Page 635 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

The Appellant specifically asks the Respondent to
confirm why the event was not closed down or proof
of trespass or evidence of profit being made as
required under the licensing act 2003 and section 63 of
the CJPOA, if it was in fact a rave. The Appellant also
asks why went the sound systems not seized under
section 63 of the CJPOA.
The Appellant seeks clarification as whether a section
144 LAPSO notice was on display or tress pass had
taken place.
The Appellant also questions why the Respondent has
not supplied any Cads from 6th June 2014, which is in
fact the date when this event started and why so many
Cads' are missing from the 07th and the 08th June
2014.
For the purposes of clarity, the Appellant denies being
an organiser. He denies providing any sound system
equipment to the organisers of this event. He denies
entering the venue but accepts that he approached to
deliver keys. The Appellant did not commit any
criminal offences. The Appellant did not engage in any
anti-social behaviour.
(c) FALCON PARK 20TH JUNE 2014
The Appellant was not present at this event.
The Appellant accepts that he hired out his sound
equipment in good faith for what he believed to be a
house party.
The Appellant will state that he was at home when he
was contacted by the hirer to come to collect his
equipment which was then seized by police. The
Appellant will state that his equipment was restored to
him by the police.
The Appellant will state that he did not commit any
criminal offences, nor did he engage in any acts of
anti-social behaviour.
3
420,
The Appellant will state that he was not an organiser
and merely hired out his equipment in good faith.
The Appellant did not commit any criminal offences.
The Appellant did not engage in any anti-social
behaviour.
1. CARPET RIGHT 19TH JULY 2014
The Appellant denies organising or supplying
equipment for the above event.
The Appellant never entered the premises Carpet
Right. The Appellant will state that the true organisers
were inside the premises and the police ought to be in
possession of their details. This has never been
disclosed to the Appellant.