Page 315 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

151. Some of the statements added are all dated prior to the Magistrates Court trial. Upon
looking at The Appellant's bundles it seemed this had not been updated or indexed since
2015, so all the new documents that had been submitted to be added to The Appellant's
bundle was not in their as they should have been.
152. Over the days leading up to this, The Appellant mother had learned how important it
was that all the bundles were paginated and indexed correctly and that all the bundles
were the same as each other so that each person was working on them files was all in Co
Hurst to each other, as there was always problems at court due to this not being
completed correctly.
153. Though the case history multiple documents had been handed to the Court and those
documents did not get patronised correctly or indexed into The Appellant's bundles, this
includes the court and the Respondent bundles that they were using also.
154. A whole weekend was spent trying to add missing documents to the Appellant's
bundle and making copies so that on the Court date of the 26-09-2016; any missing files
could be added to the Respondent bundle and the three Judge's bundles. The Appellant
health had become very unstable due to him knowing that he was going to have to be
dealing with this himself.
155. The Appellant mother also spent part of the weekend also writing a letter to the Judge
in regards to what had gone on with the breaches in The Appellant's human rights, his
article 6 human rights the Applicants rights to a fair and speedy trial, there were also a list
of other things that had gone on throughout the case since 2014 in regards to the
nondisclosure, and other issues that was always being raised when at Court and the reason
as to why legal aid had been granted:-

0. Due to the complexity of the case: -
1. Due to The Appellant's learning difficulties: -
2. Due to the concerns of The Appellant health.
This letter was emailed to the Court and asked to be passed to the Judge.
Please see letter that was emailed to the judge: -
The 26 September 2016 the three-day Appeal hearing was due to start, The Appellant was so
unwell that there was no way he could attend Court, Mr A Cordell and Miss L Cordell
attended Court to speak to the Judge, when the Judge entered the Courtroom he stated that he
had received a letter that had to be addressed, he stated that he felt this would go to judicial
review, he stated he had three options:
Carry on with the Appeal in the hope that The Appellant would turn up the following day.
3. To Dismiss the Appeal: -
4. Adjourn the Appeal to a new date.

156. The Judge went over the letter in great detail; he started around five times that he felt
that this case was going to go to judicial review. The Judge decided to adjourn the case
until the 16/01/2017; this was later changed for the Appeal to start on the 17/01/2017. The
Respondent had tried to object to the Appeal being adjourned. The Judge stated that we
should try to find a new solicitor to take on the Appeal and that he would help and also
make sure that legal aid was in place.
157. The Judge asked why The Appellant was not in Court. The Appellant mother stated
The Appellant had become so unwell due to what was going on in this case and that he
was not coping. Information was passed to the Judge that showed The Appellant was
unwell. Mentioned in court; was also the missing documents that was missing from The
Appellant's bundle, and that there were no statements within the bundle, my mother stated
to the Judge that she had spent a lot of the weekend trying to update The Appellant's