Update: Sabine & Belinda hearing

Many thanks to an alert reader for bringing this to our attention: Sabine has finally posted an update about her and Belinda’s recent court date, in respect of excessive court costs they caused in the Melissa Laird case.

According to Sabine’s Change.org site,

Our court case was adjourned for six weeks. We were supposed to pay for the barrister that the Government hired to tell us off from acting as McKenzie Friend on behalf of Melissa Laird. She was deported from HMP Holloway to the US, even though her oral hearing had been scheduled! That dreadful case is on http://www.melissalaird.wordpress.com

Belinda McKenzie says she’s willing to go to prison to set a sign for the inappropriateness of us being financially penalised for doing pro bono work.

If nothing else, this confirms something we’ve suspected for some time: when it comes to being McKenzie friends, Sabine and Belinda don’t know their collective arse from their elbow.

Here are some comments from Sabine, written while the Laird case was under way. Note her firm grasp of procedure, and her flawless knowledge of the law:

Sabine-McKenzie friend who knows nothing

As for Belinda being willing to go to prison…well, let’s just say we find that a little hard to believe. After all, she’s made a career of getting other people to do her dirty work for her. She’s hardly likely to throw herself on her sword at this point, much as one might wish it.

Another regular reader was kind enough to point us toward the court order that sums up why Sabine and Belinda are being ‘financially penalised for doing pro bono work’:

Sabine Beinda Court Order Melissa Laird

Belinda Sabine Court Order Melissa Laird 2

Essentially, they created a massive mess, and are being required to pay the court for wasting its time. We’re really not sure why this should surprise anyone but them.

Meanwhile, though, we hope the ladies are fond of prison food.

Belinda Sabine in jail

33 thoughts on “Update: Sabine & Belinda hearing

  1. Belinda willing to go to Prison? I’ll believe it when I see it,
    The two of them make a mess and mockery of anything they try to deal with, don’t they? I pity the next person they get their grubby little hands on.
    I almost feel now, it would be my duty to warn that person away from them!
    When will that pair ever learn they are a danger to vulnerable Mothers?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oh, apparently there’s a new victim…er, client on the horizon. It’s that lady from the ‘Forced Adoption’ event last month, who was talking about losing her 6 children in the next few weeks. More to follow on this.


      • Whatever has happened in that family’s life, I am certain they deserve better help than whatever Sabine and Belinda are able to offer.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. So let me get this straight. You say you have full legal authority and you file papers etc, just like a lawyer, but when you get treated like a lawyer and they impose costs on you you’re not pleased. Sounds like you made a big cock up to me.

    I recently googled the roles and responsibilities of McKenzie Friends and from what I’ve read you aren’t supposed to do any of that stuff. You’re supposed to advise, help with paperwork and give moral support. But you’re not supposed to do the things that lawyers do.

    Someone tell me if I’m wrong. I don’t mind.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Just a pair of bloody cheap grifters causing tens of thousands of pounds more wasted court time pursuing a debt they could have paid off by now. As for Sabine’s endless quoting of things like Article 8 ‘right to family life” etc, she would be claiming this when some family man was jailed for a few murders or bank robberies.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, keep in mind that she and Sabine felt the Musas, who were proven to be extremely abusive parents, deserved to have their children with them; and they want Ricky Dearman’s children to be restored to the couple who abused and tortured them. Sabine & Belinda have some very peculiar ideas about the ‘right to family life’.


  4. Somewhat worrying that Sabine doesn’t understand that the function of a McKenzie friend is to ASSIST in court, and on no account can a McKenzie REPRESENT their client, since it is prohibited for them to ‘conduct litigation’.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Their two greatest mistakes here would appear to be firstly that they strayed outside the Family Court, where costs are almost never ordered, into the Administrative Court, which is renowned for its heavy burden of costs on the losing party. Secondly they didn’t go to the hearing; the very best way to be absolutely certain that not only will you lose, but that it will go as far against you as it possibly can. “80% of success is showing up” – Woody Allen.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. So, Sabine and Belinda drag a government department in to court, lose, then try again, and maybe again, to relitigate a decision that attracted a right of appeal anyway, and they lose, and they are upset because as the losing party they are expected to pay the winning side’s costs of defending a perfectly legal decision, and those costs were only incurred due to them bringing a hopeless case? And the reason they personally are expected to pay, rather than the woman who was deported, is probably related to it appearing that they were trying to conduct litigation. And they are surprised??

