Trial of Matthew Heath for the harassment of Stephanie Hayden.
162 tweets
Good morning and welcome to Stratford Magistrates Court Number 2. We are supposed to be here to report on R v Heath. Live tweets follow.
I say supposed to be, but there is some confusion and a distinct lack of action. The complainant is not in court. The accused is not in court (though is in the building). The only people in court right now are me (on the press benches) and Sophia Brooks in the public gallery.
We are meant to be starting the hearing with a Bad Character Application against Stephanie Hayden (@flyinglawyer73) . Then there will be, or should be a trial. Heath (@LegalGengar) is accused of stalking which amounts to harassment.
@flyinglawyer73 @LegalGengar It is a criminal offence, this is a criminal court. It is a serious matter. Parallel to this is a civil action which Hayden brought against Heath for Heath's work on Hayden on Heath's Grift Watch website (grift.watch/stephanie-hayden/
Hayden dropped this action and Heath was awarded costs. Hayden owes Heath £35,000 which is due this week. A few more people have now populated the court. Something is going to happen, I'm just not sure what. Heath's barrister is Natasha Hausdorff. She is here…
… with her instructing solicitor Daniel Berke. Heath is being supported by the @SpeechUnion – Jill Levene is here representing them.
@SpeechUnion NB: A reminder that everything I tweet is a summary and characterisation of what is being said and happening in court. NOTHING IS A DIRECT QUOTE unless in "direct quotes".
J = judge
C = complainant – Stephanie Hayden
H or D = Heath (defendant)
P = prosecuting counsel (I'll try to get their name if/when they arrive)
NH or just N – Natasha Hausdorff – defence counsel
A reminder that @tribunaltweets are following the Sex Matters judicial review into the British Transport Police's strip-search policy, which should start around now.
And if you feel moved to make a donation to support my work (even though I may not be doing much this morning), please have a look at the info and options here. A small regular monthly donation would help me plan to attend more cases like this.
genderblog.net/donate/
Matthew Heath has arrived in court. He is sitting in the well of the court wearing glasses, a black suit, light-coloured shirt and a muted striped tie.
Prosecuting counsel is Shazia Parviez (SP)
J is here
SP is introducing some of the participants
J could you introduce me
N H sits beside me – I know it's a small courtroom. We ask he be permitted to sit outside the dock. He has autism which affects his hearing. Can he sit by me
J yes
N introduces Daniel Berke and Charless Knapper and Ms Jill Levene from the FSU and a solicitor.
J it ought to be the case that people not directly affected by the case ought to be in the public gallery. Does P object?
P no
J i am going to take your work for it re Heath. I'll allow Mr Heath to remain seated where he is if there are any concerns it may be a different stance is needed.
Clerk – full name and date of birth and address?
H Matthew Heath (gives personal details)
P – could I ask for 20 mins so I can understand the history and give responses to defence counsel re Q's she's raised this morning
J – comment?
NH – have you had a look at the defence reps dated 28 Feb. I've sent them to P – I appreciate she's been lacking in papers – no crit of her. There's been a wholesale failure of the CPS to engage. We've sent them a substantial amount of evidence and asked for
disclosure, a D case statement asking for disclosure and a rather substantial Bad Character Application (BCA) and there has been no response to that, but if you have not had a chance to review the D reps inc the
disclosure request and BCA. I provided a skeleton on Monday this week and set out how the defence could not possibly see how a trial could proceed today. I've uploaded 3 x authorities from the CofA re permission to stay.
J in terms of the apps I've seen – letter to Crown to review the case, D statement – you say no response
N statement of acknowl, but no substantive response. We had apps for substantial disclosure and police interview
J so you have a BCA, a skele to outline failures of the CPS to date – but no application
N it summarises those but maybe forshadows an application we may be forced to make today.
J i have read some of the authorities. You might need to remind me of the principles. I app the D tried to get this listed for a case management hearing, but there was no court time avail.
N part of the reason the chron is set out – the conduct of D in bringing these matters to the court's attention is important to the case
J (to SP) I want you to address the lack of substantive response to D's application and why there has been no response to the BCA. Also want to know if any review
was undertaken after D letter – we're here, but I want to know what happened – we have no info. Also want to talk about the language we use in this case, being mindful of the differing views among the parties.
But we'll address that after the break. I will rise till 1035. Please let me know if you need more time via the clerk.
