|
·
This Document is not completed yet Si
Note: Just in ruff 25/10/2021
·
This Document is not completed yet Si
Note: Just in ruff 08/03/2021
|
|
|
#
|
INFORMATION
|
|
1.
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
4.
|
|
|
5.
|
|
|
6.
|
|
|
7.
|
|
|
8.
|
|
|
9.
|
|
|
10.
|
|
|
11.
|
|
|
12.
|
|
|
13.
|
|
Hippy Fest
Shannon after we
got told and she was happy I got loads more as we never argued. She is in the
after videos for the event that got published as well. I met her at the
420-event also, contained in the Asbo check my Diary. The only neighbors of
mine that met her was Stain and that was only for 2 minutes. We only went to
mine about three times. I will explain a lot more about the topic soon.
|
How you read
the Asbo / Police files correctly for Corruption
|
Ø Cads
All Cad numbers got taken
from Cad 10967 07/06/2014
When reading a Cad that was adduced in
the Asbo Application you must take notes of a few different aspects.
|
|
A.
|
You will notice a lot of numbers and
dates at the start of each Cad that are labelled as
Linked: explicitly to
Linked: implicitly to:
One of the points to keep in mind is the date that the squatters
occupied Progress way on the 7th 8th of June 2014.
In both 1st Magistrates Court & 2nd Crown Court
Asbo applications the Linked files are the same and each cad in each
application shows the same Information.
Any Dates before the 07 & 08th of June 2014 is in
fact Crown Rd, this also includes the dates of the 07th &
08th June 2014 also being Crown Rd.
The dates of 07 & 08th of June 2014 is the only
dates in the Asbo application that have any form of victims for the Crown
to have prosected me.
3.) Crown Rd
(a)
A
(b)
A
(c)
A
4.) Grid References.
5.) The police made the
2nd 999 call to the police while on duty Cad 1047 Pc Shinick
from the police Patrol Centre
6.) Cads that were taken
from different locations other than progress way and used against me in
the Court of Law
7.) Cad 10471
8.) Redacted Information
that would have proved my innocents
9.) Remarks made by
police officers and civil servants
PRINTED
AT 15:56 11: AUG:14 GPC
SINGLE
INCIDENT PRINTOUT
INCIDENT
No. 2410:08JUN14
711243
YE DIVISON
Time
Date Opid Termid
illegal rave going on opposite
A&J Cars
|
|
B.
|
CROWN RD is now known as Travis
Perkins but was called the Man Building. The Enfield Council had Control
of the assets for the building until they sold it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=A%26J+
Cars+enfield&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB926GB926&oq=
A26J+Cars+enfield&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i13i175i199j0i1
3i30j0i8i13i30.5243j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
|
|
C.
|
This is a up to date picture
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6490462,0.0539904,3a,75y,0.34h,74.14t/data=
!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0uXv0C7xlJMrM0NAZ91gqA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
|
|
D.
|
This is a picture in 2014 what is relevant to
my defense as it has the squatter section still on the gate.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6497149,-0.0538192,3a,75y,115.76h,95.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saz
Wzy_HhHaW6zAbqVnkjvA!2e0!5s20140701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
E.
|
My mother put an FOI into the Enfield Council
about this building and what can be proved is
(a)
The Enfield Council & Met Pole
force Were receiving complaints about the squatter in this building while
I was on curfew for the Gazebo Case / before the Asbo.
(b)
A
(c)
A
|
|
F.
|
The Enfield Council had Control
of the assets for the building until they sold it. “Check my diary dated; 25/04/2014”
https://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/11459487.
the-man-building-Enfield-wrecked-by-graffiti/
|
|
G.
|
Enfield Patrol Base
Address: Great Cambridge
Industrial Estate, Unit 17-19 Lincoln Rd, Enfield EN1 1SH
This building was a newish building almost next doors to Progress
way were Pc Shinick Made the second 999 call on the 7th of June
2014 to Mett CCC Bow Cad 1047
It’s the building getting built in front: “It
was built by the 6th of June 2014 and running as a company.”
When using Google Maps look in the right
corner for the words street view and click on the clock looking icon for
a date timeline.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6422795,-0.0606787,3a,90y,
29.12h,102.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWe3HJMmpd7lRY1D-
RtbAeg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
H.
|
Progress Ways back entrances Location is down
this Ally “Next doors almost to the then newish Patrol Base.”
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6421005,-0.0607902,3a,
75y,91.33h,69.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPsltiqjqolmxvz9K
UutXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
I.
|
|
|
J.
|
|
|
K.
|
·
Si Note:
|
|
End:
|
|
Linked:
explicitly to:
|
|
Linked: implicitly to:
|
|
943:07JUN14
2649:01JUN14
3274:01JUN14
1081:03JUN14
2141:07JUN14
2456:07JUN14
2672:07JUN14
2906:07JUN14
3326:07JUN14
4015:07JUN14
4809:07JUN14
8931:07JUN14
10471:07JUN14
10844:07JUN14
10742:07JUN14
340:08JUN14
930:08JUN14
1646:08J0N14
2456:08JUN14
2766:08JUN14
2904:08JUN14
3151:08JUN14
3319:08JUN14
|
2989:01JUN14
1571:07JU14
8528:01JUN14
2255:07JUN14
2525:07JUN14
2757:07JUN14
3005:07JUN14
3436:07JUN14
4322:07JUN14
5206:07JUN14
10311:07JUN14
10481:07JUN14
10967:07JUN14
10506:07JUN14
625:08JUN14
1667:08JUN14
2608:08JUN14
2796:08JUN14
2942:08JUN14
3179:08JUN14
3350:08JUN14
3515:08JUN14
3946:08JUN14
|
5586:01JUN14
3190:01JUN14
6851:02JUN14
1047:07JUN14
1608:07JUN14
1380:07JUN14
2271:07JUN14
2601:07JUN14
2354:07JUN14
3037:07JUN14
3838:07JUN14
4323.07JUN14
5571:07JUN14
10393:07JUN14
47:08JUN14
749:08JUN14
1206:08JUN14
1768:08JUN14
2654:08JUN14
2845:08JUN14
2948:08JUN14
3194:08JUN14
5644:08JUN14
|
7983:01JUN14
3754:01JUN14
5897:03JUN14
1722:07JUN14
1816:07JUN14
2291:07JUN14
1323:07JUN14
2637:07JUN14
2904:07JUN14
3252:07JUN14
3986:07JUN14
4598:07JUN14
8841:07JUN14
10462:07JUN14
169:08JUN14
793:08JUN14
1631:08JUN14
2410:08JUN14
2764:08JUN14
2890:08JUN14
3132:08JUN14
3260:08JUN14
1341:09JUN14
|
|
All CAD’s For 1st June 2014
All Cad numbers got taken from Cad
10967 07/06/2014
|
|
CAD
|
|
Num
|
|
|
Date
|
Time
|
Page
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 1 of
the day
|
2649
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
01/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 2 of
the day
|
2989
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
01/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 3 of
the day
|
3190
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
01/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 4 of
the day
|
3274
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
01/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 5 of
the day
|
3754
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
01/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 6 of
the day
|
5586
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
01/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 7 of
the day
|
7983
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
01/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 8 of
the day
|
8528
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
01/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
All CAD’s For 2nd June 2014
All Cad numbers got taken from Cad 10967 07/06/2014
|
|
CAD
|
|
Num
|
|
|
Date
|
Time
|
Page
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 1
of the
day
|
6851
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
02/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
All CAD’s For 7th June
2014
·
https://gridreferencefinder.com/
|
|
CAD
|
|
Num
|
|
|
Date
|
Time
|
Page
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 1
of the day
|
943
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 2
of the day
|
1012
|
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
|
Progress
Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
01:53
|
Page
Mag
2
–
178,179,
180,181
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 3
of the day
|
1047
|
(In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513
Main cad police Insp Hillmill sent to location
progress
|
Progress
Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
01:59
|
Page
Mag
2
–
209,210,
211,212,
213
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 4
of the day
|
1323
|
(Lincoln
Way grid 534657,195453)
|
Lincoln
Rd Lumina Way Enfield /
|
07/06/2014
|
02:41
|
Page
Mag
2
–
182,183,
184,185,
186
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 5
of the day
|
1380
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 6
of the day
|
1571
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 7
of the day
|
1608
|
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
|
Progress
Way Great Cambridge
|
07/06/2014
|
03:34
|
Page
Mag
2
–
219,220,
221
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 8
of the day
|
1722
|
(Orchard
Terrance Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
|
Blocked Out /
|
07/06/2014
|
03:58
|
Page
Mag
2
–
187,188,
189
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 9
of the day
|
1816
|
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
04:15
|
Page Mag
2 –
190,191,
192,193,
194
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 10
of the day
|
2141
|
(Hardy Way
Grid Ref 531438, 197711
miles away
Gorden Hill)
|
Hardy Way
|
07/06/2014
|
05:50
|
Page Mag
2 –
195,196,
197,198,
199
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 11
of the day
|
2255
|
(Leighton Road
Grid Ref 534144,195627
Bush Hill Park)
|
Leighton Rd Bush Hill Park /
|
07/06/2014
|
06:24
|
Page Mag
2 –
200,201,
202,203,
204
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 12
of the day
|
2291
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 13
of the day
|
2271
|
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
06:27
|
Page Mag
2 –
205,206,
207,208
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 14
of the day
|
2456
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 15
of the day
|
2525
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 16
of the day
|
2601
|
(Ayley Croft
Grid Ref 534219,195697)
Police Building
|
Great Cambridge Rd /Aley Croft /
|
07/06/2014
|
08:09
|
Page Mag
2 –
222,223,
224,225
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 17
of the day
|
2637
|
(1st Time Laps 08:18)
(In Progress Way
grid ref 534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
08:18
|
Page Mag
2 –
226,227,
228,229.230
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 18
of the day
|
2672
|
(1st Time Laps 08:16)
(In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
08:16
|
Page Mag
2 –
231,232,
233
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 19
of the day
|
2757
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 20
of the day
|
2854
|
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
08:56
|
Page Mag
2 –
234,235,
236,237
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 21
of the day
|
2904
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 22
of the day
|
2906
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 23
of the day
|
3005
|
(2nd Time Laps 09:22)
(In Progress Way
grid ref 534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
09:22
|
Page Mag
2 –
238,239,
240
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 24
of the day
|
3037
|
(2nd Time Laps 09:20)
(Ty ne mouth
Drive miles away
Grid Ref
534375,198125)
|
Enfield Safe Store
|
07/06/2014
|
09:20
|
Page Mag
2 –
214,215,
216,217,
218
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 25
of the day
|
3252
|
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
10:07
|
Page Mag
2 –
241,242,
243,244
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 26
of the day
|
3326
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 27
of the day
|
3436
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 28
of the day
|
3838
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 29
of the day
|
3986
|
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
11:47
|
Page Mag
2 –
245,246,
247,248
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 30
of the day
|
4015
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 31
of the day
|
4322
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 32
of the day
|
4323
|
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
12:25
|
Page Mag
2 –
249,250,
251,252
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 33
of the day
|
4598
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 34
of the day
|
4809
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 35
of the day
|
5206
|
(No grid or Att location)
Crown Rd
|
Blocked Out /
|
07/06/2014
|
13:57
|
Page Mag
2 –
253,254,
255
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 36
of the day
|
5571
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 37
of the day
|
8841
|
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
20:07
|
Page Mag
2 –
256,257,
258,259
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 38
of the day
|
8931
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 39
of the day
|
10311
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 40
of the day
|
10393
|
(Great Cambridge Road miles away Grid
Ref 534396, 197692
Carter hatch Lane but states
behind tops tiles)
|
Great Cambridge Rd / Tops Tiles /
|
07/06/2014
|
22:38
|
Page Mag
2 –
260,261,
262,263,
264,265,
266
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 41
of the day
|
10462
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 42
of the day
|
10471
|
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
22:45
|
Page Mag
2 –
277,278,
279,280
|
|
·
The
rest of the 07/06/2014 table is below!
Statement off: Eric Baker
Police Officer 219382
Dated 19/08/2014
He is a police
officer in London Borough of Enfield and has been tasked to contact
residents of the Borough who had called police to inform them of an
illegal rave that took place over Friday 7th June 2014 and Saturday 8th
June 2014, in a warehouse in
Progress
Way Enfield
On Tuesday
19th August 2014 I contacted the caller of
the CAD 10471/07June 2014 by telephone that was happy to give an impact
statement regarding how illegal rave affected her and her husband over
the above dates mentioned.
The caller
wishes to remain anonymous. I will refer to her as complainant
"A" The original notes taken from the below statement are
present in my pocketbook serial 370/14, page 1.
Complainant
"a" said it was a warm evening and we had to keep the windows
shut because of the noise. The next day we could not even go out into the
garden because of the noise. It kept me and my husband up all night and
made us very anxious the next day. The illegal rave totally ruined our
weakened" This concluded what complainant 'A" said regarding
this matter.
Mr. Simon Cordell will state; “that at no point did he take part
in any form of Anti
Social
behaviour and he did not organize or hire any equipment to this private
house party neither was he attending a rave on the 6th 7th 8th June
2014th.
Witness Statement
A/Inspector Hamill 201566
Friday 6th June 2014 Progress Way
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; "I have had a CAD created
reference 10471
7June dispatched officers to the location to access numbers, crowd
dynamics and gather information around times the event is likely to run
until ----and also to make contact or identify the potential organizer.
Officers have reported back that Tyrone Benjamin and Simon Cordell where
at location and to be the believed the event organizers, there were
approximately 200 people in attendance, the event was covered by security
officers who had stated that they were volunteers and not licensed
through SIA. Officers have spoken with staff to confirm that all fire
escapes where clear, that there were sufficient fire extinguishers in
place and that there were first aid kits available."
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 43 of the day
|
10481
|
(3rd Time Laps 22:47 to 22:44)
(Wood stock Cres
grid Ref 534657,195453)
|
Blocked Out /
|
07/06/2014
|
22:47
|
Page Mag
2 –
268,269,
270,271,
272
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 44 of the day
|
10506
|
(3rd Time Laps 22:47 to 22:44)
(In Progress Way
grid ref 534380,195513)
|
Progress Way /
|
07/06/2014
|
22:44
|
Page Mag
2 –
273,274,
275,276
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 45 of
the day
|
10742
|
(Lincoln Way grid 534657,195453)
|
Lincoln Rd /
|
07/06/2014
|
23:01
|
Page Mag
2 –
281,282,
283,284
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 46 of
the day
|
10844
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
07/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 47 of
the day
|
10967
|
(In Albury Walk Miles Away
grid ref 535375. 202125 Cheshunt)
|
A10 Great Cambridge Rd /
|
07/06/2014
|
23:25
|
Page Mag
2 –
285,286,
287,288,
289
|
|
·
The
08/06/2014 table is also, below!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All CAD’s For 8th June 2014
There are
37 CAD/ Incident numbers for the 8th of June 2014, to which there is only
7 in the ASBO application and only Cad Number 47 represents Progress Way,
the rest represent 32 Crown RD other premises being occupied under section
144 laspo 10 minutes away from progress way. By the statistics, the call
center receives on the 8th of June 2014, 300 people call per hour.
·
https://gridreferencefinder.com/
|
|
CAD
|
|
Num
|
|
|
Date
|
Time
|
Page
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 1
of the day
|
47
|
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
|
Progress
Way Enfield /Safe Hal Unit /
|
08/06/2014
|
00:00
|
Page Mag
2 –
290,291,
292,293,
294
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 2
of the day
|
167
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 3
of the day
|
340
|
Blocked Out Page
Crown Rd
|
Blocked Out
/
|
08/06/2014
|
00:29
|
Page Mag
2 –
295,296,
297,298
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 4
of the day
|
625
|
Lincoln Road, Bush Hill Park,
Southbury, London Borough of Enfield, London,
534152,195940
To Far
|
Lincoln Rd /
|
08/06/2014
|
00:54
|
Page Mag
2 –
56,57,
58,59
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 5
of the day
|
749
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 6 of the day
|
793
|
Reason
1
Is Crown Rd
and this can get proved because of
the Linked
in cad on page 3 at the top line “Re Linked cad 1380”
What must be
the 07/06/2014 due to their only being 793 calls as of this Cad?
Cad 1380
would be the 5th cad inputted inside of the Asbo folder for the 7th and
it was given this place meant because only Pc Shnick call while on duty
was above other than cads 943 &
1012, Cad
943 was never place fully inside of the Asbo and belongs to Crown Rd.
While Cad 1012 got linked to cad 943 allowing all calls regarding crown
rd. to get blamed on Progress Way.
Reason
2
Another
piece of evidence is that in Cad 793 on page 1 at the bottom and page 2
at the top there is a list of Linked:
explicitly to: &
Linked: implicitly to: Cads and if you take
note to the “Linked: explicitly
to:”
you will
notice cad 2456
and if you
look at the “Linked: implicitly
to:” and take a note of cads
2649:01Jun14
2989:01Jun14
3274:01Jun14
3754:01Jun14
Page 2
5586:01Jun14
7983:01Jun14
8190:01Jun14
8528:01Jun14
6851:02Jun14
Reason
3
Time Laps
If Cads 793 is the seven hundred and nighty third call of the day
at the time of
And Cads
2410 is the
Also, Cad 3151 is the
Cad 2410
Cad 3151
Caller is 3 HOURS: 25 Minutes,
should equal
741 callers
the same as
Cads 793 to
On average
there would have been 168 999 emergency 999 calls made to the call
center.
|
Blocked Out /
|
08/06/2014
|
01:10
|
Page Mag
2 –
60,61,
62,63,
64
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 7 of the day
|
930
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 8 of the day
|
1081
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 9 of the day
|
1206
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 10 of the day
|
1631
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 11 of the day
|
1646
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 12 of the day
|
1667
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 13 of the day
|
1768
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 14 of the day
|
2410
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
4-page top line = A&J cars
Crown Road
|
Blocked Out /
|
08/06/2014
|
05:35
|
Page Mag
2 –
65,66,
67,68,
69
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 15 of the day
|
2456
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 16 of the day
|
2608
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 17 of the day
|
2654
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 18 of the day
|
2764
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 19 of the day
|
2766
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 20 of the day
|
2796
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 21 of the day
|
2845
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 22 of the day
|
2890
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 23 of the day
|
2904
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 24 of the day
|
2942
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 25 of the day
|
2948
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 26 of the day
|
3132
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 27 of the day
|
3151
|
(In Crown Road
grid ref 534960,196240
|
Southbury Rd / Crown Rd /
|
08/06/2014
|
09:08
|
Page Mag
2 –
70,71,
72,73,
74
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 28 of the day
|
3179
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 29 of the day
|
3194
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 30 of the day
|
3260
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 31 of the day
|
3319
|
(In Crown Road
grid ref 534960,196240
|
Southbury Rd / Crown Rd /
|
08/06/2014
|
09:39
|
Page Mag
2 –
75,76,
77,78
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 32 of the day
|
3350
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 33 of the day
|
3515
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 34 of the day
|
3946
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 35 of the day
|
5644
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 36 of the day
|
5897
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
|
|
08/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag
2 –
|
|
End:
|
|
All CAD’s For 9th June 2014
|
|
CAD
|
|
Num
|
|
|
Date
|
Time
|
Page
|
|
CAD
|
Cad 1
of the day
|
1341
|
Missing CAD
Crown Rd
Steven
Elsmore
|
|
09/06/2014
|
Missing CAD
|
Page Mag 2 –
|
|
End:
|
|
|
Ø Certificates
/ Notices
All the Asbo’s
books are for the same application the “Lower Court – Crown Court – High Court”
and they have different certificates for some unknown reason. Supplied by
the Enfield Council and the Metropolitan Police Force.
|
|
A.
|
A.
1st Asbo
Borough
Commander Johnson + Steve Hodgson
consultation,
as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
Date; 30/10/2014
Mag 2 – Page; 10
|
|
B.
|
B.
2nd Asbo
Appeal Stage 2nd Asbo Folder – Pages 5, 6 = Two different documents to the
first folder above.
Borough
Commander Johnson
consultation,
as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
Date; 30/10/2014
Page; 5
Steve
Hodgson
consultation,
as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
Date; 30/10/2014
Page; 6
|
|
C.
|
·
Si Note:
This is Joint Enterprise /
Joint Circular. The Wording on the certificates say it takes both the
Council & Police inclusive of real victims to make an Asbo.
|
|
End:
|
|
Ø Si
Note: Quick example of what’s to come /
Asbo Response Bundle Pages:
I requested my legal right to cross examine any victims or witness
under the Crown prosecution files 2011 and none attended court as they were
fictional.
|
Hosted in: https://flipbooks.zapto.org/Flipbook3/mobile/index.html
|
|
47
|
ISSUES OF CONCERN Letter
to Judge
|
1598
|
14/10/2016
|
434,435,436,437,438,
439,450,451,452,453,
454,455,456,457,458,
459,460,461,462,463
The prosecution team manual guidance 2011
http://www.patrolofficer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/
Manual-of-Guidance-2011-July.pdf
Page 30 is the main one and the rest is a good read in the manual
Robert Talalay Prosecutor; I also requested any reprimands against him, and they refused to
tell me about the 5 documents below the index at; https://www.horrificcorruption.com/
1st-asbo-folder
Named
as; Bristolspotlight
|
·
Si Note: Sally was ordered by the judge to index the 1st Asbo
halfway through the proceedings in the Magistrates Court and she clearly
understood that the victim’s statements were not signed as she had to mark
it up as on page 3 and 4 of the 1st Asbo Book.
https://www.horrificcorruption.com/1st-asbo-folder
She indexed them all as
police officers alone.
·
Si Note; Asbo Appel Stage Pages
And in the appeal stage of
the Asbo in the Court transcripts below the book Sally Gilchrest
the case handle / Legal director of the United Kingdom’s Governance and Law
states:
It is a pity of course that none of the people whose sleep in
particular was disturbed during this three-day or two-day event felt able
to give evidence. They all wanted anonymity. They all refused to give
evidence, but when one looks at the detail of the CADS it’s quite plain
that what was happening was causing distress to residents.
https://www.horrificcorruption.com/1st-asbo-2nd-folder
|
1 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 1 of 7 appearance
towards the 1st Asbo got held at Highbury Court and the Judge was
|
|
Date:
|
6th October 2014 Asbo Hearing
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive Director
Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Highbury Corner Magistrates
|
|
Reason:
|
Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
1402490741
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Defendant Judge Pigot?
Defendant Judge
Cordell?
Defendant Judge
Williams?
Defendant Judge
Pigot?
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
2 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 2 of
7 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Highbury Court and the
Judge was
|
|
Date:
|
22/10/2014
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Court House:
|
Highbury Corner Magistrates
|
|
Reason:
|
Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
1402490741
|
|
Judges Name:
|
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Was
Due to be interim)
|
|
Note 2:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police was Present!
|
|
3 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 3 of
7 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Highbury Court and the
judges was
|
|
Date:
|
05th November 2014 Asbo Hearing
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive Director
Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Highbury Corner Magistrates
|
|
Reason:
|
Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
1402490741
|
|
Judges Name:
|
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Hearing for interim)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
4 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 4 of
7 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Highbury Court and the
judges was
|
|
Date:
|
02nd December 2014 Asbo Hearing
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Court House:
|
Highbury Corner Magistrates
|
|
Reason:
|
Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
1402490741
|
|
Judges Name:
|
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
|
|
Note 2:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police was Present!
|
|
5 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 5 of
7 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Highbury Court and the
judges was
|
|
Date:
|
12th December 2014 Asbo Hearing
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Highbury Corner Magistrates
|
|
Reason:
|
Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
1402490741
|
|
Judges Name:
|
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
6 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 6 of
7 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Highbury Court and the
judges was
|
|
Date:
|
10/03/2015
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Court House:
|
Highbury Corner Magistrates
|
|
Reason:
|
Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
1402490741
|
|
Judges Name:
|
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
Was to be a full Hearing
|
|
Note 3:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police was Present!
|
|
7 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 7 of
7 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Highbury Court and the
judges was
|
|
Date:
|
03/08/2015
& 04/08/2015
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive Director
Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Highbury Corner Magistrates
|
|
Reason:
|
Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
1402490741
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Defendant Judge Pigot
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Full Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
8 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 1 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges was
|
|
Date:
|
26/10/2015
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Lyons
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police was Present!
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
9 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 2 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
09/11/2015
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
10 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 3 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
19-02-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Morrison
|
|
Court Room:
|
4
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police was Present!
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
11 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 4 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges was
|
|
Date:
|
22-02-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Court Room:
|
5
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
12 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 5 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges was
|
|
Date:
|
04-04-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Court Room:
|
1
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police was Present!
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
13 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 6 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
16-09-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive Director
Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Lucas
|
|
Court Room:
|
4
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
14 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 7 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
21-09-2016
+ 22-09-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Court Room:
|
3
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police was Present!
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
15 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 8 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
26-09-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Court Room:
|
2
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
16 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 9 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
14-10-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Court Room:
|
10
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police was Present!
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
17 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 10 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
19-10-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Court Room:
|
4
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
18 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 11 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
25-10-2016
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Numbe:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Court Room:
|
6
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Mention Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
19 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 12 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
17-01-2017
+ 18-01-2017 + 19-01-2017
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Judge Justice 1:
|
Raja Bashhm
|
|
Judge Justice 2:
|
Allan Bevon
|
|
Court Room:
|
2
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
|
Note 1:
|
(Appeal Hearing)
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
The 1st Appeal Stage
20 Out of 20 of 20 court dates the 13 of
13 appearance towards the 1st Asbo got held at Wood Green Crown Court and
the judges were: -
|
|
Date:
|
18/19-01-2017
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell
|
|
Case Handler:
|
Miss Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Director Met Police and she was Present!
|
|
Court House:
|
Wood Green
Crown Court
|
|
Reason:
|
The 1st Appeal Stage / Mention
Hearing
|
|
Case Number:
|
A2015006
|
|
Judges Name:
|
Pavlack
|
|
Court Room:
|
Raja Bashhm
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
Allan Bevon
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
2
|
|
Note 1:
|
Robert Talalay
|
|
Note 2:
|
Mr.
Andrew Locke
|
First Asbo JR Court
Proceedings
|
JR
01 Out of 0 of 0 court dates the 01 of
01 appearance towards the 1ST Asbo!
The 1st Asbo at the JR High Court
Jude’s where
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Defendants Name:
|
Mr Simon Cordell (Not Present)
|
|
Case Handler:
|
|
|
Court House:
|
|
|
Reason:
|
JR Stage
|
|
Case Number:
|
|
|
Judges Name:
|
|
|
Court Room:
|
|
|
Contra’s Name:
|
|
|
My Barrister Name:
|
|
|
Note 1:
|
|
|
Note 2:
|
|
|
|
Ø Statements
1.
Witness
2.
Victims
3. Police Officers
|
|
A.
|
It is Steven Elsmore who was the Asbo
case developer at is his computer log in at the top of every page in the
Asbo
|
|
B.
|
1.
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS STATEMENT of hearsay
evidence Steve ELSMORE / Police Officer 206372
I am a
police officer attached to the Anti- Social Behaviour Team as part of the Community
Safety
Unit based at Enfield Civic Centre. /
--
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,
Appeal - 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31
11/08/2014
|
|
C.
|
2.
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS STATEMENT of hearsay
evidence Steve ELSMORE / Police Officer 206372, I am a police officer
attached to the Anti-Social Behaviour Team as part of the Community Safety
Unit based at Enfield Civic Centre.
Page Numbers: 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31
11/08/2014
|
|
D.
|
|
|
E.
|
·
Si Note:
|
|
End:
|
|
Simon Cordell’s 1st ASBO
INDEX
|
|
Table
Number
|
Incident
Information
|
Date
|
Report
Id
|
Page
|
Cad
Info
|
Urn
|
Chris
|
Officer
|
Other
Info
|
Crimits
|
|
01
|
Magistrates’
Courts (Hear- say Evidence in Civil Proceeding) Rules 1999,
|
N/a Placed with the
05/09/2014
|
826
|
Mag 2 – 1,2
Appeal - 7, 8
|
|
Mag 2 –
Na
Appeal -
Na
|
Mag 2 –
Na
Appeal -
Na -
|
|
|
Mag 2 –
File Not Completed!
Na
Appeal -
File Not Completed!
