Page 290 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

questions, he then also handed the schedule to the Applicants barrister, they also said to the
Judge that the Appellant had been sending letters to the Court and the prosecution himself,
148,
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 he 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 back over to the Judge
that was hearing the Appeal.
On leaving the Courtroom 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, the barrister 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 has no idea of what this I Simon
Cordell letter is.”)
The Appellants mother proceeded to explain this is why the Appellant wanted to talk to Mr
Locke before going into Court, as this is part of the Non-disclosure being requested.
The barrister explained he only knew about the schedule, to which the Appellant mother
replied, the schedule had been
149,
asked for by the Judge in addition to the letter that had been handed in and this was also when
the Judge said it could be used as the Appellants skeleton argument and that this had
happened when Miss Ward was in the Court on the date of the 04/04/2016 when she was also
taking notes, so Miss Ward knew exactly what the Judge had asked for.
The Appellants mother had made a call to the Appellants solicitor and enquired as to what the
Judge had asked for on the 04/04/2016 in regards to the disclosure, Ms Ward stated she could
not remember, the Appellant mother being dumbfounded by this said in reply to her:- “you
was sitting in the back of the Courtroom taking notes,” and continued to explain that only last
week from the date in mention, will have everything that the Judge had asked for in his
original disclosure, plus what was asked for in the Appellants letter, that was handed to the
judge and Miss Ward also explained that the Judge had made other addictions in addition to
the mentioned.
At no point did Ms Ward ever make the Appellants mother feel she did not know what was
due to be disclosed, before and while still on the phone, if she had ever done this the
Appellant and the Appellant mother would have asked her to relist the case to the Court and
asked for this to be clarified, as the disclosure that we was asking for was very important to
the ongoings of the Appeal.
The Appellant mother then handed the Appellant the phone the Appellant asked Ms Ward
about the letter he was supposed to have sent to the Court and the prosecuting barrister, the
Appellant was still thinking she was talking about the letter
150,
handed to the Judge on the 04/04/2016 when Miss Ward was not.
Also in Court on this date, it was said the Appellant had written this letter himself, which was
not the case.