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