Page 977 - 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 24th
02/2016 Set for appeal at the crown court.
rd
th
It is said that Mr Cordell had been found guilty on the 3 4 August 2015, to which he
disputes to be correct, evidence of Mr. Simon Cordell Barristers submissions inclusive of the
court transcripts of the day of trial. The respondent’s case is that Mr Simon Cordell has been
accused of being integrally involved in the organisation of illegal raves in Enfield.
Part of the Barrister submissions that represented Simon Cordell, had been that the
allegations were that he was involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the applicant
hadn’t adduced evidence, of trespass or evidence of breach of the licensing Act 2003 which is
a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave was illegal. The Deputy District Judge ruled
that the applicant did not need to prove illegality, - all the needed to prove was he had acted
in an anti-social manner. In the view of the barrister this was a very questionable decision:
firstly, the applicant based their case on the illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the
raves themselves and secondly, without proof of illegality the presumption of innocence leads
to the conclusion that the raves were legal, and thus, Simon being prohibited from engaging
in an ostensibly lawful activity requires more careful consideration on issues of
proportionality.
It should be agreed with the barrister statement as when dealing with this case Mr Simon
Cordell was addressing the applicant’s case to prove that he had not been involved in
organizing illegal raves, as this is what the application against him was.
In total to date 19/04/2016 the Asbo application has been brought before the courts inclusive
of magistrates and crown a total of 9 times the 10 to be in September 2016 to which I still do
th
not understand how any person could stand a fair trial with such questions as has been