Page 664 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half
P. 664

that we'd have to go to comment and it would have to be proven,
                 he would offer this excuse.
                 I wonder whether it is necessary to give him such a wide and
                 open-ended opportunity.
                 JUDGE PAWLAK: He would have to find an industrial estate
                 which, between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., has a shop or a garage or a
                 petrol station open.
                 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Yes, but, as I said
                 earlier, your Honour, Mr. Cordell is a clever man and so, were he
                 to find one, set up a rave at one corner and his excuse was, "No,
                 I'm just passing through.
                 I'm going to the other corner to buy a burger," then that is an
                 excuse which would plainly undermine the efficacy of the order.
                 That's my concern.
                 JUDGE PAWLAK: It might be true.
                 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: It might be, your
                 Honour, but then one has to balance, in my submission, the -
                 JUDGE PAWLAK: The purpose of providing this let-out is so
                 that his ordinary life, his permissible life, is not inhibited
                 unreasonably.
                 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Your Honour, quiet,
                 but that does not necessarily mean that every potential,
                 hypothetical scenario might have to be catered for by the terms
                 of the order. An ASBO will by definition restrict someone's
                 rights often.
                 JUDGE PAWLAK: Yes, I can see that.
                 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: It will restrict their
                 rights under Article 8, or whatever it might be, but that doesn't
                 make it inappropriate or unnecessary. I would submit that ---
                 JUDGE PAWLAK:  Well, what about "unless he can
                 demonstrate that the purpose of his entry on such property is to
                 purchase goods or services"?
                 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: That's certainly
                 tighter, you’re Honour. My primary submission still stands.
                 JUDGE PAWLAK:  Yes.
                 A MEMBER OF THE BENCH: Well, it does contain the two
                 elements, "enter" and "remain."
                 JUDGE PAWLAK: Yes.
                 A MEMBER OF THE BENCH: Maybe they should be
                 separated out if the issue is whether he's going to remain there.
                 JUDGE PAWLAK: Yes.
                 A MEMBER OF THE BENCH: You can enter for the purpose
                 of purchasing, but you cannot remain there for an extended
                 period of time.
                 JUDGE PAWLAK: Right.
                 Actually, what is the point of "remain"?   It's "enter," A    isn't it?
                 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Well, you put "enter"
                 and "remain" to belt and brace it.
                 Sometimes you only see him when he's there.
   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669