Page 172 - 5. 2015 New 26-05-21 No Table

http://www.newforest.gov.uk/media/adobe/l/9/Section_12_Evidence_in_support_of_an_ASB
O_application.pd
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 20:57,
Hi Josey, could you explain something to me, please: --
I forgot to ask today when at the office. The police are relying on Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994 section 63
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/63
Now I have read this a number of times and so has Simon and at the last 2 court cases about
this case the judge has, even asked if section 63 has not gotten defined.
I do not think it has at all because under section 63 it only covers gathering on land in the
open air of 20 or more people.
How does this include indoors parties which most of the police case relies on?
Please read this also.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1814.html
As saw by the judge in the above case It will get noted that section 68(5) excludes the
Highways and Roads excluded from section 61 under section 61(9)(b) but does not include in
that exclusion, the exclusion in section 61(9)(a), which is where buildings got excluded from
the application off section 61.
It will be further noted the exclusion in the section 61 got introduced by the words' "in this
section" and so without more it does not apply to other sections.
Although the words "in the open air" where removed from section 68 of the 1994 Act, those
same words got not removed from section 63 which concerns power to remove people
attending or preparing for a rave, nor from section 77, which concerns powers to direct
unauthorised campers to leave the land.
The District Judge's reasoning got contained in these paragraphs off the Case, where she said:
"I find section 61 holds the relevant definition of land for sections 68 and 69, and that
excludes buildings. So, by section 68(5)(b), referring to the application off section 61(b) of
the definition off 'land'.
Amendments made by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 remove 'in the open air'.
Nothing is included, save for the explanatory note, I give that limited weight.
My view is the appellants could convict of a very serious offence by way of an explanatory
note which, in the interests of justice, is manifestly, wrong and therefore I find no case to
answer.
"Section 63 is what they are using in this case and as seen above has never had the words
open air removed from section 63.
Simon called the guy he saw today and addressed this, but he says the police are using Simon
character only in his case.
But how can this be the case as he does not got arrested before for anything to do with this?
I knew from the onset of this case due, to who they have got to deal with it, they are trying to
push this law to include building under section 63, but a judge has already ruled this cannot
be the case due to some sections not being amended. If you look at what they want to give
Simon this Asbo for and what he cannot do is under section 63?
You also have this.
http://www.newforest.gov.uk/media/adobe/l/9/Section_12_Evidence_in_support_of_an_ASB
O_application.pdf
Please read section 12.2 The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) does not apply to
civil Proceedings but, in view of their powers of arrest, etc., the police could as a matter of
good practice, conduct, interviews, of defendants, by applying the basic principles of PACE -
e.g. advising them of the purpose of the interview and that they are not under arrest, allowing
a legal adviser to be present.