Page 230 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

that was asked for; this went on throughout this case. Never
were we given any disclosure we asked for and the
disclosure we were asking for would prove The Appellant
did not do what the police was saying within the application.
Within this time before the full hearing was due to take place
The Appellant and his mother was constantly contacting via
phone and emails the acting solicitors, things was not being
done paperwork was not being completed meetings was
constantly being put off, we had also asked a number of
times could the solicitors please go over the CADs, and
intelligence reports that were in the application as there were
serious errors, this also was never done. This also noted
within the applications bundle there were serious breaches of
data protection within police officers statements; this was
allowed to remain within the applications bundle without
being questioned by the acting solicitors, although it was
constantly being brought up also witness statements that
were contained within the applications bundle were written
by police officers and not the witnesses themselves, we was
not allowed to call any witnesses or any other police officers
whose information was within the applications bundle we
was only allowed to have the police officers that the
application wanted us to have, we was denied any other
witnesses being called.
On the
10/03/2015
10 March 2015
this date was due to be the full Antisocial Behaviour Order
hearing but the Court had made a mistake and only listed it
for a one-day hearing. District Judge Williams sitting,
apologised for the error, and said that a part hearing could
take place, or the full hearing be adjourned to a later date so
that the full hearing could be dealt with over two days. The
Appellant was upset as he wanted this to be dealt with and
only agreed that the case be adjourned until the
03/08/2014
and the
04/08/2014
if district Judge Williams heard the case, she cleared her
diary and promised that she would be the Judge that would
preside over the case. District Judge Williams also stated
that this was the 1st time she had ever seen a case in which
the commissioner of the metropolitan police had brought an
Antisocial Behaviour Order in front of her in this way in a
civil capacity. Disclosure was asked for and this was again
never given. On the
02/08/2015
2nd August 2015
The Appellant’s mother received a phone call from Miss
Ward acting solicitors, regarding a statement she had just