Page 471 - tmp

From: JOSEPHINE WARD [josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 February 2014 23:51
To: Lorraine Cordell

Hi Josey

Lorraine as a matter of respect to you I have responded to the most recent email now that I
have some time. My replies to Simon are in bold. I accept that Simon believes his comments
before being arrested are not damaging to his case and he believes that his interview is well
thought out and legally reasoned. Unfortunately, I do not agree with Simon's belief that his
comments and interview are not damaging to the case - they are what made the difference in
this case.

Thank you for the reply to Simon’s email, Simon has asked me to write this email for him.

The section of my email that was sent to you yesterday that address Jemi and the meeting we had come from my friend
Katie who did attend the meeting with Jemi with me, so new what was said and I used her words as to what she heard at
the meeting as to what Jemi said to me.
If needed Katie could confirm this so can my mum as she was the one writing the email for me that was sent yesterday.

Could you also please send me a copy as to what you have sent over to Jemi by email and his reply to your email?

(a) Simon / Lorraine I have emailed the email I sent to Jemi and his response. This was based on the conversation and
accusations made by Simon on the telephone Sunday 2nd February 2014. With regards to Jemi's non-availability. Jemi
was booked for Simon's case and his jury was out and at risk of over running. You were advised of this fact at the time.
What does happen sometimes is that once speeches are done in a case the barrister can get an alternative barrister to
baby sit the case. Also, Simon's case was in the warned list, not given a fixture so there was no guarantee that the case
would be listed. The case Jemi was dealing with at the time should have been a five-day case but it over ran,

I agree the case is now listed for the warned list for the week commencing 30th June 2014.

As you are aware on the 19/12/2013 when my mum got the email from you about my case about the application that was
put to the court that day, when my mum got the email she was very worried due to the date for the listing for the new trial
date, so she herself called you before she had even showed me the email. She knew the new trial date would cause a
delay in my case by 6 months or more.

she asked you some things on the phone on the 19/01/2014 one being if we got the information from the crown could the
date of the 30/06/2014 be taken sooner.
You replied once we get the information form the crown and Third-Party Disclosure it could be listed back in court and
there maybe was a chance to being the date forward for the hearing, this is the information she told me.

(b) Yes, Simon I agree I did say this to your mother. I said there was a chance and I did not put it any higher than that.

It is this that is upsetting me so much as the longer it takes to put the applications into the court the longer it will take to get
the information that is needed in my case.
As you know I am on bail conditions that have stopped me doing anything for my business that I have been setting up for
many years now. In fact, I have lost a lot of business due to the bail conditions I am on.
I do not think it is right that a judge to say to me that I can sub contract my business out, I am not talking here a small
amount of money for my sound system or any of my equipment, if it was lost or damaged it could take a long time in which
to recover the costs. This is why when my equipment is hired, I also go with it due to me being able to look after it and
make sure they don’t red line my equipment or it is damage or taken, I myself take care of it.
And I do feel my human rights are being violated by the court and crown not allowing me to do my work.

The longer it takes this case to go to court for trial is the longer my business cannot run this is why I am so upset that things
are not being put in on time to the court. I have spent many years getting to where I am today

449