Page 424 - 3. 2014 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

for a mention hearing before his Honour Judge Shorrock. On that occasion the Learned Judge
made directions as to the service of crime scene photographs from
February 2014
(as referred to in the statement of Paul Michael Whittaker dated
25th March 2014).
There are 14 photographs referred to in the statement, but we have not been provided with an
album containing the pictures of indeed a photograph. In addition, we have not been served
with the statement from the Council regarding the noise abatement. We will forward under
separate cover copies of a section 80 noise abatement notice and a notice prohibiting the sale
of alcohol at the planned party in Bianca Road that Mr Cordell's mother secured from the
Council under a section 35 application. It appears as though there is confusion as to the venue
address and indeed the venue referred to in the noise abatement notice (Bianca Road) and the
alleged burgled premises appear to be one and the same albeit the burglary is charged under
the address of Unit 34 Haymerle Road, Peckham, London, SE15 6SA as opposed to Bianca
Road. We also request that the prosecution clarify specifically what the particulars of the
charge is against Mr Cordell as in the advance information he was charged with loss of stock
to the value of £8220. Mr Patel in his statement dated
08th May 2013
refers to loss and also damage. The damage is estimated at £8,000 £10,000. In the case papers
there is reference to a burglary and the items being stolen being a gazebo and also a chair.
With regards to the gazebo Mr Cordell will bring to court a copy of an invoice that he has
confirming that he purchased this item and therefore this could not have come from any
burglary. In addition, the invoices provided in the case papers do not have listed the chair
seized from Mr Cordell's home address. The chair listed on the invoices provided by Mr Patel
refer to Monaco multi position chairs whereas the chair removed from Mr Cordell’s' address
is a Venice chair. The photograph provided is of a Venice chair and not a Monaco chair. We
seek clarification as to the particulars of the burglary charge as if the charge is to be amended
to damage caused. There have to date been three burglaries at the premises, one in February
2013,
one in
March 2013
and one in
May 2013.
We know from the insurance documents that Nikki Diamond visited the site on
28th February 2013
and updated the broker on
02nd April 2013
damage being described as access holes being knocked through in the walls to gain access
and an additional two access points were discovered. reference is made to damage to the rook
also. There is also a comment made that there is no way to differentiate which damage was
caused when. We know that there are crime scene photographs in relation to the
February 2013
offence and these need to be compared to the crime scene photograph’s in relation to the
May 2013
offence. We also request that the officer in the case clarify the position with regards to the
invoices and the date when they were obtained from Mr Patel. The invoices that we are
specifically making reference to are the ones dated 1st March 2013
and
29th March 2013