Page 320 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

195. The Appellant was in such a state when we left the Courtroom he stated he knew the
Judge would not allow the adjournment and felt the Judge did not want him to have
representation and this is why the Judge removed his old solicitors, he felt very let down
and just wanted to go home.
196. The barrister called us into a side room and had to ask The Appellant due to what the
Judge has said, if they were to change the conditions to something appropriate would The
Appellant accept it. This put further stress on The Appellant, The Appellant knew he had
done nothing wrong and had not done what the police was saying he had done and The
Appellant knew that if the disclosure had been given it would have proven this. The
police have been unwilling to give any disclosure since this case started.
197. The Appellant was not willing to accept having the conditions changed and accepting
the Antisocial Behaviour Order as this would have said he was guilty; The Appellant was
not willing to accept something he knew he was not guilty of.
198. The Appellant was so distressed all the way home, he felt he would never get justice.
199. Later that day The Appellant's mother contacted the solicitors to see if anything could
be done, but due to the Judge not allowing the adjournment the solicitors stated they
could not take the case on and could not attend Court the next day, the reason given was
because they would be putting their company reputation at risk by not having enough
time in order to prepare for the Appeal to be able to act in a professional and correct way
for their client. The Appellant's and his mother could totally understand this.
200. A vulnerable person should not be forced into a position where they have to act on
their own behalf, in the opinion of many practitioners, detrimental to the administration of
justice. But this is exactly what had happened, The Appellant and The Appellant mothers
and others cannot understand or see any reason why the Judge did not allow for a short
adjournment so that The Appellant had proper representation in place, especially when
there was a solicitors company willing to take on the Appeal hearing, in turn to allow a
fair Appeal hearing.
201. The Appellant's and his mother had not stopped since the removal of the old solicitors
in September 2016, they continued to try and find a solicitors firm company, to take the
Appeal hearing on, many calls were made to solicitors companies, advice lines, citizens
advice, even in the search of a pro bono solicitors, the reason why the pro bono unit
would not take the case on, is because The Appellant was entitled to legal aid, if The
Appellant or his family could have afforded to pay privately for a solicitors company to
act for The Appellant this would have been done a long time ago. Justice is meant to be
fair but in the case of The Appellant Asbo this is not the case.
th
202. On 18 January 2017 The Appellant was so unwell he did not attend Court on this
day, nor did Mr A Cordell, or Miss L Cordell, Miss L Cordell did however write a letter
to the Judge and in that letter it asked for a stay on proceedings for the Appeal until it was
taken to judicial review in regards to what had gone on.
172,
203. The Judge decided to go ahead in the absence of The Appellant with the Appeal; he
heard the witness statements from police on this date.
204. On 19 January 2017 again The Appellant and his family did not attend Court this case
has made The Appellant so unwell, at the end of this day the Judge dismissed the Appeal
against conviction, but he changed a few of the conditions that The Appellant was under,
the conditions are still a breach of The Appellant's human rights. Schedule of prohibitions
are listed below.
205. Schedule of prohibitions: - You must not: -