Page 1848 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

How was my son ever meant to have a fair trial
without having and seeing all the documents within
the case against him?
Upon also looking at my son’s own bundle the
barristers were using for this Appeal there were
many documents missing from this bundle that I
have had to take time to update this bundle to the
correct version with all statements included as there
were no statements in there and other documents, it
was not even indexed, How was the barrister even
meant to have dealt with this Appeal with so many
documents missing.
The police have targeted my son and family for
many years mostly being Simon Cordell, and I
believe they have pursued a malicious prosecution
against him also trying to include his brother’s
name in this case, this can be proven.
The Magistrates court hearsay rules 1999 do not
apply to the crown court.
The defence do not accept that the Respondent has
relied on the correct legislation to apply under the
hearsay rules. In any event the Appellant requests
that the Respondent call the witnesses who made
CAD entries for cross examination.
It is neither professionally appropriate nor suitable
for the Appellant to call police officers and question
their credibility, as proposed by the Respondent
through their application under the Magistrates
Court Hearsay Rules.
The Appellant submits that questioning the
credibility of one’s own witnesses would not be
permitted by the court. The Respondent has put
forward no good reason for why these witnesses
cannot be called. As to say it is not in the interests
of justice to do so.
Burden of proof and standard of proof are set high
in this appeal case and you must find to be satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent case
can be proven to the criminal standard in every
aspect of the prosecution.
I do not feel the Respondent application bundles
could ever prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
Appellant my son was concerned in the
organisation of illegal raves / provided sound
equipment for illegal raves.
The Appellant my son and I is still not even sure
what he is meant to be defending in this case and
this has been asked many times for this to be
explained. Even the Respondent skeleton argument
bundle has had the word illegal removed from its