“This is not true although the appellant did not witness it. The victim was cross‑examined by me in line with the instruction that I had been provided. The appellant had initially been removed from the courtroom by the Recorder, due to his behaviour and demeanor. I spoke with him in the cells and received his permission to cross‑examine, in his absence, as he was finding it too difficult. I provided appropriate warnings and advice.” 5. It is plain that the complainant was cross‑examined as there are numerous references in the summing‑up as to what was put to her and her responses in cross‑examination. We also note that within the email previously referred to by Hannah Turner she stated: “Having conducted an assessment of Mr Hobbs it was determined that he was never to be seen alone. Mr Hobbs presented as a very volatile individual and it would have been inappropriate to have him in any meeting in the office, or at court with only one legal representative at a time. In turn this meant that counsel was always attended.” 6. We cannot put it more succinctly or with greater clarity than the single judge who concluded: “... your former partner gave evidence at the trial and was cross‑examined. The conflicting accounts of your relationship were properly left to the jury as matters of fact.” 7. This ground has no merit. 8. Ground 2 9. 7.The applicant has fresh evidence from two witnesses, namely Paul Rooney and Michael Stearns. The applicant contends that Paul Rooney can provide evidence of the complainant’s abuse of the applicant, and that he did not provide a statement at the time because the police had threatened him not to make a statement. Mike Stearns can provide evidence that the injury sustained by the complainant in Thailand was not caused by the applicant. We agree with the single judge who concluded: “Mr Rooney was contacted by the prosecution but did not provide a witness statement and indicated that he did not want to become involved in the trial. Mr Stearns was not identified by you as a potential witness at the trial. No written statements from the witnesses have been provided in support of your application to rely on fresh evidence.” 8.That was the correct position when the papers were before the single judge. The Court now has before it a statement from Mr Rooney to which we will refer to later. The ground was found to have no merit. We are in agreement. 10. 9.Ground 3 relates to the fact a local media story was published during the trial which could have been seen by the jury. We agree with the single judge who concluded: “... the Judge properly directed the jury on the issues of law, including their duty to consider the case on the evidence. No misdirection has been identified.” 11. Ground 4 12. 10.The applicant has complaints about his legal representatives, namely that they withheld witness statements and video footage from the jury which the applicant asserts were material to his defence. Further, the legal representatives did not want to advance the case of the applicant more generally. The applicant alleges that counsel did not gothrough the agreed facts with him for comment and he did not cross‑examine the complainant. Further, his representative was volatile and shouted at him and did not listen to his instructions. We agree with the single judge who concluded: “...your counsel and solicitor have confirmed that they acted on your instructions and represented you to the best of their ability, despite incidents when you became very emotional and aggressive. In particular, your counsel met with you on ten occasions prior to trial, including several lengthy conferences. The court record shows that, in addition to a panic attack, you were disruptive in court on a number of occasions and were required to leave until you had calmed down.”