I have now received a copy of the judgement. It's 11 pages long so I will just post the highlights. It's not turned up on Bailii yet.
It does answer my previous query as to process. Yes, the Solicitor General does have to apply for permission, but that is an "Application for Permission" hearing. An "Application to Commit" hearing means that permission has already been given.
Permission to bring the application was granted on 20 February 2020 and we heard the application on 10 February 2021.
The court fleshes out EWE's assertion of health "frauds"
Ms Berry again represented herself. She applied at the outset for an adjournment because her application for permission to appeal against the order of 21 July 2020 had not been determined and she said that she had health conditions and had sustained a fall on the previous Sunday. We refused that application for the reasons given orally at the time. In brief summary, we were satisfied that the application for permission to appeal the case management order made on 21 July 2020 was not a sufficient reason to delay the hearing and there was no medical evidence supporting the suggestion that Ms Berry was unable to present her case. In fact, Ms Berry did remain in court, she did make numerous applications during the course of the hearing, and made her submissions on the committal application. The rulings made are set out in the order made on 10 February 2021 and reasons for each ruling were given orally at the hearing.
Any medical defence for adjournment was shot down by this observation:
It is appropriate to record that, initially, Ms Berry sought to interrupt Mr Eardley every time he said something with which she disagreed. Eventually she understood that Mr Eardley needed to be allowed to speak without interruption, but only after she had been (metaphorically) told to sit down (she was in fact allowed to sit or stand as she wished), necessarily firmly and loudly at one stage. Ms Berry’s initial behaviour before she settled down, and afterwards whilst making applications and submissions, did not demonstrate any inability to represent herself or otherwise indicate to the court that an adjournment on medical grounds was in fact necessary.
Then, if you need further proof that she is a moron:
We explained that if Ms Berry admitted the allegation that was likely to reduce the seriousness of any punishment that might be imposed. The allegations were then read out by the Associate and Ms Berry was asked whether she admitted or whether she did not admit the allegations. She said that she did not admit them. The hearing then proceeded.
But where are the jokes I hear you say. It was a serious matter, but you could always rely on EWE to provide levity.
Ms Berry chose not to give evidence. She had not served any evidence on which she proposed to rely in accordance with the order made on 20 February 2020.
She had sent an electronic bundle, entitled ‘draft bundle’, which appeared to encompass this application and, it appears, two other matters and largely comprised pleadings, orders, and transcripts of hearings. Ms Berry did not in fact seek to rely on any of the material in that bundle during the hearing.
She applied to call a Mr Edward Ellis to give evidence about what she described as the criminal justice system, whistleblowers being put in jail, false prosecutions and the attempts to stop a cycle of frauds. Mr Ellis is, we understand, a person who has been struck off the roll of solicitors. We did not consider that the proposed evidence would be relevant and refused permission for him to be called.
Ms Berry also applied to call counsel for the applicant and the solicitor who had conduct of the case for the applicant, so that she could cross-examine them on matters which we did not consider relevant to the application before us and permission was refused.
Ms Berry also applied to call as witnesses the current Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and a former Attorney General so that she could question them but again about matters that did not appear to us to be relevant to the application before us so permission was refused.
Towards the end of the afternoon, when Ms Berry was making submissions, she applied for an adjournment to obtain legal representation. A number of matters were referred to by her including that the hearing should be adjourned pending an appeal in matters involving her and Mr Ellis, and, principally, for the reasons in a statement written for her in court by Mr Ellis which she read out.
That statement indicated that the hearing should be adjourned for reasons connected with what Ms Berry described as an application for a “legal representation monopoly enforcement prohibition against the law authorities”. We refused that application and gave our reasons for doing so orally at the hearing.
This is only a summary of the hearing. Ms Berry made other applications which were dealt with and reasons given at the hearing on 10 February 2021. These included an application that we recuse ourselves on the grounds of bias or predetermination: no substantive reason was put forward and it appeared to be no more than a reaction by Ms Berry to the fact that other applications had been refused and, possibly, that she had been made to allow Mr Eardley to make his submissions without interruption. The application that we recuse ourselves was one of three applications made at the hearing that we considered to have been totally without merit.
The charge:
In summary, it was alleged that Ms Berry had published a post on a Facebook page in the name of Ved Chaudhari which was likely to identify the father of A and B as a witness at the trial in breach of the order of HHJ Beddoe. Secondly, it was alleged that Ms Berry permitted a post placed by a third party on the Facebook account of Ved Chaudhari which identified the father as a witness to remain on that account.
The findings:
In our judgment, the respondent’s conduct gave rise to a real risk that the administration of justice would be impeded and was sufficiently serious to amount to contempt.
We do not find that the respondent committed a contempt by permitting a post made by a third party identified as Barbara Bradbury to remain posted on the Respondent’s Facebook account.
It's an interesting finding on count two (the Barbara Bradbury post), as it hinges on the fact that Neelu didn't "Like" it and therefore:
Likelihood, even strong likelihood, is, however, not enough to satisfy the criminal standard of proof...
However, I'd suggest that all her allowing the post to remain on Facebook demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt is that she was clearly guilty of publishing material that would lead to identification, because it did.
Not sure if it is normal in judgements, but there is no mention of the sentence given, although I suspect that that is because even though dated 22nd, this is the written version of the 10th Feb hearing, whilst the sanction hearing on the 22nd will be a separate document.
