2.4 
It is asserted that if the Court were to appoint a legal representative to 
conduct the cross examination, the nature of the evidence gathered as a 
result of that questioning would be greatly improved. 
2.5 
Mr Evans has previously expressed the hope that an order would be made 
under this section. 
2.6 
A has previously expressed the belief that there are issues over the 
transparency of proceedings and impartiality involving his appearances in the 
criminaljustice system, particularly in relation to Cardiff. He is concerned to 
ascertain whether there are links between Mr Evans and others involved in 
the system. He cross examined Mr Evans about the hearings at which A was 
prosecuted by Mr Evans. He also put to Mr Evans that he had previously been 
a cage fighter. lt is thought that if A cross examines directly, then some of the 
questioning may well follow this line. 
2.7 
Behaviour: at 3.30pm prior to the day of trial A email an application to the 
Court for a witness summons for a particular Doctor. The Doctor is the victim 

of harassment, and the injured party in respect of the trials at which Mr Evans 

prosecuted. Prior to evidence being given at the trial, A made lengthy 

submissions concerning this application and an application for disclosure. He 

called a witness, a Mr Leighley. A also submitted that he could not be sure 
that he had capacity to conduct the case himself. He made an application to 
have the trial moved elsewhere, to a jurisdiction governed by Code Napoleon. 

He expressed concern that his trial would not be heard fairly in Cardiff but did 
congratulate the District Judge hearing his case for his even handedness. He 
was warned a number of times during the Court day about his behaviour