Page 293 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

Upon the Appellant’s uncle getting home it was seen that the bundle he had collected was not
the full set of bundles and only had part of the applications Skeleton Bundle.
On the 22 September 2016 we attended Court to inform the Judge we still did not have the
updated bundles and the Judge once again got the clerk of the Court to call Michael Carroll
and co solicitors to find out what was going on within the bundles, the Judge was very upset
that we still did not have the bundles for the case, the Judge asked for the bundles to be
brought to Court before 4 PM, The Appellant’s mother stated that it would be easier and
faster for her to pick the bundles up from the solicitors on the way home from Court, the
Judge asked if she was sure that he could get them brought to Court she stated that it be faster
for her to pick the bundles up from the solicitors on my way home.
When we left Court due to the time and the circumstances we had been placed in The
Appellant mother called Michael Carroll’s office to say what time we would be there by, The
Appellant mother was told that the office would be closed by the time we got there so The
Appellant mother agreed to pick the bundles up first thing in the morning on 23 September
2016.
On 23-09-2016 The Appellant mother left home early in the morning to go to Michael
Carroll’s office and collect the bundles with her brother, Mr A Cordell they went into the
office
156,
together to get the bundles, when the solicitor came down the stairs, he had a piece of paper
that The Appellant mother needed to sign, stating that the bundles had been collected from
the office.
Upon getting home and looking at the bundles, The Appellant mother noticed there is now at
least 13 additional statements that The Appellant and The Appellant mother had never seen
before from the Respondent bundle, this is a clear error as we knew that in the first bundle
there were only 4 public witness statements and there now seems to be 16, when taking a
closer look at the statements we noticed there are no members of the public's statements of
truth and this also applied for the original 4 contained in the folder minus one, this also
highlighted that each member of the public's statements are police officers only and have
each put their signatures on two different statements each, in a pretence of portraying to own
two houses each in Edmonton xxx Gardens and other surrounding roads in an around
Progress way, the police officers are claiming to be victims of this case while on active duty.
So in understanding this, the Applicant contacted Edmonton police stations lost property
room, so too for him to arrange collection of the original bundle, that was never served to him
in accordance with the law. To his further upset and disappointment of justice he was to be
told by another police officer deployed at the lost property room as the manager, that the
bundle that the Appellant wanted to claim had been misplaced or stolen, this file clearly
shows that there was only ever four potential members of the publics witness statements
157,
attached within side of the original Asbo application.
Some of the statements added are all dated prior to the Magistrates Court trial. Upon looking
at The Appellant’s bundles it seemed this had not been updated or indexed since 2015, so all
the new documents that had been submitted to be added to The Appellant’s bundle was not in
their as they should have been.
Over the days leading up to this, The Appellant mother had learned how important it was that
all the bundles were paginated and indexed correctly and that all the bundles were the same
as each other so that each person was working on them files was all in Co Hurst to each other,
as there was always problems at court due to this not being completed correctly.