Page 301 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

5. District Judge Williams sitting, apologised for the error, and said that a part hearing could
take place, or the full hearing is adjourned to a later date so that the full hearing could be
dealt with over two days.
6. The Appellant was upset as he wanted this to be dealt with and only agreed that the case
is adjourned until the 03/08/2014 and the 04/08/2014 if district Judge Williams heard the
case, she cleared her diary and promised that she would be the Judge that would preside
over the case.
7. District Judge Williams also stated that this was the 1st time she had ever seen a case in
which the commissioner of the metropolitan police had brought an Antisocial Behaviour
Order in front of her in this way in a civil capacity.
8. The disclosure was asked for and this was once again never given.
9. On the 2nd August 2015 The Appellant's mother received a phone call from Miss Ward
acting solicitors, regarding a statement she had just found in the emails relating to
Antisocial Behaviour Order, The Appellant's mother asked if this could be sent over via
email to her, in knowing it was too late to do anything about it because the full hearing
started the next day. Similar things were continuously happening throughout the case; the
solicitors seemed to only do anything on the case the day before the hearings, or a few
days before it was due to take place. Many emails were sent including many phone calls
that were made to get the right things done, most of the emails went not replied to for
months, phone calls was not picked up, or if they were we were told that things would be
addressed when they never were.
10. The Appellant attended Court on the 03rd August 2015 and the 04th August 2015 for the
full hearing of the Antisocial Behaviour Order, only to find the stipulation and reasons he
had allowed the case to be adjourned to these dates had not been adhered to, the presiding
Judge was not District Judge Williams, it fact it was District Judge D Pigot who would be
residing over the full hearing.
11. Non-disclosure was again spoken about, but nothing came of this and the case went
forward.
12. We understand this is only our opinion, but we believe this Judge had already found that
she was going to prove the case before it even started for the full Antisocial Behaviour
Order in favour of the applicants.
13. Before the hearing started The Appellant’s, mother informed the Judge the Appellant was
very ill and she did not think he would cope due to health problems. She continued with
the case none the less and did not ask the Appellant's mother to elaborate further. Later
within the hearing the judge would notice that there should have been medical records
adduced for the Applicants response within his bundle and this was missing along with a
lot of other documents that had been requested for his defence, the Appellants bundle was
only around 82 pages when it should have been around 300 pages.
14. Continually through cross-examination by the Appellants barrister toward the police
officers, District Judge D Pigot kept interrupting and telling the barrister he could not ask
the questions he was asking even though what he was asking corresponded with what the
police had put in their own statements. The Appellant's barrister even commented to the
Judge Pigot “I am only asking questions pertaining to what the police have put in their
statements” also he said to the Judge “I hope you are not going to have as much due-
diligence with my client on cross-examination as you have with me” to which the Judge
replied she would.
15. This was certainly not the case and in fact, the Judge allowed the Appellant to be cross-
examined extremely harshly even knowing the Appellant had health problems.
16. On the date of trial the Appellants solicitor had not even prepared a copy of the bundle so
for the Appellant to have his own bundle, he was never told by the acting solicitors that