Page 1743 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

- Entering or remaining on non-residential private property on an industrial estate
between the hours of 10pm and 7am without written permission from the owner and / or
leaseholder of the property; and
- Engaging in any licensable activity in an unlicensed premise.
• These conditions are for the whole of the UK, and I believe are a breach to my human
rights under ASBO Legalisation.
• It was asked in court by my Barrister if I needed to go to a petrol station as well as other
places like to do shopping between the hours of 22:00 hours and 07:00 hours such as a 24
hour Mac Donald’s what will happen and it was explained that he would in fact be in
breach of this ASBO the judge explained and said well he will be arrested and have to
prove in court I was going to get petrol.
• If I made a wrong turn when driving and turned into a non-residential private property on
an industrial estate, I would be in breach of this ASBO.
• My mother also tried to ask things about the conditions what if he needed to go and get
milk from Tesco's or a shop and the judge said well he will be arrested I can’t even go to
a shop between the hours of 22:00 hours and 07:00 hours without being in breach of this
ASBO.
• If I was to go out for a night out I would have to ask the owner to see if there licensed to
make sure I am not in breach of my ASBO as I was told it is down to me to make sure
they are licensed.
• No one wanted to define the conditions the applicant which is the Met Police wanted to
make this a life time ASBO and made sure the conditions were correct so that after the 5
years they can apply to put a next 5 years in place because the judge would only allow the
5 years and not the life time ASBO.
• If illegal raves have not been proven which they were not, then why do my conditions for
the ASBO still define illegal raves?
Part of my Barrister submissions that represented me, had been that the allegations were that I
was involved in organizing illegal raves, but the applicant hadn’t adduced evidence of
trespass which is a requirement for proving that an indoor rave was illegal.
The Deputy District Judge ruled that the applicant did not need to prove illegality - all the
needed to prove was I had acted in an anti-social manner, to which I had not acted in any
anti-social manner within the whole case file.
In the view of my barrister this is a very questionable decision: firstly, the applicant based
their case on the illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the raves themselves and
secondly, without proof of
1743
842,
Report - Reply.pdf
illegality the presumption of innocence leads to the conclusion that the raves were legal, and
thus I being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity requires more careful
consideration on issues of proportionality.
I have to agree with my barrister as when dealing with this case I was addressing the
applicant case to prove that I had not been involved in organizing illegal raves, as this is what
the application against me was.
The case was proven that I acted in an in an anti-social manner, but I don’t understand by
doing what. As the case against me was that I had organized illegal raves, and this part was
not proven so what did I do that cause harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more persons
not of the same household as myself?
- Dr Rosemary Mills Report: