Page 229 - 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table All

understand how he is meant to pay £785.70, just because a mistake was made in my
endeavour to get justice for my son.
Below I will list dates that is within the application, and outline information I have recovered,
which will show the police have information which proves my son is innocence. How could
this miscarriage of justice been allowed to have happened.
12/01/2013 Canary Wharf:
On this date the claimant is accused of the organisation / or supply of equipment for an illegal
rave.
The claimant has always disputed the account that the police stated in their application, he did
not organise or was involved in any part of setting this party up or supply, hire or loan any
equipment for this party.
The claimant did attend the party on this evening with his ex-girlfriend, they were there for a
few hours before a person attacked the claimant at the party, the claimant was rushed to
hospital, and the claimant does not know anything from this point in regards to this date as he
was at the hospital.
2227
208,
Letter to high court C0 2171 2017.pdf
When the hospital released him he returned with his girlfriend and the person that had driven
him to the hospital to pick his car up, which had been left at the location, at this time the party
had already ended it was around 07:00 hours.
Again this case is outside the six months’ time limit when the application was submitted to
the court, so how has this case been proven by the Judge; any date outside the six months’
time limit should only be used as reference to show prior history.
On the 12th January 2013 the claimant did not cause any anti-social behaviour to any person.
07/04/2013 No Insurance and Section 5 of the Public Order Act:
Within Steve Elsmore statement dated 11/08/2014 public order matter. Although this date is
outside of the six months’ time limit from when the application was submitted to the court,
Steve Elsmore still included this within his statement.
The claimant was arrested on this date due to an issue with his insurance not showing up on
the MID database, the police stated in the intelligence report the claimant became abusive,
hence why he was arrested for a public order matter and no insurance.
The claimant was charged and given a court date to attend court and, on this date, he attended
court to prove his innocence.
The claimant had witnesses that would prove he did not become abusive; there was no need
for him to become abusive he had done nothing wrong; the case for the public order offence
was withdrawn by the CPS at court and the claimant was found not guilty.
The insurance matter was addressed and proven the claimant did in fact have insurance so his
vehicle in fact should never have been seized at a cost to take it out of the police compound
of about £190.00 by the claimant that has never been recovered so was a loss to the claimant
for no good reason.
There was information on the police’s systems due to the claimant being stopped a number of
times due to the error on the MID database showing he did not have insurance, which the
claimant had tried to get addressed and so did I as to the reason why it was not showing on
the MID database when in fact he did have insurance no one could understand why he was
showing as not insured.
Why then in fact did Steve Elsmore include this within the ASBO application and make it
look as if the claimant had been found guilty of it by the court? I though false information on
an application was illegal. Why has this case and the intelligence report been allowed to be
used within this case?