Page 289 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

The Appellant asked Mr Locke if he could ask the Judge to adjourn the case for five or ten
minutes, so that we all could speak with each other, which he replied “no that the hearing was
only for disclosure about the schedule”, The Appellant said that:- “He knew this was not
correct and this was one of the reasons that he wanted to speak with him about.” The
Appellant again asked: - “if the barrister would ask the Judge to postpone for ten minutes
again” he yet again said “no”, at which point the Appellant asked “why Mr Locke did not
want to speak to him, and should he act for himself ”?
The Barrister Mr Locke had no time to talk to The Appellant at the time and spent around
four minutes talking to Ms Ward on the phone, before ending his call, he asked the Appellant
if he the Appellant was dismissing his solicitors, to which the Appellant replied:- “No”, Mr
Locke then started to walk towards the Courtroom, we followed the barrister into Court and
on entering the Court in a raised voice, The Appellant said to Mr Locke:- (“who was ahead of
him”) so am I acting for myself then.? Mr Locke never replied to the Appellant and just
proceeded to talk to the Judge and then he walked toward the courtroom door and ushered
out. At this point the Appellant
146,
had no idea what was going on but proceeded to follow him outside the Court room, it was at
this point of time when Mr Locke turned around and said quite curtly “I do not want you to
speak anymore”, as we got closer to him he also informed the Appellant it was not good to
shout out, “in open Court,” to which the Appellant had to agree with, but the Appellant felt so
let down as it seemed his barrister did not even want to talk to him, since the Appellant had
last seen him in 2014 and this is another part of the reasons that the Appellant wanted to
speak with him, as so much had already gone wrong with this case and the Appellant felt very
nervous as he did not know what was going on, or what would be said as he had not spoken
to his barrister.
The Appellants mother, who had witnessed all of this, did try to explain to the Appellants
barrister, what the Appellant wanted to say, in reference to the receipt of the requested Non-
disclosure and asked Mr Locke to explain what the schedule is about before we all went back
into court.
The Appellant also asked about the two article 6’s that had been issued by the court, which
had never been addressed:- “by the Court,” which pertains to The Appellants Human Rights
and importantly his rights to a fair and speedy trial, to what had not happened. The Article 6
the right to a fair and speedy trial had been handed to the Court at earlier hearings, as The
Appellants knew Mr Locke knew nothing about this and other information that had happened,
so he felt it important to explain this to him at the time. Mr Locke explained that the schedule
was what the Judge had asked for on the 04/04/2016, my mother replied this was not all the
Judge had asked for,
147,
without replying Mr Locke walked towards the Courtroom and we all followed, it was at this
point The Appellant said to the barrister I feel I should represent myself because he felt he
was not being heard.
All that the Appellant wanted was to be able to speak to his barrister, so that he knew what
had been said at the earlier hearing of the 04/04/2016 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 Appellants barrister to remain in the Courtroom, the Judge asked
what the case was listed for and the prosecuting barrister addressed the Court, answering the