Witness intimidation: What Neelu and Sabine’s charges mean

Over the past few weeks, we’ve had several people query us about the charges of witness intimidation which have been levelled against Neelu Berry and Sabine McNeill.

What makes these charges important? And how can the CPS make a charge of witness intimidation stick, when the case it pertains to was dismissed?

Here are the basics:

Last fall, Neelu was acquitted of her original charges of ‘vexing a priest’ and engaging in riotous behaviour.

The CPS case fell apart at least in part because two witnesses who’d been slotted to appear, failed to attend court. According to the Ham&High report,

The court heard how two witnesses due to give evidence were not present, with one withdrawing her statement because she was allegedly scared of repercussions. The other witness was abroad.

We all know that anyone who expresses their belief that RD’s children were tortured into alleging that their entire school and surrounding community were involved in a ‘death cult’ is instantly susceptible to attack by the Hoaxtead promoters.

Death threats, vandalism, stalking, poison pen letters to friends, family, and work colleagues—Hoaxteaders have done them all. For a full year, they’ve created an atmosphere of fear amongst an entire community, so it’s not surprising that anyone who might think of testifying against one of them in court would be scared of repercussions.

Witness intimidation, however, amplifies that very understandable fear a hundred-fold.

What is witness intimidation?

Simply put, witness intimidation takes place when someone who’s been accused of a crime makes a threat, direct or implied, against either the victim of that crime or a witness to it. It’s a tactic most often employed by gangs and organised crime, to ensure that their criminal activities go unimpeded. It’s also common in domestic violence situations, where an abusing spouse might threaten the victim that if they testify in court, dire consequences could ensue.

According to the CPS website, witness intimidation is relatively rare.

But when it does occur, it represents a threat to the entire British legal system. If witnesses cannot be assured of their safety when they testify in court, the entire system is placed in jeopardy. This is why it’s critical to ensure that witnesses are not identified publicly. However, the right of the witness to remain anonymous conflicts with the right of the accused to face his/her accuser in open court. Therefore, those who are accused of crimes must be informed of the identities of those who will testify against them.

This is why people who’ve been accused receive strict instructions not to contact their accusers or any potential witnesses…and for the most part, that is sufficient to keep the system working well.

It’s probably not too surprising, though, that the era of social media has created new avenues for witness intimidation—and as law enforcement agencies scramble to keep up with the implications of new technologies, certain people will take advantage of the internet’s slippery nature to circumvent the laws around intimidating witnesses.

That’s where Neelu and Sabine come in.

Last spring, following one of her many arrests (forgive us, but we kind of lost count after a while), Neelu was given a court bundle that included her bail conditions, as well as the witness statements of six people who’d been present during her harassment of parishioners and clergy at Christ Church.

One of the conditions of her bail was that this material was to remain strictly confidential.

So of course, within days the entire kit and kaboodle wound up being published on one of Sabine’s many blogs, where it’s remained freely available to any Hoaxteader who might feel like kidnapping a child or tossing a rock through a window.

Sabine-Whistleblower Kids blog-2016-02-06 at 9.05.52 PMThe sad fact is that if the original witnesses had felt able to testify, and Neelu had been convicted of ‘vexing a priest’ and riotous behaviour at the church, she’d have likely received a light rap on the knuckles, and that would have been the end of it.

As it is, though, it looks very much as though she and Sabine conspired to put this material up on Sabine’s blog, which means that while the original charge came to nothing, the much more serious charge of witness intimidation may very well prove her (and Sabine’s) undoing.

As we noted yesterday, Sabine is now being required to enter a plea in Crown court on 7 March. This most likely means that the case has been bumped upstairs so that if she’s found guilty, a longer sentence may be imposed. We have heard nothing yet of Neelu’s case being moved to the Crown court, but if it does, it will signal that the CPS means business this time.

Witness intimidation is no joke, and we doubt that a jury of 12 normal people who haven’t been inducted into the Hoaxtead cult will see it as a trivial matter. Stay tuned….witness

18 thoughts on “Witness intimidation: What Neelu and Sabine’s charges mean

  1. The case could have been moved to Crown Court as it was too serious to be heard in a Magistrates Court or Sabine may have had the option of having a trial by jury if it was an either or offence. It could be heard in either court.

