Page 875 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

organisers, vehicle registrations etc that will confirm no vehicle belonging to the Appellant
being inside the venue. The Appellant also questions the chronological sequence of the CAD
messages.
The Appellant believes that some of the complainants are police officers and no civilians.
The Appellant believes that some of the CADs may relate to completely different areas but
are being added in to and wrongly linked to Progress Way.
In the interests of a fair hearing the Appellant requests all CAD's cross linked and referred to
should be served in unedited. Any CAD's that refer to a different location should be removed
from the Respondent's bundle as they are too prejudicial.
The Appellant will state that this is yet another example of the police manipulating the
evidence to paint him in a bad light. The Appellant strongly believes that the police are
presenting their evidence to persuade the court that he was an organiser of this event.
654,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The statements presented are unreliable and prejudicial. The Appellant will state that he
cannot possibly have a fair hearing and as a result his Human Right to having a fair hearing
will be violated due to the way the Respondent is selecting and presenting CAD's. The
Appellant specifically requests that the redacted CADS be served unedited or excluded from
the Respondent's bundle as he cannot challenge the content.
The Appellant will state that he is being deliberately targeted by the police as is his younger
brother. Neither organised or attended and participated in Progress Way.
The Appellant specifically asks the Respondent to confirm why the event was not closed
down, if it was in fact a rave. The Appellant asks why the sound systems were not seized
under section 63 of the CJPOA.
The Appellant seeks clarification as whether a section 144 LAPSO notice was on display. If it
was then this event could not be classed as an illegal rave.
th
The Appellant also questions why the Respondent has not supplied any CADs from 6 June
2014, the date when this event started.
For the purposes of clarity, the Appellant denies being an organiser. He denies providing any
sound system equipment to the organisers of this event. He denies entering the venue but
accepts that he approached to deliver keys. The Appellant did not commit any criminal
offences. The Appellant did not engage in any anti-social behaviour.
- FALCON PARK 20TH JUNE 2014
The Appellant was not present at this event.
The Appellant accepts that he hired out his sound equipment in good faith for what he
believed to be a house party.
The Appellant will state that he was at home when he was contacted by the hirer to come to
collect his equipment which was then seized by police. The Appellant will state that his
equipment was restored to him by the police.
The Appellant will state that he did not commit any criminal offences, nor did he engage in
any acts of anti-social behaviour.
The Appellant will state that he was not an organiser and merely hired out his equipment in
good faith.
TH
• CARPET RIGHT 19 JULY 2014
The Appellant denies organising or supplying equipment for the above event.
655,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant never entered the premises Carpet Right. The Appellant will state that the true
organisers were inside the premises and the police ought to be in possession of their details.
This has never been disclosed to the Appellant.