[judge rises]
[Everyone else is staying in court.]
[Judge is back]
SP spoke with CPS – in relation to the req for review – the reviewing lawyer says it was reviewed apols for not telling D, but it was decided to proceed
J was there a reason
SP she didn't give me one. I didn't ask.
J when did the review take place
SP didn't ask. She talked I made notes. then she moved on to other matters. The point she made about exhibits was that her view was that it was mainly in relation to freedom of speech and the request to review the case was on free speech – and the decision was taken to proceed.
J disclosure
N no
J so no initial disclosure to date
SP I misunderstood judge, sorry I thought we were waiting on the defence response. Reviewing lawyer (RL) again apologises. Says its resources
J did RL say initial disclosure has been served
SP not in those words.
J I need this clarified. let's go through the rest of the enquiries I asked you to make then you will need to speak again to the RL. So was initial disclosure served and on what date, and who it was served upon. If it was served properly I'd like to know when they got D statement
… and what action was taken on receipt of the D statement. and in relation to the BCA?
SP she said it can be heard today before the trial starts. She queried why it wasn't listed before today
J but there's no written response to the BCA. I need to know what the Crown's
… objection is. There needs to be a response. Partic given the difficulties D have had receiving any comms from the Crown (C). "That's not acceptable at all – they need to provide precise answers to what's happened and why they haven't responded"
J any response from the reviewing lawyer re the skele?
SP RL just instructed me to oppose the application – we didn't discuss it
J and you have not read the authorities uploaded by D?
SP no
J so NH I've asked CPS for more response. Is there anything else you require specific
responses to.
NH the response to D reps suggest that it only address Art 10 Freedom of Expression "I am very concerned by that" – it raises background, prospect of conviction, details of other litigation C is involved in – both against this D and others
… conduct towards D and all this social media material. It begs the q as to whether C disclosed this. and if not why not? Also I can confirm "initial disclosure was never complied with" and these docs go to cred of C – none of this has been addressed.
NH the idea it's just at Art 10 issue is characteristic of the way the case has been brought.
J so my q's to the CPS – can't go far beyond checking it had been dealt with properly
J what about disclosure
N all we got was ack of receipt
J okay so I've asked about that and BCA?
[short break]
[I've been told that under S8(a) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 I will not be allowed to report any BCA order nor the proceedings before them as they are pre-trial applications, though if I want to be heard on that matter I can be]
SP didn't get to speak to the RL – she's in training. She's emailed me her responses.
J yes
SP says she's not sure if disclosure was served, but that can be served today. She doesn't answer if her review
took account of the material served and says "review takes into account defence of Article 10 – freedom of expression" in relation to D statement, she says it was received in March and sent to officer in case for
his input on 9 June. Office is on annual leave. Attempted to speak to his supervisor with no success including attempts made today. In realtion to the BCA, the BCA was listed at the first hearing by DJ
[district judge] McGyver, but this is not opposed by the Crown.
J So it's agreed that essentially everything in it…
SP That's how I'm reading it judge, yes. Re failures of
response, she does not reply to this. She does say that if we give her an email address the D can be served disclosure. In the name of complete transparency the RL sent me a couple of reviews in
relation to this case and there is a review here where she says the D case statement has been forwarded to officer in the case for his input – she also says it is for him to reply by 12 June. From her email his morning
the OIC is on annual leave.
J the delay is because there was nothing done before march and june. Sending it to the OIC a week before the trial date is entirely unsatisfactory
SP in relation to the outstanding disclosure, we are in a position to serve that today. We're not opposing the BCA. That then leaves the …
J lack of response to the D statement
SP no comment on that. I spoke to her earlier about that – the items requested were served out of time
J it can't have been
SP o yes. She doesn't know if the initial disclosure
was served on the defence or not. We did discuss the D statement and she says there is nothing further to disclose – one doesn't assist and the others are a fishing expedition
J this hasn't been checked by the OIC in the case – so no one has looked or made a determination
SP reading between the lines… I think it's a sensible assumption that she hasn't had the OIC input, but
has given me the instructions this morning based on what she had avail.
J in terms of the qs I asked – you say the RL was silent on them – but do you actually have the review
that was undertaken?
SP review on 9 June – RL says 9 March disclosure request crime report, all comms between C and police and all records of interaction between C and
police including notebooks and bodycam. Rquest was sent to OIC on 12 June. No response.
