Page 232 - 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table All

The claimant does admit he attended the premises in his van, when the police attended the
premises he allowed the police to search his vehicle, in his vehicle there were two speaker
boxes with no drivers within them so they were unable to play music, he explained to the
police that he used his van as storage, he did ask the police to note this, he did not have any
other sound equipment in the vehicle.
Once the police had searched his vehicle which he allowed them to do, he was allowed to
leave, and he made his way home.
The police did not seize anything within the claimant’s van, which if the police believed there
was going to be an illegal rave in the premises they would have had the right to do this, but
the police saw the speaker that were in the van could not play music. And he never had any
other sound equipment in the van, this is why the police allowed him to leave.
At no time while the claimant was at the premises did anyone attend there dressed up stating
there was going to be a party at the premises.
If the police had CCTV of people breaking into the premises why was this not submitted as
evidence within this case?
Why was there a need to update the information report on the 19/06/2014?
The claimant did not cause any anti-social behaviour on the 25th May 2014.
06/06/2014 to 08/06/2014 Progress way Enfield:
The claimant disputes the facts that are within the application, on the 06th June 2014 he was
at his home address with a friend, and also attended my home address Lorraine Cordell. His
sister Deon was there, and a friend of the family Jamie Duffy who lived at the family’s
addresses.
On the 07/06/2014 he attended a leaving party for his cousin Dwayne Edwards who was
leaving to go around the world for 12 months, the claimant was there at the leaving party till
the early hours on the 08/06/2017, it has already been stated in the
2230
212,
Letter to high court C0 2171 2017.pdf
magistrates court there was a mistake in the paperwork and the claimant did not attend until
the 08/06/2014 at around 02:00 hours. I also cannot understand why the claimant’s brother
name has been added to this case as an organiser. As stated in the magistrates court the
claimant’s brother had a serious life changing accident in April 2014, his brother had a
number substantial injuries, after this was stated before the magistrates trial the claimant’s
brother was never mentioned again, the reason for this the police knew of the RTA accident
as they was called and the claimant’s brother had to be airlifted to the Royal London
Hospital. The police know my sons very well by face they do not even have to do a name
check on them. So how this serious mistake could have been made is beyond me.
While the claimant was at the leaving party he had got a call from someone he knew they had
stayed at his home address a few weeks earlier and left their locker keys there, due to them
being in the area they called the claimant and asked if he could drop the keys off to them, the
claimant told them he was at a family party and that once he left he would drop the keys off
to them. He asked where they was and they gave the location as progress way, he told them
that once he left the family party he would pick the keys up from his home address and drop
them off to them, this is how the police saw the claimant coming towards them while they
were standing at the gate at progress way on the 08/06/2017 at around 02:00 hours, the
claimant had never been in side progress way, but due to the police knowing the claimant
they went straight up to him and started to talk to him, the police was with people that
worked for Enfield Council, they wanted to serve paperwork on the claimant, the claimant
would not accept any paperwork and walked back towards the A10.