Page 234 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

case, and walked out of the Court, The Appellant’s mother
said to the District Judge you can clearly see he is not well
and is not coping, which the district Judge confirmed she
could clearly see that The Appellant was not well. But
continued to ask the clerk to get The Appellant back in Court
and she also informed that if appellant re-entered the Court
room and was disruptive, she would hold him in contempt of
Court. The Appellants mother would not let The Appellant
re-entered the Court room, as she knew The Appellant was
so unwell and not coping and did not want him to be held in
contempt of Court due to his health. Because of this The
Appellant was not there to have the Antisocial Behaviour
Order served on him, and the Antisocial Behaviour Order
was served to The Appellant’s mother on his behalf. Upon
proving the case District Judge Pigot granted all the
applicants’ conditions. The applicants wanted to make this a
lifetime Antisocial Behaviour Order, which district Judge
Pigot did not allow and granted it for 5 years within the
whole of the UK. With the stipulation that it could be
reapplied for when the 5 years were concluded. She started
the 5 years from the
04/08/2015
she did not count the time The Appellant had been on the
Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order. The Appellant’s mother
and The Appellant’s barrister then asked the Judge if the
conditions of the Antisocial Behaviour Order could be
defined as there were many points of concern the Judge was
asked if The Appellant went to a Tesco or Tesco petrol
station between the hours of 10pm and 7am would he be in
breach of the conditions and subsequently arrested, the
response from District Judge Pigot was dumbfounding she
said” yes he would be arrested, taken to Court and would
have to prove he was going to get petrol I am guessing the
same could be said for food and any other non-residential
building including hospitals, police stations, restaurants,
cinemas etc. on hearing The Appellant’s mother and
barrister questioned this and said, so you think this is in
accordance with the law?” she replied to this “the conditions
are precise and plain. District Judge Pigot then left the
Courtroom with her clerk to get the memorandum of an
entry made up as soon as possible due to the lateness in the
day and the department who dealt with this would be closed,
on her return the District Judge asked why the Appellants
barrister was not in Court, The Appellants mother said that
he had left because he was not told that he needed to stay,
she handed the memorandum of an entry to The Appellants
mother and to the applicants barrister, on reviewing this the
applicants barrister said there were multiple spelling
mistakes and the dates from
2013