Na
|
|
02
|
Index
|
|
|
Mg 2 – 3,4,5
|
|
Mag 2 –
Na
|
|
|
|
|
|
03
|
Application
for an Anti- social Behaviour Order and Interim Anti-Social Behaviour Order
|
05/09/2014
|
826
|
Mag 2 – 6,7,8
Appeal - 1,2,3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04
|
Summons
on Application for Anti-Social Behaviour Order (Crime and Disorder Act
1998, Section 1)
|
N/a Placed with the
05/09/2014
|
826
|
Mag 2 - 2 -9
Appeal - 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05
|
Borough
Commander Johnson
consultation, as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998, + Steve Hodgson
consultation, as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998
|
30/10/2014
|
881
|
Mag 2 – 10
Appeal - 5, 6 x 2 Different Documents to the first
folder
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
06
|
WITNESS STATEMENT
of hearsay evidence Steve ELSMORE / Police Officer 206372
I am a police officer attached to the Anti- Social
Behaviour Team as part of the Community Safety Unit based at Enfield Civic
Centre.
|
11/08/2014
|
801
|
Mag 2 – 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,
19,20,21,22,
Appeal
- 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,2
9,30,31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07
|
A/PS Charles Miles
|
02/08/2014
|
792
|
Mag 2 – 23
Appeal
- 44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08
|
Witness
statement of A/ lnsp Hamill
|
06/08/2014
|
796
|
Mag 2 – 24,25
Appeal - 45,46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09
|
Fake:
Resident Statements of: - PC McMillan
|
14/08/2014
|
804
|
Mag 2 – 26
Appeal - 59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table
Number
|
Incident
Information
|
Date
|
Report
Id
|
Page
|
Cad
Info
|
Urn
|
Chris
|
Officer
|
Other
Info
|
Crimit
|
|
10
|
Fake: Resident Statements of: -
PC McMillan
|
14/08/2014
|
804
|
Mag 2 – 27
Appeal - 60
|
|
|
|
PC McMillan
|
Not Signed by Victim
1 of 4
|
|
|
11
|
PC Douglas Skinner
|
15/08/2014
|
805
|
Mag 2 – 28,29
Appeal - 47,48
|
|
|
|
PC Douglas Skinner
|
|
|
|
12
|
PC Douglas Skinner
|
19/09/2015
|
1206
|
Mag 2 – 30
Appeal - 49
|
|
|
|
PC Douglas Skinner
|
|
|
|
13
|
A/DS
Jason Ames
|
15/08/2014
|
805
|
Mag 2 – 31,32
Appeal
- 50,51
|
|
|
|
A/DS Jason
Ames
|
|
|
|
14
|
Pc
Aaron King
|
15/08/2014
|
805
|
Mag 2 –
33,34,35
Appeal
- 52,53,54
|
|
|
|
Pc Aaron
King
|
|
|
|
15
|
Pc Aaron King
|
07/09/2014
|
828
|
Mag 2 – 36
Appeal - 55
|
|
|
|
Pc Aaron King
|
|
|
|
16
|
Fake: Resident Statements of: -
PC
Donald McMillan
|
19/08/2014
|
809
|
Mag 2 – 37,38
Appeal
– 61,62
|
|
|
|
PC Donald
McMillan
|
Not Signed
by Victim
2 of 4
|
|
|
17
|
Fake:
Resident Statements of: -
PC John
Anderson
|
20/08/2014
|
810
|
Mag 2 – 39
Appeal -64
|
|
|
|
PC John Anderson
|
Not Signed by Victim
3 of 4
|
|
|
18
|
Fake:
Resident Statements of: -
PC John
Anderson
|
19/08/2014
|
809
|
Mag 2 – 40
Appeal - 65
|
|
|
|
PC John Anderson
|
|
|
|
19
|
Fake:
Resident Statements of: -
PC Eric
Barker
|
20/08/2014
|
810
|
Mag 2 – 41
Appeal - 63
|
|
|
|
PC John Anderson
|
Not Signed by Victim
4 of 4
|
|
|
20
|
PC Edgoose
|
31/08/2014
|
821
|
Mag 2 – 42
Appeal - 56
|
|
|
|
PC Edgoose
|
|
|
|
21
|
Pnc print out
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
Mag 2 – 43,
44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,
52,53,54,55
Mag
1) Response:251,252,253,254,
255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,26
3
Appeal
- 75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,8
3,84,85,86
|
Pnc print out
|
Pnc print out
|
Pnc print out
|
Pnc print out
|
Pnc print out
|
Pnc print out
|
|
22
|
CAD
625 8JUN
Lincoln Rd
|
08/06/2014
|
737
|
Mag 2
-56,57,58,59
Mag
1) Response: 264,265,266,267
Appeal
- 285,286,287,288
|
CAD 625 8JUN
|
N/a
|
They Say Yes, but what is it!
|
|
Repeat Caller
|
|
|
Table
Number
|
Incident
Information
|
Date
|
Report
Id
|
Page
|
Cad
Info
|
Urn
|
Chris
|
Officer
|
Other
Info
|
Crimit
|
|
23
|
CAD 793 8JUN
Blocked Out
|
08/06/2014
|
737
|
Mag 2
-60,61,62,63,64
Mag
1) Response: 268,269,270,271,272
Appeal
- 289,290,29,292,293
|
CAD 793 8JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
CAD 2410 8JUN
Blocked Out
|
08/06/2014
|
737
|
Mag 2 –
65,66,67,68,69
Mag
1) Response: 273,274,275,276,277
Appeal
- 294,295,296,297,298
|
CAD 2410 8JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
CAD 3151 8JUN
Southbury Rd /
Crown Rd
|
08/06/2014
|
737
|
Mag 2 – 70,71,72,73,74
Mag 1) Response: 278,279,280,281,282
Appeal - 299,300,301,302,303
|
CAD 3151 8JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
CAD 3319 8JUN
Southbury Rd /
Crown
Rd
|
08/06/2014
|
737
|
Mag 2 – 75,76,77,78
Mag 1) Response: 283,284,285,286,
Appeal - 304,304,306,307
|
CAD 3319 8JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
CAD 9804 19JUL
198 Great
Cambridge Rd / Carpet right
|
19/07/2014
|
778
|
Mag 2 – 79,80,81,82
Mag 1) Response: 287,288,289,290
Appeal - 308,309,310,31
|
CAD 9804 19JUL
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
CAD 10635
19JUL
Martin
bridge Trading Estate
|
19/07/2014
|
778
|
Mag 2 – 83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,
93,
Mag
1) Response:291,292,293,294,295,
296,297,298,299,300,301:
Appeal
- 312,313,314,315,316,317,318,
319,320,321,322
|
CAD 10635 19JUL
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
CAD 11822 19JUL
Southbury Station
|
19/07/2014
|
778
|
Mag 2 – 94,95,96,
Mag 1) Response: 302,303,304
Appeal - 323,324,325
|
CAD 11822
19JUL
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
CRIMINT report YERT00376728
Mill Marsh Lane Aaron King
|
Event Date: 27/07/2014
Created: 10/08/2014
Updated: 12/08/2014
|
Event Date:
786
Created: 800
Updated 802
|
Mag 2 – 97,98,99,100
Mag 1) Response: 63,64,65,66
Appeal - 88,89,90,91
|
|
YERT00376728
|
|
Aaron King
|
HTR00376798
|
YERT00376728
Canary
Wharf
HTR00376798
Check Dates
|
|
31
|
CRIMINT report YERT00376227
Mill Marsh Lane Richard Chandler Ye
|
Event Date: 27/07/2014
Created: 27/07/2014
Updated: 27/07/2014
|
Event Date:
786
Created: 786
Updated 786
|
Mag 2 –101,102,103,104
Mag 1) Response: 67,68,69,70
Appeal - 92,93,94,95
|
|
YERT00376227
|
|
Richard
Chandler Ye
|
|
YERT00376227
|
|
Table
Number
|
Incident
Information
|
Date
|
Report
Id
|
Page
|
Cad
Info
|
Urn
|
Chris
|
Officer
|
Other
Info
|
Crimit
|
|
32
|
CRIMINT report
YERT00376229
Jamie Edgoose
Ye Alma Rd
|
Event Date: 24/07/2014
Created: 27/07/2014
Updated:
31/07/2014
|
Event Date:
783
Created: 786
Updated 790
|
Mag 2 –
105,106,107
Mag 1)
Response:71,72,73,
Appeal -
96,97,98
|
|
|
|
Jamie Edgoose
Ye
|
|
YERT00376229
|
|
33
|
CRIMINT report
YERT00376024
Southbury
Doug Skinner
(RG)
|
Event Date:
19/07/2014
Created:
21/07/2014
Updated:
22/07/2014
|
Event Date:
778
Created: 780
Updated 781
|
Mag 2 –
108,109,110
Mag 1)
Response: 74,75,76:
Appeal -
99,100,101
|
Cad 10635
/19 July 14
|
|
|
Doug Skinner
(RG)
|
|
YERT00376024
|
|
34
|
CRIS report
1914855/14 1 Falcon Park
Pc Haworth 401Qk Pc Griffh 188Qk Page 100
Brown
croft Avenue
|
20+21/06/20
14
|
749,750
|
Mag 2 -
111,112,113,114,115,116,117,11
8,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127
,128,129
Mag 1)
Response:77,78,79,80,81,82,83,
84,85,86,87,88,89,
90,91,92,93,94
Appeal -102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,
110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117
|
|
|
CRIS report
1914855/14
|
Pc Haworth
401Qk
Pc Griffh
188Qk
|
|
|
|
35
|
CRIMINT report
YERT00374531
Enfield
Southbury Road
Cad 1047/07/14
Not Progress
Way Really Crown Road
Cad
1047/07/14
|
Event Date:
07/06/2014
Created:
07/06/2014
Updated: 10/06/2014
|
Event Date:
736
Created: 736
Updated 737
|
Mag 2 –
130,131,132
Mag 1)
Response: 95,96,97
Appeal
-118,119,120
|
Cad 1047
/07 Jun 14
|
|
|
|
|
YERT00374531
|
|
36
|
CRIMINT report
YERT00323197
White Hart
Lane Steve Hoodless (YR)
CAD9720/25May14
|
Event Date:
25/05/2014
Created:
26/05/2014
Updated:
19/06/2014
|
Event Date:
723
Created: 724
Updated 748
|
Mag 2
–133,134,135
Mag 1)
Response: 98,99,100
Appeal -
121,122,123
|
CAD 9720
/ 25May14
|
|
|
Steve Hoodless
(YR)
|
|
YERT00323197
|
|
37
|
CRIMINT report
PKRT00056539
Hyde Park Alan Browne
|
Event Date:
20/04/2014
Created:
27/04/2014
Updated:
28/04/2014
|
Event Date:
688
Created: 695
Updated 696
|
Mag 2
–136,137,138
Mag 1)
Response: 101,102,103
Appeal -
124,125,126
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
Alan Browne
|
N/a
|
PKRT00056539
|
|
Table
Number
|
Incident
Information
|
Date
|
Report
Id
|
Page
|
Cad
Info
|
Urn
|
Chris
|
Officer
|
Other
Info
|
Crimit
|
|
38
|
CRIMINT report YERT00360430
Ponders End Police Station Christopher Jackson Ye
|
Event Date: 24/05/2014
Created: 24/05/2014
Updated: 03/06/2014
|
Event Date:
722
Created: 722
Updated 732
|
Mag 2 –139,140,141,142
Mag 1) Response: 104,105,106,107
Appeal - 127,128,129,130
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
Christopher
Jackson Ye
|
N/a
|
YERT00360430
|
|
39
|
CRIS report 4208625/13
Sunday Going Out on Motor Bikes
Pc
466ht /224810 C. Scott
This Case was ongoing when Steven got
to it so he could not change the name I won it in court anyways.
Read my diary for more info for now!
|
07/04/2013
|
310
|
Mag 2 –
143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150
,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,1
60,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,16
9,170,171,172,173,174
Mag
1) Response:
108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,
117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,
126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,
135,136,
Appeal-
131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,14
0,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,
150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,15
9,160
|
Cad 4619
/07 April 13
|
?
|
CRIS report 4208625/13
|
Pc 466ht /224810 C. Scott
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Elesmore
Crimint HTR00376798
Event Date 12/01/13
Created 16/01/13
Update 18/01/13
Canary Wharf 1st”
|
Event Date
12/01/13
Created
16/01/13
Update
18/01/13
|
|
Mag 2 – 175,176,177
Mag 1) Response: 137,138,139
Appeal - 161,162,163
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
Steven
Elesmore
|
N/a
|
HTR00376798
|
|
40
|
CAD 1012 7JUN
Progress
Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
178,179,180,181
Mag
1) Response: 143,144,145,146
Appeal
- 164,165,166,167
|
CAD 1012 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
41
|
CAD 1323 7JUN
Lincoln
Rd Lumina Way Enfield
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
182,183,184,185,186
Mag
1) Response: 147,148,149,150,151
Appeal
- 168,169,170,171,172
|
CAD 1323 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
42
|
CAD1722 7JUN
Blocked
Out
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
187,188,189
Mag
1) Response: 152,153,154
Appeal
- 173,174,175
|
CAD1722 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
CAD 1816 7JUN
Progress
Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
190,191,192,193,194
Mag
1) Response: 155,156,157,158,159
Appeal
- 176,177,178,179,180
|
CAD 1816 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table
Number
|
Incident
Information
|
Date
|
Report
Id
|
Page
|
Cad
Info
|
Urn
|
Chris
|
Officer
|
Other
Info
|
Crimit
|
|
44
|
CAD 2141 7JUN
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
195,196,197,198,199
Mag 1)
Response: 160,161,162,163,164
Appeal -
181,182,183,184,185
|
CAD 2141 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
45
|
CAD 2255 7JUN
Leighton Rd
Bush Hill Park
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
200,201,202,203,204
Mag 1)
Response: 165,166,167,168,169
Appeal -
186,187,188,189,190
|
CAD 2255 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
CAD 22717JUN
Progress Way
|
|
|
Mag 2 –
205,206,207,208
Mag 1)
Response: 170,171,172,173
Appeal -
191,192,193,194
|
CAD 22717JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
47
|
CAD 1047 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
209,210,211,212,213
Mag 1)
Response: 174,175,176,177,178
Appeal -
195,196,197,198,199
|
CAD 1047 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
48
|
CAD 3037 7JUN
Enfield Safe
Store
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
214,215,216,217,218
Mag 1)
Response: 179,180,181,182,183
Appeal -
200,201,202,203,204
|
CAD 3037 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
49
|
CAD 1608 7JUN
Progress Way
Great Cambridge
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
219,220,221
Mag 1)
Response: 184,185,186
Appeal - 205,206,207
|
CAD 1608 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
CAD 2601 7JUN
Great
Cambridge Rd /Aley Croft
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
222,223,224,225
Mag 1)
Response: 187,188,189,190
Appeal -
208,209,210,211
|
CAD 2601 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
CAD 2637 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
226,227,228,229.230
Mag 1)
Response: 191,192,193,194,195
Appeal -
212,213,214,215,216.
|
CAD 2637 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
Time Stamp
Error
With Next Cad
Number
2672
|
|
|
52
|
CAD 2672 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
231,232,233
Mag 1) Response:
196,197,198
Appeal -
217,218,219
|
CAD 2672 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
53
|
CAD 2854 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
234,235,236,237
Mag 1)
Response: 199,200,201,202
Appeal –
220,221,222,223
|
CAD 2854 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
54
|
CAD 3005 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
238,239,240
Mag 1)
Response: 203,204,205
Appeal -
224,225,226
|
CAD 3005 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
CAD 3252 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
241,242,243,244
Mag 1)
Response: 206,207,208,209
Appeal -
227,228,229,230
|
CAD 3252 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
CAD 3986 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
245,246,247,248
Mag 1)
Response: 210,211,212,213
Appeal -
231,232,233,234
|
CAD 3986 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
CAD 4323 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
249,250,251,252
Mag 1)
Response: 214,215,216,217
Appeal -
235,236,237,238
|
CAD 4323 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
58
|
CAD 5206 7JUN
Blocked Out
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
253,254,255
Mag 1)
Response: 218,219,220
Appeal -
239,240,241
|
CAD 5206 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
|
CAD 8841 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
256,257,258,259
Mag 1)
Response: 221,222,223,224
Appeal -
242,243,244,245
|
CAD 8841 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
60
|
CAD 10393 7JUN
Great
Cambridge Rd / Tops Tiles
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 – 260,261,262,263,264,265,266
Mag 1)
Response:225,226,227,228,229,
230,231,232:
Appeal -
246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253
|
CAD 10393 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
|
CAD 10481 7JUN
Blocked Out
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
268,269,270,271,272
Mag 1)
Response: 233,234,235,236,237
Appeal –
254,255,256,257,258
|
CAD 10481 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
62
|
CAD 10506 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
273,274,275,276
Mag 1)
Response: 238,239,240,241
Appeal -
259,260,261,262
|
CAD 10506 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
63
|
CAD 10471 7JUN
Progress Way
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
277,278,279,280
Mag 1)
Response: 242,243,244,245
Appeal -
263,264,265,266
|
CAD 10471 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
64
|
CAD 10742 7JUN
Lincoln Rd
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
281,282,283,284
Mag 1)
Response: 246,247,248,249
Appeal -
267,268,269,270
|
CAD 10742 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
CAD 10967 7JUN
A10 Great
Cambridge Rd
|
07/06/2014
|
736
|
Mag 2 –
285,286,287,288,289
Mag 1)
Response: 250,251,252,253,254
Appeal -
271,272,273,274,275
|
CAD 10967 7JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
66
|
CAD 47 8JUN
Progress Way
Enfield /Safe Hal Unit
|
08/06/2014
|
737
|
Mag 2 –
290,291,292,293,294
Mag 1)
Response: 255,256,257,258,259
Appeal -
276,277,278,279,280
|
CAD 47 8JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
|
Cad 340 8 JUN
Blocked Out
|
08/Jun 2014
|
737
|
Mag 2 –
295,296,297,298
Mag 1)
Response: 260,261,262,263
Appeal -
281,282,283,284
|
Cad 340 8 JUN
|
N/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
68
|
App for Legal
Aid
|
|
|
Mag 2 –
299,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69
|
Met Property
Receipt
|
|
|
Mag 2 – 301
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End
|
End
|
End
|
End
|
End
|
|
End
|
End
|
End
|
|
End
|
|
Extra
in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
Table
Number
|
Incident
Information
|
Date
|
Report
Id
|
Page
|
Cad
Info
|
Urn
|
Chris
|
Officer
|
Other
Info
|
Crimit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ø Canary Wharf Group Incident
|
|
A.
|
·
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Steven Elesmore Crim- int HTR00376798
Canary Wharf “Correct 1st”/
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 175,176,177
Mag 1) Response: 137,138,139
Appeal - 161,162,163
Event Date 12/01/2013
Created 16/01/2013
update18/01/2013
|
|
B.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book
Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report HTRT00376798, Canary
Wharf
Page Numbers: 161,162,163
Event Date:12/01/2013:
Created:16/01/2013:
Updated: 18/01/2013
|
|
C.
|
1.
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Witness Statement of Steve Elsmore
dated 11/08/2016
and Canary Wharf Group Incident Report No. 74507
Page Numbers: 326,327,328,329,330,331,332
11/08/2016
Extra in Second Asbo Folder
1 of 8 Files!
Back Dated!
1. The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
Witness Statement of Steve Elsmore
dated Submitted: 11/08/2016 for
a Canary Wharf Group Incident Report No. 74507
Page Numbers: 326,327,328,329,330,331,332
11/08/2016
326,
|
RESTRICTED
(When Complete)
|
|
|
WITNESS
STATEMENT
CJ Act 1967, s.9; MC
Act 1980, ss.5A(3)(a) and SB; Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, Rule 27.1
Statement of…. Steve
ELSMORE.......
Age if under 18: Over 18…. (if
over 18 inserts 'over
18) Occupation:
Police
Officer
|
|
 This statement
(consisting of: ....... pages each signed by
me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing
that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall
be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in
it which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true.
Signature……………... Date:
…11/08/2016…
|
|
Tick if witness evidence is visually
recorded (supply witness details on rear)
I am Steve Elsmore, a Police officer attached to the Anti-Social
Behaviour Team within the London Borough of Enfield. I make this further
statement regarding an ASBO matter in relation to Simon CORDELL. On 16th
May 2016, I was asked to check timings in relation to the schedule that
is due to be served on the court. Whilst searching for timings for
Crimint HTRT00376798, I found an incident log attached to this Crimint. I
do not recall previously seeing this log. Usually, the inputting officer
would put an indicator on the Crimint to say that there is an attachment.
On this occasion there is no indicator referring to this attachment. It
is possible that I may have previously missed this attachment due to the
volume of incidents that I was searching through. The attachment itself
is an incident report from Canary Wharf Group and the incident summary
states -Trespassers on site - illegal rave - forced entry shed 4 - Police
tasked - no action - group left site. This is dated 12 January 2013. The
incident log details what action was taken by Canary Wharf Group during
this particular incident. It also provides detail on the impact to the
residents. On page 5 of the incident log there is an entry that states “P
BOUZON (CW178) informs the ECC that the vehicle registrations that he
gave me are actually the 2 vehicles that gained access through the fence
and arc located within the Shed 4 area”. One of the vehicles is MA57LDY.
This vehicle was registered to Simon CORDELL as per the Crimint Report.
|
|
Signature……………... Signature
Witnesses by:
……………...
|
RESTRICTED (When
Complete)
|
|
327
CANARY WHARF GROUP INCIDENT REPORT
Report Number 74507
|
Incident type
|
Non-Crime / Suspicious / Trespasser
|
|
Incident title
|
Trespassers on site - Illegal rave - Forced entry Shed 4 -
Police tasked - No Police action - Group left site
|
|
Incident started
|
January12.2013 02:12
|
|
Incident ended
|
Januarv12,2013 08:00
|
|
Incident Opened By
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Number of incident updates
|
25
|
|
Incident status
|
Open
|
|
Location
|
Wood Wharf
|
|
Premises
|
CANARY WHARF MANAGEMENT LIMITED
|
|
Incident Summary
|
Trespassers on site - Illegal rave - Forced entry Shed 4 -
Police tasked - No Police action - Group left site
|
328,
CANARY WHARF GROUP
INCIDENT REPORT
Report Number 74507
|
Incident Report 74507:
|
January 14, 2013, 11:15 - Debra Red win
|
|
My Note: Me and Debra Andrews never had a problem
at this stage in our lives and we still never had a problem when the Asbo
was first created but when this form was forged in the Appeal stage it
got created by Steven Elesmore and he Understood by then that me And Debra Andrews did have an
issue.
|
|
Update:
|
|
|
Operator:
|
74507-L1
|
|
Entered at:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12,2013 02:57
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12.2013 02:12
|
|
· 02:12hrs
C DUFFY (E15) received a call from S
BONNER (E4) who
reported that ho is on a External patrol with K WICKS (CW174)
outside the Paintball sheds by Lulomer house and there is music coming
from one of the buildings. (E4) also stated that a sign has been put up
to the effect of "this is our home, someone is here 24/7 and you
will need a court order to evict us”. E4 reported that he will
investigate further.
|
|
· 02:20hrs S
BONNER (E4)
reports that there are 60-70 youths having an illegal rave in the
paintball sheds. It is believed that they removed our padlock and have
placed their own one in its place locking themselves inside. (E4)
requests that C BROWN (CW03) be
informed.
|
|
· 02:21hrs C
BROWN (CW03) message
left on company mobile.
|
|
· 02:24hrs C
BROWN (CW03) message
left on home phone answer machine and pager message left.
|
|
· 02:28hrs
(E4) reports that there could be upwards of 80-100 youths and there is a
strong smell of drugs coming from the property. E4 asked that the police
be tasked.
|
|
· 02:29hrs
Police tasked. CAD reference number 1122. No eta provided. Limehouse
police station given the SDM company mobile number at their request.
|
|
· 02:35hrs C
BROWN (CW03) contacted the ECC and
is transferred to S BONNER (E4).
|
|
· 02:36hrs
(E4) requests that KTROBIRDGE
(CW02) be
informed. Message left on (CW02) pager
|
|
· 02:38hrs
(E4) reports that K WICKS (CW174) conducted
a Perimeter patrol at around 00:00hrs and there was no indication of
forced entry or music coming from the property. It is believed the youths
entered after this time.
|
|
· 02:41
hrs. (E4) requests that M MAER (CW01), S
GRIEG and P TWEDDLE be
informed. Messages left with S GRIEG and P
TWEDDLE. M MAER (CW01) briefed
|
|
· 02:44hrs
(E4) requests that K TROBRIDGE (CW02) be
contacted at home. (CW02) contacted
at home and informed of the situation.
|
|
· 03:00hrs
Calls received from C BROWN (CW03),
S GRIEG and P
TWEDDLE. No further updates available.
|
|
· 03:05hrs C
DUFFY (E15) contacted Limehouse IBO for an
update on an eta. IBO report that the section chief is due to attend but
they cannot provide and eta as yet.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L2
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12. 2013 03:03
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12. 2013 03:13
|
|
Information update
|
there have been no additional/unusual
vehicle movements in and around Lumtomer house indicating that the youths
may have entered on foot.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L3
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 03:12
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12. 2013 03:21
|
|
Information update
|
S BONNER (E4) reports that
the ravers are entering Shed 4 via a hole in the fence off of Preston’s
Road. They have stated that they intend to
squat in the premises and Canary Wharf will require a court order to
remove them.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L4
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 03:15
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12. 2013 03:27
|
|
Information update
|
Copy of notice found on gate attached.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L5
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12. 2013 03:27
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12. 2013 03:40
|
|
Information update
|
(E4) reports that the police are in
attendance
|
329,
CANARY WHARF GROUP
INCIDENT REPORT
Report Number 74507
|
Incident Report 74507
- January 14, 2013, 11:15- Debra
Redwin
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L6
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 03:31
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 03:43
|
|
Occurred at:
|
Update E-mailed to P
TWEDDLE, S GRIEG, M
MAER (CW01), K
TROBRIDGE (CW02) and C
BROWN (CW03)
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L7
|
|
Operator:
|
S BONNER (E4)
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 03:33
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 03:45
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L8
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 03:35
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12,2013 03:46
|
|
(E4) reports that he has received a
call MARK LUDLOW who
has spoken with CRAIG SCHERER reference
the possibility of isolating the power to the premises however C
SCHERER has stated that it could only be achieved from
inside the building.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L9
|
|
Operator:
|
Kevin Evans
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12,2013 04:10
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12,2013 04:20
|
|
· 03:50hrs
Call received from PHIL
TWEDDLE regarding
the power to the venue. MARK
LUDLOW will
arrive shortly with an Electrician to ascertain a way to isolate power to
the venue as they are using our power.
|
|
· 04:00hrs
Call received from E4 regarding the arrival of the Tower Hamlets
Environmental Monitoring Unit. They were there to await the arrival of
the police who are now unable to attend due to lack of available
resources.
|
|
· Contact
details RAZ, HAQ,
UE 0207 3646702.
|
|
· 04:10hrs
The Tower Hamlets Environmental Monitoring Unit have now departed.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L10
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:14
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:23
|
|
S BONNER (E4) reports
that the mobile police patrol unit HT73 has stated that they have limited
powers with which to deal with the trespassers now that
they are in the unit. Complaints have been received by the police from
local residents about the noise and the music has been turned
down. Numbers are now dwindling and approximately 60 people are
now in attendance. Update E-mailed to P TWEDDLE,
S GRIEG. M MAER (CW01), K
TROBRIDGE (CW02) and
C BROWN (CW03)
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L11
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:15
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:27
|
|
(E4) stated that he will contact K
TROBRIDGE (CW02) and C
BROWN (CW03).
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L12
|
|
Operator:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:16
|
|
Entered at:
|
Kevin Evans
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:25
|
|
E-Mail received from PHIL
TWEDDLE stating
that MARK LUDLOW has
visited the venue who reported that they have their own power systems
within the venue in the form of mini generators.
|
330,
CANARY WHARF GROUP
INCIDENT REPORT
Report Number 74507
|
Incident Report 74507
- January 14, 2013, 11:15- Debra
Redwin
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L13
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:18
|
|
Title and summary updated.
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:29
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L13
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12. 2013 04:20
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:31
|
|
Information update - due to the extremely
limited camera coverage and ambient light levels there is no usable
footage of the incident.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L15
|
|
Operator:
|
Sabrina Bosser
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:49
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12,2013 04:57
|
|
Operator:
|
C CARLTON (CW196)
|
|
from Black wall Barrier informed
the ECC that the occupants of a black VW - VRN - D4NLP came through Black
wall barrier and were enquiring about the rave, they had
the complete post code of the venue for the illegal rave. The car has
left site via TRAFALGAR WAY towards the venue.
|
|
Operator:
|
KEVANS (CW237)
|
|
Update:
|
S BONNER (E4)
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L16
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 04:58
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12,2013 05:06
|
|
S BONNER (E4) reports
that C BROWN (CW03) is
on site and has asked that a padlock and chain be taken down to the
Lutomer house gates as there are now vehicles enquiring about the rave. (CW03)
has stated that we will allow those in the premises to leave but must
have a call sign in position to prevent further access into the compound.
The attendees have stated that the event is
supposedly due to finish at 07:00hrs.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L17
|
|
Operator:
|
Chris Duffy
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 05:01
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 05:12
|
|
Information update - Post code supplied by
vehicle at Black wall barrier was E14 Love Grove walk.
Barriers briefed reference further enquiries for the location of the rave
and not to divulge any information.
|
|
Update:
|
E-mailed to P TWEDDLE,
S GRIEG, M MAER (CW01), K
TROBRIDGE (CW02) and C
BROWN (CW03)
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L18
|
|
Operator:
|
Kevin Evans
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12. 2013 05:06
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12,2013 05:15
|
|
Operator:
|
K EVANS (CW237)
|
|
reports placing a liaison call to
Billingsgate Security advising them of the situation at Wood Wharf and to
discourage any individuals asking for the location of the Rave.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L19
|
|
Operator:
|
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 06:13
|
|
Operator:
|
Norman Harris “Norman Ray Harris was an American guitarist, producer,”
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 06:21
|
|
Operator:
|
G LOWERY (CW219)
|
|
Informs the ECC that MARK
LUDLOW (infra
maintenance) entering Lutomer House and are going to attempt to cut the
power S WATERS (B3) Informed
|
331,
CANARY WHARF GROUP
INCIDENT REPORT
Report Number 74507
|
Incident Report 74507
- January 14, 2013, 11:15- Debra
Redwin
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L20
|
|
Operator:
|
Norman Harris
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12, 2013, 06:15
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 06:26
|
|
Operator:
|
G LOWERY (CW219)
|
|
Informs the ECC that MARK
LUDLOW has now left Lutomer house and
did not cut the power
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L21
|
|
Operator:
|
Henry Havis
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12,2013 08:10
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 08:12
|
|
S WATERS (B3) contacted
the ECC and advised that at 0800hrs the last
dozen participants of the 'rave' have left site. It
was noticed that 1 of the group was bleeding (Details of injury unknown)
and they were attending Hospital. II is
thought that the injury happened due to an altercation between the group.
Infrastructure Management are taking steps to secure the breach in the fence
and restrict further vehicle access. An electrician has also been tasked
to isolate the power to the site. CW Security are remaining in location
until further notice. Senior CWG Management informed via email. There is
no CCTV of the area, and no photos were taken with the hand-held camera
as it was thought this would aggravate the situation.
Police updated on 101.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L22
|
|
Operator:
|
Derek Beswick
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12,2013 15:23
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 15:33
|
|
S GREIG informs
the ECC that Electricians have been tasked to isolate power to the site.
A new padlock and chain are being fitted in place of the old ones; the
key will be left with the Infrastructure Call sign who is currently on
guard at Lutomer House.
This key will then be picked up by S
GREIG on Monday 14 - 01 – 13
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L23
|
|
Operator:
|
Marlisa Cheer
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12,2013 16:14
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12.2013 16:12
|
|
Operator:
|
A DEVINE (CW164)
|
|
informs the ECC that he has been approached
by 2 x members of the public in reference to The illegal rave that
happened last night (11-01-13) The 2 x members of the public have
informed A DEVINE (CW164) that
they heard the commotion at approx. 22:00hrs last night and noticed that
there was people going into the shed 4 area via the fence but because
they was wearing Hi-Viz they didn't think that there was anything
untoward going on and carried on with their evening. They also added that
the music got turned up at 01:30hrs this morning 12-01-13 and that is
when they realised that it was a rave that was taking place. The persons
live right opposite Shed 4 where the hole was placed in the fence, so
they said that they did witness them breaking in.
|
|
Operator:
|
A DEVINE (CW164
|
|
was unable to get name or details from the
persons but has stated that he will try and get details from them as they
leave the Wood Wharf area.
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L24
|
|
Operator:
|
Henry Havis
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 12. 2013 17:03
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12. 2013 17:15
|
|
Email from C
SCHERER (IFM)
to P TWEDDLE (Co-MD):
From 15:00 when we all viewed the building; I
have now had the power within turned off and the appropriate fuses
removed. Having sent communication earlier this morning to David
Lindop / Joe man, I
have not heard back from either, but will inform accordingly and hand
over the fuses.
|
|
|
332
CANARY WHARF GROUP
INCIDENT REPORT
Report Number 74507
|
Email from C SCHERER (IFM) to P TWEDDLE (Co-MD):
From 15:00 when we all viewed the
building; I have now had the power within turned off and the appropriate
fuses removed. Having sent communication earlier this morning to
David Lindop / Joe Bowman, I have not heard back from either, but will inform accordingly and
hand over the fuses.
All external doors have now been
closed, so the building is as secure as we can make it until we review
and carry out more work on Monday morning. This comment also applies to
the damaged fence. I am now taking a replacement padlock and chain to
replace the one cut off during the break in, to the gate where concrete
Jersey Blocks have now been positioned. I shall leave the key with the
patrol guard(s), who are now in place and collect this from them on
Monday morning. Leaving site now. though available on the phone if
needed.
|
|
Incident Report 74507
- January 14, 2013, 11:15- Debra
Redwin
|
|
Update:
|
74507-L25
|
|
Operator:
|
Merlisa Cheer
|
|
Entered at:
|
January 13, 2013, 06:11
|
|
Occurred at:
|
January 12, 2013, 17:20
|
|
Operator:
|
P BOUZON (CW178)
|
|
informs the ECC that the Vehicle
registrations that he gave me are actually the 2 vehicles that gained
access through the fence and are located within the Shed 4 area.
