Sabine McNeill attended Blackfriars Crown Court yesterday morning for her first pre-trial case management hearing. She has been charged with four counts of stalking and 15 counts of violating a restraining order.
The hearing had originally been scheduled to take place at Southwark Crown Court, the site of Rupert’s trial, but was moved at the last minute to yesterday’s venue.
However, following a representation from the Crown, HHJ Hillen ruled that the case would be moved back to Southwark. He noted that the move to Blackfriars had been down to an administrative error.
The case management hearing will reconvene on Thursday, 11 January, at which time we hope to hear whether a date has been decided for Sabine’s trial.
Belinda and friends
Belinda, Jake Clarke, Mary Rooney, and an unidentified gentleman (dubbed “Swampy the Sandwich Stealer**” during Sabine and Neelu’s July 2016 trial) turned out to support Sabine yesterday.
While their behaviour was somewhat less disruptive than at the 2016 trial, we noted that “better security” was given as one of the reasons for the switch back to Southwark Crown Court.
It seems that during Sabine and Neelu’s trial, Belinda’s little group made an indelible impression on the staff at Blackfriars, who probably didn’t relish a repeat performance. In the following extremely cheerful précis of the morning’s proceedings, we expect that this is what Belinda meant by “certain types possibly feeling a tad apprehensive” about the trial continuing at Blackfriars:
SABINE & INTERNET ON TRIAL (1) Due to what was referred to by the judge as an ‘administrative error’, the first of Sabine’s pre-trial hearings at Blackfriars Crown Court this morning was adjourned and will be heard instead on Thursday morning at Southwark Crown Court. Better security at that court was one of the reasons given for the switch-over — certain types possibly feeling a tad apprehensive?? For us supporters, no problem at all hanging around from 9.30 till 12.15, only to be told that the hearing was off for today; we’d already enjoyed the opportunity for a good, long catch-up chat + exchange of useful information so were only too happy to bowl off to Pret-a-Manger up the road (where we’d celebrated Sabine’s birthday in September 2016) well ahead of the lunch-scrum for a spot of Pret’s very delicious soup (or their new elixir, hot turmeric coconut milk – recommended!) and more chat. All-in-all, a pleasant morning! We noted that the ‘other side’ headed by Officer-in-the-Case (OIC) DC Steve Martin didn’t look quite so cheerful regarding the ‘administrative error’…these types know that every minute of delay in securing their revenge is not to their advantage, in a world very rapidly waking up to the reality of the SRA form of child-abuse, being already fully cognisant of its milder form, CSA, or common-or-garden paedophilia which mostly flourishes in families. Yet all child-abuse is an abomination and not to be tolerated on this planet for one single year longer. As for the internet being on trial, which is why a presumably cyber-savvy QC name of Ms Moore has been wheeled in to put over the Crown Prosecution case against Sabine, down the line this trial and her effort will doubtless be viewed as a futile attempt to ‘shut the stable-door after the horse has bolted’- it will only highlight the futility of trying to control the internet at this belated stage! Earliest dismissal of this trial and this case, if there even is a case against Sabine which seems doubtful is way the best option, IMO.
The entire internet is on trial? This is rather exciting news. Of course, we’d be right behind any attempt to put the internet on trial, as we’re certain that any right-thinking jury would understand that with great freedom comes great responsibility, and that innocent children and families can be made to suffer when the internet is misused.
As far as DC Martin seeming less than cheerful about the administrative error, we expect that as a hard-working police officer, he would have preferred to use the extra time spent in court for actual police work, such as, you know, arresting criminals.
A suggestion for Belinda
Judging from the above, we expect that Belinda is unaware of the sub judice rule which governs the publication of matters currently under consideration of the Court, so as a courtesy we’d like to offer a friendly reminder.
From the moment when an arrest warrant is issued, or an arrest takes place, until a verdict is reached, any of the following activities constitute contempt of court and could result in a fine or imprisonment:
- Publishing details of jury deliberations;
- Filming or recording within court buildings;
- Making payments to witnesses;
- Publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
- Reporting on the defendant’s previous convictions;
- Mounting an organised campaign to influence proceedings;
- Reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
- Breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
- Anticipating the course of a trial or predicting its outcome; or
- Revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences.
Although we’re by no means legal experts, it does seem to us that Belinda is skating very close to “anticipating the course of a trial or predicting its outcome”.
And given her predilection for organising campaigns of one sort or another, we would be remiss if we did not point out to her that this sort of activity, when undertaken in aid of influencing the outcome of a trial, is frowned upon by the court.
Of course, we know that our own readers would never dream of violating any of the above rules, so we won’t bother with our now-traditional reminder.
**”Swampy the Sandwich Stealer” is a follower of Belinda’s who distinguished himself at Sabine and Neelu’s 2016 trial by accepting a butty from Belinda’s Waitrose shopping bag. He then sauntered upstairs to the court’s canteen, helped himself to a sandwich, and left without paying. We assume that he was exceedingly hungry that day.