Page 877 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

being displayed. The building was being used as a home and not as a commercial building.
The Appellant will also state that as the building was being occupied as a home then no
licence was required for a private house party and also no money was charged for persons
entering.
- WHETHER THE APPELLANT CONCEDES THAT FOR ANY OF THE
RAVES IN WHICH HE WAS INVOLVED, WHETHERBY HELPING TO ARRANGE
OR BY PROVIDING SOUND EQUIPMENT HE BELIEVED THE EVENT TO BE A
LICENSED EVENT AND THEREFORE WAS AN INNOCENT SUPPLIER OF
EQUIPMENT,AND IF SOFOR WHICH RAVE OR RAVES IN PARTICULAR.
657,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant will state that he supplied equipment on one occasion only, in good faith to
what he believed to be a private party. He did not attend the premises beforehand and
therefore did not know the equipment would be used at a different place. The Appellant will
state that his equipment was restored to him by police after they concluded he had no part in
the event and had innocently hired out his equipment. The event the Appellant is referring to
is Falcon Road.
The Appellant on no occasions cited in the Respondent's bundle hired out any sound
equipment, audio equipment or organised any rave in the London Borough of Enfield on the
dates cited in the original application.
PROPORTIONALITY:
The Appellant will state that the current ASBO was imposed by the District Judge after the
police had failed to establish that the Appellant had engaged in any acts of anti-social
behaviour.
The Appellant will also argue that the Respondent could not establish that the Appellant
engaged in any illegal acts. The Appellant will state that the Respondent could not establish
that any of the events cited came within the definition of an illegal rave as defined under
section 63 of the CJPOA 1994.
The Appellant will state that the ASBO has significantly impacted his ability to run his
Entertainment Company and also his future plans to hold an open-air festival. The ASBO
would significantly prevent his ability to apply for licences to run out-door festival events.
No other entertainments company is subject to the same due diligence when hiring out
equipment.
The Appellant will argue that the terms of the ASBO are too restrictive and the geographical
restriction too broad.
The Court did not take into consideration the fact that the Appellant was made subject an
interim ASBO and the duration was not reduced accordingly.
The Appellant will argue that the court was wrong in principle in granting the original ASBO
application as the Respondent made the original application based on the Applicant being
involved in illegal raves. The Respondent did not establish this at the initial hearing and the
District Judge erred in granting this ASBO.
658,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant will state that he has attempted to engage in legitimate business activities, and
he has been spurned at all attempts by the Police.
The Appellant has designed a business plan, created a website, researched and developed a
proposal for an open-air licensed festival.

67.