Page 629 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

section 63, illegal raves govern under the raves act 1994. Any
person must be confident that when applying for part (1A part
a) “on private Land” “It is a gathering on land of 20 persons
who are trespassing on the land” and or part (1A part b) “on
private land” “It would be a gathering of a kind mentioned in
subsection (1) if it took place on land in open air.” Part 1A was
introduced to include buildings, in laymen terms this would
mean that any fixed a bow of residence or private dwelling is
private unless trespass is present when introducing buildings
into the equation and this means that the key elements to
section 63 of the raves bill 1994 part b has not been complied
with in this instance. One would have to argue against the fact
being that there is no difference between in private air and in
open air and even further have to debate of there being any
truth in this not being relevant towards the ongoing of this case.
It has been said that it is obvious that, the organization of large-
scale raves does fall within the definition of antisocial
behaviour. Whether within or outside the scope or parameters
of section 6(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994, this would leave any person confused if this were true
when hiring out any entertainment equipment in good faith,
when any person(s) hiring out entertainment equipment to
private homes and therefore putting company owners, home
tenants and landlords at risk of being prosecutable for good
intentions and liable for other people’s actions when they are
not at fault with knowledge or intent, this is to be inclusive of
not forgetting that all people living and residing in the United
Kingdom should be treated equal and are entitled to their own
private party’s which may include the provision of generators,
or a generator and sound system equipment. It has also been
said that it is obvious that, the organization of large scale raves
does also fall within the definition of antisocial behaviour,
whether on private property or common land and It has been
explained that the prosecution take no belief in The appellants
defence, what doe’s refer to respect of various properties and
occasions to what he described as LASPO notices, which were
affixed to fences or doors. The prosecution have said that the
references as to section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and
Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, in our view, “the
prosecution view” has no relevance whatsoever to the issues
raised by this Asbo case and provides no sort of protection to
the occupants of those buildings in the event of antisocial
behaviour taking place and they continue to say that the
appellant has used it in order to justify an event taking place by
describing it as a private party held by the squatters who were
occupying the premises and that this is merely a smokescreen
and not a defence of any sort whatsoever, the applicant disputes
this and states it not to be true and he continues to express that
any person should query the accuracy of the truth of this
statement as for fact the word in private air was omitted out of