Page 694 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

The right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy itself.
The right applies to both criminal and civil cases, although certain specific minimum rights
set out in Article 6 apply only in criminal cases.
The right to a fair trial is absolute and cannot be limited. It requires a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The
procedural requirements of a fair hearing might differ according to the circumstances of the
accused.
The right to a fair hearing, which applies to any criminal charge as well as to the
determination of civil rights and obligations, contains a number of requirements and I believe
the causes below full within them requirements.
An ASBO order has been appealed against after the magistrates court decided a decision of
guilt, the decision had been made against Mr Simon Cordell, this was at Highbury Corner,
Magistrates Court, on the 4th August 2015 in pursuant to s.1 of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 it was agreed to make him subject to an Anti-Social behaviour order. This was in
pursuit for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
The respondent’s case is that Mr Simon Cordell has been accused of being integrally
involved in the organisation of illegal raves in Enfield.
Part of the Barrister submissions that represented Simon Cordell, had been that the
allegations were that he was involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the applicant
hadn’t adduced evidence, of trespass or evidence of breach of the licensing Act 2003 which is
a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave was illegal. The Deputy District Judge ruled
that the applicant did not need to prove illegality, - all the needed to prove was he had acted
in an anti-social manner. In the view of the barrister this was a very questionable decision:
firstly, the applicant based their case on the illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the
raves themselves and secondly, without proof of illegality the presumption of innocence leads
to the conclusion that the raves were legal, and thus,
487,
the right to a fair trial.doc
Simon being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity requires more careful
consideration on issues of proportionality.
It should be agreed with the barrister statement as when dealing with this case Mr Simon
Cordell was addressing the applicant’s case to prove that he had not been involved in
organizing illegal raves, as this is what the application against him was.
Other points of concern are.
• Inaccuracy’s leading to incorrect time stamps contained within the applicant’s bundle
created by Steve Elsmore on the 13/8/2014.
CAD numbers 10471 / 10481 / 10506 of the 7th June 2014 = Please take note every day the
999-call centre starts at CAD 01 and goes up to the average of 10,742 to 15,000 callers per
day. (We can tell this by the number of cad’s incident numbers supplied, within the
applicant’s bundle supporting the evidence supplied, for a standalone ASBO order to be
gained against Mr Simon Cordell.
On the average the 999-call centre will receive on the average of 300 callers per hour as
marked and time stamped below.
Every half hour is 150 callers and every 15 mins is 75 callers Every 7 half mins is 33 callers
and 3 half mins 17 callers
Please take note to (CAD number / Incident Number 10481 7th June 14) this is the 10,481
emergency Met police call of the 7th June 2014 time stamped 22:47 So it is incorrect for
(CAD 10506 7th June 14) externally inputted 25 calls later, to have an earlier time stamp of
th
the 7 June 2014 at 22:44 hours.
In fact, the time should have been 22:49 hours.