Vehicles and details as follow:
|
|
1st Vehicle Make:
|
Mercedes
|
|
Model:
|
Sprinter van
|
|
Colour:
|
White
|
|
Company:
|
Interlink Express
|
|
VRN:
|
YK60XJM
|
|
2nd Vehicle Make:
|
Ford
|
|
Model:
|
Focus
|
|
Colour:
|
Silver
|
|
VRN:
|
MA57LDY
|
End: --
|
|
D.
|
|
|
E.
|
·
Si Note:
In Short
They created the Asbo
after Millmarsh Lane and went into
my history on the police national computer
There was only NFA
Cases that he or any could find and the furthest away one was Canary Wharf
He Changed the police officer’s
name and created a new cad straight after.
Millmarsh
Lane in 2014
CRIMINT report YERT00376728 Mill Marsh
Lane Aaron King
Event Date: 27/07/2014
Created: 10/08/2014
Updated: 12/08/2014
you can tell this by
the numbers 00376798 as in the table
below some were, he put the old info from the NFA
Canary Wharf Case from 2013 into a new cad so he had control of it
he forgot to put trespass in as this was part of my defense at Magistrates
Court then for the Appel stage he went back into the cad and mod it again
and added trespass and made a new statement and put it in the folder.
All cases out of the
borough he changed the police officers’ names apart from one that was
ongoing a copy of my criminal record and an FOI can prove the real
officers’ names.
Progress Way is the
only incident with any so-called victims in the Asbo
Me driving from my
mother in a car on a Thursday one Road away from home was another case he
added but that was on Edmonton ground so keep the real police officers name
as they could attend court even low it had nothing to do with Raves and so
on.
|
|
End:
|
|
Ø Crimits
Were opened on the NPC and edited as can
get proved by the log in and modified dates and the educed as evidence
|
|
A.
|
|
|
B.
|
|
|
C.
|
·
Si Note:
|
|
End:
|
|
Ø The
Timestamps
The Asbo applications timestamps are right for Crown Rd but not for
Progress Way where the info was made up to go with the Fake Victim
statements.
|
|
A.
|
|
|
B.
|
|
|
C.
|
·
Si Note:
|
|
End:
|
|
Ø The
police officer’s
Names were mostly changed
to other names in most incidents as I can compare from my PNC that got
requested by FOI
The names are raciest
and mock the ongoings
|
|
A.
|
|
|
B.
|
|
|
C.
|
·
Si Note:
|
|
End:
|
|
Ø What order the Asbo was created in and
why!
|
|
#
|
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
1.
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Anti-social behaviour order on application,
Threats Made out of my Asbo
Condition’s in page 18 2nd Folder by Police!
Page Numbers: 18
04/08/2015
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
2.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS STATEMENT of hearsay evidence,
I have spoken to A/DS Val TANNER
Page Numbers: 37,38
26/06/2015
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
3.
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS STATEMENT, Every Decibel Matters
Page Numbers: 39,40
04/03/2015
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
4.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
PC Sophie Theodoulou
Police Officer Who Lied and said that she
Served me the First Asbo Folder!
Page Numbers: 57,58
12/09/2014
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
5.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident Statements of: - PC McMillan
Page Numbers: 65,66
21/08/2014
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
6.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Anonymous witness statement,
who is unable to attend court to give live evidence because the
witness is fearful of reprisals should he/she attend court to give
evidence?
Page Numbers: 72,73,74
21/08/2014
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
7.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Witness Statement of Steve Elsmore
Dated 11/08/2016 and Canary Wharf Group
Incident Report No. 74507
Page Numbers: 326,327,328,329,330,331,332
11/08/2016
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
8.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Witness Statement of Steve Elsmore
Page Numbers: 336,337
24/09/2016
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
|
|
9.
|
|
|
10.
|
11. Si Note:
|
|
End:
|
|
|
|
A.
|
|
|
B.
|
Magistrates
Hearing
ASBO
12/09/2014
The police attended Mr Cordell’s home address of
109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ on the
12/09/2014, they knocked on the door, Mr Cordell was not expecting anyone
and when he looked through his spy hole and called out who is it, the
police stated we need to hand you some paperwork. Mr Cordell has never
accepted paperwork due to his learning difficulties and said I will not
accept anything. The police at this posted some paperwork through the front
door; they had an A4 size folder which they placed on the floor outside Mr
Cordell’s front door.
Mr Cordell made a phone call to his mother Miss Lorraine Cordell and told
her what happened Miss Cordell could not get to her sons address right
away. Later that day when Miss Cordell went to Mr Cordell’s address there
was a large blue folder on the floor outside Mr Cordell’s front door, Miss
Cordell knocked on Mr Cordell’s door and shouted its mum open the door, Mr
Cordell open the door and Miss
Cordell picked the paperwork that the police had posted through the letterbox,
it was still on the floor, she spoke briefly to Mr Cordell but was in a
hurry, then picked the blue folder which was outside on the floor in front
of Mr Cordell’s front door. Miss Cordell was shocked when she got home and
looked in the folder and saw what was within it.
This was meant to have been served on Mr. Cordell. They left the A4 size
folder bundle on the doorstep in view of anyone to see and look at which
had a great deal of personal information within the folder. This is a
breach of data protection. Complaint letter submitted to Edmonton police
station on the 13/09/2014 and the A4 size bundle was handed back to police
at the same time. Nothing was done with this complaint. The CAD number for
this seems to have been lost is when you call and give the information to
the police station, they cannot find anything in regard to this. But I
clearly have the CAD information and receipt for this when it was handed
in.
See below
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Met
Property Receipt /
Page
Numbers:
|
|
C.
|
|
|
D.
|
06/10/2014
Mr Simon Cordell was due to appear in court this
day, Mr Cordell had solicitors in place, Michael Carroll and Co Solicitors,
legal aid had been applied for, but the legal aid had been refused, the
Judge sitting overturned this and granted legal aid. The reason for the
judge overturning and granting Legal Aid was due to Mr Cordell having known
learning difficulties, Health problems and due to the complexity of the
case. Disclosure was asked for, but no disclosure ever came. The case was
relisted for the 22/10/2014, for an interim antisocial behaviour order to
be put in place, all police officers were due to attend for the interim hearing.
|
|
E.
|
|
|
F.
|
22/10/2014
Mr Cordell was due in court for the interim ASBO
order to be heard, due to Mr Cordell Barrister having a burst water pipe and
his home being flooded he could not attend, The Applicant still wanted the
case to be heard which the Judge would not allow. Interim ASBO order
hearing was then set for the 05/11/2014. On this date all officers were due
to attend the interim ASBO hearing. (They did) Disclosure was again asked
for and no disclosure was ever given.
|
|
G.
|
|
|
H.
|
05/11/2014
On this date the interim ASBO order was granted
by the District Judge Newham.
Mr. Cordell’s human rights were considered by the Judge, and comment was
made by the Judge regarding the engagement of Mr Cordell’s human rights in
her ruling in regards to the interim ASBO order.
But District Judge Newham, would not define the conditions even though they
were disproportionate, The conditions did breach Mr Cordell human rights.
Upon delivering her Judgment, the Judge ruled that it is just to impose a
Interim Anti-Social Behaviour Order, and that regard had been taken of Mr.
Cordell’s Article 6 and 8 Rights, as well as Mr. Cordell’s
business. The Judge ruled that there are no provisions contained within the
(amended) proposed Interim Anti-Social Behaviour Order which would prevent
Mr. Cordell from conducting legitimate business.
This is also untrue as we have since contacted council and police and told
he would not be granted a licence to hold any events as long as this ASBO
was in place.
(Mr Cordell acting Barrister had not been given any paperwork for this day
in court from Mr Cordell’s solicitors)
On this date all police officers were due to attend. (They did not attend
their excuse was they were not told to attend, this was untrue as the
application from 22/10/14 should still stand as the case had only been
adjourned until this date for the interim hearing)
In the days prior to this hearing Mr Cordell was rushed into hospital due
to Kidney problems while he was still in hospital he was informed by his
solicitor on the 04/11/2014 that if he did not attend court on the
05/11/2014 the case would go ahead without his presence. Mr Cordell then
discharged himself from hospital, because he had no choice. (He was
extremely unwell)
The Court bundle included a skeleton argument, submitted on behalf of Mr.
Cordell, to Strike-Out the application for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order.
Arguments advanced in this respect, and those which rely upon the Civil
Procedure Rules, are not applicable to these proceedings. The Civil
Procedure Rules only apply to proceedings in the County Court, the High
Court and the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. As a result, the
Magistrates Court had no jurisdiction to consider an application to
Strike-Out. The applicant’s case also relied solely on hearsay,
Magistrates' Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil
Proceeding) Rules 1999.
These are the conditions Mr Cordell was placed under and are for the whole
of the UK: (When this case went to Appeal stage at the Crown Court the
judge sitting stated the conditions were disproportionate)
The defendant is prohibited from: --
a. Attending a rave as defined by s.63(1) of the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
b. Being concerned in the organisation of a
rave as defined by s.63(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994.
c. Knowingly using or supplying property, personal
or otherwise, for use in a rave as defined by s.63(1) of the Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
d. Entering or remaining in any disused or abandoned
building unless invited to do so in writing by a registered charitable
organisation.
e. Entering or remaining on non-residential private
property on an industrial estate between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am
without written permission from the owner and/or leaseholder of the
property; and
f. Engaging in any licensable activity in an unlicensed
premises.
For the sake of clarity, nothing in this order
prevents the Defendant from assisting, preparing for, or engaging in
licensed licensable activities.
(This is also untrue as we have since contacted council and police and told
he would not be granted a licence to hold any events as long as this ASBO
was in place)
The following Directions were made:
The Parties to exchange any additional evidence on which they seek to rely
by 20th January 2015. This is to include any witness statements from any
witness, including the Defendant himself; and
The Parties are prohibited from relying on any evidence not already served,
or served in accordance with paragraph 1 of these Directions, without the
permission of the Court.
Although not a formal direction, should any witnesses no longer be
required, the Judge requested written confirmation of this to be given to
all parties speedily.
At present, the following witnesses are required to attend the Full
Hearing: --
·
Inspector
Douglas Skinner.
·
Police
Constable Miles.
·
Acting
Police Sergeant Edgoose.
·
Police
Constable Elsmore.
·
Sergeant
King.
·
Police
Constable Ames; and Inspector Hamill.
The Interim Order is to continue until 10th
March 2015 when the full hearing would be heard this was listed for two
full days.
Disclosure was asked for this was meant to be given by 20/01/2015 this
never happened, and no disclosure was given.
|
|
I.
|
|
|
J.
|
20/01/2015
No disclosure was served on us by the 20/01/2015
that was asked for; this went on throughout this case. Never were we given
any disclosure we asked for.
|
|
K.
|
|
|
L.
|
10/03/2015
This date was due to be the full ASBO hearing
but the court had made a mistake and only listed it for a one day hearing.
District Judge Williams Sitting, apologised for the error, and said that a
part hearing could take place, or the full hearing be adjourned to a later
date so that the full hearing could be dealt with over two days.
Mr Cordell was upset as he wanted this to be dealt with and only agreed
that the case be adjourned until the 03/08/2014 and the 04/08/2014 if
District Judge Williams heard the case, she cleared her diary and promised
that she would be the judge that would preside over the case.
District Judge Williams also stated that this was the 1st time she had ever
seen a case in which the commissioner of the metropolitan police had
brought an ASBO in front of her in this way in a civil capacity.
Disclosure was asked for and this was again never given.
|
|
M.
|
|
|
N.
|
03/08/2014
/ 04/08/2014
Mr
Cordell attended court on the 03/08/2014 only to find the stipulation and
reasons he had allowed the case to be adjourned to these dates had not been
adhered to, the presiding judge was not District Judge Williams, it fact it
was District Judge D Pigot who would be residing over the full hearing.
Non-Disclosure was again spoke about but nothing came of this and the case
went forward.
We understand this is only our opinion but we believe this judge had
already found that she was going to prove the case before it even started
for the full ASBO in favour of the applicants.
Before the hearing started I informed the judge my son Mr Cordell was very
ill and I did not think he would cope due to health problems. She continued
with the case none the less and did not ask me to elaborate further.
Continually through cross examination by Mr Cordell’s barrister (Andrew
Locke) toward the police,
District Judge D Pigot kept interrupting and telling the Barrister he could
not ask the questions he was asking even though what he was asking
corresponded with what the police had put in their statements. Andrew Locke
even commented to the Judge Pigot “I am only asking questions pertaining to
what the police have put in their statements” Also he said to the judge “I
hope you are going to have as much due diligence with my client on cross
examination as you are with me” to which the judge replied she would.
This was certainly not the case and in fact the Judge allowed Mr Cordell to
be cross examined extremely harshly even knowing Mr Cordell had health
problems and also did not even have his own bundle which he had never had
from his solicitors, with learning problems the judge expected Mr Cordell
to be able to read from a bundle that she (Judge Pigot) passed to Mt
Cordell from time to time. Mr Cordell did not understand what he was being
asked so wanted to refer to the bundle and that was why it was having to be
passed to him, but with the line of questioning, his learning problems and
his health this was totally inappropriate but was allowed by the Judge.
On to our next point, perjury by the Applicants barrister and subsequent
police officers.
Simon Cordell’s Barrister questioned the Applicants barrister about the
legitimacy and the fact if every
CAD being used in their application case was linked to Progress Way and if
there was an illegal rave taking place at the same time on Crown Road.
He stated every CAD related to Progress Way and there was not an illegal
rave taking place on Crown
Road, and the police also said this was the case under cross examination,
to further this the judge then asked the same question was every CAD linked
to the applications Case, and was given the exact same answer yes.
Now I show you the freedom of information act which was obtained from
Enfield Council. (See attached)
Here are two CAD’s which clearly do not relate to Progress Way. (See
attached). In point of fact there are multiple inconsistencies pertained
within the CADS.
We know the police knew about the illegal rave at Crown Road because police
were deployed there. Our next point is the decision that was made by DJ
Pigot regarding this case. I refer to Simon Cordell’s Barristers
notes.
Part of my submissions had been that the allegations were that D was
involved in organising illegal raves, but the applicant hadn't adduced
evidence of trespass which is a requirement for proving that an indoor rave
(which all but one was) (incorrect all of said illegal raves were indoors)
was illegal. The DJ ruled that the applicant did not need to prove
illegality - all the needed to prove was D had acted in an anti-social
manner. In my view this is a very questionable decision: firstly, the
applicant based their case on the illegality of the raves rather than the
fact of the raves themselves and secondly, without proof of illegality the
presumption of innocence leads to the conclusion that the raves were legal,
and thus D being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity
requires more careful consideration on issues of proportionality. D could
JR/case state this decision but I think there is little merit in doing so
because he would then lose his right to appeal to the Crown Court and even
if he succeeded in the High/Div Court, they would merely remit it back to
the lower court who would then probably go through the motions of
considering proportionality before coming to the same conclusion.
To summarise the judge stated she did not need to prove illegality, but she
proved he had acted in an anti-social manner, how can this be the case?
Since this case started we knew the police and the public order
investigation unit held information on their systems, that proved Mr
Cordell was not the organiser of these illegal raves. In fact, the police
knowingly went around to the known organiser’s homes and also spoke with
them on the telephone. This proves they have the information we were asking
for in disclosure. (This was found out via social media by Miss Cordell)
Mr Cordell had not been coping throughout this case, and walked out of the
court, Miss Cordell Mr Cordell’s mother said to the Judge you can clearly
see he is not well and is not coping, which the judge confirmed she could
clearly see that Mr Cordell was not well. But continued to ask the usher to
get Mr Cordell back in court and she also informed that if Mr Cordell
re-entered the court room and was disruptive, she would hold him in
contempt of court. Mr Cordell never re-entered the court room.
Because of this Mr Cordell was not there to have the ASBO served on him and
the ASBO was served to Miss Cordell on his behalf.
Upon proving the case DJ Pigot granted all the applicants’ conditions. The
Applicants wanted to make this a lifetime ASBO, which DJ Pigot did not
allow and granted it for 5 years within the whole of the
UK. With the stipulation that it could be reapplied for when the 5 years
were concluded. She started the 5 years from the 04/08/2015, she did not
count the time Mr Cordell had been on the interim ASBO order.
Miss Cordell and Mr A Locke (Mr Cordell’s barrister) then asked the judge
if the conditions of the ASBO could be defined as there were some points of
concern. The judge was asked if Mr Cordell went to a Tesco or Tesco petrol
station between the hours of 10pm and 7am would he be in breach of the
conditions and subsequently arrested, the response from DJ Pigot was
dumbfounding she said” yes he would be arrested, taken to court and would
have to prove he was going to get petrol”. I am guessing the same could be
said for food etc. On hearing this Miss Cordell and Andy Locke questioned
this and said “so you think this is in accordance with the law?” she
replied to this “the conditions are precise and plain.
DJ Pigot then left the courtroom with her clerk to get the Memorandum of an
Entry made up as soon as possible due to the lateness in the day and the
department who dealt with this would be closed, on her return the judge
asked why Andy Locke was not in court, Miss Cordell said that he had left
because he because he was not told that he needed to stay, she handed the
Memorandum of an Entry to Miss Cordell and to the applicants barrister, on
reviewing this the applicants barrister said there were multiple spelling
mistakes and the dates from 2013 should not be entered and needed to be
removed. She said this would be amended and a new copy would be sent in the
post, and until this day this has never happened. We have since found out
we should have also been handed a map showing all areas which the ASBO
conditions encompassed which we have also never been given but this map would
have shown the whole of the UK.
|
|
O.
|
|
|
P.
|
About ASBOs
Anti-Social
Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) are civil orders made against someone who has engaged
in anti-social behaviour in the UK or the Republic of Ireland.
ASBOs were introduced by the Labour party under Tony Blair in 1998. The
intent was giving the state a way to prevent and control low-level
behaviour that would not normally warrant a criminal prosecution but brings
fear and misery to those living amongst it.
ASBOs
are designed to limit and correct the recipient's behaviour. For example,
by forbidding a return to a certain area or shop, or by restricting public
behaviour such as swearing or drinking.
As
the ASBO is a civil order, the defendant has no right to evidence that
might disprove the assertions of the plaintiff, though violating an ASBO
can incur up to five years imprisonment. This means getting an ASBO does
not give you a criminal record but breaking the ASBO could.
ASBOs
are not without controversy. Many critics suggest that they may be
"desirable" to certain people as a "badge", to be
respected amongst peers.
In
the United Kingdom, an ASBO may be issued in response to "conduct which
caused or was likely to cause harm, harassment, alarm or distress, to one
or more persons not of the same household as him or herself and where an
ASBO is seen as necessary to protect relevant persons from further
anti-social acts by the Defendant."[5] In England and Wales they are
issued by Magistrates' Courts, and in Scotland by the Sheriff Courts.
The
British government introduced ASBOs by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In
the UK, a CRASBO is a "criminally related" ASBO. One local
authority has published photos of those given ASBOs on an Internet site,
but this is not standard practice. Anti-social behaviour
includes a range of problems including:
(1)
noise pollution - playing music
persistently too loud or persitently making other loud or intrusive noise
(2)
drunkenness
(3)
abandoned cars, burned-out cars,
joyriding
(4)
stealing/mugging/shoplifting
(5)
begging
(6)
vandalism, graffiti, criminal damage
to property
(7)
loitering
(8)
dropping litter/fly tipping/dog
fouling
(9)
drug dealing or drug taking
(10)
intimidation and bullying
(11)
spitting
History of ASBOs
ASBOs
were first introduced in England, Scotland and Wales by the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998. Later legislation strengthened its application: in
England and Wales this has largely been via the Anti-social Behaviour Act
2003, in Northern Ireland through an Order-in-Council and in Scotland with
the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004.[8] Scotland, however,
has an existing tribunal charged with dealing with children and young
persons who offend, the Children's Hearings System.
In
a press release of 28 October 2004, Tony Blair and David Blunkett announced
further measures to extend the use and definition of ASBOs. The remit would
include:
§ Extension of the Witness Protection Programme
in anti-social behaviour cases.
§ More courts dealing with cases.
§ More offences including dog-fouling, litter,
graffiti, and night-time noise liable for Fixed Penalty Notices.
§ Giving parish councils the power to issue fixed
penalty notices for infringements.
The
press release concluded by remarking: "In the past year around 100,000
cases of anti-social behaviour have been dealt with. 2,633 ASBOs and 418
dispersal orders have been issued in the same period."
On
25 October 2005, Transport for London announced its intent to apply for a
new law giving them the authority to issue orders against repeat fare
dodgers, and increased fines. The first ever ASBO was given to offender Kat
Richards for repeated drunk and disorderly behaviour. As of 31 March 2004,
2455, ASBOs had been issued in England and Wales. On 30 March 2006, the
Home Office announced that 7,356 anti-social behaviour orders had been
given out since 1999 in England and Wales.
Why ASBOs are issued
Applications
for ASBOs are heard by magistrates sitting in their civil capacity.
Although the proceedings are civil, the court must apply a heightened civil
standard of proof. This standard is virtually indistinguishable from the
criminal standard.
The applicant must satisfy the court "so that it is sure" that
the defendant has acted in an anti-social manner. The test for the court to
be "satisfied so that it is sure" is the same direction that a
judge gives to a jury in a criminal case heard in the Crown Court. This is
also known as satisfying the court "beyond reasonable doubt": R v
Kritz [1950] 1 KB 82, approved by the Privy Council in Walters v R [1969] 2
AC 26 at 30.
As a matter of law, the burden of proof remains on the applicant and the
standard is, effectively, the criminal standard. A court may not order an
anti-social behaviour order unless it is satisfied so that it is sure that
the defendant has committed one or more of the anti-social acts alleged.
Pursuant
to section 1(1) Civil Evidence Act 1995, an applicant (and a defendant) has
the right to rely on witness statements without calling the makers of those
statements - known as hearsay. If a party proposes to rely upon a hearsay
statement, then the other party is entitled to ask the court for permission
to call that witness for cross examination: section 3 Civil Evidence Act
1995 and Rule 4 Magistrates' Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings)
Rules 1999.
If
the court refuses to grant such an application, then the defendant will be
unable to challenge the makers of the hearsay statements. Nevertheless, it
is open for them to submit that the court should place little or no weight upon material that has not
been tested by way of cross examination.
Section
4(1) Civil Evidence Act 1995 states that:
...in
estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil
proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any
inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the
evidence.[13]
The
High Court has emphasised that the use of the words "if any"
shows that some hearsay evidence may be given no weight at all.[14] For an
ASBO to be made, the applicant must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that
the respondent has behaved in an anti-social manner. The applicant can rely
on hearsay evidence. However, the Court of
Appeal has stated that it does not expect a court to find that the criminal
standard has been reached by relying solely on hearsay evidence. The Civil
Evidence Act 1995 itself makes clear that courts should consider what
weight, if any at all, attaches to hearsay material. In Cleary,
the Court of Appeal again restated that courts should consider attaching no
weight at all to such material, in accordance with the words of the
statute: Cleary v Highbury Corner
Magistrates & (1) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others (2007) 1 WLR 1272; [2006] EWHC 1869. [citation needed]
It
is for the court to decide what weight to give the hearsay evidence. The
Court of Appeal has stated that the high standard of proof is difficult to
meet if the entirety of the case, or the majority of it, is based upon
hearsay evidence.[15] The proper approach will be for a court to consider
to what extent the hearsay evidence is, amongst other things, supported by
other evidence, the cogency and similarity of supporting instances of
hearsay evidence and the cogency and reliability of contradictory evidence
supplied by a defendant.
Where,
for example, ten anonymous witnesses who are unrelated to each other each
provide a witness statement as to the defendant's anti-social behaviour
where each statement refers independently to the same particular events and
where this is supported by a witness statement from a non-anonymous
witness, such as a housing officer, who confirms that residents have made
complaints about a particular person over a period of time then the court
may be justified in according the statements a fair degree of weight.
Hearsay
WLR 1272; [2006] EWHC 1869
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff75f60d03e7f57eabd50
|
|
Q.
|
|
|
R.
|
Newspapers
|
|
S.
|
|
|
T.
|
The Appeal stages & Members of my Neighbour’s
getting involved!
within the 1st Asbo I have induced Letters Emails and
statements inclusive of Video and Audio recoding’s of evidence in relation
towards my truthful claims.
Throughout the case the government manipulated the truth in front of
the public and endangered mine and my loved one’s life’s and by them
official persons achieving my dissatisfaction Members of my neighbours also
started to illegal attack me!
Members of my neighbour’s that at I classed as close friends /
Family started to attack me for no apparent reason other than that of these
wrongful rumours getting spread about me and my loved ones, when those
people involved got asked to stop their miss-placed behaviour towards me
they continued to victimise me, even low I provided them with good reasons
to why not and included strong evidence to them!
A few years past by with me getting degraded and tortured by others
no matter what official routes I and others tried to take to get these
issues resolved, with no change!
This wrongful behaviour case me to lose out on a fair decision from
a judge about the first Asbo case on top of degrading my name and
reputation this also cause me physical and mental harm of my well-being.
Members of my neighbours who have gotten named in this report just
simply banged away my legal process any a huge amount of respect from other
people wrongfully, partly because of the lies they spread.
|
|
U.
|
|
|
V.
|
|
|
W.
|
|
|
X.
|
|
|
Y.
|
The Right to a Fair Trial
R v Horncastle and others
e principal issue raised by these appeals is
whether a conviction based “solely or to a
decisive extent” on the statement of a witness whom the defendant has had
no chance of cross-examining necessarily infringes the defendant’s right to
a fair trial under articles 6(1) and 6(3)(d) which provide: “
(1)
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal
charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by law.
(3)
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
. . .
(d)
to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same
conditions as witnesses against him.”
|
|
Z.
|
|
|
AA.
|
|
|
BB.
|
A. Video Player Test
https://serverone.hopto.org/1.%20Video%20Player%204%20Letter%20of%20Claim
|
|
CC.
|
B. Image Slider Test
To make transitions work
hover mouse to top of web tab and leave it or hover mouse of the web tab
onto desktop.
https://horrific-corruption-files.serveblog.net/Flipbook-Indexs/ImageSlider-Facebook
P.S. I got a copy of all the accounts /
incidents that I have gotten set up for in the Asbo and remember I was
locked up for the Gazebo case that I won for a year before the Asbo.
|
|
DD.
|
·
Si Note:
|
|
EE.
|
41.
Additional Email Attachments &
Emails / Issue:
41. 1. 2.
Asbo Rewired -1-4819 26-04-2017 12-27
26/04/2017
/ Page
Numbers: 144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159
--
144,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 26/04/2017 12:27:04 PM
Subject: eye
support team put into place, the
acting solicitors were made aware of this, and so was the Court in the
September 2016, when the Appellant was due to attend.
On 16 September 2016 the case was
listed for a mention hearing for Non-Disclosure, and also a meeting with Mr
Locke the Appellant Barrister as he had not seen any barrister since the
04/08/2015 hearing at the Magistrate’s Court when the Antisocial Behaviour
Order was granted by the Judge with no legality found.
The Appellant was told by his acting
solicitors to be at Court by 09:30 hours, but later this was changed to
09:00 hours, this was so he could have a meeting with his barrister, which
he did agreed to do.
On the agreed court date the Appellant
arrived at Court for 09:00, his barrister did not arrive until around
09:40, disappointingly. On arrival The Appellants barrister and him himself
inclusive of his mother all went together into a side room for a pre talk.
Before any desiccations in relation to the case could be discussed, Mr
Locke said he was sorry he was not feeling very well and that he also had
some emails from Ms Ward, that he had to read first, on trying to open the
emails he realized he could not and subsequently went out of the room to
call Ms Ward.
At around 10:00 hours the Appellant
was called into Court, Mr Locke came back into the room from after making
his phone
145,
call to Miss Ward, so for himself to
be able to have collected his things and he then hurried and started to
walk back out of the room we all was supposed to have a meeting but on
stead he hurried in towards the Court room. The Appellant tried to stop
him, so to have explained to him, what his concerns were. (“As we had not
yet at this point in time had a moment to talk”) and the Appellant was also
concerned about the disclosure that was going to be asked for.
The Appellant asked Mr Locke if he
could ask the Judge to adjourn the case for five or ten minutes, so that we
all could speak with each other, which he replied “no that the hearing was
only for disclosure about the schedule”, The Appellant said that:- “He knew
this was not correct and this was one of the reasons that he wanted to
speak with him about.” The Appellant again asked: - “if the barrister would
ask the Judge to postpone for ten minutes again” he yet again said “no”, at
which point the Appellant asked “why Mr Locke did not want to speak to him,
and should he act for himself ”?
The Barrister Mr Locke had no time to
talk to The Appellant at the time and spent around four minutes talking to
Ms Ward on the phone, before ending his call, he asked the Appellant if he
the Appellant was dismissing his solicitors, to which the Appellant
replied:- “No”, Mr Locke then started to walk towards the Courtroom, we
followed the barrister into Court and on entering the Court in a raised
voice, The Appellant said to Mr Locke:- (“who was ahead of him”) so am I
acting for myself then.? Mr Locke never replied to the Appellant and just
proceeded to talk to the Judge and then he walked toward the courtroom door
and ushered out. At this point the Appellant
146,
had no idea what was going on but
proceeded to follow him outside the Court room, it was at this point of
time when Mr Locke turned around and said quite curtly “I do not want you
to speak anymore”, as we got closer to him he also informed the Appellant
it was not good to shout out, “in open Court,” to which the Appellant had
to agree with, but the Appellant felt so let down as it seemed his
barrister did not even want to talk to him, since the Appellant had last
seen him in 2014 and this is another part of the reasons that the Appellant
wanted to speak with him, as so much had already gone wrong with this case
and the Appellant felt very nervous as he did not know what was going on,
or what would be said as he had not spoken to his barrister.
The Appellants mother, who had
witnessed all of this, did try to explain to the Appellants barrister, what
the Appellant wanted to say, in reference to the receipt of the requested
Nondisclosure and asked Mr Locke to explain what the schedule is about
before we all went back into court.
The Appellant also asked about the two
article 6’s that had been issued by the court, which had never been
addressed:- “by the Court,” which pertains to The Appellants Human Rights
and importantly his rights to a fair and speedy trial, to what had not
happened. The Article 6 the right to a fair and speedy trial had been
handed to the Court at earlier hearings, as The Appellants knew Mr Locke
knew nothing about this and other information that had happened, so he felt
it important to explain this to him at the time. Mr Locke explained that
the schedule was what the Judge had asked for on the 04/04/2016, my mother
replied this was not all the Judge had asked for,
147,
without replying Mr Locke walked
towards the Courtroom and we all followed, it was at this point The
Appellant said to the barrister I feel I should represent myself because he
felt he was not being heard.
All that the Appellant wanted was to
be able to speak to his barrister, so that he knew what had been said at
the earlier hearing of the 04/04/2016 and show him the document that was
handed to the Judge, on that date.
