Page 636 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

The Appellant will state that none of his vehicles were
inside the premises.
The Appellant notes from the Respondent's bundle
there was no rave /event, no sound recording
equipment inside the premises and therefore no rave
was taking place.
The Appellant did not commit any criminal offences.
The Appellant did not engage in any anti-social
behaviour.
2. ALMA ROAD - 24TH JULY 2014
The Appellant disputes the conversation with PC
Edgoose regarding raves.
The Appellant will state that he did discuss with PC
Edgoose his entertainment company and his dream of
hosting a local festival at Pickets Lock for the benefit
of the community. He will also say that he discussed
other charitable events that he had participated in and
events in the pipeline.
The Appellant will state that this date should be struck
from the Respondent's bundle as there was no rave /
Event. The Appellant did not supply any sound
recording equipment.
The admission of this disputed conversation is
extremely prejudicial to the Appellant. The Appellant
finds it bizarre that he was not arrested for any
criminal offences bearing in mind the manner of
driving described. The Appellant will state that he did
not engage in any antisocial behaviour on this date.
The Appellant will also state that he was in his private
motor vehicle.
3. MILLMARSH LANE- 9th AUGUST 2014
The Appellant will state that he was invited to a
private birthday party by one of the persons occupying
the premises at Millmarsh Lane, and that they had
been occupying these premises since before the
27/07/2014 which the police were aware off.
4
421,
The Appellant will state that there was a section 144
LAPSO notice displayed and the building was being
treated as a home. The Appellant will state that he was
an invited guest and not a trespasser.
The Appellant will state that there was no rave as the
location was not open air and by virtue of him being
invited by one of the occupiers who had established a
section 144 LAPSO notice he was not a trespasser so
the legal definition of a rave could not be made out.
The Appellant was a guest at the location and not an
organiser. He attended the location in his private motor