Page 255 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

the legal aid had not been revoked. The Judge stated I’m
sure that you can be ready for the Appeal to go ahead by
tomorrow, the barrister stated that they have a professional
obligation to act in the best interest of the client and that
they would not have enough time in order to go over all the
bundles take instructions from the client, and instruct a
barrister within half a day, and also to check fully whether a
new legal aid application would need to be applied for. At
this the Judge stated well if you cannot be ready by
tomorrow, then The Appellant will have to act for himself,
we will not adjourn the Appeal again. It seems again The
Appellant was being put at blame for the delay in the
Appeal, but it was not due to The Appellant, The Appellant
only wanted a fair hearing and Appeal from when this
started in
2014
and from what was going on this clearly had not been. The
barrister tried his hardest to get an adjournment of the
Appeal but the Judge would not allow an adjournment, the
Judge started talking about the conditions that was imposed
by the Magistrates Court, he stated that he felt that parts was
disproportionate, but he could see nothing wrong with the
timescale of the Antisocial Behaviour Order of 5 years was.
This was not the first time the Judge had mentioned the
conditions that The Appellant was under, but this time the
Judge went further to include what sections he thought were
disproportional, to the people in the Court The Appellant,
Mr A Cordell, Miss L Cordell, and The Appellants barrister,
the only way of looking at what the Judge was stating he had
already made his mind up that he thought the conditions was
the only problem. But this was before the Appeal had even
been heard, why a Judge would state this without even
hearing the Appeal. The Judge would not allow an
adjournment and stated The Appellant could represent
himself if the barrister could not be ready by 10 0’clock the
next morning, Judge raised and left the Courtroom. The
Appellant was in such a state when we left the Courtroom,
he stated he knew the Judge would not allow the
adjournment and felt the Judge did not want him to have
representation and this is why the Judge removed his old
solicitors, he felt very let down and just wanted to go home.
The barrister called as into a side room and had to ask The
Appellant due to what the Judge has said, if they were to
change the conditions to something appropriate would The
Appellant accept it. This put further stress on The Appellant,
The Appellant knew he had done nothing wrong and had not
done what the police was saying he had done the Appellant
knew that if the disclosure had been given it would have
proven this. The police have been unwilling to give any
disclosure since this case started. The Appellant was not