On entering the Court the Appellant
barrister Mr Locke addressed the Judge and said the Appellant did not want
him to act for him, but this was not fully the case the Appellant only
wanted to be able to speak to his barrister.
The Judge informed the Appellants barrister
to remain in the Courtroom, the Judge asked what the case was listed for
and the prosecuting barrister addressed the Court, answering the questions,
he then also handed the schedule to the Applicants barrister, they also
said to the Judge that the Appellant had been sending letters to the Court
and the prosecution himself,
148,
which stated: - “I Simon Cordell
throughout the document.” This is not the case and the Appellant did not
understand their comment or what document the prosecuting barrister was
talking about. The Judge then addressed the Appellant and asked the
Appellant did the Appellant still want the barrister to act for the
Appellant, the Appellant replied “Yes” to the Judge that he did want the
barrister to act for him; the Appellant stated that he only wanted time to
speak to his barrister, as he had not spoken to a barrister since the
Magistrate’s hearing.
The Judge then addressed the Appellant
barrister he said that the Appellant still wanted the barrister to act for
the Appellant, the Appellant barrister agreed to this. The Judge also
stated he felt he was not the best person to be hearing this case and
passed it back over to the Judge that was hearing the Appeal.
On leaving the Courtroom the Appellant
and his mother proceeded to go into a side room to talk with the Appellant
barrister, we explained that a letter had been handed to the Judge on the
04/04/2016, the barrister said he knew nothing of this letter, so we handed
him a copy for him to read. Once he read this, he said he knew nothing
about this and had only seen one document that kept saying I Simon Cordell,
(“The Appellant has no idea of what this I Simon Cordell letter is.”)
The Appellants mother proceeded to
explain this is why the Appellant wanted to talk to Mr Locke before going
into Court, as this is part of the Non-disclosure being requested.
The barrister explained he only knew
about the schedule, to which the Appellant mother replied, the schedule had
been
149,
asked for by the Judge in addition to
the letter that had been handed in and this was also when the Judge said it
could be used as the Appellants skeleton argument and that this had
happened when Miss Ward was in the Court on the date of the 04/04/2016 when
she was also taking notes, so Miss Ward knew exactly what the Judge had
asked for.
The Appellants mother had made a call
to the Appellants solicitor and enquired as to what the Judge had asked for
on the 04/04/2016 in regards to the disclosure, Ms Ward stated she could
not remember, the Appellant mother being dumbfounded by this said in reply
to her:- “you was sitting in the back of the Courtroom taking notes,” and
continued to explain that only last week from the date in mention, will
have everything that the Judge had asked for in his original disclosure,
plus what was asked for in the Appellants letter, that was handed to the
judge and Miss Ward also explained that the Judge had made other addictions
in addition to the mentioned.
At no point did Ms Ward ever make the
Appellants mother feel she did not know what was due to be disclosed,
before and while still on the phone, if she had ever done this the
Appellant and the Appellant mother would have asked her to relist the case
to the Court and asked for this to be clarified, as the disclosure that we
was asking for was very important to the ongoings of the Appeal.
The Appellant mother then handed the
Appellant the phone the Appellant asked Ms Ward about the letter he was
supposed to have sent to the Court and the prosecuting barrister, the
Appellant was still thinking she was talking about the letter
150,
handed to the Judge on the 04/04/2016
when Miss Ward was not.
Also in Court on this date, it was
said the Appellant had written this letter himself, which was not the case.
In truth The Appellant agreed for a
letter that Miss Ward had written in reply to the Judge’s letter for the
Appellant to be amended, he had amended it himself and it was to be handed
into the court, the Appellant solicitor was at Court so she knew the
Appellant had amended the letter, this is to be inclusive of it being sent
to her by email, as she was in the court on this date to.
On this date when Miss Ward was a
court she said to the judge that the Appellant had drafted the letter when
the Appellant had only amended it, Miss Ward continued to say, that she did
not draft the Letter and that the Appellant wrote it, this is not true, at
this the Appellant did call Miss ward a lair as the Appellant knew Miss
Ward had drafted the letter herself at first.
The Appellant later explained to Miss
Ward on the phone that he could prove the truth and said, I have the emails
you sent to me and my mother of the letter we talk about and me amending
it, in return for you. It was also explained to all that we have kept
copies of all other correspondence between our persons and this is to
include (Since the start of the Court proceedings.
The Appellant mother has checked the
dates for when this letter was drafted by The Appellant solicitor and then
returned to her, the date was on the 03/04/2016 please see attached email
151,
and letter (marked 03/04/2016 Ms
Ward).
The Appellant barrister was listening
to the phone call and after the Appellant ended the barrister got up and
said I will need to think about still representing you as you called your
solicitors a lair, the Appellant stated that he can prove that Miss Ward
wrote the letter and she’s denying as to doing so and further expressed
himself in question the line of investigation by saying:- “how would anyone
body else’s feel, if she had lied about them,” the Appellant barrister then
replied that if he was still going to represent the Appellant then there
would need to be a meeting at the Appellant barrister chambers, at this
point the meeting concluded, with nothing else really spoke of about the
Appellant Appeal yet again, this was days before the Appeal hearing was due
to start once again.
Up to here for now
A while after the Solicitor wrote a
letter and sent it to the Appellant and the Appellants mother, the date of
this received email is dated 20/09/2016 and a copy had also been sent to
the Court, this application was put in so for the acting solicitor to once
again attempt to be removed from the record this was done to our surprise
and was listed in Court to be heard on the 21/09/2016.
There were large sections of this
letter that were incorrect and did not happen so therefore are not true;
this can also be proven by the Court transcripts from the 16/09/2016.
152,
On the 21/01/2016 we were on our way
to Court and got caught in traffic, we contacted the Court to get a message
to the Judge to say that we were going to be five to ten minutes late, “I
know the Judge got the message.”
When we got to the Court, there was a
barrister that Michael Carroll and Co had sent to the Court to deal with
the application; this was so for them to be removed from the record for the
second attempt.
The Barrister informed us she did not
want to leave the Court before explaining what had happened it seemed the
Judge had called this into Court without us being present and removed the
solicitors from the record.
We question how could this have
happened? Considering, the Appellant was not present at Court? And there
was not a senior Partner from Michael Carroll and Co; “this question is due
to what had been previously said by His Honour Judge Morrison on 19/02/2016
in regard to this not being allowed to happen.”
The Barrister said the Judge wanted to
see us and we would need to wait in Court until we were called, as the
Judge was dealing with a trial and we would be called in after it.
Around 16:00 hours we were called into
Court, the Respondent did make the Judge aware at this point that what had
been said by His Honour Judge Morrison on the 19/02/2016 stating that a
Senior Partner was not present at Court, the Judge replied that he could
not force a solicitor to carry on with a case they clearly did not want to
and that the Appellant could represent himself, he continued to state; that
the case was in a much
153,
better order now, but as is known the
Appellant has learning difficulties and health problems which the Court are
also well aware of, there were only a few days until the Appeal hearing was
due to start once again, how could a Judge believe that a person with
learning difficulties and health problems could be ready and cope with
dealing with a three-day Appeal hearing on his own?.
We did try to get the Judge to adjourn
the Appeal hearing so we could try and get representation put in place due
to knowing the Appellant could not cope or handle this case on his own, which
was due to start on the 26/09/2016 for a three- day hearing, the Judge said
he would not allow this and that the Appeal hearing would go ahead no
matter what. It seems again that the Appellant was being blamed for what
was ongoing in this case, when the Appellant and the Appellant mother had
done all they could, so for them to have this case ready to be heard.
How can a Judge expect someone that is
known to be ill and have learning difficulties to be able to handle this
case on their own? considering there were only four days until the three-
day Appeal hearing was due to start. Nothing was put in place by the Judge
to help the Appellant in any way. The Appellant was just meant to get on
with the case all on his own under the circumstances.
Once again, the solicitors had done
nothing for this case and the Judge had allowed them to walk away when this
was said to not be allowed and it seems as if everything was being blamed
on the Appellant.
154,
It was also noted while we had been
waiting outside the Court that the bundles we had been working from was the
very first set of the application bundles and since that time everything
had been updated, without us being informed, this included more statements
from the police officer in charge of the case, there were lots of documents
missing from within the first bundle due to the update, so until he was
given the updated bundles, the Appellant had never seen them additional
documents.
It was stated by the respondent they
had sent new bundles to the acting solicitors Michael Carroll and co three
times since the being of January 2016, we had never been given a set of new
bundles since this case had started in 2014, we had never been told about
new bundles been sent and never given a new copy of any bundle. This meant
that bundle we had would have had all wrong page numbers and been paginated
totally different from the bundles that were being used by the prosecution
barrister and Courts.
When we were in Court, we did say this
to the Judge about the bundles, the Judge ordered the clerk of the Court to
contact Michael Carroll and Co solicitors and order the solicitors to bring
the bundles to Court. the solicitors informed the clerk that the bundles
were at Nexus Chambers, the Judge was shocked that the solicitors did not have
a copy of the bundles at their office. The Appellant’s uncle who was also
at Court said to the Judge he was willing to go to Nexus Chambers and pick
the bundles up.
155,
The Judge listed this for the
22/09/2016 after 14:00 hours to make sure we were all working from them
same set of bundles.
Upon the Appellant’s uncle getting
home it was seen that the bundle he had collected was not the full set of
bundles and only had part of the applications Skeleton Bundle.
On the 22 September 2016 we attended
Court to inform the Judge we still did not have the updated bundles and the
Judge once again got the clerk of the Court to call Michael Carroll and co
solicitors to find out what was going on within the bundles, the Judge was
very upset that we still did not have the bundles for the case, the Judge
asked for the bundles to be brought to Court before 4 PM, The Appellant’s
mother stated that it would be easier and faster for her to pick the
bundles up from the solicitors on the way home from Court, the Judge asked
if she was sure that he could get them brought to Court she stated that it
be faster for her to pick the bundles up from the solicitors on my way
home.
When we left Court due to the time and
the circumstances we had been placed in The Appellant mother called Michael
Carroll’s office to say what time we would be there by, The Appellant
mother was told that the office would be closed by the time we got there so
The Appellant mother agreed to pick the bundles up first thing in the
morning on 23 September 2016.
On 23-09-2016 The Appellant mother
left home early in the morning to go to Michael Carroll’s office and
collect the bundles with her brother, Mr A Cordell they went into the
office
156,
together to get the bundles, when the
solicitor came down the stairs, he had a piece of paper that The Appellant
mother needed to sign, stating that the bundles had been collected from the
office.
Upon getting home and looking at the
bundles, The Appellant mother noticed there is now at least 13 additional
statements that The Appellant and The Appellant mother had never seen
before from the Respondent bundle, this is a clear error as we knew that in
the first bundle there were only 4 public witness statements and there now
seems to be 16, when taking a closer look at the statements we noticed
there are no members of the public's statements of truth and this also
applied for the original 4 contained in the folder minus one, this also
highlighted that each member of the public's statements are police officers
only and have each put their signatures on two different statements each,
in a pretence of portraying to own two houses each in Edmonton xxx Gardens
and other surrounding roads in an around Progress way, the police officers
are claiming to be victims of this case while on active duty.
So in understanding this, the
Applicant contacted Edmonton police stations lost property room, so too for
him to arrange collection of the original bundle, that was never served to
him in accordance with the law. To his further upset and disappointment of
justice he was to be told by another police officer deployed at the lost
property room as the manager, that the bundle that the Appellant wanted to
claim had been misplaced or stolen, this file clearly shows that there was
only ever four potential members of the publics witness statements
157,
attached within side of the original
Asbo application.
Some of the statements added are all
dated prior to the Magistrates Court trial. Upon looking at The Appellant’s
bundles it seemed this had not been updated or indexed since 2015, so all
the new documents that had been submitted to be added to The Appellant’s
bundle was not in their as they should have been.
Over the days leading up to this, The
Appellant mother had learned how important it was that all the bundles were
paginated and indexed correctly and that all the bundles were the same as
each other so that each person was working on them files was all in Co
Hurst to each other, as there was always problems at court due to this not
being completed correctly.
Though the case history multiple
documents had been handed to the Court, and them documents did not get
patronised correctly or indexed into The Appellant’s bundles, this includes
the court and the Respondent bundles that they were using also.
A whole weekend was spent trying to
add missing documents to the Appellant’s bundle and making copies so that
on the Court date of the 26-09-2016; any missing files could be added to
the Respondent bundle and the three Judge’s bundles. The Appellant health
had become very unstable due to him knowing that he was going to have to be
dealing with this
158,
himself.
The Appellant mother also spent part
of the weekend also writing a letter to the Judge in regards to what had
gone on with the breaches in The Appellant’s human rights, his article 6
human rights the Applicants rights to a fair and speedy trial, there were
also a list of other things that had gone on throughout the case since 2014
in regards to the nondisclosure, and other issues that was always being
raised when at Court and the reason as to why legal aid had been granted:
Due to the complexity of the case.
Due to The Appellant’s learning
difficulties.
Due to the concerns of The Appellant
health.
This letter was emailed to the Court
and asked to be passed to the Judge.
Please see letter that was emailed to
the judge
The 26 September 2016 the three-day
Appeal hearing was due to start, The Appellant was so unwell that there was
no way he could attend Court, Mr A Cordell and Miss L Cordell attended Court
to speak to the Judge, when the Judge entered the Courtroom he stated that
he had received a letter that had to be addressed, he stated that he felt
this would go to judicial review, he stated he had three options:
Carry on with the Appeal in the hope that
The Appellant would turn up the following day.
159,
To Dismiss the Appeal.
Adjourn the Appeal to a new date.
The Judge went over the letter in
great detail; he started around five times that he felt that this case was
going to go to judicial review.
The Judge decided to adjourn the case
until the 16/01/2017; this was later changed for the Appeal to start on the
17/01/2017. The Respondent had tried to object to the Appeal being
adjourned. The Judge stated that we should try to find a new solicitor to take
on the Appeal and that he would help and also make sure that legal aid was
in place.
The Judge asked why The Appellant was
not in Court. The Appellant mother stated The Appellant had become so
unwell due to what was going on in this case and that he was not coping.
Information was passed to the Judge that showed The Appellant was unwell.
Mentioned in court; was also the
missing documents that was missing from The Appellant’s bundle, and that
there were no statements within the bundle, my mother stated to the Judge
that she had spent a lot of the weekend trying to update The Appellant’s
bundle and make sure that it was indexed correctly,
|
|
FF.
|
42.
Additional Email Attachments &
Emails / Issue:
42. 1. 2.
Asbo Rewired -1-4820 26-04-2017 18-58
26/04/2017
/ Page
Numbers: 160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173
--
160,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 26/04/2017 06:58:10 PM
In the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division
Royal Courts of Justice Strand,
London,
WC2A 2ll
Date: 17/04/2017
Between:
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF
SIMON CORDELL CLAIMANT
- AND -
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
DEFENDANT
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
INTERESTED
PARTY
SKELETON ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION:
1. This
application is to have the following decisions/orders reviewed and reversed
in order to prevail in the right to and in justice.
2. A
decision/order to make an application for an Interim Antisocial Behaviour
Order against the Appellant as named above was agreed in a conference at
the Enfield civic centre on the 00/00/2014 alongside their employed staff
and members of the Metropolis police.
3. On the 5th
November 2014, the Appellant defends in his defence that a guilty verdict
was wrongfully decided at Highbury Magistrates Court, this was in order for
the Commissioner of the Metropolis Police.
4. The Appellant
asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed in its decision that is made
by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the verdict to be overturned in
his favour to be declared as void making the decision an error in law.
5. The Appellant's
human rights have now been breached. And.
6. The Appellant's
right to due process has also been breached. This led to the Appellant's
right to a fair trial also being breached.
7. The ongoing of
the Asbo case are a clear miscarriage of justice that has been allowed to
happen, even once reported.
8. The Appellant's
rights in the data protection act 1998 have also been breached in relation
towards the ongoings of the Anti-Social Behaviour order.
9. The Appellant
requests the decision/order that was placed upon his statue of liberties to
make the interim order a full Antisocial Behaviour order on 4th August 2015
by Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, in order for the Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis to be revoked.
10. The Appellant
asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed in its decision that is made
by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the verdict to be overturned in
his favour to be declared as void making the decision an error in law.
11. The Appellant's
human rights have now been breached. And.
12. The Appellant's
right to due process has also been breached. This led to the Appellant's
right to a fair trial also being breached.
13. The ongoing of
the Asbo case are a clear miscarriage of justice that has been allowed to
happen, even once reported.
14. The Appellant's
rights in the data protection act 1998 have also been breached in relation
towards the ongoings of the Anti-Social Behaviour order.
15. The Appellant
requests for the decision/order made at Wood Green Crown Court on 19th
January 2017 in relation to the Appeal against conviction, of the
Antisocial Behaviour Order to be dismissed also.
16. The Appellant
asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed in its decision that is made
by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the verdict to be overturned in
his favour to be declared as void making the decision an error in law.
17. The Appellant's
human rights have now been breached. And.
18. The Appellant's
right to due process has also been breached. This led to the Appellant's
right to a fair trial also being breached.
19. The ongoing of
the Asbo case are a clear miscarriage of justice that has been allowed to
happen, even once reported.
20. The Appellant's
rights in the data protection act 1998 have also been breached in relation
towards the ongoings of the Anti-Social Behaviour order.
21. It is said that
on the on the 12th September 2014 the police attended The Appellant home
address of 109 Burncroft, Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ, they knocked on the
door, the Appellant was not expecting anyone, the Appellant approached his
front door and looked through his spy hole he could see people who appeared
to be police officers, and asked them through the door what they wanted, the
police stated they needed to speak to him, the Appellant opened his front
door very slightly then the police officers started to try a force an
object into the front door, he soon came to the understanding he was being
tricked so for the officers to be able to serve some
161,
documents on him as they would never
have been able to fit into any standard letterbox, due to the Appellant's
learning difficulties he stated he would not accept anything and closed his
door and then continued to state that he was not being rude in doing so.
22. It is a
well-known fact on the police's system of government bodies that the
Appellant does have learning difficulties and health problems.
23. The Appellant
could hear the police talking outside his front door and the lady police
officer then questioned her colleges and said what shall we do now, a male
police officer stated put it on the floor in front of the door referring to
the application.
24. They then put
some other pages into the Appellant's letterbox this totalled to four
pages. The lady police officer then placed an A4 size folder on the floor
outside the Appellant's front door as the male officer had instructed her
to do.
25. The Appellant
then made a phone call to his mother, who could not attend at the time this
was until the following day when she attended the Appellant's home address.
On her attendance, she found the folder was left opened on the floor where
the police had left it. The Appellant’s mother was very shocked when she
looked inside the folder and saw the data that was within it.
26. The data that
was within side the A4 size folder was personal information and a breach of
the data protection act 1998 by leaving such data in a commune area of the
block of flats.
27. A letter of
complaint was put to the police in the way in which they had left personal
information on a doorstep in view of everyone that lived or who came into
the block of flats, this was achieved on the 13th September 2014 and was
hand delivered to Edmonton Green police station and a receipt was issued from
them, at the same time as of when the complaint letter was handed in there
was also that of the A4 bundle being referred to as the Asbo application
and court summons which was also handed into the front desk of the police
station.
28. The complaint
has never been addressed and neither has there been that of a professional
response concluding any outcome to them issues raised of concern, a total
failure of a response from the police, providing any professionalism when
dealing with complaints.
29. Please see a letter
of the compliant and photos and receipt that was handed to Edmonton police
station on 13th September 2014.
30. On 06th October
2014, the Appellant was due to appear in Court on this day, The Appellant
had arranged for Michael Carroll and Co Solicitors, to act on his behalf,
this included to have legal aid in place.
31. On the day of
court legal aid had been applied for, but the legal aid had been refused,
the Judge sitting overturned this and granted legal aid in the Applicants
favour.
32. The reason for
the Judge overturning and granting legal aid was due to the Appellant
having known learning difficulties, health problems and due to the
complexity of the case.
33. The disclosure
was asked for so that the Appellant could stand a fair and speedy trial,
but the requested disclosure never ever did come. The case was relisted for
the 22/10/2014, for an interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing, all
police officers were due to attend for the interim hearing.
34. On the 22nd
October 2014, the Appellant was due in Court for the Interim Antisocial
Behaviour Order to be heard, due to the Appellant barrister having a burst
water pipe and his home being flooded he could not attend, the applicant
still wanted the case to be heard which the Judge would not allow.
35. The Interim
Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing was then set for the 05/11/2014.
36. On the 22nd
October 2014, all police officers did attend Court for the Interim
Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing. The disclosure was asked for on this
date.
37. 37.On 05th
November 2014, the Appellant was due in Court for the Interim Antisocial
Behaviour Order hearing; all police were due to attend but did not. The
Appellant's barrister could not attend on this date due to the flooding
that taken place at his home address, another barrister turned up to
represent the Appellant but had no paperwork for the case only a skeleton
argument to strike-out the Antisocial Behaviour Order application.
38. The skeleton
argument, submitted on behalf of the Appellant, to strike out the
application for the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order. Arguments advanced
in this respect, and those which rely upon the civil procedure rules, are
not applicable to these proceedings. The civil procedure rules only apply
to proceedings in the county Court, the high Court, and the civil division
of the Court of Appeal. As a result, the Magistrate's Court has no
jurisdiction to consider an application to strike-out application.
39. The Interim
Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing went ahead, The Appellant's barrister
did not have the correct paperwork for the hearing, and knew very little
about the case, no police officers turned up to Court on this day.
40. In the days
prior to this hearing, The Appellant was rushed to the hospital due to
kidney problems while he was still in hospital he was informed by his
solicitor on the 04/11/2014 that if he did not attend Court on the
05/11/2014 the case would go ahead without his presence. The Appellant then
discharged himself from the hospital because he had no choice. (He was
extremely unwell)
41. On this date,
the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order was granted by the District Judge
Newham.
42. Upon delivering
her judgment, District Judge Newham ruled that it is just to impose an
Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order, and that regard had been taken of The
Appellant's Article 6 and 8 rights, as well as The Appellants business.
District Judge Newham ruled that there are no provisions contained within
the (amended) proposed Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order which would
prevent The Appellant from conducting legitimate business.
43. On this date,
all police officers were due to attend. (They did not attend their reason
was they were not told to attend; this was untrue as the application from
22/10/14 should still stand as the case had only been adjourned until this
date for the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing)
44. The applicant's
case also relied solely on hearsay, Magistrate's Courts (hearsay evidence
in civil proceeding) rules 1999.
45. These are the
conditions The Appellant was placed under and are for the whole of the UK:
46. The defendant
is prohibited from:
47. Attending a
rave as defined by s.63 (1) of the criminal justice and public order act
1994.
48. Being concerned
in the organisation of a rave as defined by s.63(1) of the criminal justice
and public order act 1994.
49. Knowingly using
or supplying property, personal or otherwise, for use in a rave as defined
by s.63(1) of the criminal justice and public order act 1994.
50. Entering or
remaining in any disused or abandoned building unless invited to do so in
writing by a registered charitable organisation.
51. Entering or
remaining on non-residential private property on an industrial estate
between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am without written permission from the
owner and/or leaseholder of the property; and: -
52. Engaging in any
licensable activity in any unlicensed premises.
53. For the sake of
clarity, nothing in this order prevents the defendant from assisting,
preparing for, or engaging in licensed licensable activities.
54. This is untrue
as we have since contacted council and police and told he would not be
granted a licence to hold any events as long as the Antisocial Behaviour
Order was in place other than when applying with Enfield Council. So the
Appellant's entertainment business is seriously affected by the Antisocial
Behaviour Order that was put in place.
55. Points to
address regarding the conditions the Appellant is prohibited from doing.
162,
Clearly, the conditions the Appellant
was put under are a breach of the Appellant's human rights, and
disproportionate due to the fact it would breach:
56.
Article 3 freedom from torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment: -
57.
Article 5 right to liberty and
security: -
58.
Article 8 respect for your private and
family life, home, and correspondence: -
59.
Article 23.1 of the universal
declaration of human rights states: (1) everyone has the right to work, to
free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to
protection against unemployment.
60.
Condition E states entering or
remaining on a non-residential private property on an industrial estate between
the hours of 10 pm and 7 am without the written permission from the owner
of that land and/or leaseholder of the property.
61.
With this condition in place, it makes
it so that the Appellants life is left in term while as for it leaves him
in a state of confusion as to what he can and cannot do as he has been left
not equal to others.
62.
Any non-residential property the
Appellant would like to attend such as where house night club or any
friends or family’s private parties he is not able to attend:
63.
This also includes Hospitals, Police
Stations, 24-hour Supermarkets, Petrol Stations, Cinemas, Restaurants,
Bars, Nightclubs, and any other public place open to the public between
these times that is non-residential. The Appellant cannot go to without
written permission which would be degrading for the Appellant to have to
ask each time he wanted to go somewhere and explain why he needed it to be
confirmed in writing by the owner and/or leaseholder of the property, how
this condition could be applied by any Judge and state it is not a beach of
someone human rights should not be justified.
64.
Conditions C states knowingly using or
supplying property personal or otherwise for the use of a rave as defined
under section 63.1 of the criminal justice and public order act, the
Appellants has spent the last 10 years building his business saving every
penny with help from his family.
65.
The company he has built is regulated
within the entertainment industry and is represented by the licensing Act
2003, he intends to hire equipment out, the Appellants business is
seriously affected by the conditions, partly because if he hired his
equipment to any person and it ended up in an indoor private party or an
outdoor illegal rave then the Appellant would be in breach of the
conditions he has been imposed to be incompliance with another issue of
concern is all events sighted within the Applicants bundle are indoor
events and are therefore not illegal. When hiring out equipment the
appellant does ask what it is going to be used for and also makes sure that
he and his clients have that of a professional contract in place, so for
him to be sure he is hiring the equipment in good faith.
66.
Sometimes when a person tells you
their reason for hiring the equipment out you may find out at a later date
that what was explained when hiring the equipment out is not always correct
and that it was not used for the purpose the person told you. The Appellant
should not be liable for other people's actions when following the correct
protocols of business and should never be in breach of the Asbo conditions
in them circumstances.
67.
Also if the Appellant loaned someone
any personal belongings and that person ended up at an illegal rave then
the Appellant would again be in breach of his conditions, even if the item
was something that did not even constitute as being for an illegal rave.
68.
These are just two more of the
concerns within the conditions that the Appellant is under.
69.
Some of our other concerns within the
conditions set by the Courts are that the Appellant's Human rights are even
further breached, this includes: -
70.
Article 6 right to a fair trial: -
71.
The Appellant had to go ahead at the
hearing without the barrister having any other paperwork other than the
application to strike out, which was not allowed.
72.
Also on this date, the police officers
did not attend when they knew they should.
73.
The Appellant was so unwell at this
hearing, he was not coping he should never have had to discharge himself
from hospital to try to defend himself.
74.
The police have it on the police
systems who done what they say the Appellant has done and have not
disclosed that information when requested.
75.
The following directions were made:
76.
The parties to exchange any additional
evidence on which they seek to rely by 20th January 2015, this is to
include any witness statements from any witness, including the defendant
himself; and: -
77.
The parties are prohibited from
relying on any evidence not already served or served in accordance with
paragraph 1 of these directions, without the permission of the Court.
78.
Although not a formal direction,
should any witnesses no longer be required, the Judge requested written
confirmation of this to be given to all parties speedily.
79.
At present, the following witnesses
are required to attend the full hearing:
(i) Inspector Douglas Skinner; -
(ii) Police constable Miles; -
(iii) Acting police sergeant Edgoose; -
(iv) Police constable Elsmore: -
(v) Sergeant King: -
(vi) Police constable Ames; and: -
(vii) Inspector Hamill.
80. The interim order was set to continue
until 10th March 2015 when the full hearing was heard this was
listed for two full days.
81. The disclosure was asked for this was
meant to be given by 20/01/2015 this never happened, and no disclosure was
given.
82. No disclosure was served on us by
the20/01/2015 that was asked for; this has happened throughout this case.
The disclosure we ask for would prove the Appellant did not do what the
police are saying within the application.
83. Before the first hearing was due to take
place the Appellant and his mother was constantly requesting by methods
such as via phone and emails for the acting solicitors Michael Carrol and
co.’s to obtain the relevant information so for them to have the Applicants
best interests at heart regarding a fair trial, thought our requests we
understood that things were not being addressed to the correct level of
services needed, this included a lack of communication, submission of forms
and applications and relevant procedures for a solicitor firm to have the
correct correspondents ready for trial, in laymen terms a complete disregard
for their clients, things just was simply not being completed.
84. Since the start of the case meetings was
constantly being put off by them self's, we had also asked a number of
times could the solicitors please go over the CADs, and intelligence
reports that were in the Asbo application as we understood there to be
serious errors contained within its context, our request was never
accomplished, this included the questioning of laws representing the case
stating it was an illegal offence to which the Applicant had never been
arrested for.
85. Also noticed within the applicant's
bundles were other serious breaches of data protection, regulations, and
codes of conduct, this includes some of the following: - in police
officers’ statements.
163,
Should
start at number 76 document index
1.
In what is referred to as a “CFS call”
in a short abbreviation a member of the public requesting assistance by way
of a phone call for services that in turn has led an investigating
officer(s) into using a mg11 form otherwise known as a witness statement,
to take a version of events of a person.
2.
The issue of relevance being
highlighted is in witness statements that were contained within the Asbo
applications bundle. Serious errors once again seem to have occurred, that
leave serious concerns towards any guilty verdict, as for sure when any
official person is filling out such a form as a mg 11 there should be
statements of truth that have been complied with as well as many other
measurements that should be met that seem to be under serious scrutiny as
for they were written by police officers and not the witnesses themselves,
to even further the rights to justice the Appellant was not allowed to call
any witnesses or any other police officers whose information was within the
application's bundle he was only allowed to have the police officers that
the application wanted us to have, he simply was denied his rights to have
any other witnesses being called.
3.
The members of the public's statements
that could be proved to be no other than information reports that should be
classified as non-disclosed intelligence were allowed to remain within the
application’s bundle as witness statements without being questioned by the
acting solicitors, although it was constantly being brought up.
4.
On the 10th March 2015, this date was
due to be the full Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing, but the Court had
made a mistake and only listed it for a one-day hearing.
5.
District Judge Williams sitting,
apologised for the error, and said that a part hearing could take place, or
the full hearing is adjourned to a later date so that the full hearing
could be dealt with over two days.
6.
The Appellant was upset as he wanted
this to be dealt with and only agreed that the case is adjourned until the
03/08/2014 and the 04/08/2014 if district Judge Williams heard the case,
she cleared her diary and promised that she would be the Judge that would
preside over the case.
7.
District Judge Williams also stated
that this was the 1st time she had ever seen a case in which the commissioner
of the metropolitan police had brought an Antisocial Behaviour Order in
front of her in this way in a civil capacity.
8.
The disclosure was asked for and this
was once again never given.
9.
On the 2nd August 2015 The Appellant's
mother received a phone call from Miss Ward acting solicitors, regarding a
statement she had just found in the emails relating to Antisocial Behaviour
Order, The Appellant's mother asked if this could be sent over via email to
her, in knowing it was too late to do anything about it because the full
hearing started the next day. Similar things were continuously happening
throughout the case; the solicitors seemed to only do anything on the case
the day before the hearings, or a few days before it was due to take place.
