Page 960 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

12th September 2014 A bundle is said to have been served on Mr Simon
Cordell at 109 Burncroft Avenue, to which he disputes. In
reference to police complaint 1 of 3 contained at the top
of the document.
06/10/2014 Mr Simon Cordell was meant to have a hearing for an
interim Order, but legal aid had not been granted.
Michael Carroll acting solicitor came to court the judge
overturned and granted legal aid. The application for the
Interim hearing the judge would not hear.

22/10/2014 Interim hearing but could not go ahead due to Andy
Locke Acting Barrister had a flood at his home address.

05/11/2014 Interim hearing and the order were granted.

02/12/2014 Mr Simon Cordell’s mother has a note on her mobile
phone, stating he was in court at Highbury Corner not
sure what they were for.

09th 10th 11th 03/2015 Meant to have been set for trial but the court only booked
1-day hearing, this was then put off until the 03rd and
04th Aug 2015

03rd 4th 08/2015 Highbury Corner trial case part proven on the
04th 08/2015

26/10/2015 1st hearing at Wood Green Crown to see if case was
ready for appeal on the

09/11/2015 Was 1st appeal date which was set for a 1-hour hearing

22nd 23rd and Set for appeal at the crown court.
24th 02/2016
It is said that I got found guilty on the 3rd and the 4th August 2015, to which I
dispute for the claim to be correct.
The evidence of Mr. Simon Cordell representing Barristers submissions inclusive
of the court transcripts of the day of the trial also prove what I Am saying to be
true.
The respondent’s case is that I have gotten accused of being integrally, involved in
the organisation of the illegal raves in Enfield on Pacific dates and is wrong.
In part of the Barrister submission that represented me, any person can read the
respondent hadn’t adduced evidence, of trespass or any evidence of breach of the
licensing Act 2003, which is a requirement for proving, an indoor rave was illegal.
On the day of trial, the Deputy District Judge ruled the respondent did not need to
prove the illegality aspect of what the case got brought into motion for this cannot
be correct because the organisation of illegal raves is what me and my solicitor
defended myself against.
The district Judge ruled all they needed to prove was, I had acted in an antisocial
manner, this is a human error made within the law.