Page 322 - 2. 2013 New 26-05-21 No Table

56 Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Simon's case (2)
/ Page Numbers: 120,121
From: Lorraine Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 08 August 2013 11:06
To: 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: RE: Simon's case
Hi Jose
Simon does not blame you at all he knows you got a lot to do, and knows you do your job he just felt
while you were away the office did not have a cue on what to do. He just wanted a reply as to what
was going on and that was not happening. And did not in fact know that Michael Company was not
involved in his case he was thinking that Michael Company was acting for him so when you went
away, they could deal with it which they did not. Michael also has talked to Simon about this on the
phone more than once so is aware of this Simon did not like the way in which Michael talked to me or
him but the last time, he talked to Michael that was sorted over the phone. Josey, we don’t have a
problem with you at all. The problem we had was no one was able to deal with anything while you
were away and that should not be the case the office should be able to deal with things if you are not
around.
Lorraine
From: JOSEPHINE WARD [Mail To:josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 August 2013 22:10
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Simon's case
Hi Lorraine
Winchester Crown Court
This case is in the warned list for
29th August 2013.
I am still waiting for Simon to provide witnesses who can corroborate the negotiations between Simon
and the "seller". Woolwich Crown Court. The main problem in this case is that Simon is unhappy
that he is subject to an electronic curfew. As you are aware, I did not request a curfew as I knew that
this problem would arise. He was initially given a doorstep curfew, but the Judge changed this to an
electronic curfew. This is the preferable option as it is a qualifying curfew and counts half a day
towards any custodial sentence, if convicted. The Judge did state an electronic tag as the clerk
checked the tapes for what was said. The Judge is within his rights to do this as he will view this as
relieving a burden in terms of manpower from the police. I cannot challenge this as it is still a curfew.
Bail variation:
Simon has to be realistic in terms of what we can achieve here. One of my obligations as a solicitor is
to manage a client's expectations. I will of course make an application to vary Simon's bail conditions
but as I stated before I will require emails from Simon from clients requesting that he cover events
with quotes given by Simon as to how much he will charge. The smartest way to attempt to get
Simon's bail varied is to ask for certain dates as opposed to lifting the curfew altogether as the Judge
will not do this.
121
have to complete a change in financial circumstances statements for both the Woolwich case and the
Winchester case and the court will have to assess his monthly contributions for both cases. At present
he does not have to make a contribution as he is in receipt of benefits. I can only properly challenge
the evidence in this case when I receive the case papers and then make my requests for secondary
disclosure. The court would then be more amenable to an application to remove conditions of bail. I
am sorry that Simon feels that his case is not being handled properly. I sent Simon a client care letter
at the commencement of this case outlining the complaints procedure. I do not believe that Michael
was aware of the calls made by Simon to the office. I tried to deal with Simon's case personally and
usually I do. e.g. Going to Birmingham Police Station in 2012, attending home address after his
remand from Camberwell Green Magistrates Court to draft bail application. I am not sure what
happened when I was on annual leave but based on your email it appears that the complaint should be
directed against me as I am the fee earner and I am meant to supervise case workers. Michael is the
Principal of the Firm and not the fee earner on this case. The case workers knew I was contactable by