Page 334 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

6-8/06/14
Police attended and broke up a rave at Progress Way, Enfield. Evidence of the Appellant’s
alleged organisational involvement [R36-41, 110]; impact statements [R51-66]; CAD reports
[R155-298]. Appellant denies attendance on 6 or 8 June 2014 and admits attendance on 7
June 2014 but denies any organisational/supply role for a rave [A5]
95,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
20/06/14
Rave in Neasden closed down. White Fold Transit CX52JRZ removed from the site [R102].
Appellant’s account is that he provided sound equipment for a gentleman’s birthday party
and was informed the following day that his equipment had been seized [A5, A253-6]
19/07/14
Police attended and closed down a putative rave on Great Cambridge
Road, Enfield. Evidence of the Appellant’s alleged organisational involvement [R39-41,
R91]. Appellant’s account is that stopped his car to help a homeless person from being
arrested when he was arrested for a breach of the peace; he denies any organisational/supply
role for a rave
[A6]
24/07/14
Conversation reported by PC Edgoose in which the Appellant is alleged
to have bragged about organising raves [R48, R88]. I he Appellants account is at [A6-7]
27/07/14
Information pertaining to this date entered by PC Chandler that the Appellant driving a White
herd transit CX52JRZ was present at powering speakers at a rave on Millmarsh Lane, Enfield
[R83-6J. Appellant, accepts attendance at a birthday party but denies any
organisational/supply role for a rave [A7]
09-10/08/14
Police attended and broke up a rave on Millmarsh Lane, Pm field.
Evidence of the Appellant’s alleged organisational involvement [R42-7, R80-1]. Appellant
accepts attendance at a birthday dinner but denies any organisational/supply role for a rave
96,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
334
[R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E))
House of Lords
Regina (McCann and others) v Crown Court at Manchester
and another
Clingham v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough fi Council
[2002.] UKHL 39
2002 May 27,28; Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton,
Oct 17 Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and
Lord Scott of Foscote
Crime — Crime and disorder — Antisocial behaviour order — Applications for antisocial
behaviour orders relying on hearsay evidence — Whether proceedings civil or criminal —
Whether hearsay evidence admissible — Whether criminal standard of proof to be satisfied
— Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c 37J, s r — Human Rights Act 1998 (042), Sch 1, Ft 1, act
In the first case the Chief Constable applied to the magistrates’ court for anti- social
behaviour orders to be made against each of the defendants, three brothers aged 16, 15 and
13, pursuant to section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998'. The stipendiary magistrate
made the orders, which, inter alia, prohibited the defendants from entering a particular area of