Page 876 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

The Appellant will state that none of his vehicles were inside the premises.
The Appellant notes from the Respondent's bundle there was no rave /event, no sound
recording equipment inside the premises and therefore no rave was taking place.
TH
- ALMA ROAD - 24 JULY 2014
The Appellant disputes the conversation with PC Edgoose regarding raves.
The Appellant will state that he did discuss with PC Edgoose his entertainment company and
his dream of hosting a local festival at Picketts Lock for the benefit of the community. He
will also say that he discussed other charitable events that he had participated in and events in
the pipeline.
The Appellant will state that this date should be struck from the Respondent's bundle as there
was no rave. The Appellant did not supply any sound recording equipment.
The admission of this disputed conversation is extremely prejudicial to the Appellant. The
Appellant finds it bizarre that he was not arrested for any criminal offences bearing in mind
the manner of driving described. The Appellant will state that he did not engage in any anti-
social behaviour on this date. The Appellant will also state that he was in his private motor
vehicle.
th
- MILLMARSH LANE- 9 AUGUST 2014
The Appellant will state that he was invited to a private birthday party by one of the persons
occupying the premises at Millmarsh Lane.
The Appellant will state that there was a section 144 LAPSO notice displayed and the
building was being treated as a home. The Appellant will state that he was an invited guest
and not a trespasser.
The Appellant will state that there was no rave as the location was not open air and by virtue
of him being invited by one of the occupiers who had established a section 144 LAPSO
notice he was not a trespasser so the legal definition of a rave could not be made out.
656,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant was a guest at the location and not an organiser. He attended the location in his
private motor vehicle. He did not provide any audio or sound equipment.
The second event at Millmarsh Lane the Appellant disputes that he was an organiser. He
disputes that he was operating the gate.
The Appellant will state that this was not an illegal rave but a private party that he attended as
a guest and not as an organiser.
The Appellant will state that there were no residential areas close by.
- WHETHER THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT THE INVOLVEMENT HE
ADMITS, WASIN FACT WITHIN THE LAW, IF SO WHY
Please see above.
- WHETHER THE APPELLANT AGREES THAT ANY OF THE RAVES DIDOR
COULD HAVE CAUSED DISTRESS TO LOCAL RESIDENTS BY WAY OF NOISE OR
MOVEMENT OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN RAVES
The Appellant can only comment on his own behaviour and he refers the court to the fact that
he himself has not acted in an anti-social manner. He has not been arrested for any criminal
offences.
The Appellant accepts that such events could cause noise nuisance, but he is adamant that he
did not organise or supply equipment for any of the events cited in the Respondent's
application.
- WHETHER THE APPELLANT AGREES THAT A PREMISES LICENCE
WAS REQUIRED FOR EACH RAVE
The Appellant will state that he believes that no licence was required for Millmarsh Lane as
the premises were being occupied and treated as a home due to a section 144 LAPSO notice