Many emails were sent including many phone calls that were made to get the
right things done, most of the emails went not replied to for months, phone
calls was not picked up, or if they were we were told that things would be
addressed when they never were.
10.
The Appellant attended Court on the
03rd August 2015 and the 04th August 2015 for the full hearing of the
Antisocial Behaviour Order, only to find the stipulation and reasons he had
allowed the case to be adjourned to these dates had not been adhered to,
the presiding Judge was not District Judge Williams, it fact it was
District Judge D Pigot who would be residing over the full hearing.
11.
Non-disclosure was again spoken about,
but nothing came of this and the case went forward.
12.
We understand this is only our
opinion, but we believe this Judge had already found that she was going to
prove the case before it even started for the full Antisocial Behaviour
Order in favour of the applicants.
13.
Before the hearing started The
Appellant’s, mother informed the Judge the Appellant was very ill and she
did not think he would cope due to health problems. She continued with the
case none the less and did not ask the Appellant's mother to elaborate
further. Later within the hearing the judge would notice that there should
have been medical records adduced for the Applicants response within his
bundle and this was missing along with a lot of other documents that had
been requested for his defence, the Appellants bundle was only around 82
pages when it should have been around 300 pages.
14.
Continually through cross-examination
by the Appellants barrister toward the police officers, District Judge D
Pigot kept interrupting and telling the barrister he could not ask the
questions he was asking even though what he was asking corresponded with
what the police had put in their own statements. The Appellant's barrister
even commented to the Judge Pigot “I am only asking questions pertaining to
what the police have put in their statements” also he said to the Judge “I
hope you are not going to have as much due- diligence with my client on
cross-examination as you have with me” to which the Judge replied she
would.
15.
This was certainly not the case and in
fact, the Judge allowed the Appellant to be cross-examined extremely
harshly even knowing the Appellant had health problems.
16.
On the date of trial the Appellants
solicitor had not even prepared a copy of the bundle so for the Appellant
to have his own bundle, he was never told by the acting solicitors that he
should of had his own copy and there was also the issue of there being a
lot of documents missing from the Appellant's bundle.
17.
On the day of trial when the Appellant
took the stand, the Judge did ask where the Appellants bundle was, he
stated he had never been given one, and did not know he needed one, the
Judge did ask if there was a spare bundle that the Appellant could use
which there was not. the Judge carried on by allowing the Appellant to be
cross-examined clearly anyone could see the Appellant was unwell, from time
to time the Judge passed the Appellant her own bundle.
18.
Thought the trial the Appellant
because the appellant did not understand what he was being asked, the
problem with this is how is someone with learning difficulties is meant to
be able to read what is contained within the bundle.
19.
The Appellant feels that if he had had
been solicited correctly then for sure he would have been better prepared,
as for this would have left him with access to his own bundle so for him
and his barrister to have been able to defend the Applicant correctly, therefore
efficiently. Prior to the hearing this would have been the right point of
time of opportunity for any of the support network the Applicant has or may
need in place to have complied with what would have been in the Applicants
best interest, so for that group of people working together as a collective
of people, to have been able to off overseen this case, we all now feel
this was totally inappropriate for Mr Simon Cordell to have been opposed to
such behaviour and therefore challenge the rightfulness of what was allowed
by the Judge to have happened.
20.
To the best of the Appellants
barrister abilities he questioned the legitimacy of many issues of our
concern that we have raised in many of the correspondents to the relevant
persons of interest, relating towards this case, one of them concerns that
we continually have raised is in relation towards the CAD's that are being
used in the Asbo application, such problems referring to the cads are in
reference towards the case that is linked to Progress Way on 6th 7th 8th
June 2014, this line of interrogation, such as what has been taken on by
members of the police lead to a line of questioning such as:- if there was
an illegal rave taking place at the sometime on Crown Road.
21.
The Appellants barrister was asked to make
this line of questioning, the reason being, after reading the local
newspapers and making other inquires, we knew for sure this was a true
fact, that there was another party at Crown road on the same dates.
22.
It was latter revelled that the acting
solicitors had not gone over the CADs before the trial, although they were
asked too many times, and this should have been a standard fair practice
for them.
23.
If asked by any official person
involved in the on goings of the Anti-Social Behaviour Order, the defendant
can and is happy to provide a list of correspondents that have been
requested by way of mobile texts and electronic emails by him and his per
network. In them
164,
24.
messages he had asked his acting
solicitor firm at the time to make sure of any reductions of wrongful
accusations that has now been proven not to be correct, part of the reason
why is because there is still CADs within the bundle that had nothing to do
with the Appellant, what has already been clearly proven and should not
stand as any part of a case against his person.
25.
As can be seen in a copy of the
Magistrates transcripts of the trial a police officer gave wrongful
information while under oath, he stated that every CAD contained in the
Asbo application on the dates of the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 is in fact
related to Progress Way and there was not an illegal rave taking place on
Crown Road on them same dates, he done this to help himself in aid of
gaining a guilty verdict against the Appellant, what he stated to the
district judge under cross-examination is not the truth as can be proven by
a copy of a freedom of information request that was sent in receipt's to
Enfield Council and ourselves, to further this the Judge then asked the
same question was every CAD linked to the case of the application, and was
given the exact same answer yes.
26.
Attached is a copy of the freedom of
information act which was obtained from Enfield Council.
27.
In point of the facts there are
multiple inconsistencies pertained within the CADs within the application,
timestamps also do not match up within the CADs, there is also all the
missing CADs. Some of the intelligence reports also have been updated with
no reason as to why. There are also the breaches of data protection within
the Appellants PNC record which are incorrect which also can be proven and
should have never been contained without the right application granted by a
judge, also contained within the police officer statements there are errors
which can be proven as untrue and are therefore a breach of the data protection
act.
28.
We know the police knew about the
illegal rave at Crown Road because police were deployed there. This can
clearly be seen within the CADs which are within the application's bundle,
but there is so much reduction within the CADs we believe there is a lot
more that pertain to Crown Road, and we cannot see due to the reductions.
29.
Part of the Appellant's barrister
submission had been that the allegations were that the Appellant was
involved in the organising of illegal raves, but the applicant hadn't
adduced evidence of trespass which is a requirement for proving that an
indoor rave was illegal.
30.
The district Judge ruled that the
applicant did not need to prove illegality - all that needed to prove was
the Appellant had acted in an Antisocial Manner.
31.
In the Appellants barrister view this
is a very questionable decision: firstly, the applicant based their case on
the illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the rave's themselves
and secondly, without proof of illegality the presumption of innocence
leads to the conclusion that the raves were legal, and thus the applicant
being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity requires
more careful consideration on issues of proportionality.
32.
The barrister continued to state that
the Applicant could go to judicial review in regards to the case, but gave
his legal advice that he did not think this decision was in the Appellants
best interest as he believed there is little merit in doing so, the reason
he gave was because the Appellant would then lose his right to Appeal to
the Crown Court and even if he succeeded in the high/div Court, they would
merely remit it back to the Lower Court, who would then probably go through
the motions of considering proportionality before coming to the same
conclusion.
33.
To summarise the Judge stated she did
not need to prove illegality, but she proved the Appellant had acted in an
Antisocial Manner, how the district Judge came to this conclusion we do not
understand, not one police officer had stated the Appellant had acted in an
Antisocial Manner towards them, is also a fact that any application for an
Antisocial Behaviour Order has to be bought within six months of the dates,
there were cases going back prior to the six months which should have only
been used for reference, but the District Judge also included these cases
to be proven.
34.
Since this case started, we knew the
police and the public order investigation unit held information on the
police systems that proved the Appellant was not the organiser of these
illegal raves. In fact, the police knowingly went around to the known
organiser's homes and also spoke with them on the telephone. This proves
they have the information we were asking for in disclosure. (This was found
out via social media and Google by the Appellant's mother) the Appellant's
mother even called the public order investigation unit and spoke to DS
Chapman, and Val Turner.
35.
The Appellant had not been coping
throughout this case and walked out of the Court, the Appellant's mother said
to the District Judge you can clearly see he is not well and is not coping,
which the district Judge confirmed she could clearly see that the Appellant
was not well. But continued to ask the clerk to get the Appellant back in
Court and she also informed that if appellant re-entered the Courtroom and
was disruptive, she would hold him in contempt of Court. The Appellants
mother would not let the Appellant re-entered the Courtroom, as she knew
the Appellant was so unwell and not coming and did not want him to be held
in contempt of Court due to his health.
36.
Because of this, the Appellant was not
there to have the Antisocial Behaviour Order served on him, and the
Antisocial Behaviour Order was served to the Appellant's mother on his
behalf.
37.
Upon proving the case District Judge
Pigot granted all the applicants’ conditions. The applicants wanted to make
this a lifetime Antisocial Behaviour Order, which district Judge Pigot did
not allow and granted it for five years within the whole of the UK. With
the stipulation that it could be reapplied for when the five years were
concluded. She started the five years from the 04/08/2015; she did not
count the time the Appellant had been on the Interim Antisocial Behaviour
Order.
38.
The Appellant's mother and the
Appellant's barrister then asked the Judge if the conditions of the
Antisocial Behaviour Order could be defined as there were many points of
concern. the Judge was asked if the Appellant went to a Tesco or Tesco
petrol station between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am would he be in breach of
the conditions and subsequently arrested, the response from District Judge
Pigot was dumbfounding she said” yes he would be arrested, taken to Court
and would then have to prove he was going to get whatever petrol he
required”. I am guessing the same could be said for food and any other
non-residential buildings, this would include hospitals, police stations,
restaurants, cinemas etc. on hearing the Appellant's mother and barrister
questioned this and said “so you think this is in accordance with the
law,?” she replied to this “the conditions are precise and plain.
39.
District Judge Pigot then left the
Courtroom with her clerk to get the memorandum of an entry, so for them to
be made up as soon as possible, this was due to the lateness of the day and
the department who dealt with this kind of request would be closed, on her
return the District Judge asked why the Appellants barrister was not in
Court, the Appellants mother said that he had left because he was not told
that he needed to stay, she handed the memorandum of an entry to the
Appellants mother and a copy was then sent to the applicants barrister, on
reviewing this the applicants barrister said there were multiple spelling
mistakes and that the dates from 2013 should not be entered and needed to
be removed. She said this would be amended and a new copy would be sent in
the post, and until this day this has never happened even though the
Appellants mother contacted the Court via emails in regards to them issues,
the spelling mistakes were corrected but not the dates.
40.
We have since found out that we also
should have been handed a map showing all areas which the Antisocial
Behaviour Order conditions encompassed, which we have also never been
given, but this map would have just shown the whole of the UK, even low the
extent of the problems only excised in Enfield and under Asbo guidance
should never have been granted on such a geological wide scale without
proof of contempt.
41.
The Appellant's mother asked the Court
for the transcripts, but was told at the Magistrate's Court does not record
hearings, that the only notes that were kept were the clerks Court notes,
the clerks Court notes were requested and the fee paid to obtain these.
Upon looking at the clerk's notes there is a substantial amount is not
included within them for the full two-day hearing for the Antisocial
Behaviour Order hearing.
165,
42.
Please see Clerk Notes: -
43.
I know that a judicial review in
regards to the Magistrates hearing is being submitted to the Court out of
time, but when the Appellants mother contacted the high Court to make
enquiries in regards to a judicial review and explained the situation that
had occurred throughout this case she was told to submit the application
for judicial review for the Magistrates hearing's and that under
exceptional circumstances the time limit could be overturned, the reason
that this has been submitted to the Court out of time is due to the
Appellant taking his barristers opinion that he would be better to go for
the Appeal at the Crown Court and this is what the Appellant did. The
Appeal hearing was not concluded until 19 January 2017.
44.
On the 13 August 2015, the
Metropolitan Police Service posted on their website, this led to all the
local newspapers printing the story about the Appellant.
45.
Please see attached: -
46.
But how could the police have printed
this as illegality had not been proven?
47.
This lead to the Appellant having
stones thrown at his windows, and a gun being pulled out on him, which it
then took the police six days to come out to take a report, we know the
reason why it took the police so long to come and take the report it's how
much the police dislike the Appellant, and his family this has been ongoing
for over 23 years.
48.
The Appellant's mother contacted many
solicitors to try and get a new solicitor to take over the case, each time
she was told that solicitors will not take a case on at Appeal stage due to
how much legal aid paid for Appeal hearing, legal aid believed the
solicitors that acted for the hearing would be dealing with the Appeal
hearing so there was a set amount that would be paid for Appeal hearings
which would not cover a new solicitor going over the complete case. The
Appellant's mother believed it was best to keep the old solicitors on
record as it was better to have a solicitor then having non due to the
Appellant's health which had deteriorated throughout this case.
49.
The Appeal was listed for the 26
October 2015 but only listed for 1-hour hearing the case was put off, due
to the case needed to be set for three days as to the Appeal hearing.
50.
The acting solicitors had seemed to
have lost the Appellant's bundle it had been removed from the office due to
the office being audited in the October 2015, no one seemed to be able to
find the Appellant's bundle, and all the missing documents that was meant
to have been within the bundle which was for the case and full hearing.
51.
On the 9th November 2015 the case was
listed for a mention hearing, all bundles were due to be at the Crown Court
by the 23December 2015. The case was listed for a three-day Appeal to start
on 22 February 2016. Discloser had been requested again.
52.
In the December 2015 arrangements was
made for the acting solicitors to attend the Appellants mother's home to go
over the case bundles, at this point the Appellants mother made sure that
all the CADs and intelligence reports was gone over by the solicitor, upon
seeing all the errors the solicitor was shocked, maps were made up to be
included in the Appellant's bundle and the Appellant's bundle was remade as
it was due to be handed into Wood Green Crown Court on the 23 December
2015. Emails were also sent by the solicitor to the police.
53.
The Appellants mother agreed to print
of multiple documents including all maps needed to be done in colour, just
prior to the Christmas holiday all printing was done and contact was made
with the solicitors in order to get the Appellant's bundle Paginated and
indexed, on 22 December 2015 multiple texts and calls was made to the
solicitor due to the fact the bundle needed to be to the Court by the 23
December 2015.
54.
The acting solicitor firm's replies
were not being made in efficient time. On one occasion out of many the
acting solicitor did not reply until much later, when she finally did reply
she stated, that she could hand in the bundle when she got back from the
Christmas and her New Year holidays, this was clearly not adequate as there
should have been a case handler in her position to handle the Applicants
case load.
55.
Effectually a text was sent to the
solicitor stating that this was going to have an effect on families
Christmas and New Year due to the Appellant knowing that the Court had
ordered the bundle to be submitted to the Court by a certain date and this
time limit given by a judge not being merited, a text was received back from
the solicitors, this stated the following:- “to be at the office by 18:00
PM” The Appellants mother attended and two bundles was Paginated and
indexed which took until around01:30 AM. Miss Ward was not happy due to the
time that had to be spent dealing with this as she was due to fly out in
the early hours to Ireland. The bundles were left with the Appellants
mother, this was achieved so that one mastered copy could behand-delivered
to the Court in the morning on the 23 December 2015 and the other bundle
was recorded delivered via the Post Office to the police.
56.
Miss Ward stated after the Christmas
and New Year holidays she would get the Appellant's bundle ready so it
could be given to him. The Appellant had not seen the new bundle as the
solicitor did not want to meet him, and due to the lateness in which the
bundle was made to get into the court and the police, there was not the
time for the Appellant to see the new bundle.
57.
One of the texts that were sent to the
Appellants mother please see below. Stated: that on the 22/12/2015, “This
is a legal aid case Lorraine and Simon need to recognise that he is not
paying privately so needs to work within the constraints of the legal aid
system.” Upon receiving the text the Appellants mother was upset, it was
the Court who had set the day for the bundle to be within the Court, not
the Appellant.
58.
The solicitors should have dealt with
the case in a timely manner and made sure that things were not left to the
last minute.
59.
All that the Appellant ever wanted was
for the solicitors to do what was right and needed for the Applicant their
client, to which never happened.
60.
When overseeing the past activities
of: “the case handlers”, it is a sure fact that things was always left or
not achieved at all, this would always lead the Appellants to his
disappointment, in turn, causing wrongful suffering and loss, this seems to
continue to leave the Appellant being in receipt of getting the blame, when
he should not.
61.
It was also upsetting because it
seemed as if: - the Appellant paid for the solicitor's services then things
would have been addressed a lot differently. I feel it should make no
difference between paying privately or having legal aid put in place, a
solicitor's job is to represent their client to the best of their ability seek
justice for their client the best they possibly can, this was not the case
throughout this case. After the Christmas and the New Year's holidays, we
had to keep asking for the Appellant's bundle, we managed to get this in
the beginning of February 2016, not long before the trial was due to start,
it would also seem the solicitors was having problems getting a barrister
for the Appellant still had not seen a barrister, this was at the time of
the full hearing at the Magistrate's Court, the original barrister that
represented the Appellant at the Magistrate's hearings, was on sabbatical
leave. It is also noted that the acting solicitors, did not want a meeting
with the Appellant and was mostly dealing with the Appellants mother.
62.
On the 19th February 2016 the acting
Solicitors put into the Court for a mention hearing, the Appellant believed
this was due to nondisclosure, but the solicitors had also put an
application into Break Fixture this was dismissed by His Honour Judge
Morrison, this was three days before the three-day Appeal hearing was due
to start.
63.
“The Court will not and does not
accede to any application for The Appellants.”
64.
Solicitor's to come off the record or
to cease acting for the Appellant, such an application was dismissed by His
Honour Judge Morrison on the 19th February 2016. It was also said that if
any attempt is made to repeat this application the Court will require it to
be made in person, by the Senior Partner of Michael Carroll & Co.”
65.
This information is very important due
to what occurred on the 21/09/2016 when HHJ-PAWLAK removed the solicitors
from the record, as this was done without the Appellant or a Senior Partner
of Michael Carroll & Co being present in Court. (“See date 21/09/2016
as more
166,
notes”)
66.
His Honour Judge Morrison listed for
the case to be heard on the 22/02/2016 in front of HHJ-PAWLAK, this was due
to issues that were raised once again regarding nondisclosure and he felt
he was not the best Judge to answer these issues.
67.
The reason the solicitors gave to come
off the record so close to the Appeal hearing was a breakdown in
communication and they also could not get a barrister to deal with this
case, this is in part misleading, the actual reason for them wanting to
come off the record was due to the lack of work done by solicitors acting
for the Appellant, in point of fact the case was not ready for the Appeal
hearing, They could also not get a Barrister, and did not want to meet with
their client.
68.
His Honour Judge Morrison had never
heard off solicitors that could not get a barrister and ordered that a
Public Defender took over the case to act for the Appellant.
69.
A three-day Appeal hearing was listed
for 22/02/2016, 23/02/2016 and 24/02/2016.
70.
Mr Morris acting Public Defender
attended Court on this day to act for the Appellant; the Appellant had not
met Mr Morris before this date. Mr Morris had only had the case since the
19/02/2016 and was not ready for the three-day Appeal hearing. He wanted
time to be able to go over all the large case bundles and be able to sit
down and talk to the Appellant, so asked for an adjournment.
71.
HHJ-PAWLAK was very unsympathetic and
said he had the weekend to get ready for this case and that the Appeal
would go ahead. Considering this was the Public Defender that His Honour
Judge Morrison had allocated to the case only three days beforehand it
seemed that the Appellant was the one being penalised for the incompetence
of his acting solicitors Michael Carroll & Co.
72.
The Appellant's health had
deteriorated considerably due to all of what was happening within this case
and other issues, the mental health team had obtained a section 135 warrant
under the mental health act and it was only because of the disdain towards
the Appellant from the ASBO proceedings, the Appellants Mother felt that she
had to hand this information to his acting barrister, so for them to give a
copy of the letter handed to them to the Judge, knowing this would cause a
huge rift between the Appellant and his mother. But she had no option as
the Judge was going to force the Appeal hearing to go ahead when the
Appellant mother knew the Appellant would not cope.
73.
This information was also posted to
the judge, in knowing that the barrister had only just got the case handed
to him and he himself was not ready to take the case on, as he had not even
met with the Appellant at this point in time.
74.
Upon Mr Morris handing the documents
to the Judge the Judge then unwilling adjourned the Appeal hearing until
the 26/09/2016 for a three-day hearing.
75.
The Judge listed the case for a mention
hearing also on the 04/04/2016.
76.
After this Court hearing, HHJ-PAWLAK
wrote a letter to the acting solicitors Michael Carroll and co that had to
be replied to by the 04/04/2016.
77.
See Attached letter from Judge: -
78.
See attached response from Solicitors
dated 03/04/2016: -
79.
ln the letter that the Judge wrote to
The Appellant's solicitors on the 22/02/2016, he asked Miss Ward who was
dealing with this case for the Appellant at Michael Carroll & Co, if
she knew that the response had to be completed by the 04/04/2016 for when
the case was next listed in Court.
80.
Miss Ward did not start working on the
response to the Judge's letter until the 03/04/2016 and an email was sent
to the Appellant with what Miss Ward wanted to reply in response to the
Judge's letter also stating any amendments that needed to be complied with,
as soon as practically possible.
81.
Because the Appellant knew that Miss
Ward had sat on the letter from the Judge, in turn, she and the company
that she represented, had done nothing about what the judge had requested,
this was since the date of February 2016 and then Miss Ward had rushed a
response to be ready on the 03/04/2016, when she had been asked repeatedly
to address the letter in a timely manner from the Judge and ourselves. In
doing this she had not given the Appellant any time to go over the response
she had written.
82.
The Appellant amended Miss Wards
Letter to include multiple points that had been missed out and sent it back
to Miss Ward via email within a few hours of getting it. The Appellant was
upset that he had to rushed into things, this was due to the learning
problems he has and the delay in getting the letter from the solicitors
meant the Appellant had hardly any time.
83.
Please see attached: -
84.
Upon attending Court on the 04/04/2016
it was seen that Mr Morris had also drafted a response to the Judge letter
this response was almost identical to Miss Ward's Letter except that it
included one crucial section regarding the hearsay rule that had not been
included in Miss Ward's letter.
85.
The Appellant agreed on the point
about the hearsay rule as he had been explaining this to Miss ward since
the start of the ongoings of the case, which he felt did need to be
included. But the Applicant was adamant it was going to be his letter that
was going to be handed to the Judge with the oral addition of the hearsay.
(This was the oral addition)
86.
“The Magistrates Court hearsay rules
1999 do not apply to the Crown Court.
87.
The defence does not accept that the
Respondent has relied on the correct legislation to apply under the hearsay
rules. In any event, the Appellant requests that the Respondent calls the
witnesses who made CAD entries for cross-examination.
88.
It is neither professionally
appropriate nor suitable for the Appellant to call police officers and
question their Credibility, as proposed by the Respondent through their
application under the Magistrates Court Hearsay Rules.
89.
The Appellant submits that questioning
the credibility of one's own witnesses would not be permitted by the Court.
90.
The Respondent has put forward no good
reason for why these witnesses cannot be called. As to say it is not in the
interests of justice to do so.”
91.
HHJ-PAWLAK granted the hearsay
application could be submitted, although opposed orally by Mr Morris.
HHJ-PAWLAK informed that Mr Morris opposition to hearsay was contained in
Mr Morris legal document, for which the Appellant did not allow Mr Morris
to hand up. HHJ-PAWLAK was informed that client wished to hand up his own
document to HHJ-PAWLAK against Mr Morris advice. Document read by all
sides.
92.
Please see The Appellant document: -
93.
Considering point five of the Judge's
letter to the Appellants Acting solicitors, it raises the question of how
was this allowed, the Judge allowed Mr Morris to make an oral submission in
regards to hearsay in the Court, yet then said they were not allowed and
then granted the hearsay application as allowed.
94.
Michael Carroll and Co had also not
done or prepared a skeleton argument for the Appellant's bundle, the Judge
stated that the letter that had then been handed in could be used as the
Appellant's skeleton argument.
95.
Miss Ward was sitting in the back of
the Court taking notes of what was being asked by the Judge and what was
being said.
96.
A meeting was meant to be arranged
with the Appellant and the Public defender Mr Morris; this was not done.
97.
On the 12/07/2016: Informed by
solicitor via email: -
98.
“Please note that Mr Andrew Locke has
returned from a career sabbatical and he has agreed to deal with the Appeal
against the imposition of an ASBO. I am in the process of confirming a
conference date with Mr Locke, hopefully within the next two weeks. I have
notified Mr Morris from the Public Defender Service that Mr Locke is your
preferred choice and I have requested the written submissions that he had prepared
for the mention hearing in April 2016 that you did not consent to or permit
us to serve upon the prosecution,
167,
instead your own document was served
at your insistence and contrary to the advice given by both Mr Andrew
Morris and myself.
99.
Please confirm any dates that you are
not available so that this conference can be arranged.
100.
The meeting was never arranged with Mr
Locke, the Appellant's agreed barrister, until just before the Appeal date
hearing, even though we kept asking for this to be arranged.
101.
I would like to say that no option was
given to us about a preferred barrister and if any person was to notice the
date of the email then they would also notice that in a period of time it
was once upon a time three whole months that had escalated since the said:-
“mention hearing” referring to the date of the 04/04/2016, this is even
through multiple emails were continually being sent to Miss Ward, asking
for things to be addressed and dealt with in this case.
102.
Emails were going unanswered for
months by the acting solicitor firm, in fact since the start of time in
this case, which started in 2014. As for the list of police officer the
Appellant wanted to call Miss Ward had been told over and over the
officer's names required to be listed in the Asbo application case, this
list of names contained officers from the Public Order Investigation unit
at Scotland Yard and maybe another officer such as Superintendent
Specialist Operations Adrian Coombs.
103.
On the 14th August 2016 the Appellant
was sectioned under section 2 of the mental health act, he was then
released later in August 2016, after a tribunal hearing and this was also
due to agreeing that he would work with the mental health doctors and
teams, that was put in place, he stated he would be willing to stay in
hospital voluntarily, but due to bed shortages, he was discharged home a
day later, with a support team put into place, the acting solicitors were
made aware of this, and so was the Court in the September 2016, when the
Appellant was due to attend.
104.
On 16 September 2016 the case was
listed for a mention hearing for Non-Disclosure, and also a meeting with Mr
Locke the Appellant Barrister as he had not seen any barrister since the
04/08/2015 hearing at the Magistrate's Court when the Antisocial Behaviour
Order was granted by the Judge with no legality found.
105.
The Appellant was told by his acting
solicitors to be at Court by 09:30 hours, but later this was changed to
09:00 hours, this was so he could have a meeting with his barrister, which
he did agreed to do.
106.
On the agreed court date the Appellant
arrived at Court for 09:00, his barrister did not arrive until around
09:40, disappointingly.
107.
On arrival The Appellants barrister
and him himself inclusive of his mother all went together into a side room
for a pre talk. Before any desiccations in relation to the case could be
discussed, Mr Locke said he was sorry he was not feeling very well and that
he also had some emails from Ms Ward, that he had to read first, on trying
to open the emails he realized he could not and subsequently went out of
the room to call Ms Ward.
108.
At around 10:00 hours the Appellant
was called into Court, Mr Locke came back into the room from after making
his phone call to Miss Ward, so for himself to be able to have collected his
things and he then hurried and started to walk back out of the room we all
was supposed to have a meeting but on stead he hurried in towards the Court
room. The Appellant tried to stop him, so to have explained to him, what
his concerns were. (“As we had not yet at this point in time had a moment
to talk”) and the Appellant was also concerned about the disclosure that
was going to be asked for.
109.
The Appellant asked Mr Locke if he
could ask the Judge to adjourn the case for five or ten minutes, so that we
all could speak with each other, which he replied “no that the hearing was
only for disclosure about the schedule”, The Appellant said that:- “He knew
this was not correct and this was one of the reasons that he wanted to
speak with him about.” The Appellant again asked: - “if the barrister would
ask the Judge to postpone for ten minutes again” he yet again said “no”, at
which point the Appellant asked “why Mr Locke did not want to speak to him,
and should he act for himself ”?
110.
The Barrister Mr Locke had no time to
talk to The Appellant at the time and spent around four minutes talking to
Ms Ward on the phone, before ending his call, he asked the Appellant if he
the Appellant was dismissing his solicitors, to which the Appellant
replied:- “No”, Mr Locke then started to walk towards the Courtroom, we
followed the barrister into Court and on entering the Court in a raised
voice, The Appellant said to Mr Locke:- (“who was ahead of him”) so am I
acting for myself then.? Mr Locke never replied to the Appellant and just
proceeded to talk to the Judge and then he walked toward the courtroom door
and ushered out. At this point the Appellant had no idea what was going on
but proceeded to follow him outside the Court room, it was at this point of
time when Mr Locke turned around and said quite curtly “I do not want you
to speak anymore”, as we got closer to him he also informed the Appellant
it was not good to shout out, “in open Court,” to which the Appellant had
to agree with, but the Appellant felt so let down as it seemed his
barrister did not even want to talk to him, since the Appellant had last
seen him in 2014 and this is another part of the reasons that the Appellant
wanted to speak with him, as so much had already gone wrong with this case
and the Appellant felt very nervous as he did not know what was going on,
or what would be said as he had not spoken to his barrister.
111.
The Appellants mother, who had
witnessed all of this, did try to explain to the Appellants barrister, what
the Appellant wanted to say, in reference to the receipt of the requested
Non-disclosure and asked Mr Locke to explain what the schedule is about
before we all went back into court.
112.
The Appellant also asked about the two
article 6's that had been issued by the court, which had never been addressed:-
“by the Court,” which pertains to The Appellants Human Rights and
importantly his rights to a fair and speedy trial, to what had not
happened. The Article 6 the right to a fair and speedy trial had been
handed to the Court at earlier hearings, as The Appellants knew Mr Locke
knew nothing about this and other information that had happened, so he felt
it important to explain this to him at the time. Mr Locke explained that
the schedule was what the Judge had asked for on the 04/04/2016, my mother replied
this was not all the Judge had asked for, without replying Mr Locke walked
towards the Courtroom and we all followed, it was at this point The
Appellant said to the barrister I feel I should represent myself because he
felt he was not being heard.
113.
All that the Appellant wanted was to
be able to speak to his barrister, so that he knew what had been said at
the earlier hearing of the04/04/2016, and show him the document that was
handed to the Judge, on that date.
114.
On entering the Court the Appellant
barrister Mr Locke addressed the Judge and said the Appellant did not want
him to act for him, but this was not fully the case the Appellant only
wanted to be able to speak to his barrister.
115.
The Judge informed the Appellants
barrister to remain in the Courtroom, the Judge asked what the case was
listed for and the prosecuting barrister addressed the Court, answering the
questions, he then also handed the schedule to the Applicants barrister,
they also said to the Judge that the Appellant had been sending letters to
the Court and the prosecution himself, which stated: - “I Simon Cordell
throughout the document.” This is not the case and the Appellant did not
understand their comment or what document the prosecuting barrister was
talking about. The Judge then addressed the Appellant and asked the
Appellant did the Appellant still want the barrister to act for the
Appellant, the Appellant replied “Yes” to the Judge that he did want the
barrister to act for him; the Appellant stated that he only wanted time to
speak to his barrister, as he had not spoken to a barrister since the
Magistrate's hearing.