J other review
SP that was dated January
J so that was before the D request. Has the RL said we received a lawyer from D setting out request and detail.
SP not that much detail
J can you say there was any review
SP the 9 June statement said there was a previous review by the charging lawyer and the RL said she agrees with it. It's a "shambles"
J yes. NH?
NH "the only word judge that comes to mind is scandalous" to suggest the carefully reasoned requests were a fishing expedition seems to characterise the attitude of the CPS towards this
case and requirement to actively engage with the D throughout. It's not clear to me there is a review of 26 Feb and the off the cuff response suggests it hasn't been considered. I'm in your hands, but any
adjournment would be very strongly opposed
SP I haven't made an application
J are you proceeding with an application to stay
NH yes
J let's do that first
NH the inability of the P to proceed today is v relevant
J what is the Crown's position today? "I am not satisfied any of the disclosure obligations have been complied with in this case" – even if something is
served today – I'm not sure the OIC has seen it. What would be the Crown's app?
SP If I could serve initial disclosure today – I would apply for an adjournment so we can properly respond
to the D's statement. We have not given a formal response to the statement, so it would be a formal app for an adjournment
J is that the app you are making now? If you couldn't
make disclosure the trial could not proceed.
SP the RL says she can serve disclosure today
J but either way it's an app for disclosure
SP yes
J make it now
SP "not going to try to make excuses for lack of proper disclosure in this case". "I appreciate things have not been done in a timely manner or at all in this case." This is a serious matter. C is here "expecting
her day in court". I am reluctantly making this app due to the fact "the crown has failed" in its disclosure. I know trials should start on the day they are listed. However the court also has as duty to deal
with the overriding objective which is convicting the guilty acquitting the innocent and dealing with everyone fairly. "On behalf of the Crown I accept the position we are in today is down to the Crown,"
however the q for you is whether the interests of justice are refusing the adjournment and proceeding with the trial where disclosure is incomplete. The D
will argue prejudice, and adjournment will cause inconvenience, however proper compliance can be achieved with time and it would allow C to have their day in court. I haven't given you the facts of this case
yet, and I can give you the info if you want it – the stalking covers 15 months where C has been stalked by D, mainly via social media types of posts on different website. Personal data of hers has been
shared publicly including Experian reports. She as well has a gender identity – the C identifies herself as a female and posts have been shared publicly about her gender in such matters which for her have been a
huge distress and caused her a huge amount of anxiety. After D was arrested for this he immediately went on SM and published posts which shows he's gone on to commit further of those applications
immediately after he was released from police custody
[NH objects]
SP I know this is not the trial. D has not abided by
court orders which makes matters more serious. This is the first trial listing. I'm not expecting a long adjournment. The work has been done. There is just a few loose ends. Those are my submissions.
J yes. NH?
NH first to deal with the app for adjournment. It would be a further scandal added to the existing situation. This needs to be dealt with swiftly – where it is
seriously suggested that this entire proceeding is an abuse of process as it is being done to sielence pubish and harass Mr Heath. There can be no legit
["silence punish and harass" – sorry]
interest in pursuing a trial which is inappropriate and that impacts D on an adjournment. If the object of these proceedings is to continue to harass Mr Heath – it would be compounded if this were to be dragged out further.
It is difficult to think of a worse case of a lack of disclosure – it goes to the worst examples of abuse of process. The main suggestion that progress could be made today with initial disclosure doesn’t take us far,
because that initial disclosure was never made, has never been received – even if that was completed today that’s not going to enough for what we need.
It is further scandalous that the OIC is not in court today. I had questions about disclosure and the OIC not being in court to assist.
J OIC was a warned witness?
NH yes – this trial would not be possible without the OIC
SP OIC was not warned
NH thought he was required
J he’s not on the list
NH that’s the failure to engage. All this could have been resolved back in Feb. No crit of my learned friend but that position is indefensible and an adjournment would be a scandal
[quick chat with instructing solicitor]
NH the OIC is listed as required witness by D.
J okay I’m going to rise for 5 mins to consider the appliaction
[rises]
[returns]
J application to adjourn the trial by P, opposed by D. Trials should go head on date set. Apps to adj on day of trial should be rare. Any issues which could impact the trial date should be comm’d to court and directions sought.
