Wednesday, 25 February 2004

Magistrates re-open Chequers Licence conviction

The guilty verdict against Thomas Sinclair Jnr for running Chequers in Tenby
without a public entertainment licence has been overturned by Haverfordwest
Magistrates. Sinclair was also sentenced to a £1,500 fine plus costs on
Monday 16th February when the case against him, prosecuted by Pembrokeshire
County Council, was heard in his absence.

However, appearing in Court yesterday, Mr Sinclair explained to Magistrates
that he had not received a summons for the offence, nor had he received any
disclosure of the accusations against him. Sinclair made a signed statutory
declaration to magistrates before the case was re-opened. Pembrokeshire
County Council will now have to issue a new summons and disclose evidence
properly if they wish the case to proceed again.

Sinclair is accused by the Council of being involved in the management of
Chequers in Tenby on the evening of the 12th and 13th February, and that on
the night in question he allowed non-bone fide members to attend the club,
namely two undercover police officers.

The case against him was that the police officers were allowed to join up on
the night as members and were issued with membership cards. The County
Council said that members must join up 48 hours in advance, but Sinclair
will be attesting, should the case come to court again, that this is not the
case unless the club has been registered with the Courts. Chequers, it is
common knowledge, is an unlicensed and un-registered non profit making club.
Should the County Council issue a new summons then Mr Sinclair, we are told,
intends to plead not guilty to the alleged offence and prove that people
could join up on the day quite legally.

Mr Sinclair explained to the court that a precedent had already been set my the court in
sending other related prosecutions such as the Chequers noise case to
Brecon, away from Haverfordwest.

Evolution deception case thrown out due to "absolutely astounding" delay.


Wednesday, 25 February 2004

The prosecution against the former Managing Director of Evolution Event
Promotions Limited for alleged cheque fraud and offences against the
Directors Disqualification Act was thrown out of court yesterday by
Haverfordwest Magistrates.

The bench heard how in July 2002, Mr Sinclair, running Evolution Experience
at the time, was arrested for bouncing a Cheque against now insolvent Haven
Colourprint Limited of Pembroke Dock. The CPS prosecutor who had travelled
especially from Carmarthen to deal with the case said that a number of
witness statements had not been received, and some of the charges against Mr
Sinclair did not yet have complainants. Mr Sinclair is also accused of
acting as a director of Evolution Experience Limited whilst disqualified due
to bankruptcy.

Chairman of Pembrokeshire County Council, County Cllr Mikey Folland JP,
stepped down from the bench as he felt it inappropriate to participate. He
told Clerk to the Justices, Mrs White, that he had already been involved in
a decision making process relating to Chequers club and therefore felt it
inappropriate to deal with Mr Sinclair.

The Court further heard how the case had already been infront of Magistrates
in Tenby twice in 2003 and that the CPS had already "offered no evidence" on
one occasion. Defending Mrs Wilson argued that at the last hearing in
January the Crown Prosecution Service had been given a last chance to get
the papers in order and to disclose to the defence by the 10th February. The
papers had not been forthcoming.

Following an application by Mrs Wilson, defending, to oppose an application
for a further four-week adjournment the bench retired for ten minutes to
consider her arguments. She said that it was not fair that the defendant
should have this prosecution hanging over his head all this time when there
were serious issues about the strength of the case against him. Mrs Wilson
explained to the Court that Mr Sinclair was not studying law at Keele
University in Staffordshire and it cost him £60 for the round trip to
Pembrokeshire, which was the entire week's wages from his part time job. She
also explained that Mr Sinclair was missing important lectures at
university.

The magistrates refused the CPS application for a further adjournment and
said that all charges relating to Mr Sinclair would be dismissed. The
magistrates said that it was "absolutely astounding" that such delays had
taken place. Mr Sinclair was granted costs from central funds against the
CPS for travelling expenses incurred to the various court cases.

The CPS said that they may bring fresh proceedings against Mr Sinclair once
they got all the paperwork together.




This email is authenticated as being from:

Thomas Sinclair Jnr
Flat 5, 11 Hamilton Terrace
Milford Haven
Pembrokeshire
SA73 3AL

COMPLAINT AGAINST CLAIRE INCLEDON,
PRINCIPLE ADVOCATE, PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Wednesday, 25 February 2004

Mr Huw Miller
Head of Legal and Committee Services
Pembrokeshire County Council
County Hall
Haverfordwest
Pembrokeshire
SA73 3AL




Dear Mr Miller,

Thank you for your letter dated 17th February 2004.

I have read your letter carefully and at this stage wish to provide you with
some further information which negates your arguments put forward in your
letter.

Firstly in relation to the complaint made by the Evolution Event Promotions
Limited, I have permission from the company to follow up the complaint on
their behalf and enclose a letter of authorisation from the Company
Secretary of Evolution Event Promotions Limited, Mr Joe Smith. You have not
yet written to myself or the company in order to explain that the complaint
is being followed up. In your letter you write gAs you have no connection
with the company I am not prepared to correspond with you in relation to
matters between that Company and the Councilh.

Now that you have written proof that the company wishes for me to deal with
that matter on their behalf as co-defendant in the Ali-G case, perhaps you
will now take a different view.

Thank you for your views regarding how the complaint could have been dealt
with at the committal stage of the proceedings. This was not possible as the
committal hearing was the last hearing at the Magistrates Court and once the
case was at the Crown Court the judge can not consider the way that the case
got to him, but only the matters before him once at the Crown Court. There
is no opportunity to progress a complaint of this nature whist a case is
transferring between courts. The advice of my legal team was to raise this
issue using the Councils internal complaints procedure which I have done.
You state that this complaint is 6 months old, however, you are aware that
the company made complaints to you 6 months ago. Furthermore, I myself did
not seem it appropriate to raise the issue until the legal proceedings in
the Ali-G case had been resolved. In any case, I am sure that the Authority
would prefer to deal with this matter internally than through the courts.

In relation to your argument that the witness statement is unsigned and of
an gallegedh employee of the post office I can confirm that I retain the
original signed copy from Mr Hicks, who was the post office employee who
dealt with the recorded delivery item, which should be subject to an
investigation by you. The statement was provided to you not for proof of
signature but so that you could be assisted by reading its contents. If you
wish to see the signed statement then I can arrange this, so please contact
me if necessary. I also have exhibits including a post it note with Ms
Sandra Mc Sparronfs name on it and the original recorded delivery card.

The company again places me in charge of processing the complaint in
relation to this recorded delivery item, which is again put in writing by
the company in their letter enclosed.

Now that I have negated all of your excuses for not dealing with this
perhaps you would look at the matters again. I am sure that you will agree
that these matters are extremely serious and even if you do genuinely
believe that the Claire Incledon matter is something which should have been
dealt with by the courts, what was the outcome of the investigation into the
happenings at Milford Haven Sorting Office?

Yours sincerely




THOMAS H SINCLAIR JNR
Former Managing Director, Evolution Event Promotions Limited

Chequers raided again: but is the Council acting legally?

Anyone attending Chequers on Saturday night would have been extremely surprised and saddened by the actions of Pembrokeshire County Council and Dyfed Powys Police in closing down the Unofficial Escape After Party before it even got off the ground. But it looks like the authorities may have been caught with their pants down.

Everyone in the club heard Gareth Watts, the Principle Officer for the Authority's Public Protection Division announce that the noise abatement orders apparently served on Dance Nation 2000 had been broken 30 or so minutes before the warrant was executed. That is why so many people could not understand what Mr Watt's was trying to say. Fair enough, if the engineer had completed installing the sound system and it had been cranked up for the previous 30 minutes then volume could have been a problem, but as the punters all knew, the system had only been on four minutes or so before it was taken by the Council.

The warrant also needs to be questioned. It says "The Council reasonably required to gain entry onto the premises to prevent the occurrence of a nuisance in pursuance of its powers under Section 81(3) of the Act including (by virtue of Section 10(7) Noise Act 1996, the power to seize equipment likely to cause the nuisance"

But let's look at Section 10(7) of the Noise Act 1996: It gives power of a local authority under section 81(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to abate any matter, where that matter is a statutory nuisance by virtue of section 79(1)(g) of that Act (noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance), and includes power to seize and remove any equipment which it appears to the authority is being or has been used in the emission of the noise in question.

Now where does that say that they can take kit, which is likely to cause a nuisance?

The answer is nowhere. The council need to be satisfied that the equipment is being used or has been used in the emission of the noise in question. As the clubbers well know, the system had not been set up or calibrated and the night had not yet started when the sound rig, decks, mixer and records were seized, effectively closing the club down.

Everyone who was in the club has given their details to Dance Nation 2000, and will stand up and say that Gareth Watts was lying when he said that there was a noise nuisance 30 minutes before the raid.

More importantly, Dance Nation 2000, we are told, have not yet been served with a noise abatement order, so even if they were making a racket, which they weren't, the Council's first step would be to properly serve a notice. We notice from the warrant that the Council are alleging that the new leaseholders of the premises have been served with a noise abatement order, but this is simply not the case either.

The authorities seem to be in such a panic about Chequers that they are making mistake after mistake and seem focused on their goal to the point of brinkmanship. The people running Chequers are not irresponsible, and if they felt that there was a REAL noise problem then they would not operate the premises. However, they, and we, believe that the real motivation is not peace and quiet, but a determination to ensure that Thomas Sinclair Jnr never gains licences for the premises by abusing their powers under the Noise Act 1996 and Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Everyone has seen that revellers have been exceptionally well behaved when attending Chequers, and that the alleged public disorder problems have not materialised. The drugs raid found nothing, and there have been no complaints from Penally villagers.

The clubbers need to be thanked for the responsible attitude to clubbing and for supporting the organisers of the many Chequers events in ensuring that the club has not caused anyone any problems. What everyone is asking now is: "Why won't the Council leave the place alone?"