116.
The Judge then addressed the Appellant
barrister he said that the Appellant still wanted the barrister to act for
the Appellant, the Appellant barrister agreed to this. The Judge also
stated he felt he was not the best person to be hearing this case and
passed it back over to the Judge that was hearing the Appeal.
117.
On leaving the Courtroom the Appellant
and his mother proceeded to go into a side room to talk with the Appellant
barrister, we explained that a letter had been handed to the Judge on the
04/04/2016, the barrister said he knew nothing of this letter, so we handed
him a copy for him to read. Once he read this, he said he knew nothing
about this and had only seen one document that kept saying I Simon Cordell,
(“The Appellant has no idea of what this I Simon Cordell letter is.”)
168,
118.
The Appellants mother proceeded to
explain this is why the Appellant wanted to talk to Mr Locke before going
into Court, as this is part of the Non-disclosure being requested.
119.
The barrister explained he only knew
about the schedule, to which the Appellant mother replied, the schedule had
been asked for by the Judge in addition to the letter that had been handed
in and this was also when the Judge said it could be used as the Appellants
skeleton argument and that this had happened when Miss Ward was in the
Court on the date of the 04/04/2016 when she was also taking notes, so Miss
Ward knew exactly what the Judge had asked for.
120.
The Appellants mother had made a call
to the Appellants solicitor and enquired as to what the Judge had asked for
on the 04/04/2016 in regards to the disclosure, Ms Ward stated she could
not remember, the Appellant mother being dumbfounded by this said in reply
to her:- “you was sitting in the back of the Courtroom taking notes,” and
continued to explain that only last week from the date in mention, will
have everything that the Judge had asked for in his original disclosure,
plus what was asked for in the Appellants letter, that was handed to the
judge and Miss Ward also explained that the Judge had made other addictions
in addition to the mentioned.
121.
At no point did Ms Ward ever make the
Appellants mother feel she did not know what was due to be disclosed,
before and while still on the phone, if she had ever done this the
Appellant and the Appellant mother would have asked her to relist the case
to the Court and asked for this to be clarified, as the disclosure that we
was asking for was very important to the ongoings of the Appeal.
122.
The Appellant mother then handed the
Appellant the phone the Appellant asked Ms Ward about the letter he was
supposed to have sent to the Court and the prosecuting barrister, the
Appellant was still thinking she was talking about the letter handed to the
Judge on the 04/04/2016 when Miss Ward was not.
123.
Also in Court on this date, it was
said the Appellant had written this letter himself, which was not the case.
124.
In truth The Appellant agreed for a
letter that Miss Ward had written in reply to the Judge's letter for the
Appellant to be amended, he had amended it himself and it was to be handed
into the court, the Appellant solicitor was at Court so she knew the
Appellant had amended the letter, this is to be inclusive of it being sent
to her by email, as she was in the court on this date to.
125.
On this date when Miss Ward was a
court she said to the judge that the Appellant had drafted the letter when
the Appellant had only amended it, Miss Ward continued to say, that she did
not draft the Letter and that the Appellant wrote it, this is not true, at
this the Appellant did call Miss ward a lair as the Appellant knew Miss
Ward had drafted the letter herself at first.
126.
The Appellant later explained to Miss
Ward on the phone that he could prove the truth and said I have the emails
you sent to me and my mother of the letter we talk about and me amending
it, in return for you. It was also explained to all that we have kept
copies of all other correspondence between our persons and this is to
include (Since the start of the Court proceedings.
127.
The Appellant mother has checked the
dates for when this letter was drafted by The Appellant solicitor and then
returned to her, the date was on the 03/04/2016 please see attached email
and letter (marked 03/04/2016 Ms Ward).
128.
The Appellant barrister was listening
to the phone call and after the Appellant ended the barrister got up and
said I will need to think about still representing you as you called your
solicitors a lair, the Appellant stated that he can prove that Miss Ward
wrote the letter and she's denying as to doing so and further expressed
himself in question the line of investigation by saying:- “how would anyone
body else's feel, if she had lied about them,” the Appellant barrister then
replied that if he was still going to represent the Appellant then there
would need to be a meeting at the Appellant barrister chambers, at this
point the meeting concluded, with nothing else really spoke of about the
Appellant Appeal yet again, this was days before the Appeal hearing was due
to start once again.
129.
Up to here for now: -
130.
A while after the Solicitor wrote a
letter and sent it to the Appellant and the Appellants mother, the date of
this received email is dated 20/09/2016 and a copy had also been sent to the
Court, this application was put in so for the acting solicitor to once
again attempt to be removed from the record this was done to our surprise
and was listed in Court to be heard on the 21/09/2016.
131.
There were large sections of this
letter that were incorrect and did not happen so therefore are not true;
this can also be proven by the Court transcripts from the 16/09/2016.
132.
On the 21/01/2016 we were on our way
to Court and got caught in traffic, we contacted the Court to get a message
to the Judge to say that we were going to be five to ten minutes late, “I
know the Judge got the message.”
133.
When we got to the Court, there was a
barrister that Michael Carroll and Co had sent to the Court to deal with
the application; this was so for them to be removed from the record for the
second attempt.
134.
The Barrister informed us she did not
want to leave the Court before explaining what had happened it seemed the
Judge had called this into Court without us being present and removed the
solicitors from the record.
135.
We question how could this have
happened? Considering, the Appellant was not present at Court? And there
was not a senior Partner from Michael Carroll and Co? “this question is due
to what had been previously said by His Honour Judge Morrison on 19/02/2016
in regard to this not being allowed to happen.”
136.
The Barrister said the Judge wanted to
see us and we would need to wait in Court until we were called, as the
Judge was dealing with a trial and we would be called in after it.
137.
Around 16:00 hours we were called into
Court, the Respondent did make the Judge aware at this point that what had
been said by His Honour Judge Morrison on the 19/02/2016 stating that a
Senior Partner was not present at Court, the Judge replied that he could
not force a solicitor to carry on with a case they clearly did not want to
and that the Appellant could represent himself, he continued to state; that
the case was in a much better order now, but as is known the Appellant has
learning difficulties and health problems which the Court are also well
aware of, there were only a few days until the Appeal hearing was due to
start once again, how could a Judge believe that a person with learning
difficulties and health problems could be ready and cope with dealing with
a three-day Appeal hearing on his own?.
138.
We did try to get the Judge to adjourn
the Appeal hearing so we could try and get representation put in place due
to knowing the Appellant could not cope or handle this case on his own,
which was due to start on the 26/09/2016 for a three-day hearing, the Judge
said he would not allow this and that the Appeal hearing would go ahead no
matter what. It seems again that the Appellant was being blamed for what
was ongoing in this case, when the Appellant and the Appellant mother had
done all they could, so for them to have this case ready to be heard.
139.
How can a Judge expect someone that is
known to be ill and have learning difficulties to be able to handle this
case on their own? considering there were only four days until the
three-day Appeal hearing was due to start. Nothing was put in place by the
Judge to help the Appellant in any way. The Appellant was just meant to get
on with the case all on his own under the circumstances.
140.
Once again, the solicitors had done
nothing for this case and the Judge had allowed them to walk away when this
was said to not be allowed and it seems as if everything was being blamed
on the Appellant.
141.
It was also noted while we had been
waiting outside the Court that the bundles we had been working from was the
very first set of the application bundles and since that time everything
had been updated, without us being informed, this included more statements
from the police officer in charge of the case, there were lots of documents
missing from within the first bundle due to the update, so until he was
given the updated bundles, the Appellant had never seen them additional
documents.
142.
It was stated by the respondent they
had sent new bundles to the acting solicitors Michael Carroll and co three
times since the being of January 2016, we had never been given a set of new
bundles since this case had started in 2014, we had never been told about
new bundles been sent and never given a new copy of any bundle. This meant
that bundle we had would have had all wrong page numbers
169,
and been paginated totally different from the bundles that were
being used by the prosecution barrister and Courts.
143.
When we were in Court, we did say this to the Judge about the
bundles, the Judge ordered the clerk of the Court to contact Michael
Carroll and Co solicitors and order the solicitors to bring the bundles to
Court. The solicitors informed the clerk that the bundles were at Nexus
Chambers, the Judge was shocked that the solicitors did not have a copy of
the bundles at their office. The Appellant's uncle who was also at Court
said to the Judge he was willing to go to Nexus Chambers and pick the
bundles up.
144.
The Judge listed this for the 22/09/2016 after 14:00 hours to make
sure we were all working from them same set of bundles.
145.
Upon the Appellant's uncle getting home it was seen that the bundle
he had collected was not the full set of bundles and only had part of the
applications Skeleton Bundle.
146.
On the 22 September 2016 we attended Court to inform the Judge we
still did not have the updated bundles and the Judge once again got the
clerk of the Court to call Michael Carroll and co solicitors to find out
what was going on within the bundles, the Judge was very upset that we
still did not have the bundles for the case, the Judge asked for the
bundles to be brought to Court before 4 PM, The Appellant's mother stated
that it would be easier and faster for her to pick the bundles up from the
solicitors on the way home from Court, the Judge asked if she was sure that
he could get them brought to Court she stated that it be faster for her to
pick the bundles up from the solicitors on my way home.
147.
When we left Court due to the time and the circumstances we had been
placed in The Appellant mother called Michael Carroll's office to say what
time we would be there by, The Appellant mother was told that the office
would be closed by the time we got there so The Appellant mother agreed to
pick the bundles up first thing in the morning on 23 September 2016.
148.
On 23-09-2016 The Appellant mother left home early in the morning to
go to Michael Carroll's office and collect the bundles with her brother, Mr
A Cordell they went into the office together to get the bundles, when the
solicitor came down the stairs he had a piece of paper that The Appellant
mother needed to sign, stating that the bundles had been collected from the
office.
149.
Upon getting home and looking at the bundles, The Appellant mother
noticed there is now at least 13 additional statements that The Appellant
and The Appellant mother had never seen before from the Respondent bundle,
this is a clear error as we knew that in the first bundle there were only 4
public witness statements and there now seems to be 16, when taking a
closer look at the statements we noticed there are no members of the
public's statements of truth and this also applied for the original 4
contained in the folder minus one, this also highlighted that each member
of the public's statements are police officers only and have each put their
signatures on two different statements each, in a pretence of portraying to
own two houses each in Edmonton xxx Gardens and other surrounding roads in
an around Progress way, the police officers are claiming to be victims of
this case while on active duty.
150.
So in understanding this, the Applicant contacted Edmonton police
stations lost property room, so too for him to arrange collection of the
original bundle, that was never served to him in accordance with the law.
To his further upset and disappointment of justice he was to be told by
another police officer deployed at the lost property room as the manager,
that the bundle that the Appellant wanted to claim had been misplaced or
stolen, this file clearly shows that there was only ever four potential
members of the publics witness statements attached within side of the
original Asbo application.
151.
Some of the statements added are all dated prior to the Magistrates
Court trial. Upon looking at The Appellant's bundles it seemed this had not
been updated or indexed since 2015, so all the new documents that had been
submitted to be added to The Appellant's bundle was not in their as they
should have been.
152.
Over the days leading up to this, The Appellant mother had learned
how important it was that all the bundles were paginated and indexed
correctly and that all the bundles were the same as each other so that each
person was working on them files was all in Co Hurst to each other, as
there was always problems at court due to this not being completed
correctly.
153.
Though the case history multiple documents had been handed to the
Court and those documents did not get patronised correctly or indexed into
The Appellant's bundles, this includes the court and the Respondent bundles
that they were using also.
154.
A whole weekend was spent trying to add missing documents to the
Appellant's bundle and making copies so that on the Court date of the
26-09-2016; any missing files could be added to the Respondent bundle and
the three Judge's bundles. The Appellant health had become very unstable
due to him knowing that he was going to have to be dealing with this
himself.
155.
The Appellant mother also spent part of the weekend also writing a
letter to the Judge in regards to what had gone on with the breaches in The
Appellant's human rights, his article 6 human rights the Applicants rights
to a fair and speedy trial, there were also a list of other things that had
gone on throughout the case since 2014 in regards to the nondisclosure, and
other issues that was always being raised when at Court and the reason as
to why legal aid had been granted:-
0.
Due to the complexity of the case: -
1.
Due to The Appellant's learning difficulties: -
2.
Due to the concerns of The Appellant health.
This letter was emailed to the Court and asked to be passed to the
Judge.
Please see letter that was emailed to the judge: -
The 26 September 2016 the three-day Appeal hearing was due to start,
The Appellant was so unwell that there was no way he could attend Court, Mr
A Cordell and Miss L Cordell attended Court to speak to the Judge, when the
Judge entered the Courtroom he stated that he had received a letter that
had to be addressed, he stated that he felt this would go to judicial
review, he stated he had three options:
Carry on with the Appeal in the hope that The Appellant would turn
up the following day.
3.
To Dismiss the Appeal: -
4.
Adjourn the Appeal to a new date.
156.
The Judge went over the letter in
great detail; he started around five times that he felt that this case was
going to go to judicial review. The Judge decided to adjourn the case until
the 16/01/2017; this was later changed for the Appeal to start on the
17/01/2017. The Respondent had tried to object to the Appeal being
adjourned. The Judge stated that we should try to find a new solicitor to
take on the Appeal and that he would help and also make sure that legal aid
was in place.
157.
The Judge asked why The Appellant was
not in Court. The Appellant mother stated The Appellant had become so
unwell due to what was going on in this case and that he was not coping.
Information was passed to the Judge that showed The Appellant was unwell.
Mentioned in court; was also the missing documents that was missing from
The Appellant's bundle, and that there were no statements within the
bundle, my mother stated to the Judge that she had spent a lot of the
weekend trying to update The Appellant's bundle and make sure that it was
indexed correctly. The Appellant handed the documents in to the court that
The Appellant mother was able to get ready with the new indexing, the
Appellant mother also stated that she knew there was still documents
missing from The Appellant's bundle, which she was not sure about neither
had she been given time in which to add them. The Appellant mother also
stated that there were around thirteen statements that had never been seen
and that were now contained within the Respondent bundle that was dated
prior to the Magistrate's trial.
158.
The Judge was very unhappy and passed
the Applicants mother his own bundle for her to check by seeing if the
Courts bundles had been updated, upon looking into the Judge's bundle, she
noticed that his bundle had also not been updated since 2015, the Appellant
mother passed the Judge's bundle back up the judge while explaining to him
that his folder had not been updated. At this the Respondent stated they
would make new copies of the bundles and have copies sent to us and the
Judge.
170,
159.
The Judge was very unhappy and said he was not going to allow this
to be dropped and again made the clerk of the Court make a phone call to
Michael Carroll and co, to order them to attend Court on the 14/10/2016, in
regards to the missing documents.
160.
I stated I would try and add as many missing documents as I could
but was unsure of what documents were missing, the reason being as so much
had been handed to the court and solicitors.
161.
The Appellant mother asked the Judge if the Appellant would need to
attend Court on the 14/10/2016, as the hearing was due to only be regards
to the missing documents, The Appellant mother felt The Appellant did not
need to be there the Judge agreed to this.
162.
On the 14 October 2016 Mr A Cordell and the Appellant's mother
attended Court on this date, the solicitors did not turn up, The Appellant
mother had a list of documents that she had made up and indexed that needed
to be added to The Appellant's bundle's, which she passed to the Judge. She
stated to the Judge that she could not be sure if there were still
documents missing. She also stated that she had tried to call Miss Ward and
had no reply. The Judge was very upset that the solicitors had not turned
up; the Judge again got the clerk of the Court to email Michael Carroll and
co to tell them that they had to be in Court on the 19/10/2016.
163.
The Appellant mother also stated to the Judge that she had made many
phone calls to other solicitors and due to the case being at the Appeal
stage no one was willing to take the Appeal on due to the cost they would
get under legal aid, in more detail it was explained that legal aid is a
set amount and continued to explain that the solicitors dealing with the
Appeal should be the same solicitors that dealt with the original trial,
Appeals are set at a standard rate, so any solicitor taking on a case would
not get paid to go over the complete bundles and to take updated
instructions from the client.
164.
Again the Appellant mother asked the Judge if The Appellant needed
to attend Court on the next date, to which the Judge replied no.
165.
On the 19/10/2016 again Mr A Cordell and the Appellants mother
attended Court, to find out that once again the solicitors was not in
attendance, the Judge had received a letter from Michael Carroll constating
that Miss Ward no longer worked for the company, the Judge was very upset
and said he was not going to allow the issue of: the “Missing documents,
legal aid certificate “to be dropped, the Judge asked the clerk of the
Court to email Michael Carroll and co, so for them to attend Court on the
25/10/2016.
166.
The Appellants mother again stated to the Judge that she had made
many phone calls to other solicitors to try and get them to take over the
Appeal, and due to the case being Appeal stage no one was willing to take
the Appeal on due to the cost they would not get under legal aid and that
it was a set amount agreed for all cases, as legal aid believed that the
solicitors dealing with the Appeal would be the same solicitors that dealt
with the original trial, so should not incur this additional cost as
Appeals are set at a standard rate, so any solicitor taking on a case would
not get paid to go over the complete bundles because this had already been
paid to the past solicitor firm beforehand and this would include to take
updated instructions from any client.
167.
When the Appellant mother got home, she again tried to call Miss
Ward, this was with no reply she done this by texting her with no receipt
of reply.
168.
On the 25/10/2016 again Mr A Cordell and I attended Court, once
again the solicitors was not in attendance, the Judge was very upset and
done an Internet search under Miss Ward's name to find out if she was
working under a new solicitor, he found the new solicitors and sent an
email demanding that Miss Ward attended Court on the 11/11/2016.
169.
Again The Appellant mother stated to the Judge that she had made
many phone calls to other solicitors and due to the case being Appeal stage
no one was willing to take the Appeal on and this was due to the cost they
would get under legal aid.
170.
When The Appellants mother got home from Court at 15:48 she received
a phone call from Miss Ward, she stated that she knew nothing about, what
had happened meaning that she did not know the Judge had asked her to
attend Court further to the explained that Michael Carroll and Co had not
informed her in regards to any emails sent from the Court.
171.
The Appellant mother said to Miss Ward while on the telephone that
she herself had previously tried to call her, this was to include the sent
text messages that she had spent inclusively but Miss Ward had not replied
or picked the phone up.
172.
Miss Ward stated while still on the phone that Michael Carroll had
previously told her while she was leaving his company as employed staff
that she must not contact any of the client she had gained this was to
include the Appellants and his family members.
173.
The Appellant mother and Miss Ward arranged to a meeting on the
27/10/2016, to go over The Appellant's bundle “case load” to check for any
missing documents.
174.
On the 27/10/2016 The Appellant mother meet with Miss Ward to go
over The Appellant's bundle, upon looking at the bundle and the documents
that The Appellant mother had added and indexed Miss Ward stated she
believed there were no missing files, as time has gone on I have found
other documents that should have been in The Appellant's bundle that were
missing. These have never been added as The Appellant mother did not want
to have to go back to the Judge and say there were more documents that were
missing.
175.
Miss Ward stated she had to attend Court but gave a different date
that the Judge had ordered her to be there, The Appellant mother stated to
her that the Judge had given the date of the 11/11/2016 when we was in
Court, Miss Ward stated that this was not what was put into the email that
was sent to the company Miss Ward now worked for. The Appellant mother
stated she would send an email over to the Court to tell the Court that
they had met up and checked the Appellant's bundle and they believed there
were no more documents missing at that point.
176.
On the 01/11/2016 The Appellant mother wrote an email to the Judge
to state that there had been a meeting with Miss Ward, and they had gone
over The Appellant's bundle and believed there were no documents missing
now. The Appellant mother asked in the email to the Judge if the Applicant
still needed to attend Court on the 11/11/2016 and if so, could this be
confirmed via email.
177.
On the 02/11/2016 The Appellant mother received a reply from Wood
Green Crown Court from the Judge stating that we did not need to attend on
the 11/11/2016 and the date would be vacated.
178.
On the 19/12/2016 The Appellant mother sent an email to the Judge
this was in regards to still not finding a solicitor, that was willing to
take the Appeal on, The Appellant mother asked the Judge to help in regards
to getting a solicitor to act for The Appellant regarding the Appeal as
time was becoming short for the Appeal hearing.
179.
On the 21/12/2016 The Appellant mother received a reply in her email
from the Judge; this explained that the Judge could not help with a
solicitor. The Appellant mother and Appellant still did not give up, they both carried on trying to find one
that was willing to take the Appeal on for The Appellant, the Appellant and
his mother was upset the reason being; as the Judge did state he would help
with the issue of the solicitor on the 26/09/2016 and another part of the
reason being that time was short for when the Appeal hearing was to take
place, as this was due to start soon after. The Appellant and his mother
did not wait till the last minute to ask the Judge for help and was then
told by the Judge that he could not help.
180.
On the 12/01/2016 late in the day The Appellant mother was given a
number form a solicitor's of a solicitor's called MK-Law, that maybe could
help and take the Appeal on, The Appellants mother called them as they were
the first solicitor's in the list she was given.
181.
The entire of the solicitor's firms that had been contacted prior to
September 2016 had simply refused to act in the case; the reason given was
because the case was at an Appeal stage. Throughout our attempts to find a
solicitor, No solicitor firm that was called wanted to hear what we had to
explain so to be able to understand what the case was about, on one
occasion the Applicants mother broke down in tears to the company she was
talking to and they agreed to take on the case, this was as long as the
Judge agreed to an adjournment, the Applicants mother, stated to them she
did nothing the Judge will agree to this as in September 2016 the Judge had
stated he would not adjourn it again.
182.
The solicitor stated that they would not have enough time to be able to get all of the bundles and
then be able to get a barrister to go over them and that this would not
leave time for them as the new acting solicitors to have time to have a
meeting with The Appellant and
171,
183.
take instructions due to the weekend.
184.
The new solicitor firm said that they would send a barrister to
Court on the 17/01/2017, to asked for an adjournment, so that they could
act in the best interest of the client, as that is what they are there to
do and so that the legal aid could be addressed and then passed over to them or a new application would need
to be applied for.
185.
The Appellant's health had deteriorated, when The Appellant's mother
told The Appellant she believed she had found a solicitor to take the
Appeal on this did bring his mood up a little bit, but he felt so much had
gone wrong within the Asbo case that there would be a high chance of more
going wrong at that point of time, he agreed that he would attend Court and
meet the barrister that the new solicitors was sending, the problem was
that this person could change at any time.
186.
The Appellant does not leave his home which he treats as his prison
cell due to the Asbo case and prudery the police have committed and not
disciplinarily action, punishment, being brought into motion for their
wrongful actions.
187.
On the 17 January 2016, the Appellant and his mother attended the
Court, the new barrister was there also for The Appellant, so was the
Appellants uncle, we all went into a side room and the barrister spoke to
The Appellant, this was in regards to what the plans were for the case in turn
what the new barrister was going to ask the Judge for, which was an
adjournment, the reason being they needed an adjournment so that they could
act in the best interest of their client, so that they could go over the
complete case bundles, take instructions, make sure legal aid was in place
correctly, and instruct a barrister who would be dealing with the Appeal
for The Appellant, The Appellant agreed that an adjournment could be asked
for, again it was stated to the barrister that we did not feel the Judge
would grant an adjournment, the barrister stated that the Judge should
understand that an adjournment would be needed for the new solicitors to
act in a professional manner for their client and be able to get everything
ready and have time to understand fully what the case was about, that an
Appeal should be fair for all sides.
188.
We were called into
Court and the barrister spoke to the Judge, explained the situation and
that he was asking for an adjournment, he spoke to the Judge in regards to
the legal aid, and having the appeal ready for their new client and having
time to be able to deal with it in a professional manner for their client.
The Judge stated that he believed legal aid was still in place and it could
just be transferred, the barrister stated if legal aid had been revoked
then it would take at least two weeks for it to be put back in place, the
Judge adjourned the hearing so that the barrister could contact the legal
aid department to check the status of the legal aid, the barrister made
calls to the legal aid department, but the legal aid department could not
confirm whether legal aid had been revoked. Calls was also made to Michael
Carroll and Co who stated that when they were removed from the record that
the legal aid that was in place at the time had been revoked.
189.
The case was called back into Court and the barrister explained that
the legal aid department could not say whether or not the legal aid had
been revoked, but when a call was placed to the old solicitors Michael
Carroll and co they had said that the legal aid that was in place had been
revoked. The Judge handed the barrister a certificate of legal aid, the
barrister stated that the certificate was not proof that the legal aid had
not been revoked.
190.
The Judge stated I'm sure that you can be ready for the Appeal to go
ahead by tomorrow, the barrister stated that they have a professional
obligation to act in the best interest of the client and that they would
not have enough time in order to go over all the bundles take instructions
from the client, and instruct a barrister within half a day, and also to
check fully whether a new legal aid application would have been need to be applied for.
191.
At this the Judge stated, well if you cannot be ready by tomorrow,
then The Appellant will have to act for himself, we will not adjourn the
Appeal again.
192.
It seems again The Appellant was being put at blame for the delay in
the Appeal, but it was not due to The Appellant, The Appellant only wanted
a fair hearing and Appeal from when this started in 2014 and from what was
going on this clearly had not been.
193.
The barrister tried his hardest to get an adjournment of the Appeal
but the Judge would not allow an adjournment, the Judge started talking
about the conditions that was imposed by the Magistrates Court, he stated
that he felt that parts was disproportionate, but he could see nothing
wrong with the timescale of the Antisocial Behaviour Order of 5 years. This
was not the first time the Judge had mentioned the conditions that The
Appellant was under, but this time the Judge went further to include what
sections he thought were disproportional, to the people in the Court The
Appellant, Mr A Cordell, Miss L Cordell, and The Appellants barrister, the
only way of looking at what the Judge was stating he had already made his
mind up that he thought the conditions was the only problem. But this was
before the Appeal had even been heard, why a Judge would state this without
even hearing the Appeal.
194.
The Judge would not allow an adjournment and stated The Appellant
could represent himself if the barrister could not be ready by 10 0'clock
the next morning, the Judge raised and left the Courtroom.
195.
The Appellant was in such a state when we left the Courtroom he
stated he knew the Judge would not allow the
adjournment and felt the Judge did not want him to have representation and
this is why the Judge removed his old solicitors, he felt very let down
and just wanted to go home.
196.
The barrister called us
into a side room and had to ask The Appellant due to what the Judge has
said, if they were to change the conditions to something appropriate would
The Appellant accept it. This put further stress on The Appellant, The
Appellant knew he had done nothing wrong and had not done what the police
was saying he had done and The Appellant knew that if the disclosure had
been given it would have proven this. The police have been unwilling to
give any disclosure since this case started.
197.
The Appellant was not willing to accept having the conditions changed
and accepting the Antisocial Behaviour Order as this would have said he was
guilty; The Appellant was not willing to accept something he knew he was
not guilty of.
198.
The Appellant was so distressed all the way home, he felt he would
never get justice.
199.
Later that day The Appellant's mother contacted the solicitors to see if anything could be done, but due
to the Judge not allowing the adjournment the solicitors stated they could
not take the case on and could not attend Court the next day, the reason given
was because they would be putting their company reputation at risk by not
having enough time in order to prepare for the Appeal to be able to act in
a professional and correct way for their client. The Appellant's and his
mother could totally understand this.
200.
A vulnerable person should not be forced into a position where they
have to act on their own behalf, in the opinion of many practitioners,
detrimental to the administration of justice. But this is exactly what had
happened, The Appellant and The Appellant mothers and others cannot
understand or see any reason why the Judge did not allow for a short
adjournment so that The Appellant had proper representation in place,
especially when there was a solicitors company willing to take on the
Appeal hearing, in turn to allow a fair Appeal hearing.
201.
The Appellant's and his mother had not stopped since the removal of the old solicitors in September
2016, they continued to try and find a solicitors firm company, to take the
Appeal hearing on, many calls were made to solicitors companies, advice
lines, citizens advice, even in the search of a pro bono solicitors, the
reason why the pro bono unit would not take the case on, is because The
Appellant was entitled to legal aid, if The Appellant or his family could have
afforded to pay privately for a solicitors company to act for The Appellant
this would have been done a long time ago. Justice is meant to be fair but
in the case of The Appellant Asbo this is not the case.
202.
On 18th January 2017 The Appellant was so unwell he did
not attend Court on this day, nor did Mr A Cordell, or Miss L Cordell, Miss L Cordell did however write a
letter to the Judge and in that letter it asked for a stay on proceedings
for the Appeal until it was taken to judicial review in regards to what had
gone on.
172,
203.
The Judge decided to go ahead in the
absence of The Appellant with the Appeal; he heard the witness statements
from police on this date.
204.
On 19 January 2017 again The Appellant
and his family did not attend Court this case has made The Appellant so
unwell, at the end of this day the Judge dismissed the Appeal against
conviction, but he changed a few of the conditions that The Appellant was
under, the conditions are still a breach of The Appellant's human rights.
Schedule of prohibitions are listed below.
205.
Schedule of prohibitions: - You must
not: -
5.
Be concerned in the organisation of a rave as defined by s.63 (1) or
s63 (1A) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
6.
Knowingly use or supply property, personal or otherwise, for use in
a rave as defined by s.63 (1) of the Criminal justice and Public Order Act
1994.
7.
Enter or remain in any disused or abandoned building unless invited
to do so in writing by a registered charitable organisation or local
authority or owner of the premises.
8.
Enter any non-residential private property (by which words buildings
and an open enclosed and are intended to be individual) or an industrial
estate between the hours of 22:00 and 07:00 without written permissions
from the owner and a leaseholder of such property.
If you can demonstrate that the purpose of your entry of such
property is to purchase goods or services from any shop or garage or fuel
supplier which is open to the public at such times. Then in such event, you
may enter but you must not remain on such property for longer than 30
minutes and you may do so on only one occasion during each separate
nine-hour period between 22:00 and 07:00 daily.
9.
Provide any service in respect of any licensable activity in any
unlicensed premises.
For the sake of clarity, nothing in this order prevents the
defendant from assisting, preparing for, engaging in licensed licensable
activities,
206.
This order expires on the 3 August
2020: -
207.
This order and its requirements
amends' a previous order imposed by Highbury Corner Magistrates Court.
208.
Condition 4 states: -
209.
Enter any non-residential private
property (by which words buildings and an open enclosed and are intended to
be individual) or an industrial estate between the hours of 22:00 and 07:00
without written permissions from the owner and a leaseholder of such
property.
210.
If you can demonstrate that the
purpose of your entry of such property is to purchase goods or services
from any shop or garage or fuel supplier which is open to the public at
such times. Then in such event, you may enter but you must not remain on
such property for longer than 30 minutes and you may do so on only one
occasion during each separate nine-hour period between 22:00 and 07:00
daily. With this condition in place, it would mean that any non-residential
property The Appellant would not be able to attend unless it was for no
less than 30 minutes on any one occasion, during a separate nine-hour
period:
211.
This would include hospitals, police
stations, 24-hour supermarkets, petrol stations, cinemas, restaurants,
bars, night clubs and any other public place open to the public between
these times, that is non-residential, The Appellant would only have a 30
minute window to be able to enter any non-residential building, however is
not feasible within that 30minutes to:-
·
The Appellant could not be seen in a hospital
within 30 minutes,
·
How would it be feasible if The Appellant went to
dinner at a restaurant, they would be completed within 30 minutes?
