Page 637 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

vehicle. He did not provide any audio or sound
equipment.
The Appellant did not commit any criminal offences.
The Appellant did not engage in any anti-social
behaviour.
The second event at Millmarsh Lane on the
27/07/2014 the Appellant disputes that he was an
organiser. He disputes that he was operating the gate
as stated by police.
The Appellant will state that this was not an illegal
rave but a private birthday party for a girl who lived
there, that he attended as a guest and not as an
organiser.
The Appellant did not commit any criminal offences.
The Appellant did not engage in any anti-social
behaviour.
4. WHETHER THE APPLICANT CONTENDS
THAT THE INVOLVEMENT HE ADMITS, WAS IN
FACT WITHIN THE LAW, IF SO WHY
Please see above.
5. WHETHER THE APPELLANT AGREES
THAT ANY OF THE RAVES DID OR COULD
HAVE CAUSED DISTRESS TO LOCAL
RESIDENTS BY WAY OF NOISE OR MOVEMENT
OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN RAVES
The Appellant can only comment on his own
behaviour and he refers the court to the fact that he
himself has not acted in an anti-social manner. He has
not been arrested for any criminal offences.
The Appellant accepts that such events could cause
noise nuisance, but he is adamant that he did not
organise or supply equipment for any of the events
cited in the Respondent's application.
6. WHETHER THE APPELLANT AGREES
THAT A PREMISES LICENCE WAS REQUIRED
FOR EACH RAVE
The Appellant will state that he believes that no
licence was required for Millmarsh Lane as the
premises were being occupied and treated as a home
due to a section 144 LAPSO notice being displayed.
The building was being used as a home and not as a
commercial building.
5
422,
The Appellant will also state that as the building was
being occupied as a home then no licence was required
for a private house party.
(5) WHETHER THE APPELLANT CONCEDES
THAT FOR ANY OF THE RAVES IN WHICH HE
WAS INVOLVED, WHETHERBY HELPING TO