Page 307 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

64. Solicitor's to come off the record or to cease acting for the Appellant, such an application
was dismissed by His Honour Judge Morrison on the 19th February 2016. It was also said
that if any attempt is made to repeat this application the Court will require it to be made in
person, by the Senior Partner of Michael Carroll & Co.”
65. This information is very important due to what occurred on the 21/09/2016 when HHJ-
PAWLAK removed the solicitors from the record, as this was done without the Appellant
or a Senior Partner of Michael Carroll & Co being present in Court. (“See date
21/09/2016 as more
166,
notes”)
66. His Honour Judge Morrison listed for the case to be heard on the 22/02/2016 in front of
HHJ-PAWLAK, this was due to issues that were raised once again regarding
nondisclosure and he felt he was not the best Judge to answer these issues.
67. The reason the solicitors gave to come off the record so close to the Appeal hearing was a
breakdown in communication and they also could not get a barrister to deal with this case,
this is in part misleading, the actual reason for them wanting to come off the record was
due to the lack of work done by solicitors acting for the Appellant, in point of fact the
case was not ready for the Appeal hearing, They could also not get a Barrister, and did
not want to meet with their client.
68. His Honour Judge Morrison had never heard off solicitors that could not get a barrister
and ordered that a Public Defender took over the case to act for the Appellant.
69. A three-day Appeal hearing was listed for 22/02/2016, 23/02/2016 and 24/02/2016.
70. Mr Morris acting Public Defender attended Court on this day to act for the Appellant; the
Appellant had not met Mr Morris before this date. Mr Morris had only had the case since
the 19/02/2016 and was not ready for the three-day Appeal hearing. He wanted time to be
able to go over all the large case bundles and be able to sit down and talk to the
Appellant, so asked for an adjournment.
71. HHJ-PAWLAK was very unsympathetic and said he had the weekend to get ready for
this case and that the Appeal would go ahead. Considering this was the Public Defender
that His Honour Judge Morrison had allocated to the case only three days beforehand it
seemed that the Appellant was the one being penalised for the incompetence of his acting
solicitors Michael Carroll & Co.
72. The Appellant's health had deteriorated considerably due to all of what was happening
within this case and other issues, the mental health team had obtained a section 135
warrant under the mental health act and it was only because of the disdain towards the
Appellant from the ASBO proceedings, the Appellants Mother felt that she had to hand
this information to his acting barrister, so for them to give a copy of the letter handed to
them to the Judge, knowing this would cause a huge rift between the Appellant and his
mother. But she had no option as the Judge was going to force the Appeal hearing to go
ahead when the Appellant mother knew the Appellant would not cope.
73. This information was also posted to the judge, in knowing that the barrister had only just
got the case handed to him and he himself was not ready to take the case on, as he had not
even met with the Appellant at this point in time.
74. Upon Mr Morris handing the documents to the Judge the Judge then unwilling adjourned
the Appeal hearing until the 26/09/2016 for a three-day hearing.
75. The Judge listed the case for a mention hearing also on the 04/04/2016.
76. After this Court hearing, HHJ-PAWLAK wrote a letter to the acting solicitors Michael
Carroll and co that had to be replied to by the 04/04/2016.
77. See Attached letter from Judge: -
78. See attached response from Solicitors dated 03/04/2016: -