Page 300 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

(vi) Police constable Ames; and: -
(vii) Inspector Hamill.

th
80. The interim order was set to continue until 10 March 2015 when the full hearing was
heard this was listed for two full days.
81. The disclosure was asked for this was meant to be given by 20/01/2015 this never
happened, and no disclosure was given.
82. No disclosure was served on us by the20/01/2015 that was asked for; this has happened
throughout this case. The disclosure we ask for would prove the Appellant did not do
what the police are saying within the application.
83. Before the first hearing was due to take place the Appellant and his mother was
constantly requesting by methods such as via phone and emails for the acting solicitors
Michael Carrol and co.’s to obtain the relevant information so for them to have the
Applicants best interests at heart regarding a fair trial, thought our requests we understood
that things were not being addressed to the correct level of services needed, this included
a lack of communication, submission of forms and applications and relevant procedures
for a solicitor firm to have the correct correspondents ready for trial, in laymen terms a
complete disregard for their clients, things just was simply not being completed.
84. Since the start of the case meetings was constantly being put off by them self's, we had
also asked a number of times could the solicitors please go over the CADs, and
intelligence reports that were in the Asbo application as we understood there to be serious
errors contained within its context, our request was never accomplished, this included the
questioning of laws representing the case stating it was an illegal offence to which the
Applicant had never been arrested for.
85. Also noticed within the applicant's bundles were other serious breaches of data protection,
regulations, and codes of conduct, this includes some of the following: - in police
officers’ statements.
163,
Should start at number 76 document index
1. In what is referred to as a “CFS call” in a short abbreviation a member of the public
requesting assistance by way of a phone call for services that in turn has led an
investigating officer(s) into using a mg11 form otherwise known as a witness statement,
to take a version of events of a person.
2. The issue of relevance being highlighted is in witness statements that were contained
within the Asbo applications bundle. Serious errors once again seem to have occurred,
that leave serious concerns towards any guilty verdict, as for sure when any official
person is filling out such a form as a mg 11 there should be statements of truth that have
been complied with as well as many other measurements that should be met that seem to
be under serious scrutiny as for they were written by police officers and not the witnesses
themselves, to even further the rights to justice the Appellant was not allowed to call any
witnesses or any other police officers whose information was within the application's
bundle he was only allowed to have the police officers that the application wanted us to
have, he simply was denied his rights to have any other witnesses being called.
3. The members of the public's statements that could be proved to be no other than
information reports that should be classified as non-disclosed intelligence were allowed to
remain within the application’s bundle as witness statements without being questioned by
the acting solicitors, although it was constantly being brought up.
4. On the 10th March 2015, this date was due to be the full Antisocial Behaviour Order
hearing, but the Court had made a mistake and only listed it for a one-day hearing.