Page 667 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

I have already been assessed by the mental health team on 3 occasions now over a fair period
of time and each time I have been told that I am well. In fact, the last time I asked for minutes
of the meeting to be taken with the mental health team, as I did with you and there was no
problem in me doing so, I have the whole recording on cd dated 25/01/16. In the time I had
with the mental health team I showed them issues about my court case and the time stamps
and other issues that I have raised with yourself and they clearly state on the cd that it is a
serious error that you my solicitor needs to pay attention to me as does any other person that I
show my case.
Points I have not seen you to show you that I am of ill health
The barrister that meet me on our first occasion only see me for 2 mins the other day at my
said appeal date which was not ready in time I have already been cheeked by 3 different
teams, who clearly state and write if the members of the Met police had treated them in such
a manner over a period of time they would have issues of concern regarding equal rights and
many other relevant rights I am well on mind as the police put their signature at the end of the
case papers that I ask you to make sure that I get a fair trial with and the doctors agree that I
am right on cd as does many over people on the internet and legal ombudsman
please can you reply to what grounds you believe me not to be fit for trial and any plans of
action that you may plan to take in regard to my ongoing appeal.
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, 16:18, Josephine Ward
<josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Dear Simon / Lorraine
I am forwarding across to you a letter that I have received from HHJ Pawlak, who will be
adjudicating at the appeal hearing on 26th September 2016. He will also be presiding over the
mention hearing on 4th April 2016.
The first point that must be addressed in question 3 and this concerns your mental health
Simon and your fitness to follow proceedings, instruct solicitors and consider advice. I am
therefore going to apply for funding so that you can be assessed so that this area can be
clarified. This is important. Your behaviour in court on Monday raised a number of concerns
surrounding this point.
The second point is answering and responding to question 2. This question can only be
properly addressed once we receive confirmation from a Psychiatrist that you are able to
follow proceedings etc
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the
record unless the Senior Partner attends in person. We cannot advance your case or respond
to question 2 until such time as the psychiatric confirms that there are no issues with your
ability to follow proceedings.
You will note the areas that the court wishes to concentrate on are listed in paragraph 2. All
the points will have to be carefully considered; in my view they are loaded questions that are
seeking to achieve foundation for the ASBO application. The Judge is referring to events but
in brackets using the word rave.
He is not stating illegal rave. There are five subsections but ultimately subsection 2(c) is
probably the question that Judge is most interested in knowing your response to.
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the
record unless the Senior Partner attends in person or unless you wish to transfer legal aid.
443,
Paragraph 5 deals with the hearsay application to be served by the respondent.
Superintendent Coombes is forwarding his statement in the post. I will forward this on
receipt.
Can you please confirm by return email Simon whether you are willing to be assessed by a
Psychiatrist so that we can determine whether you are fit to follow proceedings.