Neelu Court Order
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: lou lotus <email@example.com>
Date: 7 January 2016 at 19:54
Subject: Fwd: NEELU in Blackfriars Crown Court before Judge Deva Pillay Court 3 at 10am on Friday 8 Jan 2016
Dear friends and family
Please support the Hampstead silent in my attempts at countercharges against the satanic cult in these proceedings
Case Management Hearing
in Blackfriars Crown Court
before Judge Deva Pillay Court 3
at 10am on Friday 8 Jan 2016
Crown V Neelu Berry
false allegations by CPS & Police of intimidation, allegedly made by Hampstead Church satanic cult members, but witness statement is not signed by key witness (SD, who failed to turn up in lower court and told judge she would never attend), for alleged publication on internet – which is evidence of cover-up of serious crimes against babies and children see IPCC report on second link below
Southwark Underground on Jubilee line 7 min walk
Borough Underground on Northern Line 10 min walk
Look forward to seeing you
Please note although this is Blackfriars Crown Court, the nearest tube is not Blackfriars but Southwark
and it is NOT AT THE SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT – VERY CONFUSING INDEED!
Woman cleared of ‘vexing’ Hampstead priest during ‘anti-Satanic’ protest14:24 08 October 2015
A woman has been cleared of having “vexed” a priest and disrupting a Sunday service.
On March 22, she was alleged to have taken part in a protest of about 30 people outside the church, relating to disproven allegations it was home to a Satanic child abuse ring.
Just days before, these allegations were found by a High Court judge to be a “fantasy” and “nothing other than utter nonsense”.
During the protest, Ms Berry, of Peel Drive, Ilford, was alleged to have filmed the vicar, asking him “inappropriate questions” about child abuse, and causing him distress. She was also accused of having to be escorted out of the church building after allegedly banging on the doors and disrupting a Sunday service.
She was charged under the archaic Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860, a law rarely used.
Denying all charges, she appeared at Highbury Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday.
But the trial into her case collapsed and she was cleared of any wrongdoing after the prosecution failed to provide any evidence against her.
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.
Prosecutors applied to adjourn the trial but the judge refused, saying the delays to this case were already “scandalous”. The trial date had been put back earlier in the year after prior problems with witnesses.
While describing the charges as “serious”, involving something upsetting allegedly being said to a five-year-old child, Judge Jacobs noted Ms Berry had already attended court four times and had been at no fault for the delays. He added: “The fault lies at the door of the crown. Ms Berry has a right to have the matter dealt with.”
Her defence, Ms Callinan, said Ms Berry was a woman of good character and suggested this was a case of “mistaken identity”.
Describing her client as a “vulnerable defendant in terms of her health”, she added that an adjournment “would be a complete waste of public money” and that the case against her was “weak”.
Ms Berry was cleared of all charges.
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “While we were aware that two of the witnesses in this case were not available to attend the trial, we were unable to determine whether their evidence was essential to the case until we received the CCTV from the police.
“This was not received until the afternoon before the trial. Unfortunately when the CCTV was reviewed it did not provide sufficient evidence without the evidence of the two witnesses.
“On the day of trial we asked for an adjournment, however, this was refused and we had no choice but to offer no evidence. Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.”