·
How would it be feasible if The Appellant wanted
to go to a nightclub or late-night bar as it would only have 30 minutes?
·
Places that are open to the public should not be
restricted to The Appellant how is The Appellant meant to have a normal
family life?
·
The Appellant cannot go to without written permission
which would be degrading for The Appellant to have to ask each time he
wanted to go somewhere and explain why he needed it to be confirmed in
writing by the owner and/or leaseholder of the property, how his condition
could be applied by any Judge and state it is not a beach of someone human
rights must be wrong.
·
jiojiojioj
·
Conditions 2 states knowingly using or supplying
property personal or otherwise for the use of a rave as defined under
section 63.1 of the criminal justice and public order act,
212.
The Appellants has spent the last 10
years building his business saving every penny and help from family it is
within the entertainment industry, he will hires equipment out and his
services, The Appellants business would seriously be affected, because if he
hired his equipment and it ended up in an illegal rave The Appellant would
be in breach of the conditions. When hiring out equipment you do asked what
is going to be used for, and you do have a contract that is in place, but
what the person tells you their reason for hiring the equipment out is not
always the correct reason and is not used for the purpose the person told
you The Appellant would be in breach of these conditions. Also if The
Appellant loaned someone any personal belongings and that person ended up
at an illegal rave then The Appellant would again be in breach of his
conditions, even if the item was something that did not even constitute as
being for an illegal rave.
213.
Conditions 5 states provide any
service in respect of any licensable activity in an unlicensed premise.
214.
How is The Appellant meant to run his
business, The Appellant would not be able to obtain a licence that has
already been clarified by the police and councils due to the Antisocial
Behaviour Order that is in place, The Appellant would not be able to offer
his services also due to the restriction that he has only 30 minutes within
a non-residential building, most events go to the late hours in the morning
so even if there was a licensed premises and someone wanted to hire the services
of The Appellant The Appellant would not be able to do this. The Appellant
was also offered contracts within two nightclubs to be the manager if The
Appellant was again offered contracts within nightclubs or late-night bars
The Appellant would not be able to accept these contracts. I cannot even
say why condition 5 has been imposed because condition 4 conflicts with
condition 5 in certain parts. And who would want to hire or take on The
Appellant if he had to ask for written permission which would be degrading
for The Appellant to have to ask each time he wanted to go somewhere or had
a contact and had to explain why he needed it to be confirmed in writing by
the owner and/or leaseholder of the property,
215.
These are just a few concerns with the
conditions that The Appellant is under, there is other concerns with other
conditions set at by the Courts that are of concern.
216.
When the Appeal hearing was over the
conditions was not served on The Appellant, they were posted to him in the
post.
217.
The Appellant mother has put an
application into the Crown Court on forms EX-105 and EX-107 requesting the
Tape/Disc Transcription for all hearings, and is waiting to hear back from
the court, to see if it will be granted.
218.
The Appellant mother has also put an
application into the police under a subject access request to get all The
Appellant history with the police which will show the data protection
errors and more data that has been inputted incorrectly by the police, it
will also show a history of how much the police does not leave The
Appellant alone.
219.
Also how many complaints has had to be
put into the police regarding how the police have treated
220.
The Appellant over many years which
when asked in this ASBO application case by the judge was any of this the
truth they replied no to. The Judge also asked if anyone else had had an
ASBO application against them for an ASBO on the dates held within the ASBO
application, the Judge did not get a reply and it was not asked again.
221.
The police have not only done this to
The Appellant but The Appellant whole family so each family member have
requested their records. So far, the police have refused The Appellant
application and his brothers, they have allowed The Appellant mother and
The Appellant sister but only part of the information has been supplied.
This has been passed to the ICO to address, but due to the backlog
173,
222.
the ICO has we have not been told a
timeframe this will take.
223.
At this time there is also complaint
still ongoing with The Appellant and the police and The Appellant brother
with the police. It is also noticed that some of the police in this
application who have done statements in this ASBO have complaint still
standing against them, with The Appellant brother complaint.
224.
But until we get all the data, we have
requested there could be more police officers in this ASBO application who
have had complaints put in about them.
225.
There will also be a complaint
regarding the DPS who investigated The Appellant complaint due to the fact
they did not follow their own codes, when this complaint was passed the
IPCC they upheld The Appellant Appeal to the IPCC and the complaint has had
to be reinvestigated, due to what the DPS allowed to happen, and allowed
the police officer to resign. Before allowing The Appellant rights to take
his complaint to the IPCC for Appeal before seeing the report and allowing
a misconduct hearing to happen, before The Appellant had his right to
appeal and the IPCC and they left a large section out in the investigation
which pointed to discourtesy by the police.
226.
Still not completed I still got
sections to add about ASBO application and no discloser and some other
sections. And some laws.
227.
This is how a JR has to be written up.
They will have all the ASBO application bundles sent to the high court also
so will be able to see the whole case as I need to also point out that we
cannot add everything in this due to allowing the police to have the full
extent as to what is wrong within the application for the ASBO that should
have been able to use at the appeal hearing. As we don't want the police to
be able to try and correct the things that are wrong.
228.
If you want to edit any of this then
please do so really carefully and in a next colour and you have to keep
this format don't change it as it has to be sent to the high court in this
formation, I know you are not going to like some of what I have written but
if you want to win this case at JR you have to put things you don't like to
hear or feel you don't have a problem. The judges have to see your human
rights have been fully funked over from start to end of these court cases.
And showing things you don't like will help that. you can at your own write
up as well
|
|
End:
|
|
Ø 1st & 2nd Asbo
Files in Date Order:
|
|
1.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
App
for Legal Aid /
Page
Numbers:
|
|
2.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Met
Property Receipt /
Page
Numbers:
|
|
3.
|
Pnc
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Pnc print out/
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 43, 44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,
52,53,54,55
Mag 1)
Response:251,252,253,254,
255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,26
3
Appeal -
75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,8
3,84,85,86
Date: N/a
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 12/01/2014
|
|
4.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Steven
Elesmore Crim- int HTR00376798
Canary Wharf
“Correct 1st”/
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 175,176,177
Mag 1)
Response: 137,138,139
Appeal -
161,162,163
Event Date
12/01/2013
Created
16/01/2013
update18/01/2013
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 12/01/2014
|
|
5.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
HTRT00376798, Canary Wharf
Page
Numbers: 161,162,163
Event
Date:12/01/2013:
Created:16/01/2013:
Updated:
18/01/2013
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 07/04/2014
|
|
6.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIS report
4208625/13 Sunday Going Out on
Motor Bikes Pc
466ht /224810 C. Scott /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 –
143,144,145,146,
147,148,149,150,
151,152,153,154,
155,156,157,158,
159,160,161,162,
163,164,165,166,
167,168,169,170,
171,172,173,174
Mag 1)
Response:
108,109,110,111,
112,113,114,115,
116,117,118,119,
120,121,122,123,
124,125,126,127,
128,129,130,131,
132,133,134,135,
136,
Appeal-
131,132,133,134,
135,136,137,138,
139,140,141,142,
143,144,145,146,
147,148,149,150,
151,152,153,154,
155,156,157,158,
159,160
07/04/2013
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 07/04/2014
|
|
7.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIS report
4208625/13, Sunday Going Out on Motor Bikes, Pc 466ht /224810 C. Scott
Page
Numbers:
131,132,133,134,
135,136,137,138,
139,140,141,142,
143,144,145,146,
147,148,149,150,
151,152,153,154,
155,156,157,158,
159,160
07/04/2013
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 20/04/2014
|
|
8.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report PKRT00056539, Hyde Park, Alan
Browne
Page Numbers: 124,125,126
Event
Date: 20/04/2014
Created:
27/04/2014:
Updated:
28/04/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 24/04/2014
|
|
9.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
PKRT00056539
Hyde Park Alan
Browne /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 –136,137,138
Mag 1)
Response: 101,102,103
Appeal -
124,125,126
Event Date: 20/04/2014
Created:
27/04/2014
Updated:
28/04/2014
|
|
10.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00360430 Ponders End Police Station Christopher Jackson Ye /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 –139,140,141,142
Mag 1) Response:
104,105,106,107
Appeal -
127,128,129,130
Event Date:
24/05/2014
Created: 24/05/2014
Updated: 03/06/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 24/05/2014
|
|
11.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00360430, Ponders End Police Station, Christopher Jackson Ye Page Numbers: 127,128,129,130
Event Date:
24/05/2014:
Created:
24/05/2014:
Updated:
03/06/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 25/05/2014
|
|
12.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00323197
White Hart
Lane Steve Hoodless (YR) CAD9720/25May14/
Page Numbers: Mag 2 –133,134,135
Mag 1)
Response: 98,99,100
Appeal -
121,122,123
Event Date:
25/05/2014
Created:
26/05/2014
Updated:
19/06/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 25/05/2014
|
|
13.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00323197, White Hart Lane, Steve Hoodless (YR) CAD9720/25May14
Page
Numbers: 121,122,123
Event Date:
25/05/2014:
Created:
26/05/2014:
Updated:
19/06/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 07/06/2014
|
|
14.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00374531
Enfield
Southbury Road Cad 1047/07/14
Not Progress
Way Really Crown Road /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 130,131,132
Mag 1)
Response: 95,96,97
Appeal -118,119,120
Event Date:
07/06/2014
Created:
07/06/2014
Updated:
10/06/2014
|
|
15.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1012 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 178,179,180,181
Mag 1)
Response: 143,144,145,146
Appeal -
164,165,166,167
07/06/2014
|
|
16.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1323 7JUN
Lincoln Rd Lumina Way Enfield /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 182,183,184,185,186
Mag 1)
Response: 147,148,149,150,151
Appeal -
168,169,170,171,172
07/06/2014
|
|
17.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD1722 7JUN
Blocked Out /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 187,188,189
Mag 1)
Response: 152,153,154
Appeal -
173,174,175
07/06/2014
|
|
18.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1816 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 190,191,192,193,194
Mag 1)
Response: 155,156,157,158,159
Appeal -
176,177,178,179,180
07/06/2014
|
|
19.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2141 7JUN
/
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 195,196,197,198,199
Mag 1)
Response: 160,161,162,163,164
Appeal -
181,182,183,184,185
07/06/2014
|
|
20.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2255 7JUN
Leighton Rd Bush Hill Park /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 200,201,202,203,204
Mag 1)
Response: 165,166,167,168,169
Appeal -
186,187,188,189,190
07/06/2014
|
|
21.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 22717JUN,
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 205,206,207,208
Mag 1)
Response: 170,171,172,173
Appeal -
191,192,193,194
07/06/2014
|
|
22.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1047 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 209,210,211,212,213
Mag 1)
Response: 174,175,176,177,178
Appeal -
195,196,197,198,199
07/06/2014
|
|
23.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3037 7JUN
Enfield Safe Store /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 214,215,216,217,218
Mag 1)
Response: 179,180,181,182,183
Appeal -
200,201,202,203,204
07/06/2014
|
|
24.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1608 7JUN
Progress Way Great Cambridge /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 219,220,221
Mag 1)
Response: 184,185,186
Appeal -
205,206,207
07/06/2014
|
|
25.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2601 7JUN
Great Cambridge Rd /Aley Croft /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 222,223,224,225
Mag 1)
Response: 187,188,189,190
Appeal -
208,209,210,211
07/06/2014
|
|
26.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2637 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 226,227,228,229.230
Mag 1)
Response: 191,192,193,194,195
Appeal -
212,213,214,215,216
07/06/2014
|
|
27.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2672 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 231,232,233
Mag 1) Response:
196,197,198
Appeal -
217,218,219
07/06/2014
|
|
28.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2854 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 234,235,236,237
Mag 1)
Response: 199,200,201,202
Appeal –
220,221,222,223
07/06/2014
|
|
29.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3005 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 238,239,240
Mag 1)
Response: 203,204,205
Appeal -
224,225,226
07/06/2014
|
|
30.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3252 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 241,242,243,244
Mag 1)
Response: 206,207,208,209
Appeal -
227,228,229,230
07/06/2014
|
|
31.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3986 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 245,246,247,248
Mag 1) Response:
210,211,212,213
Appeal -
231,232,233,234
07/06/2014
|
|
32.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 4323 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 249,250,251,252
Mag 1)
Response: 214,215,216,217
Appeal -
235,236,237,238
07/06/2014
|
|
33.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 5206 7JUN
Blocked Out /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 253,254,255
Mag 1)
Response: 218,219,220
Appeal -
239,240,241
07/06/2014
|
|
34.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 8841 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 256,257,258,259
Mag 1)
Response: 221,222,223,224
Appeal -
242,243,244,245
07/06/2014
|
|
35.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10393 7JUN
Great Cambridge Rd / Tops Tiles /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 260,261,262,263,264,265,266
Mag 1)
Re-sponse:225,226,227,228,229,
230,231,232:
Appeal -
246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253
07/06/2014
|
|
36.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
AD 10481 7JUN
Blocked Out /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 268,269,270,271,272
Mag 1)
Response: 233,234,235,236,237
Appeal –
254,255,256,257,258
07/06/2014
|
|
37.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10506 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 273,274,275,276
Mag 1)
Response: 238,239,240,241
Appeal -
259,260,261,262
07/06/2014
|
|
38.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10471 7JUN
Progress Way /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 277,278,279,280
Mag 1)
Response: 242,243,244,245
Appeal -
263,264,265,266
07/06/2014
|
|
39.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10742 7JUN
Lincoln Rd /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 281,282,283,284
Mag 1)
Response: 246,247,248,249
Appeal -
267,268,269,270
07/06/2014
|
|
40.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10967 7JUN
A10 Great Cambridge Rd /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 285,286,287,288,289
Mag 1)
Response: 250,251,252,253,254
Appeal -
271,272,273,274,275
07/06/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 07/06/2014
|
|
41.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00374531, Enfield Southbury Road, Cad 1047/07/14, Not Progress Way
Really Crown Road
Page
Numbers: 118,119,120
Event Date:
07/06/2014
Created:
07/06/2014: --
Updated:
10/06/2014
|
|
42.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1012 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 164,165,166,167
07/06/2014
|
|
43.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1323 7JUN,
Lincoln Rd Lumina Way Enfield
Page
Numbers: 168,169,170,171,172
07/06/2014
|
|
44.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD1722 7JUN,
Blocked Out
Page
Numbers: 173,174,175
07/06/2014
|
|
45.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1816 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 176,177,178,179,180
07/06/2014
|
|
46.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2141 7JUN
Page
Numbers: 181,182,183,184,185
07/06/2014
|
|
47.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2255 7JUN,
Leighton Rd Bush Hill Park
Page
Numbers: 186,187,188,189,190
07/06/2014
|
|
48.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 22717JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 191,192,193,194
07/06/2014
|
|
49.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1047 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 195,196,197,198,199
07/06/2014
|
|
50.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3037 7JUN,
Enfield Safe Store
Page
Numbers: 200,201,202,203,204
07/06/2014
|
|
51.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Page
Numbers: 205,206,207
07/06/2014
|
|
52.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 1608 7JUN,
Progress Way, Great Cambridge
Page
Numbers: 208,209,210,211
07/06/2014
|
|
53.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2601 7JUN,
Great Cambridge Rd /Aley Croft
Page
Numbers: 212,213,214,215,216
07/06/2014
|
|
54.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2637 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 217,218,219
07/06/2014
|
|
55.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2854 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 220,221,222,223
07/06/2014
|
|
56.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3005 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 224,225,226
07/06/2014
|
|
57.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3252 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 227,228,229,230
07/06/2014
|
|
58.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3986 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 231,232,233,234
07/06/2014
|
|
59.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 4323 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 235,236,237,238
07/06/2014
|
|
60.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 5206 7JUN,
Blocked Out
Page
Numbers: 239,240,241
07/06/2014
|
|
61.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 8841 7JUN,
Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 242,243,244,245
07/06/2014
|
|
62.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10393
7JUN, Great Cambridge Rd / Tops Tiles
Page
Numbers: 246,247,248,249,250,
251,252,253
07/06/2014
|
|
63.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10481
7JUN, Blocked Out
Page
Numbers: 254,255,256,257,258
07/06/2014
|
|
64.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10506
7JUN, Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 259,260,261,262
07/06/2014
|
|
65.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10471
7JUN, Progress Way
Page
Numbers: 263,264,265266
07/06/2014
|
|
66.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10742
7JUN, Lincoln Rd
Page
Numbers: 267,268,269,270
07/06/2014
|
|
67.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10967
7JUN, A10 Great Cambridge Rd
Page
Numbers: 271,272,273,274,275
07/06/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 08/06/2014
|
|
68.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 625 8JUN
Lincoln Rd /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 -56,57,58,59
Mag 1)
Response: 264,265,266,267
Appeal -
285,286,287,288
08/06/2014
|
|
69.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 793 8JUN
Blocked Out /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 -60,61,62,63,64
Mag 1)
Response: 268,269,270,271,272
Appeal -
289,290,29,292,293
08/06/2014
|
|
70.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2410 8JUN
Blocked Out /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 65,66,67,68,69
Mag 1)
Response: 273,274,275,276,277
Appeal -
294,295,296,297,298
08/06/2014
|
|
71.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 31518JUN
Southbury Rd / Crown Rd /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 70,71,72,73,74
Mag 1)
Response: 278,279,280,281,282
Appeal -
299,300,301,302,303
08/06/2014
|
|
72.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3319 8JUN
Southbury Rd / Crown Rd /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 75,76,77,78
Mag 1)
Response: 283,284,285,286,
Appeal -
304,304,306,307
08/06/2014
|
|
73.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD
47 8JUN Progress Way Enfield /Safe Hal Unit /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 290,291,292,293,294
Mag 1)
Response: 255,256,257,258,259
Appeal -
276,277,278,279,280
08/06/2014
|
|
74.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Cad
340 8 JUN, Blocked Out /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 295,296,297,298
Mag 1)
Response: 260,261,262,263
Appeal -
281,282,283,284
08/06/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 08/06/2014
|
|
75.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
CAD 47 8JUN, Progress Way
Enfield /Safe Hal Unit
Page Numbers: 276,277,278,279,280
08/06/2014
|
|
76.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
CAD 340 8JUN, Blocked Out
Page Numbers: 281,282,283,284
08/06/2014
|
|
77.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
CAD 625 8JUN, Lincoln Rd
Page Numbers: 285,286,287,288
08/06/2014
|
|
78.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
CAD 793 8JUN, Blocked Out
Page Numbers: 289,290,291,293
08/06/2014
|
|
79.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
CAD 2410 8JUN, Blocked
Out
Page Numbers: 294,295,296,297,298
08/06/2014
|
|
80.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
CAD 31518JUN, Southbury Rd / Crown Rd
Page Numbers: 299,300,301,302,303,288,289,290,291,292
08/06/2014
|
|
81.
|
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1!
CAD 3319 8JUN, Southbury Rd / Crown Rd
Page Numbers: 304,304,306,307293,294,295,296,
08/06/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 19/07/2014
|
|
82.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 9804 19JUL
198 Great Cambridge Rd / Carpet right /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 79,80,81,82
Mag 1)
Response: 287,288,289,290
Appeal -
308,309,310,31
19/07/2014
|
|
83.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10635
19JUL Martin bridge Trading Estate /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,
93,
Mag 1)
Response:291,292,293,294,295,
296,297,298,299,300,301:
Appeal -
312,313,314,315,316,317,318,
319,320,321,322
19/07/2014
|
|
84.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 11822
19JUL Southbury Station /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 94,95,96,
Mag 1)
Response: 302,303,304
Appeal -
323,324,325
19/07/2014
|
|
85.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00376024
Southbury
Doug Skinner
(RG)/
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 108,109,110
Mag 1)
Response: 74,75,76:
Appeal -
99,100,101
Event Date:
19/07/2014
Created:
21/07/2014
Updated:
22/07/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 19/07/2014
|
|
86.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 9804
19JUL, 198 Great, Cambridge Rd / Carpet right
Page
Numbers: 308,309,310,311
297,298,299,300
19/07/2014
|
|
87.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 10635
19JUL, Martin bridge Trading Estate
Page
Numbers: 312,313,314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,322
19/07/2014
|
|
88.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CAD 11822
19JUL, Southbury Station
Page
Numbers: 323,324,325
19/07/2014
|
|
89.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00376024, Southbury, Doug Skinner (RG)
Page
Numbers: 99,100,101
Event
Date:19/07/2014 –
Created:
21/07/2014:
Updated:22/07/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 20/06/2014
|
|
90.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIS report
1914855/14 1 Falcon Park
Pc Haworth
401Qk Pc Griffh 188Qk Page 100 Brown croft Avenue /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 - 111,112,113,114,115,116,117,11
8,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127
,128,129
Mag 1)
Response:77,78,79,80,81,82,83,
84,85,86,87,88,89,
90,91,92,93,94
Appeal -102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,
110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117
|
|
20/06/2014
+
21/06/2014
|
|
91.
|
|
|
92.
|
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 24/07/2014
|
|
93.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00376229
Jamie Edgoose
Ye Alma Rd /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 105,106,107
Mag 1)
Response:71,72,73,
Appeal -
96,97,98
Event Date:
24/07/2014
Created:
27/07/2014
Updated:
31/07/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 24/07/2014
|
|
94.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00376229, Jamie Edgoose Ye - Alma Rd
Page
Numbers: 96,97,98
Event Date:
24/07/2014 –
Created:
27/07/2014:
Updated:
31/07/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 27/07/2014
|
|
95.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00376728
Mill Marsh
Lane Aaron King /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 97,98,99,100
Mag 1)
Response: 63,64,65,66
Appeal -
88,89,90,91
Event Date:
27/07/2014
Created:
10/08/2014
Updated:
12/08/2014
|
|
96.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00376227
Mill Marsh
Lane Richard Chandler Ye /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 –101,102,103,104
Mag 1)
Response: 67,68,69,70
Appeal -
92,93,94,95
Event Date:
27/07/2014
Created:
27/07/2014
Updated:
27/07/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 27/07/2014
|
|
97.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00376728, Mill Marsh Lane, Aaron King
Page
Numbers: 88,89,90,91
Event Date:
27/07/2014 –
Created: 10/08/2014:
Updated:
12/08/2014
|
|
98.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINT report
YERT00376227, Mill Marsh Lane, Richard Chandler Ye
Page
Numbers: 92,93,94,95
Event Date:
27/07/2014
Created:
27/07/2014 –
Updated:
27/07/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 02/08/2014
|
|
99.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
A/PS Charles
Miles /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 23
Appeal – 44
02/08/2014
|
|
100.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
A/PS Charles
Miles
Page
Numbers: 44
02/08/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 06/08/2014
|
|
101.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Witness
statement of A/ lnsp Hamill /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 24,25
Appeal - 45,46
06/08/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 06/08/2014
|
|
102.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Witness
statement of A/lnsp Hamill
Page
Numbers: 45,46
06/08/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder 11/08/2014
|
|
103.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS
STATEMENT of hearsay evidence Steve ELSMORE / Police Officer 206372
I am a police
officer attached to the Anti- Social Behaviour Team as part of the
Community Safety
Unit based at
Enfield Civic Centre. /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,
19,20,21,22,
Appeal
-
19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,2
9,30,31
11/08/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 11/08/2014
|
|
104.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS
STATEMENT of hearsay evidence Steve ELSMORE / Police Officer 206372, I am a
police officer attached to the Anti-Social Behaviour Team as part of the
Community Safety Unit based at Enfield Civic Centre.
Page
Numbers: 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31
11/08/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 14/08/2014
|
|
105.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: - PC McMillan /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 26
Appeal – 59
14/08/2014
|
|
106.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: - PC McMillan /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 27
Appeal – 60
14/08/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 14/08/2014
|
|
107.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: - PC McMillan
Page
Numbers: 59,60
14/08/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 15/08/2014
|
|
108.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
PC Douglas
Skinner / Page Numbers: Mag 2 –
28,29
Appeal - 47,48
15/08/2014
|
|
109.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
A/DS Jason
Ames /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 31,32
Appeal - 50,51
15/08/2014
|
|
110.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Pc Aaron King / Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 33,34,35
Appeal -
52,53,54
15/08/2014
|
|
·
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder 15/08/2014
|
|
111.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
PC Douglas
Skinner
Page
Numbers: 47,48
15/08/2014
|
|
112.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
A/DS Jason
Ames
Page
Numbers: 50,51
15/08/2014
|
|
113.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Pc Aaron King
Page
Numbers: 52,53
15/08/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 19/08/2014
|
|
114.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: -
PC Donald
McMillan /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 37,38
Appeal – 61,62
19/08/2014
|
|
115.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: -
PC John
Anderson /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 39
Appeal -64
20/08/2014
|
|
116.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: -
PC John
Anderson /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 40
Appeal – 65
19/08/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 19/08/2014
|
|
117.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: - PC McMillan
Page
Numbers: 61,62
19/08/2014
|
|
118.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: - PC Eric Barker dated
Page
Numbers: 67
19/08/2014
|
|
119.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake:
Resident Statements of: - PC John Anderson dated
Page
Numbers: 68,69
19/08/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 20/08/2014
|
|
120.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: -
PC Eric Barker /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 41
Appeal - 63
20/08/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 20/08/2014
|
|
121.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: - PC John Anderson dated
Page
Numbers: 70,71
20/08/2014
|
|
122.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident
Statements of: - PC McMillan
Page
Numbers: 63,64
20/08/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 31/08/2014
|
|
123.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
PC Edgoose /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 42
Appeal – 56
31/08/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 31/08/2014
|
|
124.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
PC Edgoose
Page Numbers: 56
31/08/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 07/09/2014
|
|
125.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Pc Aaron King
/
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 36
Appeal – 55
07/09/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 07/09/2014
|
|
126.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Pc Aaron King
Page
Numbers: 54,55
07/09/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 19/09/2015
|
|
127.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
PC Douglas
Skinner /
Page
Numbers: Mag 2 – 30
Appeal – 49
19/09/2015
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 19/09/2015
|
|
128.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
PC Douglas
Skinner
Page
Numbers: 49
19/09/2015
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 05/09/2014
|
|
129.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Magistrates’ Courts
(Hear- say Evidence in Civil Proceeding) Rules 1999,
/
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 1,2
Appeal - 7, 8
05/09/2014
|
|
130.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Index / Page Numbers: Mg 2 – 3,4,5
Date: Na 05/09/2014
|
|
131.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Application
for an Anti- social Behaviour Order and Interim Anti-Social Behaviour Order
/
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 6,7,8
Appeal - 1,2,3
05/09/2014
|
|
132.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Summons on
Application for Anti-Social Behaviour Order (Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
Section 1)
/
Page Numbers: Mag 2 - 2 -9
Appeal
– 4
05/09/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 05/09/2014
|
|
133.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Application
for an Anti-social Behaviour Order and Interim Anti-Social Behaviour Order.
Page
Numbers: 1,2,3
|
|
134.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Summons on
Application for Anti-Social Behaviour Order (Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
Section 1)
Page
Numbers: 4
|
|
135.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Borough
Commander Johnson consultation, as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998
Page
Numbers: 5
Date: Na
|
|
136.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Magistrates’
Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceeding) Rules 1999
Page
Numbers: 7.8
Date: Na
|
|
137.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Magistrates’ Courts
(Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceeding) Rules 1999
Page
Numbers: 9,10
Date: Na
|
|
138.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Magistrates’ Courts
(Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceeding) Rules 1999, entries made by various
police officers on the Crime Report Information System (CRIMINT), Computer
Aided Despatch (CAD)
Page
Numbers: 11,12
Date: Na
|
|
139.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Magistrates’
Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceeding) Rules 1999, Resident
Statements of Just Police Officers? Anonymous witness statement?
Page
Numbers: 13
Date: Na
|
|
140.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
An incident report
from the Canary Wharf Group pages 315 and 321 ADDED LATTER
Page
Numbers: 14,15
Date: Na
|
|
141.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Interim
Anti-Social Behaviour Order upon complaint, section 1D Crime and Disorder
Act 1998, ON THE COMPLAINT of PC Steve Elsmore on behalf of the
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Page
Numbers: 16,17
|
|
142.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Magistrates’
Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceeding) Rules 1999, entries made by
various police officers on the Crime Report Information System (CRIMINT),
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
Page
Numbers: 41,42,43=Twice
Date: Na
|
|
143.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Pnc print out
Page
Numbers: 75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86
Date: Na
|
|
144.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRIMINIT's,
CAD's and CRIS's in the following order
Page
Numbers: 87
Date: Na
|
|
145.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
CRI
S report
1914855/14, 1 Falcon Park, Pc Haworth 401Qk, Pc Griffh 188Qk, Page 100
Brown croft Avenue
Page
Numbers:
102,103,
104,105,
106,107,
108,109,
101,102,
103,104,
105,106,
107,108,
109,110,
111,112,
113,114,
115,116,
117
20+21/06/2014
Date: Na
|
|
146.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Schedule of
Incidents
Page
Numbers: 333,334,335
Date:
Na
05/09/2014
|
|
The 1st Asbo Folder / 30/10/2014
|
|
147.
|
·
The
1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Borough Commander
Johnson consultation, as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998, + Steve Hodgson consultation, as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998
/
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 10
Appeal - 5, 6
x 2 Different Documents to the first folder
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 30/10/2014
|
|
148.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Steve Hodgson
consultation, as required by s.1E (3) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
Page
Numbers: 6
30/10/2014
|
|
The 2nd Asbo Folder 14/01/2015
|
|
149.
|
·
The
2nd Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS
STATEMENT, of hearsay evidence, Steve ELSMORE / Police Officer 206372
Page
Numbers: 32,33,34,35,36
14/01/2015
|
|
150.
|
·
Si Note:
|
|
End:
|
Ø Cads
This Cad has nothing to do with raves and was submitted in the Asbo
while court proceeding menaced, I won the case, but the council and police
still used it afterwards.
There are quite a few Cad pages.
To keep this
document as short as possible please read more information here
https://serverone.hopto.org/1%20Diary%202013_/ use control F
and search for the; 07/04/2013
My Statement that is contained in my response bundle is contained
there also that of my own explanation of true events that took place
inclusive of some points and don’t forget to read the highlighted notes in
the cad pages below.
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub Book Issue:
1!
