The Case Of Mr. Simon Cordell Barrister Submissions

It is said that Mr Cordell had been found guilty on the 3rd 4th August 2015, to which he disputes to be correct, evidence of Mr. Simon Cordell Barristers submissions inclusive of the court transcripts of the day of trial.
The respondent’s case is that Mr Simon Cordell has been accused of being integrally involved in the organisation of illegal raves in Enfield.
Part of the Barrister submissions that represented Simon Cordell, had been that the allegations were that he was involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the respondent hadn’t adduced evidence, of trespass or evidence of breach of the licensing Act 2003 which is a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave was illegal the Deputy District Judge ruled that the respondent did

Attending a rave as defined by s.63 of the criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994;
2. Being concerned in the organization of a rave as defined by s.63 of the criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994;
3. Knowingly using or supplying property, personal or otherwise, for use in a rave as defined by s.63 of the criminal Justice and public orders Act 1994;
4. Entering or remaining in any disused or abandoned building;
5. Entering or remaining on non residential private property on an industrial estate between the hours of 10pm and 7am without written permission from the owner and / or leaseholder of the property; and; engaging in any licensable activity in unlicensed premises.
Article 12: Right to marry and start a family:--
Article 13: Right to freedom of movement.
These conditions relating to the ASBO application that have been bound upon Mr Cordell are for the whole of the UK.
When the skeleton bundle was updated most recently on 05/02/2016 the applicant supplied a book, this book is created by members of the Home Office, based within the United Kingdom and this books nature is of such a guide to anti- Social Behaviour

Police is still popping around to his house - Simon tells me and also I physically get to his flat before police have left.
He is being harassed by police.
DJ
Are 6 officers not reliant – on witness statement - there for putting a line though RD.?
DEF
Material deters with PNC that was included by Met – There fore right to challenge. Plus PNC in evidence not correct.
DJ
Very little weight will be given to PNC.
DJ
Miss Cordell
Met XEX
Bottom of Page 8 – Leaving party for Dwayne Edwards.
I got there at 7:30PM and left about 9:30 Pm 6th – 8th June – D was also with Dwayne the days of Saturday and Sunday as well.
He was at my house for a 1 hour and half on Saturday and 1 hour on Sunday during the day.
I agree I did not include it in my statement.
On Sunday it was around midday.
I was not with D from about 2AM on Sunday, no I was not.
Nor at 2AM on Saturday either.
On the 7th June I did see my son and so did all my family members that were at the party.
At Page 14
“Police did not have 101 books “
2 and 3 paragraphs
Accepts that was told to me by DS Chapman.
DS Tanner called me on 11th or 12th. I believe they have a lot more