Page 651 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

The Applicant states: - that he did not talk to any police or
council as he felt intimidated on the 8th June 2014 and that he
was not given any noise abating order from the local council as
seems to have been confirmed on page 34 by A/Insp Hamill
01566 as he was not in fact the organizer.
The prosecution them self’s say that Mr. Cordell refused to
provide his name and it was explained that without a name the
Environmental Officers would not be able to serve the noise
abatement notice.
The applicant is also adamant that he never spoke to any official
person(s) on this date in question.
To create even further confusion of the prosecution’s evidence
they continue to state: - “For what it is worth I add in the light of
Mr. Johnson’s email response to Mrs. Cordell.
I asked him to turn the music down and it was turned down.
So there again is a demonstration the influence which Mr.
Cordell had on the event.
The loud noise was, as she said, certainly not Kylie Minogue.
In the applicants defence this would not have been possible due
to the already agreed fact that the Applicant refused to speak to
A Insp Hamill inclusive of Mr. Johnson’s and co and after being
confronted outside of the gates of Progress Way by Police and
Environment officer he left for home as can be read in his first
statement at page (000)
(On page 33) A Insp Hamill 201566 states that he see Mr. Simon
Cordell, at the gates but believed that Mr. Simon Cordell was
coming from inside the premises, the applicant contests that due
to the large number of people at the location and due to the true
facts contained in his first statement that the only possibility is
inspectors is mistaken or being deceitful.
The applicant remembers clearly, that of the police approaching
him, as he was walking towards the gates, when he was arriving
from the Great Cambridge road, and that of the police asking
him questions in regards to illegal raves.
A Inspector Hamill states that he ask Mr. Simon Cordell his
name and that he gave him a reply, such as to the answer of
“yes” verbally and then An Inspector Hamill states that he asked
Mr. Cordell the same question again but Mr. Cordell would not
reply, (chapter one of An Inspector Hamill statement page 33 the
5th line down;)
An Inspector Hamill states then states the 3rd time when Mr.
Simon Cordell was asked again, but this time by the council
officers with inspector Hamill present his name, that he would
not reply again.
The applicant did not speak to anybody, he just listened to what
was being said to him and complied when he was asked to walk
back to where he had just parked his vehicle.
The police officer is incorrect in saying that Mr. Cordell was the
person that the gate assistant went and collected, as the event