Page 308 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

79. ln the letter that the Judge wrote to The Appellant's solicitors on the 22/02/2016, he asked
Miss Ward who was dealing with this case for the Appellant at Michael Carroll & Co, if
she knew that the response had to be completed by the 04/04/2016 for when the case was
next listed in Court.
80. Miss Ward did not start working on the response to the Judge's letter until the 03/04/2016
and an email was sent to the Appellant with what Miss Ward wanted to reply in response
to the Judge's letter also stating any amendments that needed to be complied with, as soon
as practically possible.
81. Because the Appellant knew that Miss Ward had sat on the letter from the Judge, in turn,
she and the company that she represented, had done nothing about what the judge had
requested, this was since the date of February 2016 and then Miss Ward had rushed a
response to be ready on the 03/04/2016, when she had been asked repeatedly to address
the letter in a timely manner from the Judge and ourselves. In doing this she had not given
the Appellant any time to go over the response she had written.
82. The Appellant amended Miss Wards Letter to include multiple points that had been
missed out and sent it back to Miss Ward via email within a few hours of getting it. The
Appellant was upset that he had to rushed into things, this was due to the learning
problems he has and the delay in getting the letter from the solicitors meant the Appellant
had hardly any time.
83. Please see attached: -
84. Upon attending Court on the 04/04/2016 it was seen that Mr Morris had also drafted a
response to the Judge letter this response was almost identical to Miss Ward's Letter
except that it included one crucial section regarding the hearsay rule that had not been
included in Miss Ward's letter.
85. The Appellant agreed on the point about the hearsay rule as he had been explaining this to
Miss ward since the start of the ongoings of the case, which he felt did need to be
included. But the Applicant was adamant it was going to be his letter that was going to be
handed to the Judge with the oral addition of the hearsay. (This was the oral addition)
86. “The Magistrates Court hearsay rules 1999 do not apply to the Crown Court.
87. The defence does not accept that the Respondent has relied on the correct legislation to
apply under the hearsay rules. In any event, the Appellant requests that the Respondent
calls the witnesses who made CAD entries for cross-examination.
88. It is neither professionally appropriate nor suitable for the Appellant to call police officers
and question their Credibility, as proposed by the Respondent through their application
under the Magistrates Court Hearsay Rules.
89. The Appellant submits that questioning the credibility of one's own witnesses would not
be permitted by the Court.
90. The Respondent has put forward no good reason for why these witnesses cannot be
called. As to say it is not in the interests of justice to do so.”
91. HHJ-PAWLAK granted the hearsay application could be submitted, although opposed
orally by Mr Morris. HHJ-PAWLAK informed that Mr Morris opposition to hearsay was
contained in Mr Morris legal document, for which the Appellant did not allow Mr Morris
to hand up. HHJ-PAWLAK was informed that client wished to hand up his own
document to HHJ-PAWLAK against Mr Morris advice. Document read by all sides.
92. Please see The Appellant document: -
93. Considering point five of the Judge's letter to the Appellants Acting solicitors, it raises the
question of how was this allowed, the Judge allowed Mr Morris to make an oral
submission in regards to hearsay in the Court, yet then said they were not allowed and
then granted the hearsay application as allowed.