UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[TheRambler]

None of this should be taken to imply guilt

Thank you Owl, that does help a bit. As I said, it doesn’t help having to view most of it through the prism of Neelu.

She has just posted another walk about video in the vicinity of the RCJ. Largely inconsequential stuff, although it amused me that she didn’t seem to comprehend or react to the group there supporting the Leicester paediatrician struck off following the death of a child. However she did Home in on someone she recognised, no doubt a “usual suspect “.

She also stated that she had ordered transcripts of her last two court appearances, so hopefully we may see them in due course and be able to draw our own conclusions; even if EWE helpfully edits them for her. In addition it appears that her trial has been set for 26 Nov.

TheRambler

[aesmith]

Why are most of her videos mirror images? It's especially weird when she films documents to prove some point or other.

[longdog]

On some (most?) phones the front camera image is set to act like a mirror so selfie-films will be flipped compared to the rear camera.

Why they do this is anybody's guess.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Why are most of her videos mirror images? It's especially weird when she films documents to prove some point or other.

It's a quirk of the phone camera mode.

As far as which court and the timing - when were the original charges brought? I suspect long before the first hearing. Also this offence is one which would affect the reputation and prospects of someone if convicted. Also, if convicted, it shows a continuous and repeated disregard for the laws concerned, which, taken with the previous sentence, you can understand why this would go to a jury trial.

[exiledscouser]

When she gets to court in Nov she almost certainly won’t have competent counsel as no competent counsel would be prepared to run a “world according to Neelu” defence.

She’ll insist the defence to what is probably and in all honesty a relatively minor benefits fraud be conflated with her wider problems and elevated to a national, international and extra-terrestrial plot of gargantuan proportions. She wants a month just for her defence.

Counsel will either be sacked at that point for pointing out the rather obvious flaws to that as a defence or he/she will declare to be professionally embarrassed, in effect withdrawing unilaterally.

So she will pitch up unrepresented with some nutcase McKenzie Friend in tow. Probably not EWE as the PTB seem to get a grip of him whenever he pitches up at court. Quite impressive actually how robust the court system seems to be - in his case at least.

So imagine you are on the jury and are suddenly plunged into the nightmarish world of talking lizards, secret societies all singularly bent on your destruction and Lord Ashtray floating above all of it. You’ll wish you’d had a nice simple burglary or GBH to deal with.

In all seriousness the court may have to take a view on whether Neelu is sufficiently competent to run her own defence.

Whatever’s next, it’s sure to be interesting!

[TheRambler]

In all seriousness the court may have to take a view on whether Neelu is sufficiently competent to run her own defence.

Whatever’s next, it’s sure to be interesting!

I really don't know what happens if the court (judge) deems a defendant incapable of conducting their own defence whilst otherwise fit to stand trial. I presume that it might be conducted i a similar manner to that where an unrepresented defendant refuses to appear in court and are tried in their absence, although in this case she would (maybe) be present.

As you say, whatever happens it will be interesting.

TheRambler

[AnOwlCalledSage]

From the case so far, the Recorder seems to be sticking to the substantive case. He's already pulled the "judge is the finder of law" angle which will see much of her ramblings ruled inadmissible, jury or not.

The irony is that I think she has a good mitigation defence. There is a £20 weekly earnings allowance on ESA. There is also an absolute requirement to declare all income. A good lawyer would benefit her greatly. She doesn't have a good lawyer. And the fact Mr Ellis has been struck off means she doesn't have a lawyer.

I need to look at English law to see whether the stupidity of a pro-se defendant can be a factor in an appeal. We don't appear to have the same requirement for providing "elbow-counsel" and I refer back to a previous post of mine - Neelu is NOT mentally ill!

[notorial dissent]

Ironically, and I say this in all seriousness, Neelu could very well have a valid case/argument but will instead will most likely/almost certainly throw it all out the window chasing after totally irrelevant fantasms having no real relation to what she needs to be doing and never get-around to actually addressing the issues she really could and should.

[longdog]

I'm not 100% sure on this but I think the £20 'other income' allowance only applies to wages not to pensions.

[Tevildo]

I really don't know what happens if the court (judge) deems a defendant incapable of conducting their own defence whilst otherwise fit to stand trial.

In English law, the leading case on fitness to plead is R v M (John) [2003] EWCA Crim 3452, which re-affirmed the criteria in R v Pritchard (1836):

It was sufficient for the defence to persuade the jury on the balance of probabilities that any one of the following things was beyond the defendant’s capability:

1. understanding the charges;
2. deciding whether to plead guilty or not;
3. exercising his right to challenge jurors;
4. instructing solicitors and counsel;
5. following the course of proceedings; and
6. giving evidence in his own defence.

So, if the accused is not fit to give evidence, they're not fit to plead. In this case, the jury will decide whether the actus reus of the offence has been committed, and, if so, the offender [NB: Not defendant! They're no longer on trial] will usually be sectioned under Section 38, or otherwise given over to the care of the mental health system.

[longdog]

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure that's really relevant. Does an insistence on making idiotic and legally groundless arguments to the court mean she's unfit to plead or just wrong?

[Tevildo]

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure that's really relevant. Does an insistence on making idiotic and legally groundless arguments to the court mean she's unfit to plead or just wrong?

