Page 451 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

provisions in the Licensing Act 2003 which came into force in November 2005. These allow
people to get temporary event notices for gatherings of up to 499 people for events lasting up
to four days. The licensed events could involve the sale of alcohol, and while the police have
to review the application and object if they consider that crime and disorder would result,
there is no mechanism for the general public to object. The Government is keeping this area
of law under review. These provisions would not apply to the kind of illegal raves covered by
the 1994 Act, which by definition are unlicensed.”
As far as I know all locations contained within this ASBO application were in a place of
fixed residence and all occupiers / residents were living under section 144 Lasbo as stated
governed under United Kingdom Law here:
LEGAL WARNING TAKE NOTICE
THAT we live in this property, it is our home and we intend to stay here.
THAT at all times there is at least one person in this property.
THAT any entry or attempt to enter into these premises without our permission is therefore a
criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to such entry
without our permission.
THAT if you attempt to enter by violence or by threatening violence, we will prosecute you.
You may receive a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
THAT if you want to get us out you will have to issue a claim for possession in the County
Court or in the High Court.
The Occupiers
N.B. Signing this Legal Warning is optional. It is equally valid whether or not it is signed.
Part of the Barrister submissions that represented Simon Cordell, had been that the
allegations were that he was involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the applicant
hadn’t adduced evidence, of trespass which is a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave
was illegal. The Deputy District Judge ruled that the applicant did not need to prove
illegality, - all the needed to prove was he had acted in an anti-social manner. In the view of
the barrister this was 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, Simon being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity
requires more careful consideration on issues of proportionality.
451
204,
Edited part 5.pdf
It should be agreed with my barrister statement as when dealing with this case I was
addressing the applicant case to prove that I had not been involved in organizing illegal raves,
as this is what the application against him was.
The case was proven that Simon had acted in an in an anti-social manner, yet not one police
officer who stood up to give evidence said Simon was rude to them or acted in an anti-social
manner to them, also all witness statements have not given an ID of any person on the dates
that are within the ASBO application. but if law states such facts how this can be correct. The
case against Simon was that he had organized illegal raves, and this should have not been
proven as trespass is present and all location refer to in private air.
The word rave cannot be used, unless tress pass or money laundering is present when on
private land, governed within the constraints of the United Kingdom Laws.
An abatement Notice should have been severed as all dates contained within the ASBO
application, are of a fixed private air of residence.
Under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 The Local authority Council are
able to serve an Abatement Notice. A noise abatement notice requires that the noise reduces