Page 618 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

his vehicles were inside these premises. CAD 10635 19THJULY2014 (R 303-313). The
Appellant will state that he is mixed race and not white and therefore he could not have
been one of the males inside the premises. The Appellant will also state that
CAD980419JUL14 entry 22.12:53 police did not see any (PG 301 R bundle) audio
equipment inside the building.
IV.The Appellant accepts that he had a conversation with PC Edgoose concerning his efforts
to establish a mini festival or the community within the Enfield Borough. He accepts that
he discussed equipment. He totally disputes any conversations about Occupy London,
Black Block, anarchist groups of Notting hill carnival. The Appellant disputes that he
was driving in the manner alleged and believes that had he been driving like this then he
would have been arrested.
432,
SIMON CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT SKELETON
ARGUMENT 20.02.2016.docx
V.The Appellant does not accept that he had any sound recording equipment at this
incident. He attended this incident in his car. He had no sound system, speakers,
generators etc. The Appellant specifically requests the CAD 9717 referred to in the
statement of PC Ames as he believes that this will reveal the true identity of the
organisers.
5. The Appellant will state that he has no connection with Every Decible matter. The
Appellant will state that he met Moses Howe in 2011. Moses Howe was a sound
engineer. The Appellant will state that he was offered a three-month trial at Club Juice,
6. 1 Jute Lane, Enfield, EN3 7PJ to see if he could increase numbers to the Club. Moses
Howe was going to be the Appellant's sound engineer. The Appellant will state that Liam
Philip was an MC who was going to inspect Club Jute. The Appellant provided
entertainment at the Club previous to this. See attached promotional flier for an event,
rd
"Rewired" organised on 23 July 2011 at Club Jute featuring DJ Substance and DJ
Calous. This was licensed. The Appellant however had to stop due to police persistently
stopping and searching him.
7. The Appellant will state in response to paragraph 17 that he had nothing to do with the
organisation of the event at Progress Way that gave rise to the complaints of anti-social
behaviour and noise nuisance.
8. The Appellant will state that this ASBO is disproportionate and it prevents him from
engaging in lawful business. The ASBO will prevent the Appellant from applying for
licences to hold events. The Appellant will state that whilst he is subject to an ASBO he
will be prohibited from applying for any entertainment licence and any licence
application will automatically fail and therefore this is disproportionate.
9. The Appellant has designed a business plan, a festival plan and community event that sets
out clearly the plans for events including marketing, safety, stalls etc and also specifically
refers to co-operating with the police. The ASBO prevents any applications from being
successful.
10. The Appellant will state that he has never been involved in the organisation of an illegal
rave as defined under section 63 of the CJPOA 1994.
11. The Appellant will state that he has never had any equipment seized during an illegal rave
as defined by section 63 of the CJPOA 1994. The Appellant will state that there has only
been one occasion when his sound system was seized, and he had hired this out to he
believed to be a genuine customer. The Appellant will state that
12. The Appellant will also state that the current terms of the ASBO are too broad.
--
433,