WOT NO TRANSCRIPT! Judge blocks defendant in 'missing documents' case from having records of hearings saying 'you can't have them because YOU WERE THERE'

A Crown Court judge who said the CPS "makes mistakes all the time" during a controversial Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) restraining order discharge application has gone on to refuse to release a transcript of the hearing.

Judge Ross Cohen made the surprising admission at Snaresbrook Crown Court during an application by Julian Wright (above) to discharge a replacement restraining order the same judge earlier placed on his home in favour of the CPS at a private ex parte hearing on September 30 last year.

Wright claims the CPS is seeking to revisit his POCA case, which had earlier been settled, as an act of "bad faith" due to complaints he has made about a page of a prosecution witnesses' statement being missing from his criminal trial bundle.

Judge Cohen rejected Wright's discharge application saying he had seen no evidence "whatsoever" by the CPS of any bad faith.

This was despite his acceptance of a claim by the CPS that an assertion it made later proved as false by Wright was an "error" without any explanation.

Judge Cohen also allowed the CPS to refuse to disclose a host of information about what triggered the review of Wright's case despite anomalies in a chronology it was asked by him to produce following Wright's startling claims.

You can read the full report on last month's hearing here.

Wright has since made an application to appeal Judge Cohen's refusal to discharge the restraining order on grounds of non disclosure.

As part of his appeal he applied to the court for transcripts of the last hearing and an earlier one last December.

Transcripts are routinely provided (for a fee) to either the CPS or defendants and often for the purposes of appeals.

They are most commonly requested by the defence or prosecution for such purposes, but can also be requested by the media or public who want a verbatim record of the proceedings.

However, Judge Cohen refused to allow Wright both the transcripts on unusual grounds that he had been present at both hearings.

Wright, who represented himself, could not have taken notes of the proceedings as he was having to speak for himself during the case.

People who attended a case are more likely than others to be the ones to request transcripts and these are routinely provided for the costs of producing them from court recordings of the case.

A number of lawyers have said it is highly unusual for a judge to refuse to allow the release of a transcript to a defendant, particularly if they are preparing an appeal.

The grounds for the refusal have also been described as highly unusual.

Wright has now instructed a firm of solicitors to make a new request for the transcripts and also for the one of the earlier ex parte hearing.

Essex News and Investigations will bring you further updates on this unusual and interesting case.

ESSEX NEWS AND INVESTIGATIONS OPINION

If I were the one sitting at the bench and the litigant in person was making allegations which were tantamount to corruption against the CPS - and which were off the back of admitted 'mistakes' and paperwork 'going missing' - I think that I would let the guy have a copy of the transcript.

Saying 'you can't have it' because 'you were there' has got to be one of the strangest of reasons to give for refusal. Defendants must be the most common requesters of transcripts and they are usually supplied.

Will he refuse to provide the transcript of the ex parte hearing, saying 'you can't have it because you were NOT there? It will be interesting to see if the solicitors have any more success in requesting the transcripts. In the words of Wright himself - 'watch this space.'