Analysis Breaking News

The neighbour’s 999 call court heard showed Claudia Webbe was under attack as ‘other woman’ phoned her and alleged harassment

‘It’s terrifying’ – defence’s case backed up by emergency call from neighbour

The transcript of a 999 call – made by Claudia Webbe’s neighbour at the same time as Webbe was supposedly harassing her partner’s girlfriend – shows the ‘terrifying’ ordeal the MP was undergoing at the time Michelle Merritt phoned her and recorded the call.

Skwawkbox revealed the existence of the recorded 999 call, presented as evidence by the defence last week during Webbe’s appeal which – to the outrage of black lawyers and other jurists – was rejected by a panel at Southwark Crown Court. But the neighbour’s words seen in full reveal how harrowing the incident was:

Umm I’ve heard her scream before but it’s been a while, don’t know if-

How long has she been screaming?

A good like ten minutes but it’s like, it’s terrifying- ­Like I can hear her going “LET GO OF ME” and like, I dunno it’s just- like she’s actually an MP, that’s why I’m just worried about- like I’ve never known them to do this I can try I-

Cos I can literally hear them, they’ve woken me up. I’m sorry.

Ok, d’you know erm any of their names?

Erm Claudia Webbe

The court heard Merritt’s recording of her call to Webbe, during which Merritt sounded calm but Webbe appeared to be fending off her partner Lester Thomas while trying to sustain a conversation in which Merritt, according to the defence, ‘gaslit’ Webbe by asking her ‘Why don’t you trust Lester?’, when Merritt was engaged in a prolonged and frequent sexual relationship with him.

Despite this – and despite accepting that Merritt had lied repeatedly about her relationship with Thomas – and the prosecution’s admission that evidence withheld by the Met Police constituted significant mitigation, the court decided to accept Merritt’s claims and reject Claudia Webbe’s evidence. The Society of Black Lawyers has condemned the ‘historic and institutional racism’ of the appeal outcome. The judge did, however, reject Merritt’s claim Webbe had threatened her physically and reduced Webbe’s sentence to little more than a speeding penalty. However, despite the fact that earlier ‘mainstream’ misreporting had led to two plots against Ms Webbe’s life, the right-wing media continued to report the ‘acid threat’ as if it had not been debunked.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. This all makes very grim reading. I feel so sorry for Claudia. She was clearly involved with a repulsive and apparently abusive individual and she responded inappropriately to provocation.
    Because she is a black female socialist she has been prosecuted by the police who withheld evidence which would have assisted her defence and pilloried by the MSM.
    Claudia need not look for support from her erstwhile colleagues in the Starmers Labour in all this. Starmer couldn’t wait to expel her and this case saved them the bother of concocting ” antisemitism” charges against her.
    The best thing for Claudia – if there is no further appeal possible – is to be the best MP Leicester East has ever had, working tirelessly in her constituency for her constituents so that come the next election she retains the seat as an independent.
    Solidarity Claudia

  2. This appeal seems unsatisfactory. I caveat that I did not watch all the hearings so I may not have all relevant information. Based on what I have seen reported material evidence was withheld by the Police which went directly to the veracity and honesty of the complaining party and main witness. The conviction at first instance was based it appeared largely on the evidence given by the complainant. The Defence, at 1st instance, were not given by the police information that would have allowed defence counsel to cross exam the main prosecution witness effectively and challenge or discredit the evidence given by that witness. That to my mind looks like an abuse of process failure that would be sufficient to render the conviction at 1st instance unsafe.

    Even if based on evidence given by the complainant at the appeal the panel felt that some of the evidence was dishonest but they could rely on other parts of this evidence the fact this evidence could not have been effectively and properly challenged at 1st instance would still be expected to render the original conviction unsafe. What they judged as reliable may have been different in the 1st instance if the defence had all the relevant information. That is an unknown.

    In fact had the defence had this information from the Police at the time of the decision to appeal the conviction to the Crown Court for a rehearing, would that have been the best course of action? Would Defence Counsel have advised that or instead a direct appeal on a point of law? The issue of the missing evidence appears to me to be crucial and a full rehearing at the Crown Court is not necessarily the most appropriate manner to challenge the 1st instance conviction once that missing evidence came to light.

