Page 299 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

wanted to go somewhere and explain why he needed it to be confirmed in writing by the
owner and/or leaseholder of the property, how this condition could be applied by any
Judge and state it is not a beach of someone human rights should not be justified.
64. Conditions C states knowingly using or supplying property personal or otherwise for the
use of a rave as defined under section 63.1 of the criminal justice and public order act, the
Appellants has spent the last 10 years building his business saving every penny with help
from his family.
65. The company he has built is regulated within the entertainment industry and is
represented by the licensing Act 2003, he intends to hire equipment out, the Appellants
business is seriously affected by the conditions, partly because if he hired his equipment
to any person and it ended up in an indoor private party or an outdoor illegal rave then the
Appellant would be in breach of the conditions he has been imposed to be incompliance
with another issue of concern is all events sighted within the Applicants bundle are indoor
events and are therefore not illegal. When hiring out equipment the appellant does ask
what it is going to be used for and also makes sure that he and his clients have that of a
professional contract in place, so for him to be sure he is hiring the equipment in good
faith.
66. Sometimes when a person tells you their reason for hiring the equipment out you may
find out at a later date that what was explained when hiring the equipment out is not
always correct and that it was not used for the purpose the person told you. The Appellant
should not be liable for other people's actions when following the correct protocols of
business and should never be in breach of the Asbo conditions in them circumstances.
67. Also if the Appellant loaned someone any personal belongings and that person ended up
at an illegal rave then the Appellant would again be in breach of his conditions, even if
the item was something that did not even constitute as being for an illegal rave.
68. These are just two more of the concerns within the conditions that the Appellant is under.
69. Some of our other concerns within the conditions set by the Courts are that the
Appellant's Human rights are even further breached, this includes: -
70. Article 6 right to a fair trial: -
71. The Appellant had to go ahead at the hearing without the barrister having any other
paperwork other than the application to strike out, which was not allowed.
72. Also on this date, the police officers did not attend when they knew they should.
73. The Appellant was so unwell at this hearing, he was not coping he should never have had
to discharge himself from hospital to try to defend himself.
74. The police have it on the police systems who done what they say the Appellant has done
and have not disclosed that information when requested.
75. The following directions were made:
76. The parties to exchange any additional evidence on which they seek to rely by 20th
January 2015, this is to include any witness statements from any witness, including the
defendant himself; and: -
77. The parties are prohibited from relying on any evidence not already served or served in
accordance with paragraph 1 of these directions, without the permission of the Court.
78. Although not a formal direction, should any witnesses no longer be required, the Judge
requested written confirmation of this to be given to all parties speedily.
79. At present, the following witnesses are required to attend the full hearing:
(i) Inspector Douglas Skinner; -
(ii) Police constable Miles; -
(iii) Acting police sergeant Edgoose; -
(iv) Police constable Elsmore: -
(v) Sergeant King: -