Page 313 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

133. When we got to the Court, there was a barrister that Michael Carroll and Co had sent
to the Court to deal with the application; this was so for them to be removed from the
record for the second attempt.
134. The Barrister informed us she did not want to leave the Court before explaining what
had happened it seemed the Judge had called this into Court without us being present and
removed the solicitors from the record.
135. We question how could this have happened? Considering, the Appellant was not
present at Court? And there was not a senior Partner from Michael Carroll and Co? “this
question is due to what had been previously said by His Honour Judge Morrison on
19/02/2016 in regard to this not being allowed to happen.”
136. The Barrister said the Judge wanted to see us and we would need to wait in Court
until we were called, as the Judge was dealing with a trial and we would be called in after
it.
137. Around 16:00 hours we were called into Court, the Respondent did make the Judge
aware at this point that what had been said by His Honour Judge Morrison on the
19/02/2016 stating that a Senior Partner was not present at Court, the Judge replied that
he could not force a solicitor to carry on with a case they clearly did not want to and that
the Appellant could represent himself, he continued to state; that the case was in a much
better order now, but as is known the Appellant has learning difficulties and health
problems which the Court are also well aware of, there were only a few days until the
Appeal hearing was due to start once again, how could a Judge believe that a person with
learning difficulties and health problems could be ready and cope with dealing with a
three-day Appeal hearing on his own?.
138. We did try to get the Judge to adjourn the Appeal hearing so we could try and get
representation put in place due to knowing the Appellant could not cope or handle this
case on his own, which was due to start on the 26/09/2016 for a three-day hearing, the
Judge said he would not allow this and that the Appeal hearing would go ahead no matter
what. It seems again that the Appellant was being blamed for what was ongoing in this
case, when the Appellant and the Appellant mother had done all they could, so for them
to have this case ready to be heard.
139. How can a Judge expect someone that is known to be ill and have learning difficulties
to be able to handle this case on their own? considering there were only four days until
the three-day Appeal hearing was due to start. Nothing was put in place by the Judge to
help the Appellant in any way. The Appellant was just meant to get on with the case all
on his own under the circumstances.
140. Once again, the solicitors had done nothing for this case and the Judge had allowed
them to walk away when this was said to not be allowed and it seems as if everything was
being blamed on the Appellant.
141. It was also noted while we had been waiting outside the Court that the bundles we had
been working from was the very first set of the application bundles and since that time
everything had been updated, without us being informed, this included more statements
from the police officer in charge of the case, there were lots of documents missing from
within the first bundle due to the update, so until he was given the updated bundles, the
Appellant had never seen them additional documents.
142. It was stated by the respondent they had sent new bundles to the acting solicitors
Michael Carroll and co three times since the being of January 2016, we had never been
given a set of new bundles since this case had started in 2014, we had never been told
about new bundles been sent and never given a new copy of any bundle. This meant that
bundle we had would have had all wrong page numbers
169,