    I would need to go over the case law again on these issues but I wonder if an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on a point of law might need to be the next stop? I feel so sorry for Claudia this is all so undeserved and it must be financially painful. The CoA would cost even more but Fiat justitia ruat cælum.

  3. Smartboy – “prosecuted by the police who withheld evidence which would have assisted her defence”

    There is a whole world of difference between the police intentionally hiding evidence from the defence and what currently appears to have happened here. I have seen no evidence to date that the police actually withheld evidence that they were aware of, have you?

    My understanding is that issues came to light during the first trial and that this along with Claudia’s appeal is what prompted the police to look into the relationship between Merritt and Claudia’s partner in more detail and that these enquires were what justified the as it turns out belated decision to examine Merritt’s phone. All the reports that I have seen to date indicate that Merritt’s phone was not examined for the first time by the police until after the last year’s trial and that when they discovered this evidence the police disclosed it to Claudia and/or her legal team.

    Unfortunately there is always going to be an obvious tension between fishing exercises that unnecessarily intrude into victims’ privacy and the rights of the accused. These decisions are inevitably subjective and mistakes will and have been made.but given that the ‘victims right to privacy’ is currently being written into law whether or not anyone considers that the police should have examined the ‘victims’ phone prior to the first trial is a rather mute point. I would presume that the police were in their own eyes just following their own guidelines to not intrude on the victim’s privacy unless they have a specific line of enquiry that justifies it.

    I’m not saying that the police’s (and the CPS?) initial decision not to bother examining Merritt’s phone was in the circumstances right or wrong.or justified I’m simply offering an explanation as to how and why that decision was taken and what may have influenced it.

    1. British justice…and Claudia knows what that means better than most of us.Shes better to get on with the day job and establish herself as a good solid mp that actually cares about this divided society.and the people she represents.Change is coming and thats got to be good.for all of us including Claudia webbe mp.

      1. Joseph. I agree. She seems to have quite a solid base, of her own a pretty good start. I wish her well.

      1. Quite – to ignore phone evidence when it is
        allegedly persistent “silent” phone calls which
        have been the cause of the harassment is
        either serious incompetence or blatant
        discrimination. Why have those responsible
        not been subject to a disciplinary?

        There is a piece in “Voice Online” about this
        and they suggest that Keith Vaz is trying
        to stage a comeback.

      2. I can’t see that happening but it is undeniable that for some reason Vaz was very popular with his constituents and despite all his faults managed to maintain consistently high majorities. Leicester East had for many years been regarded as one of Labour’s safest seats.
        2019-12.2%, 2017-42.8%, 2018-38.2%, 2010-29.3%, 2005-38.4%, 2001-33.1%, 1997-41.49%

      3. That may well prove to be the case but to date there is no credible evidence to support this view, have you seen any?
        It should be borne in mind that there is a considerable difference between confirming call records (that were probably obtained from the service provider anyway) and trawling through somebody’s social media messages.

    2. Steve H……Leicester police would not have missed a trick by ignoring evidence in phones,its the first port of call.Leicester police were often called on by the serious fraud office and other forces to help and are high profile amongst the police service.I
      I am sure that they are not much different now.These people are not village bobbys and would have been aware of all the evidence especially going up against a high profile mp and Barrister Claudia Webbe.I think we might need to look closer to home at the prosecution service who decide what and how…….Do you know of any bent ex Lawyers in the labour party who might have used influence?

      1. Joseph – What was Leicester Police’s involvement in this case?

    3. Therw was No Evidence to back up the serious claims
      The police would then have asked for access to phone records
      It was the Police who went on a fishing expedition and guess what ignored the what they found and still went ahead with the prosecution
      Bent as a nine bob note

      1. Doug – My understanding is that issues came to light during the first trial and that this along with Claudia’s appeal is what prompted the police to look into the relationship between Merritt and Claudia’s partner in more detail and that these enquires were what justified the as it turns out belated decision to examine Merritt’s phone. All the reports that I have seen to date indicate that Merritt’s phone was not examined for the first time by the police until after the last year’s trial and that when they discovered this evidence the police disclosed it to Claudia and/or her legal team.
        Have you seen any credible evidence to the contrary, if so could you please post the link so that we can all see it.

    4. As I stated my conclusions were based on the information I had and that could be incorrect. The issue of disclosure is governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA).

