Page 310 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

106. On the agreed court date the Appellant arrived at Court for 09:00, his barrister did not
arrive until around 09:40, disappointingly.
107. On arrival The Appellants barrister and him himself inclusive of his mother all went
together into a side room for a pre talk. Before any desiccations in relation to the case
could be discussed, Mr Locke said he was sorry he was not feeling very well and that he
also had some emails from Ms Ward, that he had to read first, on trying to open the
emails he realized he could not and subsequently went out of the room to call Ms Ward.
108. At around 10:00 hours the Appellant was called into Court, Mr Locke came back into
the room from after making his phone call to Miss Ward, so for himself to be able to have
collected his things and he then hurried and started to walk back out of the room we all
was supposed to have a meeting but on stead he hurried in towards the Court room. The
Appellant tried to stop him, so to have explained to him, what his concerns were. (“As we
had not yet at this point in time had a moment to talk”) and the Appellant was also
concerned about the disclosure that was going to be asked for.
109. The Appellant asked Mr Locke if he could ask the Judge to adjourn the case for five
or ten minutes, so that we all could speak with each other, which he replied “no that the
hearing was only for disclosure about the schedule”, The Appellant said that:- “He knew
this was not correct and this was one of the reasons that he wanted to speak with him
about.” The Appellant again asked: - “if the barrister would ask the Judge to postpone for
ten minutes again” he yet again said “no”, at which point the Appellant asked “why Mr
Locke did not want to speak to him, and should he act for himself ”?
110. The Barrister Mr Locke had no time to talk to The Appellant at the time and spent
around four minutes talking to Ms Ward on the phone, before ending his call, he asked
the Appellant if he the Appellant was dismissing his solicitors, to which the Appellant
replied:- “No”, Mr Locke then started to walk towards the Courtroom, we followed the
barrister into Court and on entering the Court in a raised voice, The Appellant said to Mr
Locke:- (“who was ahead of him”) so am I acting for myself then.? Mr Locke never
replied to the Appellant and just proceeded to talk to the Judge and then he walked toward
the courtroom door and ushered out. At this point the Appellant had no idea what was
going on but proceeded to follow him outside the Court room, it was at this point of time
when Mr Locke turned around and said quite curtly “I do not want you to speak
anymore”, as we got closer to him he also informed the Appellant it was not good to
shout out, “in open Court,” to which the Appellant had to agree with, but the Appellant
felt so let down as it seemed his barrister did not even want to talk to him, since the
Appellant had last seen him in 2014 and this is another part of the reasons that the
Appellant wanted to speak with him, as so much had already gone wrong with this case
and the Appellant felt very nervous as he did not know what was going on, or what would
be said as he had not spoken to his barrister.
111. The Appellants mother, who had witnessed all of this, did try to explain to the
Appellants barrister, what the Appellant wanted to say, in reference to the receipt of the
requested Non-disclosure and asked Mr Locke to explain what the schedule is about
before we all went back into court.
112. The Appellant also asked about the two article 6's that had been issued by the court,
which had never been addressed:- “by the Court,” which pertains to The Appellants
Human Rights and importantly his rights to a fair and speedy trial, to what had not
happened. The Article 6 the right to a fair and speedy trial had been handed to the Court
at earlier hearings, as The Appellants knew Mr Locke knew nothing about this and other
information that had happened, so he felt it important to explain this to him at the time.
Mr Locke explained that the schedule was what the Judge had asked for on the
04/04/2016, my mother replied this was not all the Judge had asked for, without replying