Page 256 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

willing to accept having the conditions changed and
accepting the Antisocial Behaviour Order as this would have
said he was guilty; The Appellant was not willing to accept
something he knew he was not guilty of the Appellant was
so distressed all the way home, he felt he would never get
justice. Later that day The Appellant’s mother contacted the
solicitors to see if anything could be done, but due to the
Judge not allowing the adjournment the solicitors stated they
could not take the case on and could not attend Court the
next day because they would be putting their company
reputation at risk by not having enough time in order to
prepare for the Appeal to be able to act in a professional and
correct way for their client. Which the Appellant’s mother
could totally, understand? A vulnerable person should not
be forced into a position where they have to act on their own
behalf, in the opinion of many practitioners, detrimental to
the administration of justice. But this is exactly what had
happened, The Appellant and the Appellant mothers and
others cannot understand or see any reason why the Judge
did not allow for a short adjournment so that The Appellant
had proper representation in place, when there was a
solicitors company willing to take on the Appeal hearing on
and allow a fair Appeal hearing. The Appellant’s mother had
not stopped since the removal of the old solicitors in
September 2016
trying to find a solicitors company to take the Appeal
hearing on, so many calls was made to solicitors companies,
advice lines, citizens advice, pro bono solicitors, the reason
why the pro bono unit would not take the case on was
because The Appellant was entitled to legal aid, if The
Appellant or his family could have afforded to pay privately
for a solicitors company to act for The Appellant this would
have been done a long time ago. Justice is meant to be fair,
but in the case of The Appellant this was not the case. On
18/01/2017
18 January 2017
The Appellant was so unwell he did not attend Court on this
day, nor did Mr a Cordell, or Miss L Cordell, Miss L Cordell
did however write a letter to the Judge asked in for a stay on
proceedings for the Appeal until it was taken to judicial
review in regards to what had gone on. The Judge decided to
go ahead in the absence of The Appellant with the Appeal;
he heard the witness statements from police on this date. On
19/01/2017
19 January 2017
again, The Appellant and his family did not attend Court this
case has made The Appellant so unwell, at the end of this
day the Judge dismissed the Appeal against conviction, but
he changed a few of the conditions that The Appellant was