Page 354 - 2. 2013 New 26-05-21 No Table
P. 354

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
               175,
               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. If Simon persists in stating that he is not allowed to work and earn his living then
               Simon will then 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 email and did not contact me. Michael Carroll has had no
               dealings with this case. (Since returning from annual leave I have dealt with 2 complex rapes, 3 GBH
               and a police station duty to date. I did intend to call at your address this weekend, but I was on duty
               and I had to deal with a complex rape at Colindale on Sunday. This case lasted all day. I can only
               apologise for this.) If you do not believe that Michael can investigate and deal with your complaint,
   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359