Page 631 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

Contained in the licensing act at page Appendix 4 of that act it states; - is
not illegal or an offence for any person to provide entertainment in a
private back garden or private residence unless they have the intentions to
make profit. We do not accept that a person who helps, organizes or
supplies equipment for a rave where there is loud music late at night has
obviously done an act in contravention of section I (1) (a) of the 1998 Act,
but we do accept that If this was to take place out doors in a public place or
not on a private self-contained premises then playing music with 20 or
more person(s) may constitute to the legal definition of the word “Rave”
being implied. If there is 20 or more person(s) on private land with
dwelling listening to music then trespass must take place and or a breach of
the licensing act 2003 to constitute to the word Rave being used. On
20/08/2015
20th August 2015
the Applicant appealed to this court against the making of the Asbo order.
Mr. Simon Cordell agrees that he did set out various grounds in support of
his appeal in a document entitled "Re Simon Cordell v The Commissioner
of Police," which is to be found at page 406 of the appellant's bundle,
appeal against the imposition of an ASBO. In the response to judge
PARLAKS requested letter dated the
22/02/2016
what is an eight-page document, which is contained at pages 397 to 404 of
the appeal bundle. The ASBO was ordered by the District Judge to last for
five years and this did not run conclusive with the two-year time period of
the injunction, totalling to seven years. The Applicant feels that he has
continually been supporting evidence to satisfy the court to the criminal
standard that the he has not acted in a manner that caused or was likely to
cause harassment, alarm or distress on the dates contained within the Asbo
application by way of organizing illegal raves under the raves bill 1994
section 63 of that act. The Applicant understands that the second limb of
the test, as the authorities should provide has not been met to the criminal
standards of proof needed to obtain a guilty verdict. It has been said that
the fact that an unoccupied or deserted building is taken over by
squatters, who treat it or claim to be treating it as their home, is, in
our view (“the prosecution view”), irrelevant to the issue of the case in
respect to whether an event which takes place at a occupied squat building,
be it a so-called rave or not, there is a clear difference between a rave and
private party, the case being brought in motion against the appellant is for
the organization of illegal “RAVES” the key word being raves, if a rave
cannot be proven to have taken place, then there should by law, be no case