CRIS
report 4208625/13 Sunday Going Out on Motor Bikes Pc 466ht /224810 C. Scott /
Page
Numbers:
Mag
2 –
143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,
163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174
Mag
1) Response:
108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,
128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,
Appeal-
131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,
151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160
07/04/2013
Mag
2 –
143,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
General
Information
|
|
Screening
Decision:
|
IN
|
|
Main IU:
|
|
|
Crime Type:
|
|
|
Allegation
(Prefix):
|
Allegation
|
|
Committed
on/from Date:
|
SUN -
07/04/2013 - 14:00
|
|
Committed to
Date:
|
SUN -
07/04/2013 - 14:07
|
|
Reported
Date:
|
|
|
How
Notified:
|
Restricted
|
|
By:
|
|
|
Restriction
Reason:
|
HT TOWER
HAMLETS BOROUGH
|
|
BH/O Crime
Type:
|
NP Phone
Call to Police
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Flags:
|
HT Borough
Branch Service Area (Historical)
|
|
OIC
|
|
Is OIC Same
as Reporting Officer?
|
|
|
Investigating
Officer's Rank: Surname:
|
|
|
Warrant
Number:
|
|
|
Duty:
|
|
|
Station/Branch:
|
|
|
Allocated
Date/Time:
|
|
|
Allocation
Noted:
|
|
|
Initials:
|
Y
PC SCOTT 224810
Si Note:
From
Pnc / not this doc, the True Arresting Officer is ASTON/PC/232845
|
|
Div./D
Number:
|
466PIT
|
|
Usual
Relief:
|
AA Borough Uniform
HT TOWER HAMLETS BOROUGH
|
|
Noted
Date/Time:
|
Y 07/04/2013 16:59
- 07/04/2013 17:00
|
|
Previous OIC
Details
|
Usual Relief
Duty
|
|
Station
Branch Allocated Date/Time
|
|
|
Noted
Date/Time
|
|
|
OIC Supervisor:
|
PS43HT/206030 SG BOWGEN
Si Note:
From Pnc /
not this doc, the True Arresting Officer is ASTON/PC/232845
|
|
Press
|
|
|
Suitable for
Press?
|
N
|
|
Restrictions:
|
|
|
Is this a
Specrim?
|
N
|
|
Date/Time:
|
|
|
Was a
Firearm Used?
|
N
|
|
Was another
Weapon Used?
|
N
|
|
Was their
Terrorist Implications?
|
N
|
|
Was a Suspect
present on Police arrival?
|
Y
|
|
No. of
Suspects Present:
|
1
|
|
Was the
Suspect(s) arrested?
|
Y
|
|
No. of
Suspects Arrested:
|
1
|
13/08/2014 11:45
Page
1 of 32
CRIS
Live
Rio
144,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
General
Information
|
|
Source
System References
|
|
|
Source
System
|
Source
System
|
|
Entered
Date/Time
|
07/04/2013 16:59
|
|
Entered By
|
PC
466HT/224810
|
|
Name
|
C
SCOTT
Si Note:
From
PNC / not this doc, the True Arresting Officer is; ASTON/PC/232845
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
CAD:
|
004619/07APR13
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
Total
Values:
|
|
|
Stolen £:
|
|
|
Recovered
£:
|
|
|
Outstanding
£:
|
|
|
Damaged £:
|
|
|
Damaged On:
|
|
|
Recovery £:
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
|
VIW(s):
|
1
|
|
Property
|
0
|
|
Vehicles(s):
|
|
|
Accused:
|
1
|
|
Suspect(s):
|
1
|
|
CAIT
Subject(s):
|
|
|
Drugs/Fraud
|
|
|
Is this CR for
an arrest for possession etc. (not theft) of controlled drugs?
|
|
|
If
Fraudulent Use-Item Used:
|
N
|
|
DV/Hate
Crime
|
|
|
Is this a
Hate Crime/Domestic Incident/ career Abuse?
|
N
|
|
Domestic
Incident?
|
|
|
Forced
Marriage?
|
|
|
Honor Based
Violence?
|
|
|
Hate Crime?
|
|
|
career
Abuse?
|
|
|
Initial Risk
Assessment (SPECSS+):
|
|
|
Completed
by:
|
|
|
Initial Risk
Assessment Management Supervised?
|
|
|
Completed
by:
|
|
|
Current Risk
Assessment (SPECSS+):
|
|
|
Form 124D
Completed?
|
|
|
Completed
by:
|
|
|
Forml24D
Supervised?
|
|
|
Completed
by:
|
|
|
Received by
the CSU?
|
|
|
CSU
Reference
|
|
|
Completed
by:
|
|
|
LGBT
Relationship?
|
|
|
Category of
Hate Crime
|
|
Race?
|
|
|
Faith/Religion/Belief?
|
|
|
Religion
Name:
|
|
|
Homophobia?
|
|
|
Transphobia?
|
|
|
Disability?
|
|
13/08/2014 11:45
Page
2 of 32
CRIS
Liv
145,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
General
Information
|
|
Targeted because
of Vulnerability
|
|
13/08/2014 11:45
Page
3 of 32
CRIS
Live
146,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Venue
Location
|
|
OMPD?
|
O/S.
|
|
Address:
|
COLEBROOK
HOUSE, ELLESMERE STREET, LONDON, E14 6LB
|
|
Location
Text:
|
|
|
GLU:
|
LIT
|
|
Local Id:
|
HT03
|
|
Grid Ref:
|
538468,178598
|
|
Watch Area:
|
|
|
Main
|
|
Location
Type(s):
|
FA Street
|
|
Is the Venue
covered by CCTV or in a CCTV Area?
|
N CCTV
Options
|
|
Approach:
|
|
|
Entry
Method:
|
|
|
Entry Point:
|
|
|
Exit Point:
|
|
|
Security:
|
|
|
Person on
Premises?
|
|
|
Other Info:
|
Internal
Transfer
|
|
Date/Time
|
|
|
Transferred
by:
|
Previous GLU
Previous IU
|
|
Transfer From:
|
MPS
|
|
Transfer
from Met To:
|
Service
|
|
Station:
|
|
|
Their
Reference:
|
|
|
Received By:
-
|
|
|
Rank:
|
|
|
Number:
|
|
|
Surname:
|
|
13/08/2014 11:45
Page
4 of 32
CRIS
Live
147,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Victim/Informant
|
|
|
Witness Details
|
|
|
VTW No:
|
1 Of: 1
|
|
Role(s):
|
W
|
|
Total - Victims:
|
0
|
|
Total Witness:
|
1
|
|
CA1T Subject No:
|
|
|
Personal Details
|
|
|
Co/Public
Body?
|
|
|
Surname:
|
UNKNOWN
|
|
Co./Forenames:
|
|
|
Title:
|
MR
|
|
Date of
Birth:
|
App.
|
|
Age or from:
|
Over 18
|
|
Sex
|
M
|
|
Ethnic
Appearance:
|
|
|
Occupation:
|
|
|
School or College:
|
|
|
Estimated: To:
|
|
|
Self-Class Ethnicity:
|
|
|
Local ID:
|
|
|
Grid Ref:
|
|
|
Occupation
relevant to offence:
|
N
|
|
GLU:
|
|
|
National of:
|
1
|
|
Passport No:
|
1
|
|
National of:
|
2
|
|
Passport No:
|
2
|
|
Religion:
|
|
|
Address Details:
|
|
|
VIW’s Address is same as:
|
VEN
|
|
Address:
|
|
|
GLU
|
|
Home Intelligence
Unit:
|
|
|
Contact Details:
|
|
|
Local ID:
|
|
|
Grid Ref:
|
|
|
CNAA Reason:
|
|
|
Home:
|
|
|
Mobile:
|
|
|
Email:
|
|
|
Business:
|
|
|
Other:
|
|
|
Injury
Details
|
|
Injury Description:
|
|
|
Degree:
|
|
|
Description/Dress:
|
|
|
Vulnerable/intimidated Victim/Witness?
|
|
|
Reason for
Vulnerability/Intimidation:
|
|
|
Witness
Albums Visited?
|
N
|
|
Actions:
|
MG II Taken
|
|
Victim of Reported Crime to Police in last 12 months?
|
|
|
Is V willing for VSS to be informed
|
|
|
V Code of Practice Applicable?
|
|
|
Changed to Entered by Date:
|
|
|
VCOP Act Comp?
|
Fraud
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
5 of 32
CRIS
Live
148,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Victim/Informant/Witness
|
|
Details
|
|
|
Knows
Accused No.
|
How Known
|
|
Aware of
Suspect No.
|
|
|
How Victim or
Witness aware of Arrest
|
How Known
|
|
Knows
Suspect No.
|
Needs
|
|
Does anyone perceive VIW to be Deaf and/or disabled? If yes, who?
|
|
|
VlW/Other: Details of Disability:
|
|
|
Physical Access Needs:
|
|
|
Personal Care Needs:
|
|
|
Medical Needs:
|
|
|
Communication Needs:
|
|
|
Sexual Orientation:
|
|
|
Gender Identity:
|
|
|
Officer’s Notes:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
6 of 32
CRIS
Live
149,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Accused Details
|
|
Accused No:
|
1 Of: 1
|
|
Charged/
Summonsed Surname:
|
CORDELL
|
|
Forename(s):
|
Simon Paul
|
|
PNC File name
|
|
Surname:
|
CORDELL
|
|
Forename(s):
|
Simon Paul
|
|
Personal Details
|
|
Occupation:
|
VOLUNTARY
WORKER
|
|
School or
College:
|
|
|
Relevant to
Offence?
|
N
|
|
GLU:
|
AA Charge/further charge
|
|
Local Id:
|
|
|
Date of
Birth:
|
26/01/1981
|
|
Sex:
|
M
|
|
Self-Class
Ethnicity:
|
OVRO B9 Black - Any other Black
|
|
Background
Birthplace:
|
Enfield UNITED KINGDOM
|
|
Number
National
|
1 Of 1
|
|
National Of
2 Passport No:
|
1
|
|
Religion:
|
|
|
Grid:
|
|
|
Ref:
|
|
|
Age:
|
32
|
|
Ethnic
Appearance:
|
3
|
|
Passport No:
|
2
|
|
Address:
|
Accused Address Same as Ven
|
|
Grid Ref:
|
535503,197027
|
|
Address:
|
109
BURNCROFT AVENUE, ENFIELD MIDDLESEX, EN3 7JQ
|
|
GLU:
|
YE
|
|
YE Local Id:
|
YE06
|
|
Home
Intelligence Unit:
|
YE ENFIELD BOROUGH
|
|
Contact Details:
|
|
|
Home:
|
|
|
Business:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
7 of 32
CRIS
Live
150,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Accused Details
|
|
Additional Details:
|
|
|
PNC Status:
|
|
|
Other:
|
|
|
Mobile:
|
|
|
Email:
|
|
|
PNC Result:
|
97/99378V
|
|
Previous
Convictions?
|
|
|
On bail at
time of offence?
|
Y
|
|
CRO Result:
|
This offence circ on PNC
|
|
Disqualified Driver?
|
|
|
Arrested/Summonsed
|
|
|
Date/Time:
|
|
|
Plow Arrested By:
|
(Met)
|
|
Is Arrested
By (Met) same as OIC details?
|
Y
|
|
Div./D. No:
|
466E1T
|
|
Warrant No:
|
224810
|
|
Rank:
|
PC
|
|
Surname:
|
SCO'IT
|
|
Inits:
|
C
|
|
Stn/Branch:
|
|
|
PIT By:
|
(Nou-Met)
|
|
Rank:
|
|
|
No:
|
|
|
Station:
|
|
|
Surname:
|
|
|
Service:
|
Duty at time of arrest
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
8 of 32
CRIS
Live
151,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Accused
Details Info Markers
|
|
Accused
considers they have a disability?
|
N
|
|
Disability
Category:
|
|
|
Warning
Signals:
|
Type On PNC?
|
|
Created by:
|
PC
C SCOTT 466HT/224S1
|
|
Date/Time:
|
07/04/20113
17:03
|
|
Last Updated
by:
|
CIV 1/91047SJ WOODING
|
|
Date/Time:
|
08/04/2013 16:13
|
|
Known to
Victim?
|
|
Victim Knows
Accused?
|
N
|
|
Known by
Victim No.
|
How Known
|
|
Other Names
|
|
|
Maiden Name:
|
|
|
Alias
Surname (s):
|
|
|
Nickname(s):
|
|
|
Former
names(s):
|
|
|
Alias
Forename(s):
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
9 of 32
CRIS
Live
152,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Accused Details
OTHER
OFFENCES CRARGED/SUMMONSED
|
|
Accused Details:
|
|
|
CR No:
|
Judicial Disposal Proceedings
|
|
Type Prev;
Rep?
|
Plea Finding
|
|
OTHER OFFENCES TO BE CLEARED UP
|
|
CR No:
|
Judicial
Disposal
|
|
Proceedings
Type:
|
Previous/
Rep
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
10 of 32
CRIS
Live
153,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Accused Custody
|
|
Accused No:
|
1 Of: 1
|
|
|
CORDELL
|
|
|
Simon Paul
|
|
Proceedings
Type:
|
|
|
U.R.N (Case
No):
|
01HT/1537/13
|
|
Original
CR ID:
|
|
|
Custody No:
|
01EIT/1537/13
|
|
Process/Other
Offence in Brief:
|
Judicial
Disposal:
|
|
Ref:
|
section
5 poa AA Charge/further charge
|
|
Date
Entered: By:
|
08/04/2013
|
|
Proceedings
Type:
|
PC
/9244 TC RYDER AA Charge/further charge
|
|
Date
Entered:
|
08/04/2013
|
|
Date Charged:
|
|
|
Court Details
|
|
|
Court Appearance Type:
|
|
|
Court:
|
|
|
Date/Time:
|
|
|
Date INI Form served:
|
|
|
Bail Details
Police Bail?
|
Y
|
|
Return to
Station Date:
|
|
|
Unknown
Court Bail?
|
|
|
Conditions:
|
|
|
Current Bail:
|
|
|
Date Imposed:
|
|
|
Non-Appearance Warrant?
|
|
|
Wanted Docket Ref No:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
11 of 32
CRIS
Live
154,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Accused Offence & Results
|
|
Accused No:
|
1 Of: 1
|
|
CORDELL
|
|
|
Simon Paul
|
|
|
Court Results
|
|
Skeletal Charge:
|
|
|
Plea:
|
|
|
Finding:
|
|
|
Sentence:
|
|
|
Date Convicted:
|
|
|
Recommended for Deportation?
|
|
|
Appeal Details
|
|
Appeal
Notice Served?
|
Varied on
Appeal
|
|
If Varied:
|
Court
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Circulations:
|
|
|
Date Cancelled:
|
|
|
Case No.
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Title:
|
|
|
Officer’s Notes:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
12 of 32
CRIS
Live
155,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Suspect Details
|
|
Suspect No:
|
1 Of: 1
|
|
Currently
Eliminated?
|
Y
|
|
Possibly
identical to Suspect No(s):
|
|
|
CAJT Subject No:
|
|
|
Names Case Class:
|
|
|
Surname
Used:
|
CORDELL
|
|
Forenames
Used:
|
Simon Paul
|
|
PNC Surname:
|
CORDELL
|
|
PNC
Forename:
|
Simon Paul
|
|
Maiden Name:
|
|
|
Alias Surname Alias Forenames Nickname Info Markers
|
|
Do you want
to create an Accused record?
|
Y
|
|
Accused
Created:
|
07/04/2013 17:03
|
|
Accused No:
|
1
|
|
PNC Status:
|
K
|
|
CRO
Result:
|
|
|
PNC Result:
|
97/99378V
|
|
Suspect
considers they have a disability?
|
N
|
|
Disability
Category:
|
Warning
Signal
|
|
Type:
|
On
PNC
|
|
Created by:
|
PC 466HT/224810 C SCOTT
|
|
Date/Time:
|
07/04/2013 17:02
|
|
Last
Updated by:
|
|
|
Date/Time:
|
|
|
Personal
Details Age:
|
32
|
|
Date of
Birth:
|
26/01/1981
|
|
App // Age
or from:
|
32
|
|
Sex:
|
M
|
|
Ethnic
Appearance:
|
3
|
|
Sex:
|
|
|
Birthplace:
|
Enfield
|
|
Nationality:
|
UNITED
KINGDOM
|
|
Classified
Ethnicity:
|
B9
Black - Any other Black background
|
|
Height
|
|
Height
Metric:
|
6’0"
|
|
Imperial:
|
183
|
|
Estimated
To:
|
F
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
13 of 32
CRIS
Live
156,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Suspect Details
|
|
Nationality:
|
2
|
|
Passport No:
|
1
|
|
Passport No:
|
2
|
|
Dress Composite Description:
|
N
|
|
Religion:
|
|
|
Occupation:
|
VOLUNTARY WORKER
|
|
School or College:
|
|
|
Local ID:
|
|
|
GLU:
|
|
|
Details of ID Docs:
|
|
|
Grid Ref:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
14 of 32
CRIS
Live
157,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Suspect Details Personal Description
|
|
Hair:
|
HD
|
|
Desc:
|
SHORT HAIR
|
|
Facial Hail Type:
|
|
|
Colour:
|
|
|
Colour:
|
BLACK
|
|
Texture:
|
|
|
Features:
|
|
|
Eye Colour Right:
|
|
|
Eye Colour Left:
|
|
|
Spectacles Type:
|
|
|
Accent:
|
|
|
Build:
|
|
|
Spectacles?
|
|
|
Eyebrows:
|
|
|
Voice:
|
|
|
Photo-Fit Ref:
|
|
|
Marks/Scars:
|
|
|
Type/Position:
|
|
|
Address:
|
Suspect’s Address is same as VEN?
|
|
Address:
|
109, BURNCROFT AVENUE, ENFIELD, MIDDLESEX, EN3 7JQ
|
|
GLU:
|
Y: E
|
|
Grid Ref:
|
535503,197027
|
|
Local ID:
|
YE06
|
|
From
Intelligence Unit:
|
YE ENFIELD BOROUGH
|
|
Frequent Contact Details:
|
|
|
Business:
|
|
|
Other:
|
|
|
From:
|
|
|
Mobile:
|
|
|
Email:
|
|
|
Known to Victim?
|
|
|
VIW Knows Suspect?
|
N
|
|
Known by VFW No.
|
How Known
|
|
Was the Victim or Witness aware the Suspect was arrested?
|
N
|
|
VIW No.
|
|
|
Are Victim or Witness aware of arrest
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
15 of 32
CRIS
Live
158,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Suspect Elimination
|
|
|
|
|
Suspect No:
|
1 Of: 1
|
|
Currently Eliminated?
|
Y
|
|
Disposal
Circulate PNC?
|
|
|
Date Eliminated
|
07/04/2013
|
|
Reason Eliminated
|
AA Arrested
and charged
|
|
Method of
Detection
|
AA Charged
|
|
How Suspect Notified
|
AE
Personally
|
|
Date/Time Notified
|
07/04/2013 17:00
|
|
Notified By
|
|
Rank
|
PC
|
|
Div./B Number
|
466HT
|
|
Warrant Number
|
224810
|
|
Initials
|
C
|
|
Surname
|
SCOTT
|
|
Identifiable By
|
|
Identifiable By:
|
|
|
VIW No(s):
|
Circulation
|
|
Title:
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Case No:
|
|
|
Date Cancelled:
|
|
|
Wanted Docket Ref No:
|
|
|
ID by:
|
|
|
Witness Albums
|
|
Warrant Issued?
|
|
|
Date Warrant Issued:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
16 of 32
CRIS
Live
159,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Suspect
|
|
Elimination Conditions:
|
Officer’s Notes
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page 17 of 32
CRIS Live
160,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
TOO
Support Services
|
|
Warrant/Pay
No:
|
Accepted
|
|
Date/Time Cancel Reason:
|
|
|
Job Sheet No:
|
|
|
Visit Date/Time Entry Gained:
|
|
|
IDO Request:
|
|
|
Request Id:
|
Requested
|
|
Date/Time Surname:
|
|
|
IDO Visit:
|
|
|
Request Id Surname:
|
|
|
CPO
|
|
CPO Request:
|
|
|
Warrant/Pay No:
|
|
|
Cancel Reason:
|
|
|
Accepted Date/Time:
|
|
|
Request Id:
|
|
|
Requested Date/Time:
|
|
|
Surname:
|
|
|
CPO Visit:
|
|
|
Visit Date/Time:
|
|
|
Entry Gained:
|
|
|
Job Sheet No:
|
|
|
Request Id Surname:
|
|
|
Warrant/Pay No:
|
|
|
Accepted Date/Time:
|
|
|
Cancel Reason:
|
|
|
Photographer Photo Request:
|
|
|
Request Id Requested:
|
|
|
Date/Time:
|
|
|
Surname:
|
|
|
Photographer Visit:
|
|
|
Request Id Surname:
|
|
|
Entry Gained:
|
|
|
Job Sheet No:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
18 of 32
CRIS
Live
161,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Support Services
|
|
Requested Date/Time:
|
|
|
Surname:
|
|
|
Other
Warrant/Pay No:
|
Accepted Other
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Time:
|
|
|
Cancel:
|
|
|
Reason:
|
|
|
Request:
|
|
|
Cancel Date:
|
|
|
Entry Gained:
|
|
|
Useful Marks
|
|
|
Visit Date/Time:
|
|
|
Job Sheet No:
|
|
|
Request Id Type:
|
|
|
Other Visit:
|
|
|
Request Id:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surname:
|
|
|
Access Info:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
19 of 32
CRIS
Live
162,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Features
Features/instruments
|
|
Text:
|
|
|
IDO Text:
|
Prop
|
|
Ref:
|
Nos
|
|
Forensic Data
|
|
Lab Reference No:
|
|
|
FORENSIC
REFERENCES:
|
Type
|
|
Officers
Notes:
|
No
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
20 of 32
CRIS
Live
163,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Linked Crimes
|
|
Chain ID:
|
Removed
|
|
Contact from
Chain:
|
Police
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
21 of 32
CRIS
Live
164,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Classification Method
|
|
Current
Position:
|
C Classified
|
|
Method:
|
Sus continually swore at officers while mop was walking by
Classification Set by CIT
|
|
Date: By:
|
Lock
|
|
Classify
|
|
Main Classification:
|
|
|
Initial:
|
SI 25/12
|
|
Date:
|
07/04/2013 16:59
|
|
Current:
|
S125/12
|
|
Date:
|
07/04/2013 17:04
|
|
Description:
|
SUBSTANT. /Causing Harassment, Alarm or Distress Subsidiary
Classifications
|
|
Code Count
Confirm?
|
Y
|
|
Date:
|
08/04/2013 08:19
|
|
By:
|
CIV /57072 R PRASHAR
|
|
Victim Count
Discrepancy:
|
No
|
|
Crime Date:
|
No Crime
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Reason:
|
|
|
By:
|
|
|
Confirm?
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Crime Related Date:
|
|
|
Incident?
|
|
|
By:
|
|
|
Confirm?
|
|
|
By:
|
|
|
Statistical
Info Current Status:
|
D
|
|
Detected
Crime Last Changed:
|
08/04/2013
|
|
Cleared-Up
Reason:
|
SA Ch/Sum-Prev.
|
|
Under Date:
|
08/04/2013
|
|
Original Classification:
|
|
|
Main Code:
|
SI25/12 Subsidiary Code Count Confirmed
|
|
Date:
|
08/04/2013 08:19
|
|
Confirmed
By:
|
CIV /57072 R PRASHAR
|
|
Statistical
Parent:
|
CR
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
22 of 32
CRIS
Live
165,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Classification Administrative Detections Home Office Rule
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
By:
|
|
|
Explanatory Notes:
|
|
|
All Current Home Office Requirements Satisfied:
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
By:
|
|
|
Of Interest To
|
|
Method Index:
|
|
|
CP Analysis:
|
|
|
Victim Amendments:
|
|
|
Date Added:
|
|
|
Time VIW No:
|
|
|
By:
|
|
|
Date Removed:
|
|
|
Time VIW No.
|
|
|
By:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
23 of 32
CRIS
Live
166,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Messages Addressee
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Sent Text:
|
|
|
Cancel Date:
|
|
|
Gen Reg No.
|
Description
|
|
Important/Interest Crime?
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
24 of 32
CRIS
Live
167,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Details of Investigation 07/04/2013 17:12 PC 224810 466HT C SCOTT
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION DETAILS: Immediate action
1. CAD 4619/07APRI3...PC 466HT SCOTT AND PC 997HT ASTON
2. Police were called to Ellesmere Street E14 where an informant had
seen a group of males load a flat screen TV into the rear of a white Ford
Transit panel van Vrm CX52 JRX. The informant was a local resident and was
particularly concerned as her neighbour had been recently burgled.
The vehicle was in Ellesmere Street junction of Upper North Sheet
There could see there were 4 males sat in tire front cab. The person in the
driving seat was a light skinned ic3 male (sus) Police parked behind the
van and Pc Aston got out the car to get around to the van. As he rounded
our car the van pulled to the right toward Upper North Street. Pc Aston was
now in front of the van and the van stopped.
Pc Scott opened the car door to speak to the driver and he said,
‘What the fuck do you want, you can’t stop me’ We identified ourselves as a
police officer by displaying my warrant card and he continued to say ‘you
have no power to stop me what are you powers’ It was explained why we were
there and why we had stopped him.
Pie remained aggressive saying that we did not know how to do our
job and that we had no power to search him. The oilier males in the van
were telling the male to calm down and let us get on with it. He was still
aggressive saying that he was all legit saying that we had no reason to be
there. He then turned off the engine and jumped out the van and walked to
ward the pavement. We explained he was detained for the search, and he
continued to shout, ‘Don’t you Ricking touch me, I can walk around’ He
continued to question our grounds and I again
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
25 of 32
CRIS
Live
168,
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Details of Investigation: 07/04/2013 17:12
PC 224810 466HT C SCOTT
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION DETAILS: 1
Immediate action
explained them to him. An elderly member of the public (view) was
walking past, and he shouted at him ‘Oi mate the fucking police want to
search your coz they think you may be a burglar' The male turned round
looked at the male in disgust and walked off again.
Sus continued to walk around by our vehicle, and it was again
explained he was detained for a search and as he was walking away from him
police took hold of his right arm. As this happened, he shouted, ‘Don’t
fucking touch me’ He was continually aggressive
He was shouting ‘Get the flick off me' and members of the public
were at their windows trying to see what was going on. Pc Aston was trying
to take out his left arm while pc Scott was trying to take out his right.
He was shouting ‘Get the fuck off me’ continually and another unit arrived.
Handcuffs were applied in the rear stack position as he was still
being aggressive and uncooperative.
As lie calmed down it was again explained why he was being searched
and he said, ‘You can’t fucking touch me’ He was searched under section 1
of pace and nothing was found. The van was searched and again nothing was
found. The other males were searched under the same powers, and nothing was
found
Pc Aston did a check on the van and the pne stated that it had no
insurance. The male who identified himself as Mr Simon Cordell dob
26/01/1981 of 109 Burncroft Avenue, EN3 7JQ stated that he had trader’s
insurance and could drive any vehicle. The male gave another registration
and that also showed no insurance. Cordell maintained that he had trader’s
insurance and ‘You are not flicking taking my van’ Pc Aston was making
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
26 of 32
CRIS
Live
169,
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Details of Investigation: 07/04/2013 17:12
PC 224810 466HT C SCOTT
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION DETAILS: I
Immediate action
enquires but he stated that there was no insurance for the vehicle
and that the vehicle was going to be seized under the road traffic act for
no insurance. Cordell’s shouted, ‘You can’t fucking take my van’ And he
then tried to get into the van.
At 1446hrs Pc Aston arrested for no insurance and section 5 of the
public order act as he could not provide a valid name or address. Pie was
struggling while being led to the van and would not get into the cage
saying that ‘You can’t fucking arrest me’ Pie was eventually put into the
van and taken to Bethnal Green
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION DETAILS: 2 Scene PRIMARY INVESTIGATION
DETAILS: 3 Forensics PRIMARY INVESTIGATION DETAILS: 4 Victims/Witnesses
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION DETAILS: 5 Suspects
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION DETAILS: 6 Other evidence 07/04/2013 17:13
PC 224810 466PIT C SCOTT
The male was charged for no insurance and Sec 5 Poa 08/04/2013 08:16
CIV 57072 R PRASHAR
Service Flag CO added
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
27 of 32
CRIS
Live
170,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Details of Investigation
|
|
Date:
|
08/04/2013 08:19
|
|
Officer:
|
CIV 57072 R PRASHAR
|
|
Screened In
|
|
Date:
|
08/04/2013 08:19
|
|
Officer:
|
CIV
57072 R PRASHAR
|
|
Classification
confirmed:
|
08/04/2013
08:29 PC 9244 TC RYDER
|
|
Service
Flag:
|
CO
deleted
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
28 of 32
CRIS
Live
171,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Memo
|
|
Memos Sent to:
|
|
|
Note By:
|
|
|
Completed by:
|
|
|
Entered by Urgent?
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Noted Completed:
|
|
|
Cancelled Entered:
|
|
|
Create
Action/Decision/Review Screens?
|
|
|
Action/Decision/Review Screens Created By:
|
|
|
Create CAJT Screens?
|
|
|
CAIT Screens Created By:
|
|
|
Case Mgt Administration
|
|
Is SIO Same as OIC Supervisor?
|
|
|
Current
Senior Investigating Officer (SIO):
|
Allocated / Noted?
|
|
Noted Date/Time:
|
|
|
Previous
SIOs:
|
Officer Noted Review
|
|
Period:
|
|
|
Allocated days Next Review Due:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
29 of 32
CRIS
Live
172,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Memo
|
|
Memo
Summary:
|
|
|
Ready for
Completion:
|
|
|
With Rationale Completed Actions:
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
|
Seen By SIO:
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
|
Decisions:
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
|
Review:
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
30 of 32
CRIS
Live
173,
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Supervision
|
|
Initial
Entry Initial:
|
I.O.:
|
|
Rank:
|
PC
|
|
Surname:
|
SCOTT
|
|
Wt/Pay No:
|
224810
|
|
Div/D No:
|
466HT
|
|
Initials:
|
C
|
|
Crime
Recorded by:
|
224810 SCOTT PC 466HT C
|
|
Date/Time:
Recording Unit:
|
07
|
|
Supervision:
|
HT
|
|
Initial
entry checked?
|
Y
|
|
Initial
entry checked by:
|
PS
BOWGEN43I-IT 206030
|
|
Date/Time:
|
07/04/2013 22:24
|
|
Ongoing Supervision By:
|
|
|
Supervision Date:
|
Y
|
|
Investigation
complete?
|
|
|
Investigation
completes by:
|
CIV
/'91047 SJ WOODING
|
|
Date/Time:
|
08/04/2013 16:13
|
|
Crime Report
closed?
|
Y
|
|
Crime Report
closed by:
|
CIV
/91047 SJ WOODING
|
|
Date/Time:
|
08/04/2013 16:13
|
|
Screening:
|
IN Crime screened "in" for further investigation.
|
|
Screening
Decision:
|
|
|
Reason:
|
05
IN-Suspect Arrested
|
|
Text:
|
|
|
Text:
|
rp t3c
|
|
Screening
History Decision Reason:
|
|
|
Completion Date/Time
|
CR
|
|
Last
Updated:
|
25/05/2013
17:01
|
|
CR
Completed?
|
Y
|
|
Date/Time:
|
08/04/2013 16:13
|
|
By (Wt. No):
|
91047
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
31 of 32
CRIS
Live
174
Data
Protection Act –
Dispose
of As Confidential Waste
PC
SJ ELSMORE 752YE 206372
|
CR:
|
4208625/13
|
|
Cr Type:
|
B
Notifiable/MPS/
|
|
Other:
|
N-l
|
|
Status:
|
D
|
|
Press:
|
N
|
|
Class:
|
S/Pub Order
S 5
|
|
GLU:
|
HT
|
|
Supervision
|
|
Bring Forward:
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
Date Entered:
|
Date Cancelled
|
|
For Reason:
|
Cancelled By
|
Date: 13/08/2014 11:45
Page
32 of 32
CRIS
Live
|
