Page 153 - 7. 2016 Last three months the 10 - 11 - 12 No Table

circumstances: Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1990) [1992] Q.B. 630,
CA; Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001) [2004] 2 A.C. 72, HL.
The essential focus of the doctrine is on preventing unfairness at trial through
which applicant is prejudiced in the presentation of his or her case.
As contained in a copy of the lower court transcripts on the day of trial, while
under oath PC Steve Elsmore stated to the district Judge that “Intel would be by
open source and checked by an officer but was not done by him.” When in fact it
is his login that created and printed the applicants bundle, this can be proved by
his signature and also by the computer ID log that must be used to print the data
and use the (CD) that is contained within the Police National Computer and now
has been submitted and is contained with the applicants bundle and is verified at
the top of most of the pages or within the Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO)
application.
PC Elsmore continued to state under oath that he did not carry out any further
investigations in regards to speaking to the owners of any premises to fix that of
a notice of trespass or conviction or of two as the codes of practice say the main
investigating officer must. He stated “I have not personal spoken to the owners of
the venue”
457,
PC Elsmore states under oath “There was a rave on an adjourning Road but not
on that day.” (Please Take Note Here of inspector Hamill stating under oath that
he was sure all locations were to do with progress way on this date.)
“Phone calls received were not relating to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls related to this particular rave. (Progress
Way)”
Witness 1 – Inspector Hamill –R. O – 11.15 Am
Statement contained in tab 9-lead
DEF XEX
Intel would be by open source, checked by an officer but was not done by me.
The rave was taking place indoors.
I have not personal spoken to the owners of the venue. (No true line of
investigation to prove trespass)
I only see the D on the Saturday on the evening of the 7th Saturday. (This was in
fact early Hours of the 8th at around 1:00am.)
I did not go inside; the gates were closed.
I did not see any vehicles.
D’S Van registration is known to the police, but I would not personally know.
There were vehicles parked but I did not notice whether defendants van was
there.
He was not aware of people squatting in that building at that time.
(Hearsay of officers continues D @ venue but (unreadable text)
Officer (unreadable text) but is Not present here today.)
There was a rave on an adjourning RD but not on that day. (Please Take Note
Here of inspector Hamill stating under oath that he was sure all locations were to
do with progress way on this date I believe a copy of his PNB book will prove he
attended Crown Road on the same date.)
Phone calls received were not relating to Crown Rd Rave on that day. (But are
contained within the respondent’s bundle)
On the day in question phone calls related to this particular rave. (Progress Way)
(A clear example of abuse of power)