Page 311 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

Mr Locke walked towards the Courtroom and we all followed, it was at this point The
Appellant said to the barrister I feel I should represent myself because he felt he was not
being heard.
113. All that the Appellant wanted was to be able to speak to his barrister, so that he knew
what had been said at the earlier hearing of the04/04/2016, and show him the document
that was handed to the Judge, on that date.
114. On entering the Court the Appellant barrister Mr Locke addressed the Judge and said
the Appellant did not want him to act for him, but this was not fully the case the
Appellant only wanted to be able to speak to his barrister.
115. The Judge informed the Appellants barrister to remain in the Courtroom, the Judge
asked what the case was listed for and the prosecuting barrister addressed the Court,
answering the questions, he then also handed the schedule to the Applicants barrister,
they also said to the Judge that the Appellant had been sending letters to the Court and the
prosecution himself, which stated: - “I Simon Cordell throughout the document.” This is
not the case and the Appellant did not understand their comment or what document the
prosecuting barrister was talking about. The Judge then addressed the Appellant and
asked the Appellant did the Appellant still want the barrister to act for the Appellant, the
Appellant replied “Yes” to the Judge that he did want the barrister to act for him; the
Appellant stated that he only wanted time to speak to his barrister, as he had not spoken to
a barrister since the Magistrate's hearing.
116. The Judge then addressed the Appellant barrister he said that the Appellant still
wanted the barrister to act for the Appellant, the Appellant barrister agreed to this. The
Judge also stated he felt he was not the best person to be hearing this case and passed it
back over to the Judge that was hearing the Appeal.
117. On leaving the Courtroom the Appellant and his mother proceeded to go into a side
room to talk with the Appellant barrister, we explained that a letter had been handed to
the Judge on the 04/04/2016, the barrister said he knew nothing of this letter, so we
handed him a copy for him to read. Once he read this, he said he knew nothing about this
and had only seen one document that kept saying I Simon Cordell, (“The Appellant has
no idea of what this I Simon Cordell letter is.”)
168,
118. The Appellants mother proceeded to explain this is why the Appellant wanted to talk
to Mr Locke before going into Court, as this is part of the Non-disclosure being
requested.
119. The barrister explained he only knew about the schedule, to which the Appellant
mother replied, the schedule had been asked for by the Judge in addition to the letter that
had been handed in and this was also when the Judge said it could be used as the
Appellants skeleton argument and that this had happened when Miss Ward was in the
Court on the date of the 04/04/2016 when she was also taking notes, so Miss Ward knew
exactly what the Judge had asked for.
120. The Appellants mother had made a call to the Appellants solicitor and enquired as to
what the Judge had asked for on the 04/04/2016 in regards to the disclosure, Ms Ward
stated she could not remember, the Appellant mother being dumbfounded by this said in
reply to her:- “you was sitting in the back of the Courtroom taking notes,” and continued
to explain that only last week from the date in mention, will have everything that the
Judge had asked for in his original disclosure, plus what was asked for in the Appellants
letter, that was handed to the judge and Miss Ward also explained that the Judge had
made other addictions in addition to the mentioned.
121. At no point did Ms Ward ever make the Appellants mother feel she did not know
what was due to be disclosed, before and while still on the phone, if she had ever done