Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Sabine McNeill loses her appeal

Sabine McNeill in former times pleads on behalf of the 1000 children a month forced into the care system in the UK. She appears at the European parliament.

Life deteriorated for Sabine McNeill after she began campaigning on behalf of the two Hampstead Heath children taken into care that she believed had been subjected to satanic ritual abuse. Her campaign was based on the testimonies of the mother who raised the alarm and the children themselves.

In a report following a family court hearing, Mrs Justice Pauffley concluded that: `There was no satanic or other cult at which babies were murdered and children were sexually abused.`

It should be noted that family court decisions are made on the `balance of probabilities` rather than evidence provided `beyond reasonable doubt.` Given the lack of supporting evidence to substantiate the judge`s bold claims, it is difficult now to determine the truth of these matters.


"Sabine`s appeal was heard this morning by Lord Justice Leggatt, assisted by Mr Justice William Davis and HH Judge Michael C Chambers AC in court 8 which had the benefit of audio-visual equipment enabling Sabine to appear on a screen from HMP Bronzefield."

"The hearing lasted under half an hour. Defence Counsel, Tom Stevens, put down three grounds for appeal. (1) the defendant`s age and infirmity (2) her lack of previous convictions (3) her remorse for upsetting people."

"After a conference between themselves lasting less than 5 minutes the judges returned to dismiss these grounds and the appeal as totally `without merit`."

"`There has recently been an appellant in the courts aged over 100 and Sabine is only 74. Sabine is not `terminally ill` and the prison will surely adequately manage her infirmities. Sabine was already the subject of a criminal trial in 2016 and even though... a restraining order had been imposed... she had then almost immediately breached [that] and had been required to return to court, despite which, having been given `another chance` she had offended again. And, as for remorse, despite several times being advised by the police of the damage and harm she was causing to innocent families and children she had shown no remorse whatsoever. She had just `ploughed on and on`, said LJL Leggatt."

"In fact the case was the `most serious` case of stalking and harassment he and his colleagues had ever come across and Mrs Justice Cahill had been if anything `lenient` in only giving her 9 years."

See summary of case:

See criticism of Researching Reform for allowing Sabine McNeill and John Hemming to have a platform.

Also Chris Spivy and his comments about the extraordinary length of the nine year sentence.

No comments:

Post a Comment