Page 782 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

The Appellant takes issue with the CADs in respect of this event and the manner in which
they have been presented. The Appellant is raising issues with the timings of the CAD's and
he instructs us to specifically challenge the accuracy and to question whether the CAD
system was defective or manipulated by the Respondent's employees.
The Appellant also notes from the CAD's served that there are CAD's explicitly linked from
1st June 2014 and 2nd June 2014. The Appellant seeks disclosure of all CAD's as he contests
that they will reveal who the organiser of this event on 6th, 7th and 8th June 2014 was. The
Appellant will state that he was not present on any occasion inside the premises of Progress
Way and he will state that the Respondent is in possession of information which would reveal
the real identity of the organisers of this event. The Appellant believes that the redacted
CAD's are concealing the locations and complainants as the complainant's may be on duty
police officers making complaints to bolster an application for an ASBO against the
Appellant. The Appellant also believes that the CAD's may specifically be in relation to
Crown Road, Southbury Road a distance of approximately one mile from Progress Way.
The Appellant will state that the officers who made the entries, reports etc should be called to
give evidence as by not doing so it is disproportionate towards him as he is trying to establish
a legitimate entertainment company. The Appellant alleges that the Respondent is
deliberately exaggerating his involvement in the events cited in the ASBO application.
An ASBO against his name will significantly tarnish his ability to conduct legitimate
business. The Appellant also takes issue with the misleading press releases in relation to the
original imposition of the ASBO in the Magistrates Court. The Appellant will state that the
District Judge in delivering her judgement could not find any form of illegality, or that the
events alleged were in fact "raves" as defined by the legislation. The Metropolitan police
published this in local media to tarnish his reputation.

50.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1. 2
Asbo Re Simon Cordell’s for mention 02-03-2016 14-19
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 565,566,567
--
565,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 02:19:15 PM
To: Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Subject: Re: Simon Cordell v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for mention on
4th April 2016 at Wood Green Crown Court
See you then.
Thanks
Simon. C
On Wednesday, 2 March 2016, 14:14, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroNandco.com>
wrote:
Simon
I think it is better if I speak to you tomorrow face to face as may be misinterpreting the
tactical approach that I am taking.
The email that I drafted and sent to you for approval has not been sent to the Respondent just
to the Public Defender.
I will see you on Friday at 11am in my office.