Page 231 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

found in the emails relating to Antisocial Behaviour Order,
The Appellant’s mother asked if this could be sent over via
email to her, but was a little late to do anything about it
because the full hearing started the next day. This was
continuously happening throughout the case; the solicitors
seemed to only do anything on the case the day before
hearings or a few days was due to take place. Many emails
were sent including phone calls made to get things done,
most of the emails went not replied to for months phone
calls was not picked up, or if they were, we were told that
things would be addressed they never was. The Appellant
attended Court on the
03/08/2015
03rd August 2015
and the
04/08/2015
04th August 2015
for the full hearing of the Antisocial Behaviour Order, only
to find the stipulation and reasons he had allowed the case to
be adjourned to these dates had not been adhered to, the
presiding Judge was not District Judge Williams, its fact it
was District Judge D Pigot who would be residing over the
full hearing. Non-disclosure was again spoken about but
nothing came of this and the case went forward. We
understand this is only our opinion but we believe this Judge
had already found that she was going to prove the case
before it even started for the full Antisocial Behaviour Order
in favour of the applicants. Before the hearing started The
Appellant’s, mother informed the Judge the Appellant was
very ill and she did not think he would cope due to health
problems. She continued with the case none the less and did
not ask The Appellant’s mother to elaborate further. Later
within the hearing she would notice that there should have
been medical records for The Applicant within his bundle
was missing along with a lot of other documents, The
Appellants bundle was only around 82 pages when he should
have been around 300 pages. Continually through cross
examination by The Appellants barrister toward the police
officers, District Judge D Pigot kept interrupting and telling
the barrister he could not ask the questions he was asking
even though what he was asking corresponded with what the
police had put in their statements. The Appellant’s barrister
even commented to the Judge Pigot “I am only asking
questions pertaining to what the police have put in their
statements” also he said to the Judge “I hope you are going
to have as much due-diligence with my client on cross
examination as you are with me” to which the Judge replied
she would. This was certainly not the case and in fact the
Judge allowed The Appellant to be cross examined
extremely harshly even knowing The Appellant had health