    I would have thought with the Perverting the Course of Justice it was so serious it had to go to Crown Court but i’m not 100% certain.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Very serious but also a difficult offense to prove as intent must be proved for a conviction.

      Recall the well know Youtuber & truther idol who was recently charged with “perverting justice” over claims about a Tory Minister / MP but found Not Guilty. Sensibly he has kept his head down since presumably after a good lawyer drummed into his head that he should cease such activities.

      I feel with The Princess from Planet Zog nothing will get her to stop.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Interesting that with the rise of social media people seem to believe they can say almost anything as we discovered recently with that little conspiracy to kidnap some kids. Even if joking this is very dangerous. I’ve noticed on Facebook & Youtube many people say certain people should be killed as though that’s a reasonable thing to say & they seem oblivious to possible legal consequences.

    Would these be the same people who once wrote Poison Pen Letters? If so they have become much more brazen.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Twenty-five years ago it could have serious consequences, even though few people would get to read the letters:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Lady_of_Letters

      Irene Ruddock is a single, middle-aged woman living near Bradford and is not afraid to speak, or rather write, her mind. She frequently writes to her MP, the police, the chemist – everyone she can, to remedy the social ills she sees around her. Irene becomes suspicious of a neighbouring couple whom she suspects of neglecting their child, and tries to raise these suspicions to her doctor, who instead offers her a prescription (presumably some kind of anti-depressant or anti-psychotic medication) to help her forget her worries. Irene is eventually questioned by police after having written many abusive letters to the family, who, it emerges, were not neglecting the child but visiting him in hospital where he has just died of leukaemia. It is also revealed that Irene harassed the chemist through a series of letters (accusing his wife of being a prostitute) and finally had a court order taken out against her after a man she had accused of child molestation had a nervous breakdown. For her latest misconduct Irene receives a suspended sentence and is issued with social workers who try to help her find other interests; but she is eventually gaoled after starting a new letter-writing campaign.

      In prison, Irene makes new friends and develops a thriving social life, taking classes and gaining new skills in a secretarial course. She states that she feels truly happy and free for the first time in years, perhaps for the first time in her life.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. The case is too serious to be heard at the Magistrates level, so it was predictable that it would move up to Crown Court.

    Perverting the course of justice, perjury, witness intimidation and failing to meet a court order all attract a high penalty, because as you suggest, the justice system depends upon a high degree of integrity in the public eye. If people started seeing that a Hampstead withchfinder can get away with the things they have been doing, then everyone would see the weakness of the justice system and chaos would ensue. There is a lot more at stake than the relentless intimidation, abuse and defamation of the people of Hampstead.

    In case law a random outburst in the street against a witness in the heat of the moment in a domestic abuse case attracts jail time. There are few mitigating circumstance or defences that Sabine McNeill and Neelu Berry can use in their case either to defeat the CPS or reduce the eventual outcome if they are found guilty. They both have run up a large list of aggravating factors in their case, including breaking bail conditions, and the large scale of their postings on the internet.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Of interest is the charges document re the Bundy Ranch debacle. While a different situation there are parallels. Common Law is a theme running through both cases as is intimidation. And much was done via the internet.

    The entire Hampstead battle has been one led by an arch conspirator Abraham Cristie (why is there no EU extradition warrant out for him?) and supporters who have whipped up crowds via the internet intimidated innocent residents, accused them of vile crimes and so on. There have been campaigns to bully with threats and even calls for people to be killed. And kidnap plots ,as we know.

    Authorities have no choice other than to act against those perpetuating this lawlessness with the appropriate charges and via the courts. Those relentlessly attacked deserve as much.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2711572-Bundy-Complaint.html

    Liked by 2 people

    • Let’s not forget the campaign run by Charlotte Alton Ward. She was ‘up there’ with the worst of them, shamelessly calling for donations and plugging her Illuminati drivel. Some of her stuff warranted a nice little sentence.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You’re right, there are a lot of SovCit overlaps and parallels here. The police seem paralyzed when it comes to online stuff; this is one part of why we’re dedicated to digging for evidence. It seems the only way to help the cops keep up with the baddies.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Sabine and her imaginary book | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  6. Pingback: Belinda’s completely unbiased view of upcoming legal cases | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.