Page 426 - tmp

The Appellant will state that the description of events on this day has been altered and
recorded in a biased way towards him.

th
The Appellant requests full details of the original intelligence report inputted on 25 May
th
2014 and also reasons why there was a need to update this report on 19 June 2014. The
Intelligence report should not be allowed in evidence under the hearsay rules as it is
prejudicial to him. The report has been amended.

TH
TH
TH
(A) PROGRESS WAY 6 , 7 AND 8 JUNE 2014

The Appellant disputes any involvement whatsoever in the event at Progress Way.

The Appellant accepts that he approached the gates on the 08 June 2014 with a view to
th
dropping off house keys to a friend that had been left at his house on an earlier date. The
Appellant did not enter the premises / venue at Progress Way.

The Appellant did not provide any sound equipment, speakers, generators to any person
inside Progress Way.

The Appellant will state that he is being wrongly accused of organising this rave / event. The
Appellant will state his brother is also wrongly named as being involved. The Appellant will
state that his brother was severely disabled at the time and in a wheelchair following a very
serious road traffic accident which the police are aware off.

The Appellant questions the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements, CADS etc served in
support of the above. The Appellant questions why some of the CAD reports have been
redacted. The Appellant believes that the CAD’s may well confirm the names of the real
organisers, vehicle registrations etc that will confirm no vehicle belonging to the Appellant
being inside the venue. The Appellant also questions the chronological sequence of the
CAD reports due to the time stamps.

CAD Num Date Time Page

CAD 2637 07/06/2014 08:18 Page 191 to 195

CAD 2672 07/06/2014 08:16 Page 196 to 198

CAD 3005 07/06/2014 09:22 Page 203 to 205
CAD 3037 07/06/2014 09:20 Page 179 to 183

CAD 10481 07/06/2014 22:47 Page 233 to 237

CAD 10506 07/06/2014 22:44 Page 238 to 241

The Appellant believes that some of the complainants are police officers and no civilians.
The Appellant believes that some of the Cads’ may relate to completely different areas but
are being added incorrectly and linked to Progress Way.

418

2