Page 292 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

The Barrister said the Judge wanted to see us and we would need to wait in Court until we
were called, as the Judge was dealing with a trial and we would be called in after it.
Around 16:00 hours we were called into Court, the Respondent did make the Judge aware at
this point that what had been said by His Honour Judge Morrison on the 19/02/2016 stating
that a Senior Partner was not present at Court, the Judge replied that he could not force a
solicitor to carry on with a case they clearly did not want to and that the Appellant could
represent himself, he continued to state; that the case was in a much
153,
better order now, but as is known the Appellant has learning difficulties and health problems
which the Court are also well aware of, there were only a few days until the Appeal hearing
was due to start once again, how could a Judge believe that a person with learning difficulties
and health problems could be ready and cope with dealing with a three-day Appeal hearing
on his own?.
We did try to get the Judge to adjourn the Appeal hearing so we could try and get
representation put in place due to knowing the Appellant could not cope or handle this case
on his own, which was due to start on the 26/09/2016 for a three- day hearing, the Judge said
he would not allow this and that the Appeal hearing would go ahead no matter what. It seems
again that the Appellant was being blamed for what was ongoing in this case, when the
Appellant and the Appellant mother had done all they could, so for them to have this case
ready to be heard.
How can a Judge expect someone that is known to be ill and have learning difficulties to be
able to handle this case on their own? considering there were only four days until the three-
day Appeal hearing was due to start. Nothing was put in place by the Judge to help the
Appellant in any way. The Appellant was just meant to get on with the case all on his own
under the circumstances.
Once again, the solicitors had done nothing for this case and the Judge had allowed them to
walk away when this was said to not be allowed and it seems as if everything was being
blamed on the Appellant.
154,
It was also noted while we had been waiting outside the Court that the bundles we had been
working from was the very first set of the application bundles and since that time everything
had been updated, without us being informed, this included more statements from the police
officer in charge of the case, there were lots of documents missing from within the first
bundle due to the update, so until he was given the updated bundles, the Appellant had never
seen them additional documents.
It was stated by the respondent they had sent new bundles to the acting solicitors Michael
Carroll and co three times since the being of January 2016, we had never been given a set of
new bundles since this case had started in 2014, we had never been told about new bundles
been sent and never given a new copy of any bundle. This meant that bundle we had would
have had all wrong page numbers and been paginated totally different from the bundles that
were being used by the prosecution barrister and Courts.
When we were in Court, we did say this to the Judge about the bundles, the Judge ordered the
clerk of the Court to contact Michael Carroll and Co solicitors and order the solicitors to
bring the bundles to Court. the solicitors informed the clerk that the bundles were at Nexus
Chambers, the Judge was shocked that the solicitors did not have a copy of the bundles at
their office. The Appellant’s uncle who was also at Court said to the Judge he was willing to
go to Nexus Chambers and pick the bundles up.
155,
The Judge listed this for the 22/09/2016 after 14:00 hours to make sure we were all working
from them same set of bundles.