      CIPA 1996 s.3 Initial duty of prosecutor to disclose.
      (1) The prosecutor must—
      (a) disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused, or
      (b) give to the accused a written statement that there is no material of a description mentioned in paragraph (a).

      Essentially this means that 2 types of evidence must be disclosed to the Defence:
      1. The prosecution case. The material which the prosecution intend to rely upon to prove the case at trial.
      2. The ‘unused material’. Any material which the prosecution do not rely upon is the ‘unused material’. Where this may
      support the defence case or undermine the prosecution case, there is a duty to disclose it to the defence.

      This is on ongoing duty. Section 7A CPIA imposes a duty on the prosecution ‘to keep under review the question whether at any given time (and, in particular, following the giving of a defence statement) there is prosecution material which (a) might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused, and (b) has not been disclosed to the accused.

      The duty of disclosure/review means that ‘unused material’ which may assist the defence/undermine the prosecution case must be disclosed, even if this material only comes to light at a late stage, such as during the trial itself.

      If the phone material was in the control of the Police or came into their possession during the 1st instance Trial at the time of the 1st instance Trial the duty of disclosure would apply. Exactly when it was obtained is not known. You assert it was not known at the time of the 1st Trial but do not reference any evidence to support that contention.

      Two issues do appear to arise. Under CIPA 1996 s.3(1)(b) a duty exists for the Prosecution to ‘give to the accused a written statement that there is no material of this type’. Was such a statement given to Claudia prior to the 1st Trial? When? Was it factually correct at that time it was given?

      This website reported on 25/05/2022 that “Merritt claimed she had informed police about her sexual relationship with Thomas, in a telephone call some time after she had signed a witness statement saying they were just friends.” If this were a statement signed by Merritt prior to the 1st Trial and the phone call was also prior to the 1st Trial that has the character of relevant ‘unused material’ that was not disclosed. If the phone call was prior to the 1st Trial and the written statement was submitted to the Court as part of the Prosecution evidence then it might amount to perjury and the Police Officers who knew of the sexual relationship but did not prevent the written statement being submitted arguably have suborned perjury.

      Perjury Act 1911

      1 Perjury.
      (1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement
      material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury,…

      Exactly what was said by Merritt at the 1st instance Trial is crucial but if for example she were asked, in cross, about a relationship and denied it, or in evidence in chief stated that there was no relationship, at a time when she had direct knowledge that such a relationship existed and therefore her evidence was untrue that looks to me like perjury. Is a conviction based largely or wholly on testimony from a witness who perjured themselves safe?

      Obviously the crucial fact is when exactly did Merritt inform the Police of her sexual relationship with Lester Thomas? In what form? oral, or a written statement? When did the Police access the phone records? I have not been able to clarify this from news sources, if you have a link please post it.

      Considering that the phone information and the admission by Merritt that a sexual relationship existed are clearly ‘unused material’ and a duty to disclose did exist under CPIA 1996 in regard to this proceeding there isn’t actually a distinction between as you wrote “the police intentionally hiding evidence from the defence and what currently appears to have happened here.” If a duty to disclose exists whether it is cock up or deliberate deception doesn’t actually matter per the question of whether the statutory duty was breached. It may be relevant on the question of if the CPIA 1996 was breached what is the consequence for the conviction. The fact it is breached does not automatically lead to a conviction being deemed unsafe and quashed.

      Regina v H [2004] UKHL 3; [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 10 House of Lords:

      “Fairness ordinarily requires that any material held by the prosecution which weakens its case or strengthens that of the defendant, if not relied on as part of its formal case against the defendant, should be disclosed to the defence. Bitter experience has shown that miscarriages of justice may occur where such material is withheld from disclosure. The golden rule is that full disclosure of such material should be made.”

  4. Joseph – What was Leicester Police’s involvement in this case?

    The same as your “mute point”, you fucking pedant.

  5. I just get the feeling that even if Left Wing Claudia had been exonerated 100% Right Wing Labour would not have allowed her to be a Labour PCC again?
    By the way re the up and coming Panorama AS case.
    There was some brilliant information on the Jewish Dissident website on this which was posted just after the original programme.

