Page 317 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

the solicitors dealing with the Appeal would be the same solicitors that dealt with the
original trial, so should not incur this additional cost as Appeals are set at a standard rate,
so any solicitor taking on a case would not get paid to go over the complete bundles
because this had already been paid to the past solicitor firm beforehand and this would
include to take updated instructions from any client.
167. When the Appellant mother got home, she again tried to call Miss Ward, this was
with no reply she done this by texting her with no receipt of reply.
168. On the 25/10/2016 again Mr A Cordell and I attended Court, once again the solicitors
was not in attendance, the Judge was very upset and done an Internet search under Miss
Ward's name to find out if she was working under a new solicitor, he found the new
solicitors and sent an email demanding that Miss Ward attended Court on the 11/11/2016.
169. Again The Appellant mother stated to the Judge that she had made many phone calls
to other solicitors and due to the case being Appeal stage no one was willing to take the
Appeal on and this was due to the cost they would get under legal aid.
170. When The Appellants mother got home from Court at 15:48 she received a phone call
from Miss Ward, she stated that she knew nothing about, what had happened meaning
that she did not know the Judge had asked her to attend Court further to the explained that
Michael Carroll and Co had not informed her in regards to any emails sent from the
Court.
171. The Appellant mother said to Miss Ward while on the telephone that she herself had
previously tried to call her, this was to include the sent text messages that she had spent
inclusively but Miss Ward had not replied or picked the phone up.
172. Miss Ward stated while still on the phone that Michael Carroll had previously told her
while she was leaving his company as employed staff that she must not contact any of the
client she had gained this was to include the Appellants and his family members.
173. The Appellant mother and Miss Ward arranged to a meeting on the 27/10/2016, to go
over The Appellant's bundle “case load” to check for any missing documents.
174. On the 27/10/2016 The Appellant mother meet with Miss Ward to go over The
Appellant's bundle, upon looking at the bundle and the documents that The Appellant
mother had added and indexed Miss Ward stated she believed there were no missing files,
as time has gone on I have found other documents that should have been in The
Appellant's bundle that were missing. These have never been added as The Appellant
mother did not want to have to go back to the Judge and say there were more documents
that were missing.
175. Miss Ward stated she had to attend Court but gave a different date that the Judge had
ordered her to be there, The Appellant mother stated to her that the Judge had given the
date of the 11/11/2016 when we was in Court, Miss Ward stated that this was not what
was put into the email that was sent to the company Miss Ward now worked for. The
Appellant mother stated she would send an email over to the Court to tell the Court that
they had met up and checked the Appellant's bundle and they believed there were no
more documents missing at that point.
176. On the 01/11/2016 The Appellant mother wrote an email to the Judge to state that
there had been a meeting with Miss Ward, and they had gone over The Appellant's bundle
and believed there were no documents missing now. The Appellant mother asked in the
email to the Judge if the Applicant still needed to attend Court on the 11/11/2016 and if
so, could this be confirmed via email.
177. On the 02/11/2016 The Appellant mother received a reply from Wood Green Crown
Court from the Judge stating that we did not need to attend on the 11/11/2016 and the
date would be vacated.