Page 786 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

CRIMINT -YERT00376024 - PS Skinner is required to attend to be cross examined. The
Appellant seeks specific disclosure as to the vehicle checks carried out on PE52 UHW.
Whether Simon Cordell was ever stopped in this vehicle in the past? Whether Simon Cordell
was ever stopped in company with Elliot Laidler in the past? Why was the music system not
seized? Full names of all other persons inside the premises to confirm the number of people
present. Results of the search of the premises, in addition to the keys found at the premises.
Whether any other persons were arrested, if so what for? Disclosure of CADS / statements /
complaints regarding anti-social behaviour? Whether any allegations of criminal damage /
commercial burglary were made? What enquiries were made from the owners of the building
as to the premises being occupied?
CRIS 1914855/14 - Statements from officers who attended the premises, confirming from
whom the sound system was seized?
569,
Whether Simon Cordell was present at the event? Why was the sound system restored?
CRIMINT - YERT00374531 - PC Shinnick is required to attend to be cross examined.
CAD's re 6th, 7th and 8th June 2014 Progress Way.
The Appellant seeks full disclosure of all CADs linked to this CAD. The Intelligence report
suggests that Simon Cordell and Tyrone Benjamin set up and organised this rave. The
Appellant requests a full detailed statement report as to the basis of this comment. The
Appellant disputes ever being inside Progress Way premises on 7th June 2014. The Appellant
disputes supplying equipment at this location. The Appellant disputes that he set up or
organised this event. The Appellant seeks disclosure of all intelligence, names etc of persons
present at this event. The Appellant specifically requests disclosure of all CADs from 6th
June 2014 onwards in correct chronological, timed and dated order. The Appellant also seeks
confirmation as to whether the complaints made with regards to anti- social behaviour were
made in respect of Progress Way or Crown Road, the premises of which was subject to
numerous complaints in the past by local residents etc. The Appellant also seeks specifically
disclosure from the Public Order Unit whether they were provided with the names of other
persons present, vehicles etc and whether the named persons have been known in the past for
organising similar events.
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