Page 297 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

application and court summons which was also handed into the front desk of the police
station.
28. The complaint has never been addressed and neither has there been that of a professional
response concluding any outcome to them issues raised of concern, a total failure of a
response from the police, providing any professionalism when dealing with complaints.
29. Please see a letter of the compliant and photos and receipt that was handed to Edmonton
police station on 13th September 2014.
30. On 06th October 2014, the Appellant was due to appear in Court on this day, The
Appellant had arranged for Michael Carroll and Co Solicitors, to act on his behalf, this
included to have legal aid in place.
31. On the day of court legal aid had been applied for, but the legal aid had been refused, the
Judge sitting overturned this and granted legal aid in the Applicants favour.
32. The reason for the Judge overturning and granting legal aid was due to the Appellant
having known learning difficulties, health problems and due to the complexity of the case.
33. The disclosure was asked for so that the Appellant could stand a fair and speedy trial, but
the requested disclosure never ever did come. The case was relisted for the 22/10/2014, for an
interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing, all police officers were due to attend for the
interim hearing.
34. On the 22nd October 2014, the Appellant was due in Court for the Interim Antisocial
Behaviour Order to be heard, due to the Appellant barrister having a burst water pipe and his
home being flooded he could not attend, the applicant still wanted the case to be heard which
the Judge would not allow.
35. The Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing was then set for the 05/11/2014.
36. On the 22nd October 2014, all police officers did attend Court for the Interim Antisocial
Behaviour Order hearing. The disclosure was asked for on this date.
37. 37.On 05th November 2014, the Appellant was due in Court for the Interim Antisocial
Behaviour Order hearing; all police were due to attend but did not. The Appellant's barrister
could not attend on this date due to the flooding that taken place at his home address, another
barrister turned up to represent the Appellant but had no paperwork for the case only a
skeleton argument to strike-out the Antisocial Behaviour Order application.
38. The skeleton argument, submitted on behalf of the Appellant, to strike out the application
for the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order. Arguments advanced in this respect, and those
which rely upon the civil procedure rules, are not applicable to these proceedings. The civil
procedure rules only apply to proceedings in the county Court, the high Court, and the civil
division of the Court of Appeal. As a result, the Magistrate's Court has no jurisdiction to
consider an application to strike-out application.
39. The Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing went ahead, The Appellant's barrister did
not have the correct paperwork for the hearing, and knew very little about the case, no police
officers turned up to Court on this day.
40. In the days prior to this hearing, The Appellant was rushed to the hospital due to kidney
problems while he was still in hospital he was informed by his solicitor on the 04/11/2014
that if he did not attend Court on the 05/11/2014 the case would go ahead without his
presence. The Appellant then discharged himself from the hospital because he had no choice.
(He was extremely unwell)
41. On this date, the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order was granted by the District Judge
Newham.
42. Upon delivering her judgment, District Judge Newham ruled that it is just to impose an
Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order, and that regard had been taken of The Appellant's
Article 6 and 8 rights, as well as The Appellants business. District Judge Newham ruled that