J – D have written to CPS and court on several occasions highlighting disclosure which has not been complied with. In this case there have been several failures by the P, in partic I’m not clear a review did
take place. No evidence initial disc has been complied with, response to D statement, no response to BCA, OIC was not warned, but he would be required to attend. Crown accepts the failures bar the
last point. D has attended trial. D set out these proceedings should never have been instituted in the first place, but that is not a consideration for me. I do have to balance the needs of the parties in this case
and overriding objective. C is attending trial and is a willing participant. BCA app has been agreed. C is in a poisition to serve today and a defence statement has been suppiled. I do conclude it is in the interests
of justice to adjourn the trial. That does not vindicate the prosecution in this trial. The trial can be a adjourned to a date in the very near future. NH?
[NH is about to make an application to stay the trial – in crim justice language – this means drop it]
NH re an application for stay – could I foreshadow that with an application for wasted costs
J yes that can be addressed at the end
NH the CPS perhaps in advance of attending today,
may have had a good reason to engage or fail to disclose, but they have not been comm’d to D. The CPIA is designed to ensure material is not withheld and it plainly has been withheld in this case. It goes
to the central point of the pleadings – that it’s about the way the case has been run and its about abuse of process. They are central to the sides of this major debate on trans issues, the use of the police and CPS
to advance an agenda on behalf of C is something the police have been on notice on since the first interview. This takes us firmly into the realm of an exceptional case and it is for those reasons that D
makes an exceptional application for a stay. [starts referring to the authorities] – in the case of a failure to comply the court should balance the material considerations and decide wether its in the interests
of justice and the CJS that the case should proceed. the CPIA has simply not been complied with in this case.
NH – court is required to consider whether a fair trial can take place and whether P’s conduct undermines confidence in the system. Seen in the context of the evidence you have had the chance to review -in
particular the SM back and forth puts the alleged offending in a very different light. In my sub – because of the position advanced by D that this is all about harassing people who don’t agree with C’s position
on the trans debate. It must leave the court with a serious q as to whether a fair trial can take place. There are qs as to whether this case was properly investigated. The ready engagement of C in at least
similar or far worse behaviour should have been investigated and properly looked at – not dismissed as art 10 issues or req for disc as a fishing expedition. The sig amount of evidence presented to the CPS
and the detailed nature of subs that have been advanced, all to assist P with the proper discharge of their duties. There is no evidence of a review in Feb. There was one in Jan and one in June.
As far as D complied – no D could have done more and whether other sanctions would be sufficient – even a wasted costs order wouldn’t remedy the abject failure of P – a wasted costs order would b
insufficient where these proceedings are being used for that reprehensible purpose. Given the failings throughout and failure to grapple with the gravity of the situation which you have properly posed – can
there be any confidence in the system. D’s statements were well made and properly reasoned. P did nothing. P did nothing about emails from the court. Court is being asked to take it on trust that
things will be better going forward, when there has been no grappling with the situation we’re in today.
[goes to another authority – Boardman]. Looking to
some of the key principles I submit this case assists with – in case of case management J must have mind to overriding objective – if P had denied entitlement to disclosure then we’d be in a better position to know
what to do. We didn’t even get a response.
Finally with respect to R v R, disclosure has to be actively managed – this is repeated in the case. It emphasises P is in the driving seat, must get a grip
on disclosure from the outset – on the basis that they stay is said to be exceptional – our position is that these are exceptional circs. It’s not that there has been no disc – D made targeted request and both D
and the court was ignored. RnR makes it clear P has to adopt a considered and appropriately researched approach. P is required to initiate dialogue. All the responsibilities fall squarely to both parties.
If there were a P case with disc failures that merited a stay – it is hard to think of a worse one than this. Virtually nothing was given. “This has been a…
… wholesale failure and has to be marked by what I would request as the end of these proceedings”
J thank you – SP would you like time to address the authorities?
