Page 874 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK'S LETTER DATED 22NDFEBRUARY 2016
- WHAT INVOLVEMENT IN EACH EVENT (RAVE) RELIED ON BY THE
RESPONDENT, THE APPELLANT ADMITS TO HAVING HAD.
(A) 25.05.2014 - 5 ST GEORGES INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WHITE HART LANE
the Appellant relies on his previous statement served.
The Appellant will state that he was delivering food to some homeless people.
The Appellant will state that there was no rave, no sound equipment, lights, generators etc in
his van.
The Appellant will state that there was no rave in progress and no intention for any event to
take place.
The Appellant will state that there was a section 144 LAPSO notice clearly displayed by the
occupants who were treating the premises as their home.
The Appellant will state that he had empty speaker cases in his van. The van was used to
store the speakers. The Appellant will state that he specifically requested that the officers
who attended note down the fact that he had only speakers inside his van and no other
component parts for a sound system.
th
The Appellant will state that he did not commit any criminal offences on 25 May 2014. The
Appellant will state that the premises were not broken into as alleged but were being legally
squatted. The Appellant will state that the occupation was legal by virtue of section 144
LAPSO notice being clearly displayed and this was within the law.
The Appellant will state that no Licensing authorisation was required as there was no music
being played or intended to be played.
The Appellant will state that he did not engage in any acts of Anti-social behaviour as defined
by section 1 of the Act.
The Appellant requests disclosure of the CCTV of the persons breaking into the premises, the
CRIS and details of any persons arrested for criminal damage / burglary.
th
The Appellant will state that he did not break any laws on 25 May 2014nor did he engage in
any acts of anti-social behaviour.
653,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant will state that the description of events on this day has been altered and
recorded in a biased way towards him.
th
The Appellant requests full details of the original intelligence report inputted on 25 May
th
2014 and also reasons why there was a need to update this report on 19 June 2014. The
Intelligence report should not be allowed in evidence under the hearsay rules as it is
prejudicial to him. The report has been amended.
th
TH
TH
(A) PROGRESS WAY 6 , 7 AND 8 JUNE 2014
The Appellant disputes any involvement whatsoever in the event at Progress Way.
The Appellant accepts that he approached the gates with a view to dropping off house keys to
a friend. The Appellant did not enter the premises / venue at Progress Way.
The Appellant did not provide any sound equipment, speakers, generators to any person
inside Progress Way.
The Appellant will state that he is being wrongly accused of organising this rave/ event. The
Appellant will state his brother is also wrongly named as being involved. The Appellant will
state that his brother was severely disabled at the time and in a wheelchair following a very
serious road traffic accident.
The Appellant questions the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements, CADS etc served in
support of the above. The Appellant questions why some of the CAD reports have been
redacted. The Appellant believes that the CAD's may well confirm the names of the real