Page 632 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

to answer towards and under the guidance of section 63 (1A OF A and B)
the law states that trespass must be present The fact of whether or not
antisocial behaviour was created at a private party without no victim
bringing charges forward and no witnesses to anti-social behaviour
highlights the misjudgement of a guilty verdict Whether or not antisocial
behaviour was created by a private party without the organizers intention to
cause Anti-Social Behaviour also raises concerns to the guilty verdict
Contained in the applicants response bundle in his first opportunity to
defend himself against the accusation he faces he created a statement
contained in pages (1 to 7) he disputes being the occupier to any of the
occupied buildings. The applicant has provided to the police, courts and
prosecution a copy of his company hires terms and conditions of hire also
contained in his response bundle on pages (253,254,256,) which clearly
shows that he lives in a council flat as a secure tenant and therefore would
not be occupying a warehouse. It seems that the prosecution have
attempted to explain why they are able to come to the wrong conclusion
and quotes the following; “that because the appellant appears to be under
the impression, and indeed his mother, who has made various
submissions on his behalf in writing in this case, that hearsay
evidence is not admissible,” in court that would be to say, this would be
incorrect to come to that conclusion, as for fact the truth being that the
appellant and his mother both have different believes in this point of law,
as they have both are not trained to be solicitors and only have a self-
trained understanding, as explained in court from the beginning of the
proceedings. The appellant strongly believes that without a solicitor in
place he may never be 100% confident of such facts but has the
understanding that in the circumstance of hearsay he takes reference to his
response in his bundle (page number 420 and as importantly page 421) that
states some of the key following elements; Also the capacity the court sits
in as for the Asbo proceeding sit in there civil capacity, but the
respondent’s application states an offence of a criminal nature such as the
organization of illegal rave, so for any person to understand what rules the
case should really be imposed to so that the Applicant could stand a legal
and justified fair trail cannot clearly be established, this is for the reasons
as listed below.:-
Magistrates and crown courts have different regulations when the court
houses are sitting in a true and fair civil capacity when at trial and appeal.
A criminal case as the respondent application clearly states it is, has a
different views towards the rules of hearsay, than a civil case does and
requires a section 9 or 10 to be educed into the case proceedings, if the
section 9 or 10 requirements are not agreed by the Judge, or challenged by
any applicant, due to a witness not given oral evidence in court, then the
context of their statement holds less weight and may not be read out in
court verbally aloud that is to say on its own, by any members of the
prosecution and in turn becomes inadmissible in criminal cases. Under
civil proceeding where there is no criminal element, then them hearsay rule
do not comply and the Civil Evidence Act 1995 will in fact apply, in any
ongoing proceedings that are in pursuit of an Anti-social Behaviour Order,
the Civil Evidence Act 1995 rules should come into force and will allow
the admissibility of hearsay without an exception other than a hearsay