Page 233 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

officer statements, none of these were addressed. We know
the police knew about the illegal rave at Crown Road
because police were deployed there. This can clearly be seen
within the CADs which are within the application’s bundle.
But there is so much redaction within the CADs we believe
there is a lot more that pertain to Crown Road, and we
cannot see due to the reductions. There is also a lot of
missing CAD reports. Part of The Appellant’s barrister
submission had been that the allegations were that The
Appellant was involved in the organising of illegal raves, but
the applicant hadn’t adduced evidence of trespass which is a
requirement for proving that an indoor rave was illegal. The
district Judge ruled that the applicant did not need to prove
illegality, all that needed to prove was the Appellant had
acted in an Antisocial Manner. In The Appellants barrister
view this is 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 the applicant
being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful
activity requires more careful consideration on issues of
proportionality. The Applicant could judicial review the case
state this decision but I think there is little merit in doing so
because he would then lose his right to Appeal to the Crown
Court and even if he succeeded in the high/div Court, they
would merely remit it back to the Lower Court who would
then probably go through the motions of considering
proportionality before coming to the same conclusion. To
summarise the Judge stated she did not need to prove
illegality, but she proved The Appellant had acted in an
Antisocial Manner, how the district Judge came to this
conclusion we do not understand, not one police officer had
stated The Appellant had acted in an Antisocial Manner
towards them, is also a fact that any application for an
Antisocial Behaviour Order has to be bought within six
months of the dates, there was cases going back prior to the
six months which should have only been used for reference,
but the District Judge also included these cases to be proven.
Since this case started, we knew the police and the public
order investigation unit held information on the police
systems that proved The Appellant was not the organiser of
these illegal raves. In fact, the police knowingly went around
to the known organiser’s homes and also spoke with them on
the telephone. This proves they have the information we
were asking for in disclosure. (This was found out via social
media and Google by The Appellant’s mother) The
Appellant’s mother even called the public order
investigation unit and spoke to DS Chapman, and Val
Turner. The Appellant had not been coping throughout this