It would probably come under "fitness to instruct counsel" - if the defendant isn't capable of giving rational instructions, then a finding of unfitness could be made, whether or not the defendant got round to actually giving the instructions to a lawyer. I don't know of a case where this has been an issue - unfit defendants are generally completly and utterly mad by the general standards of society.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'm not 100% sure on this but I think the £20 'other income' allowance only applies to wages not to pensions.

You are correct, which is why I said that she had mitigation but not an absolute defence. If a sincerely held belief that £20 was the threshold for 'income', then I would find it doubtful that a jury would convict.

[longdog]

I'm not 100% sure on this but I think the £20 'other income' allowance only applies to wages not to pensions.

You are correct, which is why I said that she had mitigation but not an absolute defence. If a sincerely held belief that £20 was the threshold for 'income', then I would find it doubtful that a jury would convict.

I don't think a 'sincerely held belief' would be much of a defence if the benefits claim form quite clearly says you have to declare ALL income.

This is what the current ESA1 claim form says in the introductory notes...

You may get a lower amount of benefit if you or anyone you are claiming for has:

savings over £6,000

money coming in each week. For example
– earnings from part-time work
– other benefits
– your partner’s earnings
– personal or occupational pensions.

Part 9 specifically asks about non-state pensions and there's no "You don't need to tell us about money under £xx.xx" statement or anything like it.

In any event all ESA claimants get an award letter in the spring which lists declared income and savings. It clearly says something along the lines of "If this is not correct you must tell us on pain of being prosecuted if / when we find out". This means that if you fail to declare something you should declare it's a new offence every year which explains why you-know-who is charged with multiple counts of the same offence.

[Burnaby49]

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure that's really relevant. Does to the court mean she's unfit to plead or just wrong?

That's been a source of debate in Canada ever since the Freemen started making their demented arguments in court a decade ago. It's been generally concluded that if an individual seems otherwise rational except for their idiotic legal arguments then they are assumed to be in their right minds and entitled to make whatever defense they want. Michael Millar, an individual I covered in great depth in Quatloos, exemplified this. None of his arguments in his criminal trial made any sense whatever. But, apart from his apparently sincere belief in his arguments, he acted in a sane manner.

Where "an insistence on making idiotic and legally groundless arguments" might come into play is in a case like Neelu's where her irrational activities in court mirror her activities outside of it. Then her arguments might well play a part in an overall competency assessment.

[Tevildo]

Where "an insistence on making idiotic and legally groundless arguments" might come into play is in a case like Neelu's where her irrational activities in court mirror her activities outside of it. Then her arguments might well play a part in an overall competency assessment.

Yes, in English law, the issue is capability, not willingness, to instruct counsel, and perhaps "rational" was too strong a word for me to use - "comprehensible" (in the most literal sense possible) might have been better. In any case, a psychiatric assessment is required for a finding of unfitness, which I don't think is currently on the cards in Neelu's case.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I don't think a 'sincerely held belief' would be much of a defence if the benefits claim form quite clearly says you have to declare ALL income.

Don't get me wrong. The letter of the law is strict as you suggest. I failed to declare an account with £87 in it because I'd forgotten it existed by accident when the limit for savings without penalty is £6,000 but I'm not sweating over it.

However, if you are going to tell me a jury would convict on a well argued defence that £20 a week earnings was allowable by law but failing to declare a £14.41 pension a week showed major criminal neglect, you probably don't know British juries!

The point I was making is that Neelu is not constructing a mitigation defence. It is this that will sink her

[TheRambler]

It does appear that I have opened something of a can of worms here. The fact that she has very strongly held beliefs that are only subscribed to by a small minority does not on its own call into question her mental capacity.

The nearest I have encountered to her situation is a case I was present in court for where a Freeman refused to appear. The defendant had already been in custody on remand for a number of weeks for failing to put in an appearance on a previous court date. They had already dismissed their solicitor and indicated they would conduct their own defence. In the event they refused to recognise the authority of the court (sounds familiar) and remained ensconced in their cell. The judge then opted to continue the trial in their absence. After the jury returned their verdicts of guilty on both charges the judge moved to sentencing. At this stage he revealed that the defendant had written two letters to him that he presumed were intended to be helpful instruction on the law. The presumption was there because he found it very difficult to comprehend them in any legal sense. He then made it clear that the defendant had lead a law abiding life until he had become “eccentric” and it was that that had lead to his wayward behaviour. The eccentricity did not stop him handing down 2 terms of imprisonment.

I can see a few parallels with Neelu in that.

TheRambler

[The Seventh String]

Regarding the trial venue, if I recall correctly Neelu herself requested Crown at the initial plea, directions etc. hearing before magistrates a few weeks ago.

As for the time set aside for trial, obviously I don’t know for sure, but it might be that the judge anticipates Neelu representing herself. Which means the trial won’t only take longer for the usual reasons when someone isn’t legally representd but will also need to take into account Neelu’s particular peculiarities.

Which means that unless she’s handled sensitively by the judge with regard to any possible vulnerability she might have a route to appeal based around the trial being conducted in an unfair manner.

I don’t envy the judge their job in the slightest.

The charges themselves might sound like minor offences, but people have been imprisonned or heavily fined for similar offences before now.

[Dr. Caligari]

people have been imprisonned or heavily fined for similar offences before now.

So you don't do drawing and quartering any more?

Time to bring back the Magna Carta.