Page 1638 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

here read what she wants to see to silly Gilchrest
From: JOSEPHINE WARD [mailto:josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 September 2016 12:51
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Proposed letter for Commissioner of Metropolitan Police
Lorraine
Please confirm whether there are any additions that Simon wants included in this letter. I
need to send this document across within the next hour.
Many thanks
Josephine

3
The Enfield Gov / Email’s Issue: 03
Page Numbers: 2483,2484,
Subject: Re: Proposed letter for Commissioner of Metropolitan Police
From: JOSEPHINE WARD (josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com)
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk; re_wired@ymail.com;
Date: Thursday, 8 September 2016, 16:01
Lorraine / Simon
Simon, I do not believe that it is in your best interests for me to serve the suggested
amendments to the letter that I proposed sending to the Ms Sally Gilchrist. The reason for this
advice is similar to the advice given to you by Mr Morris on 4th April 2016 and you decided
to ignore his advice. A lot of the matters you raise I have previously advised you can be dealt
with by cross examination. Your instructions are simply that you have not organised,
provided equipment or been concerned in the organisation of illegal raves. In relation to all
events with the exception of Millmarsh Lane you dispute providing equipment or any
intention to hold any events. In some you are visiting friends who are homeless and have a
LAPSO notice up confirming they are treating the building as their residence. The legal
technicality you refer to i.e. absence of trespass does not prevent any parties from being held
at the buildings in question as amounting to anti-social behaviour. You are well aware of how
anti-social behaviour is defined and loud music being played over two nights would satisfy
this definition as it undoubtedly causes noise nuisance and distress to neighbours. Your
defence to Progress Way is denying being in attendance inside the premises on any occasion
and you merely dropped off keys. The question as to whether the premises were being
squatted and the appropriate notice was on display to prevent trespass does not affect whether
anti-social behaviour was caused. I have advised you that championing the rights of persons
squatting in a building to hold a party where a couple of hundred people attend and justifying
the event as not being a rave due to lack of trespass does not prevent the event from causing
anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour was clearly caused as a result of the Progress
Way event. There is a significant risk that you will alienate the Judge if you advance the
argument that anyone squatting can hold a loud party. The loud parties cause anti-social
behaviour regardless of trespass / rave definition being satisfied. I ask you to reconsider
whether the attached document should be served on the Respondent. This document I have
copied and pasted from the amendments you made to the letter that I sent to you. The views
you expressed in the letter and the requests made were your requests and legal challenges, so
I have changed "we" to, "I, Simon Cordell" to reflect this. My view is that this document
should not be sent but if you insist then please confirm this in writing. Type in your signature
and email back to me please. Mr Andy Locke is available for a conference on 13th September
2016 at his Chambers and following this conference a decision will be made whether to list
the case for lack of disclosure or not. Please confirm your instructions on the service of the