  6. Anyway, teachers have called for free school meals for kids of all parents on UC.

    …And once again, not a bastard peep from keef….Who’ll wait to see if it DOES get implemented; them try to claim the credit for it like the utter lowlife did with young rashford’s campaign.

    1. Toffee, how low and vile can a person get? I used to be astonished by the shite he came out with but now, the more right, the more likudist it doesn’t phase me. Oh good grief, just hit me. Classwar just doesn’t bloody stop. All around, everywhere but so few know what’s going on. Heartbreaking. Cheers

  7. Toffee, how low and vile can a person get?

    Well in fairness, it was reported on ch4 news earlier that keefs’ been given a questionnaire from Durham plod over that beer & curry (illegal) gathering, so I suppose he’s got his hands full

    But on the subject of how low and vile he can get…I can see him dealing with his dilemma while filling it in, now ..


    “Oh, that’s an easy one to begin with…Keef


    “Shit!! What does this mean? Oh, I know – dob in Rayner and the others…

    One horrible, horrible rodent, that.

  8. I see they only gained 100-pdd seats at the most recent council elections…Proportionately FAR less than the libtards & greens.

    Despite their polling lead them, too. And despite only being up against THE most corrupt and incompetent toerag government in history.

    Christ, but you’re one monotonously mind-numbing twott.

    Nothing to say about keef’s overt lack of concern for hungry children and the poorest families, demonstrated by his reticence?

    Beneath contempt.

    1. Toffee – You can try and spin it all you want but the polling figures I have quoted “would translate to a 24-seat majority for Labour at a General Election, based on current and possible new constituency boundaries, according to polling aggregator Electoral Calculus.”

      1. ps:- I’m struggling to see your point, or are you just ranting to distract. The latest Local Election results are considerably better than anything Jeremy Corbyn ever managed to achieve whilst he was in office.

        Corbyn – 2016
        Number of Council Seats +/- = -18
        Labour controlled Councils +/- = no overall change

        Corbyn – 2017
        Number of Council Seats +/- = -382
        Labour controlled Councils +/- = -7

        Corbyn – 2018
        Number of Council Seats +/- = +79
        Labour controlled Councils +/- = no overall change

        Corbyn – 2019
        Number of Council Seats +/- = -84
        Labour controlled Councils +/- = -6
        (Labour lost 60 parliamentary seats in the same year)

        (there were no elections in 2020 because of Covid-19 restrictions)

        Starmer – 2021
        Number of Council Seats +/- = -327
        Labour controlled Councils +/- = -8

        Starmer – 2022
        Number of Council Seats +/- = +108
        Labour controlled Councils +/- = +5

  9. As I’ve already said.

    You’re beyond boring. You’d bore a zombie back into its grave ffs.

    Ok I’ll bite… Let’s dissect your smarmer figures ONLY (As provided by you)

    Starmer – 2021
    Number of Council Seats +/- = -327
    Labour controlled Councils +/- = -8

    Starmer – 2022
    Number of Council Seats +/- = +108
    Labour controlled Councils +/- = +5

    Council seats
    LOST = 219

    Councils controlled
    LOST = 3

    And don’t even entertain the idea of reverting to your usual “But Corbyn..” bollocks

    Irrefutable proof that smarmer isn’t anywhere near popular enough to bring about a smarmerist labour victory.

    No ifs, no buts, no equivocation. The fucking state of you – pontificating to ME about spinning

    Now hurry up and fucking croak, you insufferable imbecile.

    1. Toffee – The figures are already there for all to see.
      Corbyn’s worst result was worse than Starmer’s worst and Starmer’s best result was better than Corbyn’s best. Whist both these sets of results are nothing to write home about it is encouraging that since the end of last year Labour have been consistently ahead in the polls (instead of being consistently behind) plus the latest poll predicts that Labour would be returned with a majority of 24 if there was a general election.

      Corbyn lost 405 council seats and also lost the control of 13 councils.
      Or to put it another way (compared to Starmer) Corbyn lost almost double the number of Council seats and more than 4 times the number of councils.
      I’m surprised that you didn’t think to compare the local election results during Corbyn and Starmer’s respective tenures before jumping in with both feet with your nonsense. Perhaps you should reflect on that for the future.

  10. :- I’m struggling to see your point, or are you just ranting to distract.

    Oh really?

