Page 232 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

problems and also did not even have his own bundle which
he had never had from his solicitors we was never told by
the acting solicitors that we should have had one, but you’d
also seem there was a large amount of documents missing
from The Appellant’s bundle, when The Appellant took the
stand the Judge did asked where his bundle was, he stated he
had never been given one, and did not know he needed one,
the Judge did asked if there was a spare bundle that The
Appellant could use which there was not the Judge carried
on by allowing The Appellant to be cross-examined clearly
anyone could see The Appellant was unwell, from time to
time the Judge passed The Appellant her own bundle as you
can clearly see The Appellant because the appellant did not
know what he was being asked, the problem with this is how
is someone with learning difficulties meant to read what is
contained within the bundle, if The Appellant had had access
to his own bundle prior to the hearing with help of software
and his family he would have been able to memorise what
was in his own bundle. With the line of questioning, his
learning problems and his health this was totally
inappropriate, but was allowed by the Judge. The Appellants
barrister questioned the applicant’s barrister about the
legitimacy and the fact if every CAD being used in their
application case was linked to Progress Way and if there was
an illegal rave taking place at the same time on Crown Road.
The Appellants mother had asked The Appellants barrister to
ask this question, the reason being the acting solicitors had
not gone over the CADs although they was asked to many
times, you can clearly see although there was multiple
reductions within the applicants bundle clearly there was
CADs within the bundle that had nothing to do with the
application case. He stated every CAD related to Progress
Way and there was not an illegal rave taking place on Crown
Road, and the police also said this was the case under cross
examination, to further this the Judge then asked the same
question was every CAD linked to the applications case, and
was given the exact same answer yes. Now I show you the
freedom of information act which was obtained from Enfield
Council.
(See attached)
In point of fact there are multiple inconsistencies pertained
within the CADs within the application, timestamps also do
not match up within the CADs, there is also all the missing
CADs. Some of the intelligence reports also have been
updated with no reason as to why. There are also the
breaches of data protection within The Appellants PNC
record which are incorrect which also can be proven, also
contained within the police officer statements there are
errors which can be proven as untrue and a breach of the
data protection act and multiple inconsistencies within police