SP happy to proceed now. I am opposing D app. in relation to CPIA – ref s.3 whereby P has a continuing
duty to disclose material which might undermine Crown’s case or help D. I am not making any excuses for the fact the Crown has not discharged its obligations, but the overriding objective that courts
must deal with cases justly – including acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty – dealing with P and D fairly, respecting the interests of witnesses and victims and dealing with cases “efficiently and
expiditiously”. There were shortcomings. Q for you is not whether crit towards the Crown is justified, but whether there would be prejudice to the D and whether it can be remedied so D can have a fair trial. I
say yes remedies can be put in place and D can have a fair trial. [SP goes to R v Boardman] Court did recognise all parties need to work together, but I do also note that Boardman demonstrates breadth of
court’s discretion Boardman shows remedies court can put in place and that on the facts of this case before you today -discretion should be exercised w/o any prejudics. [goes to Salt] Despite this case having
serious disclosure failures it went ahead because a fair trial was possible. It also was about whether D should receive a fair trial rather than punishing P for their errors and/or incompetence. Salt makes it clear
that even grave disclosure failings do not stop a fair trial taking place. [goes to RvR] trial process is not a game, and it’s not. It’s not a series of traps for P into which they must stumble to the ultimate benefit of D.
SP – J’s should focus on a fair trial – not disc obs. J those are my responses to those three case law [authorities].
SP In relation to the rest AG’s ref no 1 1990 it is recognised a stay is exceptional where a fair trial is no longer possible or it would offend the court’s sense of propriety than to try the accused.
I say an adjournment will allow D to consider the material CPS will serve. My understanding is that after this, after serving initial disclosure, what is required is a proper response to D statement and
anything arising from it and I say D can still properly prepare for this case. And i say it is in the interests of justice to have a short adjournment rather than deprive C of the opportunity for a determination on
these very serious allegations. This is about fairness of proceedings rather than punishing P is what should prevail. And so the app for a stay should fail.
J – thank you. NH?
NH if this case were to go ahead – there has been no indication we would receive a response to our application of 25 Feb – they were dismissed today by the RL. That goes to the matter of whether the CPS
are capable of prosecuting this fairly [goes back to more authorities – Salt]
J yes I understand this case is v different
NH similarly the issues by the AG are parallel – this is
a case which meets those exceptional circs. It was in no way ever a suggestion of mine that a stay should be a punishment for P. It’s about a fair trial.
SP my instructions are that the Feb request was reviewed.
J yes but there’s no evidence of it – and even in conversation it was limited to the Art 10 point.
J i propose to come back after lunch and give my ruling in relation to the abuse of process.
[abuse of process?? sorry i think she probably said application for a stay – brain slip – apols]
J are there any bail conditions?
NH yes non contact
J Mr Heath please stand up. I want to remind you that you are still bound by those conditions. Don’t go on
social media. I won’t be back till 2pm. SP could you ensure there is no accidental contact with C?
SP yes
J asks clerk if she allows P to go ahead when the case could next be heard
Clerk – the next full day trial would not be until September
J thank you
[court rises till 2pm]
[If you are new to this and want to find out more about my reporting on this subject and might even want to consider a small one-off or even monthly donation, please do have a look at my GenderBlog website – here's the front page… genderblog.net]
And here is the inevitable donate page:
genderblog.net/donate/
And if you have friends who aren't on X and want to follow along to the live tweets – you can also do that on my website. Amazing.
genderblog.net/live-tweets/
Andrew, who runs my website, built that clever live tweet thing – it means I no longer need to hop feeds as it's got round the X API, and the need to use ThreadReadApp, much as I love it. So yes, please donate so I can give Andrew some money. He's a nice man.
Right I am going to stop tweeting till 2pm. Back for the decision on whether Matthew Heath's prosecution for the harassment of Stephanie Hayden ends here or drags on into the autumn.
[we are back in court awaiting the arrival of the judge to give her decision on whether the trial will be adjourned till a later a date, or stayed, which means dropped]
[if the latter Mr Heath will leave court with no stain on his reputation. if the former he will – due to the admitted incompetence of the CPS – have the criminal charge hanging over him at least until the end of summer]
[Court rises]
J – just before lunch D made an app to stay these proceedings – not a fair trial and an affront to justice – due to wholesale failures of Crown – in partic lack of consideration of D's case – makes it an exceptional case.
J – Crown says it has made a review, tho there is no evidence of this, and says D's statement was only about art 10 rights. P says there can be a fair trial.
I've considered everything. D has done what it can – submitted statements, requested a case management hearing
… and submitted material on time. P has not complied with its duties. There was no response to the D statement, there was no review, the oral convo about art 10 rights is only one of the points. Having said all of this staying proceedings as an abuse of process is exceptional
Proceedings can be remedied short of a stay. Remedy is an adjournment. Directions will be made to ensure D can have a fair trial. I understand reservations about P, but I believe these directions will be complied with. Trial will continue at this stage.
