Page 617 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

SIMON CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT SKELETON
ARGUMENT 20.02.2016.docx
IN THE WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT CASE NUMBER: A21050064
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
ORDER
BETWEEN:
SIMON CORDELL
Appellant
-and-
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS
Respondent
Listing: For appeal hearing 22.02.2016 for 3 days
Issues: (I) whether the Appellant has acted in an anti-social manner
- whether an ASBO is necessary
1. The Appellant's case is that he has not acted in an anti-social manner on any occasion.
2. The Appellant has not organised or supplied any equipment for any the events cited in the
Respondent's original application.
3. The Appellant challenges and disputes the evidence presented that he was an organiser.
The Appellant will deal with each event, chronologically.
4. In response to paragraph 13 of the Respondent's skeleton argument the Appellant will state
th
th
that he did not organise this rave on 7 / 8 June 2014. The Appellant will state that this
event

431,
SIMON CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT SKELETON
ARGUMENT 20.02.2016.docx
th
th
commenced on 6 June 2014 and not 7 June 2014. The Appellant will state that the
Respondent has wrongly specified that this event started on 7 June 2014. The statements on
th
PC Donald Mc Millian dated 19th August 2014 confirms the date the event started.
The Appellant will state that he did not provide any sound recording equipment, speakers,
generators etc to this event. The Appellant will state that both him and his brother Tyrone
Benjamin have been wrongly accused of organising this event. The Appellant will state that
his brother Tyrone Benjamin was incapacitated due to a major traffic accident that resulted in
both his legs being broken and also his pelvis. He was immobile. The Appellant relies on the
th
account he gave in his initial statement dated 24 February 2015.
I.The Appellant disputes that he was inside the premises. The Appellant will state that he
was not the male identified by security at the gate. The Appellant takes issue with the
evidence of Inspector Hamill and APS Miles. The Appellant will state that he was
approaching the premises to drop off keys to a friend. The Appellant will state that he
had left his cousin's leaving party, Dwayne Edward's to do this. The Appellant was
approached by police and Environmental officers who tried to serve a noise abatement
notice. The Appellant refused to accept the notice and he did not engage in any
conversation with the police. The Appellant was not asked whether he had organised the
party, had he been asked this then the Appellant would have denied this.
II.The Appellant disputes that admitted to Inspector Skinner that he organised the event on
th
th
7 / 8 June 2014.
III.The Appellant disputes that he admitted to Inspector Skinner that he organised the rave
th
that was stopped by police on 19 July 2014. The Appellant will state that he never
entered the premises. The Appellant will state that he never provided any equipment’s or
generators etc to any persons inside the premises. The Appellant will state that none of