Page 244 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

and show him the document that was handed to the Judge on
that date. On entering the Court, The Appellant barrister Mr
Locke addressed the Judge and said The Appellant did not
want him to act for him, but this was not fully the case The
Appellant only wanted to be able to speak to his barrister.
The Judge informed The Appellant barrister to remain in the
Court room, the Judge asked what the case was listed for and
the prosecuting barrister addressed the Court and answered
and also handed the schedule to the barrister, they also said
to the Judge that The Appellant had been sending letters to
the Court and the prosecution myself which stated I Simon
Cordell throughout the document. This is not the case and
The Appellant did not understand their comment or what
document the prosecuting barrister was talking about. The
Judge then addressed The Appellant and asked The
Appellant did The Appellant still want the barrister to act for
The Appellant, The Appellant replied yes to the Judge that
he did want the barrister to act for him; The Appellant stated
that he only wanted time to speak to his barrister, as I had
not spoken to a barrister since the Magistrate’s hearing. The
Judge then addressed The Appellant barrister he said that
The Appellant still wanted the barrister to act for The
Appellant, The Appellant barrister agreed to this. The Judge
also stated he felt he was not the best person to be hearing
this case and passed it over to the Judge that was hearing the
Appeal. On leaving the Court room The Appellant and his
mother proceeded to go into a side room to talk with The
Appellant barrister, we explained that a letter had been
handed to the Judge on the
04/04/2016
he said he knew nothing of this letter so we handed him a
copy for him to read. Once he read this he said he knew
nothing about this and had only seen one document that kept
saying I Simon Cordell, (The Appellant have no idea what
this I Simon Cordell letter until later) The Appellant mother
proceeded to explained this is why The Appellant wanted to
talk to you before going into Court as this is part of the Non-
disclosure. The barrister explained he only knew about the
schedule to which The Appellant mother replied, the
schedule had been asked for by the Judge in addition to the
letter that had been handed in that the Judge stated could be
used as my skeleton argument, that Miss Ward was in the
Court on the
04/04/2016
and was taking notes, and knew exactly what the Judge had
asked for and said.
The Appellant mother then made a call to The Appellant
solicitor and enquired as to what the Judge had asked for on
the
04/04/2016