Directions set out for now, but let me know if you have requests for changes.
Length of trial is set for one day – is that still okay
NH we asked for a day and a half, but DJ McGyver said it had to be a day
J – there is reduction due to P accepting Bad Character ref
NH still…
… would prefer a day and a half.
J am going to start setting timetable – directions at this stage.
P to serve initial disclosure by 19 June 4pm – but am expecting it today
D has until 3 July for any addendum D statement.
P to comply with ongoing disclosure by 24 July
J if P is considered inadequate D has to apply by 7 August, if that is considered inad then by 21 August the D must file for a s8 hearing to be listed. I'll wait for legal advisor to notify me of the date.
NH is it for D to request by 21 Aug?
J yes – court will list it
J also given what P have said in open court about BCA that P aren't opposing it – I'm going to direct the parties are to draw up an agreed facts doc agreeing what BC is accepted by the parties
NH would that not be the contents of the application
J want a summary
NH have you
… had sight of it?
J yes – I want it reduced into a s10 headed doc so it's clear, but they have agreed to the BC evidence to be admissible. SP can we have an in-house prosecutor dealing with this case
SP yes
J no offence to you
SP none taken judge
J I want an inhouse P especially as I am going to make a direction on opening notes and given the failures.
Clerk dates I've found are for 28 and 29 September
SP suits P
[D team confers]
NH thank you judge – that's suitable for D
J so date for submissions are by 14 Sep
NH can we have a case management hearing that day
J probs are disclosure. directions I have given should stop these being a problem, but if you want to make a s8 app you can have your CMH on 14 Sep
NH by 21 Aug
J yes
NH is that enough time
J yes
SP can I clarify BCA – you haven't made any orders on it
J it's been accepted and agreed in open court – its been accepted
SP yes
J by 3 July prosecution need to have conducted a full review of this case taking into account the reps made by the defence in February
SP yes
[NH on her feet]
[J anticipates and says she can submit an addendum on receiving disclosure]
J P will refer to C as "she". what will D be using?
NH as "the C" or "he/him" – it was the approach adopted by the Crown Court in Linehan
J was that CC?
NH it was both – Westminster Mags
DB then the crim dam was appealed to CC
J ah I wasn't aware of that
J I will call C C and/or surname. I won't use pronouns. I will try as far as possible to use the Complainant, but if it can't be avoided I will say "they" so the court is as neutral as possible.
[quick disco on costs]
NH there is a degree of debate about conclusion of proceedings… the only reason I raise it it would certainly save costs if today's costs could be dealt with in advance.
J in Mags courts they're done at the end
NH I understand, but can they be dealt with at the end of proceedings. If written reps are appropriate – could that happen before trial so they can be heard at the end of the trial.
[J seems happy to accommodate so long as its in the rules. they are checking the rules.]
J I'll set directions for the application to be made.
J any app for wasted costs must be made by 21 Aug. By then you'll know if there are issues with disclosure. If so you can change the date. P to respond by 4 September. App will be heard at the conc of the trial. As far as D are concerned, need a full breakdown and schedule…
… appended to the application.
J SP?
SP I don't know how she knows or who was updating her, but C was v vocal about the number of people sitting in well of courtroom – so on next occasion crown will oppose the number of people in the courtroom
J that's the court's decision
SP as I don't know about OIC avail can I have time to request a vacate
J yes you have till 30 June to request a vacate of the trial date.
[we have discovered a problem with the proposed trial date – it's going to get pushed back again – C is unavailable first two weeks in Oct]
[J could not do original trial date]
Clerk – 19/20 October are next avail dates
J okay for C
SP yes, but don't know about OIC
J D?
NH yes
J so trial will take place 19/20 Oct here at Stratford Mags
J is D able to provide D witness name and addresses today
D don't have addresses
J okay by 3 July pls – is there any direction which is unclear or further subs?
[no]
J Mr Heath pls stand. Apologies to you for inability of trial to progress today. You have heard the reasons
why. You must attend on 19/20 Oct for start of trial at 10am. You must abide by your bail conditions. If you don't attend in Oct there may be a warrant for your arrest. You've attended today and I'm sure you'll attend in October but I just want to make you aware of the
… consequences. Okay you are free to leave court. Thank you.
[Judge rises]
