Page 661 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

We have rejected his explanations as advanced in his documents,
mindful of the fact that he has not been here as a matter of his
own choice to present his case to this court.
Having been satisfied so as to be sure of the first part of the test,
the second part of the test is whether an order is necessary to
protect relevant persons from further antisocial acts by Mr.
Cordell.
That is the ASBO notice, which was made by the District Judge
and which is to be found at page 13 of the respondent's bundle.
We have concluded that the making of the antisocial behaviour
order was necessary and our only concern is as to the language
of the antisocial behaviour order as to the prohibitions contained
in it.
Now, so far as the following are concerned there can be no
objection to them.
They do not in any way interfere with the running of a business
supplying sound equipment by Mr. Cordell, or generators, to
organizations that wish to hold licensed or legitimate events.
These are as follows: (b) being concerned in the organization of
a rave, as defined by section 63( 1) of the Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act 1994; (c) knowingly using or supplying
property, personal or otherwise, for use in a rave as defined in
section 63( 1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act l
994; (d) entering or remaining in any disused or abandoned
building unless invited to do so in writing by a registered
charitable organization or local authority.
Unless some charitable organization or local authority is
planning some event and he is invited to help in the organization
of it, there is no reason why he or indeed anyone else should be
inside a disused or abandoned building.
The caveat that one might impose there in relation to that - and
this is for discussion after hearing submissions from Counsel for
the Respondent: - is whether that should say a commercial
factory or some other qualification of the word “building,"
because otherwise this could also relate to residential property.
If it remains as it is, the appellant would not be able to enter a
disused or abandoned residential property unless invited to do so
in writing by a registered charitable organization or local
authority.
So, it might be necessary to widen the scope of the potential
investors.
Enter or remain on non-residential private property on an
industrial estate between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. without
written permission from the owner and/or leaseholder of the
property.
This does require some qualification and more than what was
originally ordered, because, as the appellant himself rightly
said when he was here on the first day of the appeal, or his
mother may have said, and has been said on his behalf on
previous occasions, this provision would prevent him from, for