Page 238 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

justice for their client the best they possibly can, this was not
the case throughout this case. Maybe it was due to The
Appellant not paying privately that things were never done.
After the Christmas and New Year holidays we had to keep
asking for The Appellant’s bundle we managed to get this in
the beginning of
February 2016
not long before the trail was due to start, it would also seem
the solicitors was having problems getting a barrister, The
Appellant had not seen a barrister since the full hearing at
the Magistrate’s Court, the original barrister that represented
The Appellant at the Magistrate’s hearings was on sabbatical
leave, It is also noted that the acting solicitors did not want a
meeting with The Appellant, and was mostly dealing with
The Appellants mother.
On the
19/02/2016
19th February 2016
the acting Solicitors put into the Court for a mention hearing,
The Appellant believed this was due to nondisclosure, but
the solicitors had also put an application to Break Fixture
this was dismissed by His Honour Judge Morrison, this was
3 days before the 3-day Appeal hearing was due to start. The
Court will not and does not accede to any application for
The Appellants Solicitors to come off the record or to cease
acting for The Appellant. Such an Application was
dismissed by His Honour Judge Morrison on the
19/02/2016
19th February 2016
If any attempt is made to repeat this application the Court
will require it to be made in person by the Senior Partner of
Michael Carroll & Co. This information is very important
due to what occurred on the
21/09/2016
when HHJ-PAWLAK removed solicitors from record
without The Appellant or a Senior Partner of Michael
Carroll & Co being present in Court. See date
21/09/2016
as more notes. His Honour Judge Morrison listed to be heard
on the
22/02/2016
in front of HHJ-PAWLAK due to issues raised again
regarding nondisclosure and he felt he was not the best
Judge to answer these issues. The reason the solicitors gave
to come off the record so close to the Appeal hearing was a
breakdown in communication and they also could not get a
barrister to deal with this case, this is a impart misleading,
the actual reason for them wanting to come off the record
was due to the lack of work done by solicitors acting for the
Appellant, in point of fact the case was not ready for the