Page 302 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half
P. 302

he should of had his own copy and there was also the issue of there being a lot of
                   documents missing from the Appellant's bundle.
               17. On the day of trial when the Appellant took the stand, the Judge did ask where the
                   Appellants bundle was, he stated he had never been given one, and did not know he
                   needed one, the Judge did ask if there was a spare bundle that the Appellant could use
                   which there was not. the Judge carried on by allowing the Appellant to be cross-examined
                   clearly anyone could see the Appellant was unwell, from time to time the Judge passed
                   the Appellant her own bundle.
               18. Thought the trial the Appellant because the appellant did not understand what he was
                   being asked, the problem with this is how is someone with learning difficulties is meant
                   to be able to read what is contained within the bundle.
               19. The Appellant feels that if he had had been solicited correctly then for sure he would have
                   been better prepared, as for this would have left him with access to his own bundle so for
                   him and his barrister to have been able to defend the Applicant correctly, therefore
                   efficiently. Prior to the hearing this would have been the right point of time of opportunity
                   for any of the support network the Applicant has or may need in place to have complied
                   with what would have been in the Applicants best interest, so for that group of people
                   working together as a collective of people, to have been able to off overseen this case, we
                   all now feel this was totally inappropriate for Mr Simon Cordell to have been opposed to
                   such behaviour and therefore challenge the rightfulness of what was allowed by the Judge
                   to have happened.
               20. To the best of the Appellants barrister abilities he questioned the legitimacy of many
                   issues of our concern that we have raised in many of the correspondents to the relevant
                   persons of interest, relating towards this case, one of them concerns that we continually
                   have raised is in relation towards the CAD's that are being used in the Asbo application,
                   such problems referring to the cads are in reference towards the case that is linked to
                   Progress Way on 6th 7th 8th June 2014, this line of interrogation, such as what has been
                   taken on by members of the police lead to a line of questioning such as:- if there was an
                   illegal rave taking place at the sometime on Crown Road.
               21. The Appellants barrister was asked to make this line of questioning, the reason being,
                   after reading the local newspapers and making other inquires, we knew for sure this was a
                   true fact, that there was another party at Crown road on the same dates.
               22. It was latter revelled that the acting solicitors had not gone over the CADs before the trial,
                   although they were asked too many times, and this should have been a standard fair
                   practice for them.
               23. If asked by any official person involved in the on goings of the Anti-Social Behaviour
                   Order, the defendant can and is happy to provide a list of correspondents that have been
                   requested by way of mobile texts and electronic emails by him and his per network. In
                   them
               164,
               24. messages he had asked his acting solicitor firm at the time to make sure of any reductions
                   of wrongful accusations that has now been proven not to be correct, part of the reason
                   why is because there is still CADs within the bundle that had nothing to do with the
                   Appellant, what has already been clearly proven and should not stand as any part of a
                   case against his person.
               25. As can be seen in a copy of the Magistrates transcripts of the trial a police officer gave
                   wrongful information while under oath, he stated that every CAD contained in the Asbo
                   application on the dates of the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 is in fact related to Progress Way
                   and there was not an illegal rave taking place on Crown Road on them same dates, he
                   done this to help himself in aid of gaining a guilty verdict against the Appellant, what he
   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307