    I mention keefs’ shite showing at the locals, plus both yours & keefs’ obvious total lack of concern for hungry school kids, and YOU start banging on about Corbyn’s showing.

    ..And on doing so, only demonstrate concisely that you have no fucking idea of basic arithmetic.

    Fuck me, but you abuse the term ‘idiotic’. In most cases it’s applied as an insult; when applied to you it’s a euphemism.

    1. Ignore him. He is so obsessed that his gravestone will have “This was Corbyn’s fault” engraved on it.
      But here’s something quite outrageous that I have discovered.
      In London, there is a museum to the memory of Stepan Bandera.
      Can’t find out where it is. The house number is 200. What’s the street?
      And why is it allowed?

      1. Got it. 200 Liverpool Road N1.
        Maybe there’s a Hitler Museum in London too.

  11. The provided results confirm that neither Corbyn nor Starmer set the world alight – undoubtedly because they cling to the notion that Labour has some relevance.
    Corbyn (2016-2019) – Lost 405 seats and 13 councils
    Starmer (2021-2022) – Lost 219 seats and 3 councils

    Good luck to those who are happy to see if Starmer can do as poorly as Corbyn given a full four years to rack up the losses.

  12. The glaringly obvious difference betwixt Corbyn & smarmer’s tenures has been the opposition they’ve been up against combined with the voting patterns on the commons

    While May’s government was certainly woeful, it was nowhere near as bad as de piffle’s has been.

    Corbyn successfully opposed the government on forty-one occasions. All’s I’ve EVER heard from keef is how he ‘supports the government’…

    And then, of course, the disgraceful actions of smarmer, fatberg and the rest – PLUS the constant negative press that Corbyn had to contend with. Smarmer’s had NONE of that, and is still to resonate with the electorate.

    Nobody knows his policies (he has none) nevermind who he is.

    1. Toffee – Unfortunately a significant proportion of Labour’s traditional vote abandoned Labour for the Tories in 2019 because they had lost trust in Corbyn and his acolytes. The outcome being Boris was gifted an almost unassailable 80 seats majority. It would have been odd if Corbyn hadn’t won some votes against a government that didn’t even have a majority. However I don’t recall Corbyn winning a single vote against Johnson’s minority government, do you?

      1. Oops – That was intended as a response to your 3:50pm comment below

  13. And STILL ZERO reference to hungry school kids…All’s we get is the ad nauseam but Corbyn…. from the problem child.

    Repeating the same tired old shite day after bleedin’ day knowing full well we know it’s shite every bit as much as you do.

    Just turn it in because nobody believes you, you soul-destroying, utterly deluded, dullard.

    1. Toffee – Instead of running away from the facts give the distracting virtue signalling about school meals a rest and do the sums instead.

  14. Oh… And I don’t remember a single time keef whipped his mos to oppose the fat scruff.

    Instead, he SACKED his own MPs for refusing to ABSTAIN.

    Because like you, he’s a toerag shithouse, desperate to portray himself as non-toerag.

    Now fuck off and go and frolic them young goats you sadsack.

      1. Oh, those poor baby goats, and you did so enjoy watching them frolic.

      2. goldbach – You can attempt to take the piss all you like but what exactly are you trying to mock me for, caring for the animals that we rear for meat?

  15. As previously noted, the only utility Starmer can provide would be to stand behind a LibDem led coalition (with Greens and SNP) on a ticket of introducing PR as the first act of a new government and to hold an immediate election thereafter based on the new system. As a small party, the LibDems couldn’t renege on this and stay in power – because they would not have a mandate given their size – as Labour assuredly would. Corbyn could front up a new party (as indeed many others might) that offered the electorate a real choice and provided representation that better reflected the swathe of positions across the electorate. Endlessly arguing the ‘Corbyn good, Starmer bad’ nonsense (or the opposite) is as archaic as positing the Tories as the enemy – as with actual war, political war only benefits the powerful.

  16. I came across this salacious little detail concerning the intimacy of Merritt’s relationship with Claudia’s partner and the gifts they exchanged.
    “Mr Thomas, a advisor at Crossrail, soccer coach, and scout for Chelsea FC, purchased her a £120 intercourse toy and steadily despatched her pornography, the courtroom was informed.
    (The report was in a Polish Newspaper and it looks like it was translated into English using Google Translate but the meaning is clear)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: