Page 298 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

there are no provisions contained within the (amended) proposed Interim Antisocial
Behaviour Order which would prevent The Appellant from conducting legitimate business.
43. On this date, all police officers were due to attend. (They did not attend their reason was
they were not told to attend; this was untrue as the application from 22/10/14 should still
stand as the case had only been adjourned until this date for the Interim Antisocial Behaviour
Order hearing)
44. The applicant's case also relied solely on hearsay, Magistrate's Courts (hearsay evidence
in civil proceeding) rules 1999.
45. These are the conditions The Appellant was placed under and are for the whole of the
UK:
46. The defendant is prohibited from:
47. Attending a rave as defined by s.63 (1) of the criminal justice and public order act 1994.
48. Being concerned in the organisation of a rave as defined by s.63(1) of the criminal justice
and public order act 1994.
49. Knowingly using or supplying property, personal or otherwise, for use in a rave as
defined by s.63(1) of the criminal justice and public order act 1994.
50. Entering or remaining in any disused or abandoned building unless invited to do so in
writing by a registered charitable organisation.
51. Entering or remaining on non-residential private property on an industrial estate between
the hours of 10 pm and 7 am without written permission from the owner and/or leaseholder of
the property; and: -
52. Engaging in any licensable activity in any unlicensed premises.
53. For the sake of clarity, nothing in this order prevents the defendant from assisting,
preparing for, or engaging in licensed licensable activities.
54. This is untrue as we have since contacted council and police and told he would not be
granted a licence to hold any events as long as the Antisocial Behaviour Order was in place
other than when applying with Enfield Council. So the Appellant's entertainment business is
seriously affected by the Antisocial Behaviour Order that was put in place.
55. Points to address regarding the conditions the Appellant is prohibited from doing.
162,
Clearly, the conditions the Appellant was put under are a breach of the Appellant's human
rights, and disproportionate due to the fact it would breach:
56. Article 3 freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment: -
57. Article 5 right to liberty and security: -
58. Article 8 respect for your private and family life, home, and correspondence: -
59. Article 23.1 of the universal declaration of human rights states: (1) everyone has the right
to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to
protection against unemployment.
60. Condition E states entering or remaining on a non-residential private property on an
industrial estate between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am without the written permission
from the owner of that land and/or leaseholder of the property.
61. With this condition in place, it makes it so that the Appellants life is left in term while as
for it leaves him in a state of confusion as to what he can and cannot do as he has been
left not equal to others.
62. Any non-residential property the Appellant would like to attend such as where house
night club or any friends or family’s private parties he is not able to attend:
63. This also includes Hospitals, Police Stations, 24-hour Supermarkets, Petrol Stations,
Cinemas, Restaurants, Bars, Nightclubs, and any other public place open to the public
between these times that is non-residential. The Appellant cannot go to without written
permission which would be degrading for the Appellant to have to ask each time he