    Liked by 1 person

    • Having read the McKenzie Friends guidelines I think you are absolutely correct. If Sabine and Belinda didn’t fully understand the guidelines then they should have asked some one to clarify everything to them, or not become McKenzie Friends. I doubt they even read them though.

      The thing is, i thought Sabine and Belinda had legal advisors who help them from time to time. Surely they could have asked those advisors if there was anything which would incur costs. Unless those advisors are just as unqualified.

      I really hope the court makes an example of them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I suspect that Belinda and Sabine only became McKenzie friends as a means to insert themselves into certain court cases that they could use to promote their own very peculiar agenda, Dave. As such, their knowledge of the law, or even the regulations governing their role as MFs, is very sketchy indeed. And I hope you’re right. 🙂


    • Does it have to do with ‘satanic ritual abuse’ or ‘child-snatching’ or ‘forced adoption’? Then unlikely they’ve read it, no matter how elementary it might be to someone with legal pretensions.


      • This case refers to the test of when a court considers an action to be “unreasonable”. Wednesbury cinema was granted a licence which refused to allow those under the age of 15 into their cinema on a Sunday. There was absolutely no reason for this exclusion at all. “Wednesbury Unreasonable” is a higher standard than just plain “unreasonable”, meaning “totally hatstand”. For example, when arguing with my husband, on occasion, I tell him that he’s being “completely Wednesbury”.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. These two loonies seize on all EU court decisions as though they will trump local law (but rarely do) and at the same time subscribe to the notion of a giant plot (Jewish ? Talmudic? Freemason Illuminati ?) is unfolding that involves all the world becoming governed by one Satanic body (probably advised by either D.Icke or P.Cullinane).

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Thanks for posting this. The time is long, long, overdue for some kind of regulation of McKenzie friends or some rather greater interest in the harm they do and imposing some swift and firm sanctions. Not only are they leading desperate parents down the path of never seeing their children again but they are also wasting public money in pursuit of their fantasy crusades.

    I hope I have sympathy and compassion for the mentally ill. But when they are causing direct and serious harm, they need to be stopped.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think there are plenty of McKenzie Friends out there who do a good job and many have legal training. It’s just these two shysters giving the industry a bad name.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I fully agree. Sadly, they’re bringing others into disrepute–if you google ‘McKenzie friends’, you’ll find that Sabine and Belinda’s misadventures seem to rise to the top of the search results.


    • You’re very welcome. I think one issue with Belinda and Sabine is that they’ve been allowed to get away with their nonsense for so long with so few penalties. They’re hurting some families directly, and hurting many more by spreading their false version of family law to the desperate and vulnerable.


  9. Mckenzie friends such as Belinda and Sabine need no training and are not overseen by a regulatory authority. Court cases involving children may provide access to the actual children involved, or other children. For example, siblings or children of the friends of the vulnerable person who is being ‘assisted’ will probably regard such ‘helpers’ as heroes, and thus trust them with their children. It is precisely this kind of abuse and the opportunity to groom children hat is somewhat avoided by the various requirements of any ‘normal’ agency providing contact with the vulnerable (this includes children).

    All individuals/volunteers/mckenzie friends etc coming into contact with vulnerable client groups need to be accountable/checkable under regulations. Currently this is a big loop hole for predators.

    In the same way, single mothers with children seem to be targeted by paedophiles. Regulation in this area may be a step too far but as we have seen with Abe he should not have been able to be near children with his history of violence, (including to his own son). Perhaps some education and awareness-raising in this area is needed by govt. agencies.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I do agree that McKenzie friends ought to be subject to some sort of regulation, minimum training, etc. And I take your point about access to vulnerable children. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to claim that Belinda or Sabine would take advantage of children in that particular way, but they certainly take advantage of the desperation of families that fall under the heading of ‘hard to serve’.

      I think a great deal of what you describe would be helped by some sort of regulation of McKenzie friends as a whole, along with security checks.


  10. Pingback: Sabine: More on that pesky fine | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  11. Pingback: Sabine’s most spectacular bail breach yet | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  12. Pingback: Sabine just can’t shut up | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.