Page 319 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

instructions, make sure legal aid was in place correctly, and instruct a barrister who would
be dealing with the Appeal for The Appellant, The Appellant agreed that an adjournment
could be asked for, again it was stated to the barrister that we did not feel the Judge would
grant an adjournment, the barrister stated that the Judge should understand that an
adjournment would be needed for the new solicitors to act in a professional manner for
their client and be able to get everything ready and have time to understand fully what the
case was about, that an Appeal should be fair for all sides.
188. We were called into Court and the barrister spoke to the Judge, explained the situation
and that he was asking for an adjournment, he spoke to the Judge in regards to the legal
aid, and having the appeal ready for their new client and having time to be able to deal
with it in a professional manner for their client. The Judge stated that he believed legal
aid was still in place and it could just be transferred, the barrister stated if legal aid had
been revoked then it would take at least two weeks for it to be put back in place, the
Judge adjourned the hearing so that the barrister could contact the legal aid department to
check the status of the legal aid, the barrister made calls to the legal aid department, but
the legal aid department could not confirm whether legal aid had been revoked. Calls was
also made to Michael Carroll and Co who stated that when they were removed from the
record that the legal aid that was in place at the time had been revoked.
189. The case was called back into Court and the barrister explained that the legal aid
department could not say whether or not the legal aid had been revoked, but when a call
was placed to the old solicitors Michael Carroll and co they had said that the legal aid that
was in place had been revoked. The Judge handed the barrister a certificate of legal aid,
the barrister stated that the certificate was not proof that the legal aid had not been
revoked.
190. The Judge stated I'm sure that you can be ready for the Appeal to go ahead by
tomorrow, the barrister stated that they have a professional obligation to act in the best
interest of the client and that they would not have enough time in order to go over all the
bundles take instructions from the client, and instruct a barrister within half a day, and
also to check fully whether a new legal aid application would have been need to be
applied for.
191. At this the Judge stated, well if you cannot be ready by tomorrow, then The Appellant
will have to act for himself, we will not adjourn the Appeal again.
192. It seems again The Appellant was being put at blame for the delay in the Appeal, but
it was not due to The Appellant, The Appellant only wanted a fair hearing and Appeal
from when this started in 2014 and from what was going on this clearly had not been.
193. The barrister tried his hardest to get an adjournment of the Appeal but the Judge
would not allow an adjournment, the Judge started talking about the conditions that was
imposed by the Magistrates Court, he stated that he felt that parts was disproportionate,
but he could see nothing wrong with the timescale of the Antisocial Behaviour Order of 5
years. This was not the first time the Judge had mentioned the conditions that The
Appellant was under, but this time the Judge went further to include what sections he
thought were disproportional, to the people in the Court The Appellant, Mr A Cordell,
Miss L Cordell, and The Appellants barrister, the only way of looking at what the Judge
was stating he had already made his mind up that he thought the conditions was the only
problem. But this was before the Appeal had even been heard, why a Judge would state
this without even hearing the Appeal.
194. The Judge would not allow an adjournment and stated The Appellant could represent
himself if the barrister could not be ready by 10 0'clock the next morning, the Judge
raised and left the Courtroom.