difficult to refute; there is no way in which a legislature can define the offence of being creepy, or prescribe a penalty for being weird.
Judges can, however, recognise very easily the situation when a journalist uses terms like creepy and weird to justify the allegation that the aforementioned creepy and weird person is obviously a child abductor.
Equally, if a journalist claims that an individual reminds them of a known murderer a Judge will not have much difficulty in grasping that the journalist hopes that people will believe that this is because the individual is a murderer.
In the end the journalists responsible have their head on the block, not because they thought Robert Murat’s behaviour was suspicious, but because they smeared the allegations all over the press.
Had they confined themselves to speaking to the police about it they could not be criticised.
But they didn’t…
Which is why they are on the losing end in the High Court tomorrow…
July 16th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
“Saul perhaps the announcement in 5 days time will be that there will be an announcement in 8 days time!”
In this case nothing would surprise me
July 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
EAW? que?
Saul perhaps the announcement in 5 days time will be that there will be an announcement in 8 days time!
July 16th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Saul, a EAW has to be carried out within 5 days…
wishful thinking…
July 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Why announce, that in 5 days there will be an announcement?
There is a reason behind this but I’m afraid I can’t work it out.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
and BTW what was yesterday’s breaking news is CM still employed by the McCanns?
July 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
231-Hey Chenier I sort of see your point-but-if he was -god forbid found guilty in relation to the dissappearance-but never had anything untoward on his computer-couldn’t he keep the damages from the papers who said that he had?-or anything else that was stated that waasn’t true-say the medication-or pretending to help the police?
July 16th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
229
Remigius Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
…In theory, Murat could remain a suspect, and also even be eventually convicted if evidence sufficient were produced, but his settlement would still stand……
————————————
No; that is not the case.
Try looking at the perjury trial of Jeffrey Archer; he was convicted of perjuring himself in his libel suit against the Star. As well as serving time for perjury he was forced to repay the libel damages he had been awarded…
July 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
The 7 Friends
“Madeleine es un ángel que enriquece no sólo a los arguidos sino también a los testigos”
Madeleine is an angel who makes rich not only the suspects but also the witnesses
http://www.esplendordelaforma.blogspot.com/
July 16th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
30 lyn
Murat didn’t “win” anything. He filed a lawsuit, and then the newspapers he filed suits against settled his claims. It isn’t a howlingly large amount, either. So yes, the court made NO FINDINGS of any kind. In theory, Murat could remain a suspect, and also even be eventually convicted if evidence sufficient were produced, but his settlement would still stand.
Trials are expensive and time-consuming, and it is likely that the newspapers’ lawyers made the decision to pay rather than go through litigation.
At least, Murat actually filed a lawsuit. I don’t think the McCanns ever did more than threaten to file. In neither case did the court make ANY findings whatsoever.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Teletext have put up two versions of this ‘breaking’ news already.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Julie, do you think there is any connection between this and yesterday’s news about Clarrie?
July 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Yes Mel, a little girl who deserved so much more than what she was dealt
July 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Julie, so true, so true. The sad thing is that when we’ve all finished mulling over what did and did not happen on Monday there will probably still be a missing girl at the centre of all this
July 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Although, you never know …… watch the nearest airport to Rothley over the weekend, there may be some visitors popping over from Portugal ….. charge them Monday morning, press conference at the same time in Portugal? Who knows? Anything is possible in this case at this stage. There are just so many unanswered questions, so much finger pointing, too many odd things …. and still one little missing girl!
July 16th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I think you are right, of course. They are not going to announce charges and then charge.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Julie/ C&C, where do you think they are going to run away too?
July 16th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
#
….. let’s give them a chance to get away while we pop over there to charge them? Not likely!
220
coolandcalm Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
‘We are going to charge the McCanns/ Robert Murat… ooops. where have they all gone?’
____________________________
…. my visions exactly
July 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Julie… I agree with you. if there were going to be charges IMO they would have to made before an annnouncement.
‘We are going to charge the McCanns/ Robert Murat… ooops. where have they all gone?’
July 16th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Julie, re 217
My “What I would like is some sort of definitive statement (within legal boundaries) of what the PJ think happened and why.” equates to your “I think they may state certain FACTS of the case…” I think you may have put if better than me. My “why” may be asking too much.
I agree with everything else you said.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
“When questioned by the journalists about what solution will be announced concerning the “Maddie case”, the Attorney General refused to anticipate an answer, merely saying that it will be “the one that will be read out to you”.”
That is a good answer…