Page 427 - tmp

In the interests of a fair hearing the Appellant requests all Cad’s cross linked and referred to
should be served in an unedited format. All Cad’s that do refer to a different location should
be removed from the Respondent’s bundle as they are too prejudicial.

The Appellant will state that this is yet another example of the police manipulating the
evidence to paint him in a bad light. The Appellant strongly believes that the police are
presenting their evidence to persuade the court that he was an organiser of this event.

The statements presented are unreliable and prejudicial. The Appellant will state that he
cannot possibly have a fair hearing as a result to a breach of regulations inclusive of his
Human Rights one of which is article six his right to having a fair hearing will be violated due
to the way the Respondent is selecting editing and presenting Cad’s. The Appellant
specifically requests that the redacted CADS be served unedited or excluded from the
Respondent’s bundle.

The Appellant will state that he is being deliberately targeted by the police as was his
younger brother. Neither organised any event at Progress Way.

The Appellant specifically asks the Respondent to confirm why the event was not closed
down or proof of trespass or evidence of profit being made as required under the licensing
act 2003 and section 63 of the CJPOA, if it was in fact a rave. The Appellant also asks why
went the sound system’s not seized under section 63 of the CJPOA.

The Appellant seeks clarification as whether a section 144 LAPSO notice was on display or
tress pass had taken place.

th
The Appellant also questions why the Respondent has not supplied any Cads from 6 June
2014; which is in fact the date when this event started and why so many Cads’ are missing
th
from the 07 and the 08 June 2014.
th

For the purposes of clarity the Appellant denies being an organiser. He denies providing any
sound system equipment to the organisers of this event. He denies entering the venue but
accepts that he approached to deliver keys. The Appellant did not commit any criminal
offences. The Appellant did not engage in any anti-social behaviour.

(c) FALCON PARK 20TH JUNE 2014

The Appellant was not present at this event.

The Appellant accepts that he hired out his sound equipment in good faith for what he
believed to be a house party.

The Appellant will state that he was at home when he was contacted by the hirer to come to
collect his equipment which was then seized by police. The Appellant will state that his
equipment was restored to him by the police.

The Appellant will state that he did not commit any criminal offences nor did he engage in
any acts of anti-social behaviour.
419
3