Exhibits: None

Statement Date: 1^st September 2003

In the SWANSEA

CROWN COURT

                                          Pembrokeshire County Council

-v-

(1)   Thomas Hutton Sinclair Jnr

(2)   Evolution Event Promotions Limited

1.9.03

Evolution Event Promotions, a company limited by ordinary shares and incorporated under the Companies Act will, through its properly authorised officer say as follows:

1.      The defendant company denies all counts on the indictment.

2.      The defendant company will aver that at no stage did it have knowledge of the falsity of any statement made by it relating to the appearance of Ali-G (Sacha Baron Cohen)  at Haverfordwest on 20^th July 2003.

3.      The defendant company was formed in order to assist with the promotion and management of Evolution Experience events in May 2001. Evolution Event Promotions Limited is a non-profit making company with mainly volunteers as staff. Between February 2002 and August 2002 the defendant company was the only body involved or authorised in the promotion and organisation of events using The Evolution Experience brand name.

4.      The Evolution Experience is a well-established dance brand in Wales; the type of events organised were fully licensed dance music concerts featuring well-known international DJs and other performers, very similar to a Radio One Roadshow or a Pop Concert, but with DJs.

5.      The prosecution concerns a third event, which was to take place at the same venue on 20^th July 2003, but did not happen. The defendant company advertised that Ali-G, real name Sacha Baron Cohen, was going to be appearing at the event, and that he was also going to appearing on the Evolution float at Haverfordwest carnival that very afternoon.

6    The defendant company organised two music events at the Park House Exhibition Centre, Haverfordwest after entering into a contract with Pembrokeshire Agricultural Society.  The Exhibition Centre is a hanger type venue next to Haverfordwest Airport which has the benefit of a Public Entertainment Licence granted pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982. The licence holders were Mr B Vaughan and Mrs M Chapman, the then chairman and office secretary of the Pembrokeshire Agricultural Society.

7.      It was agreed between the defendant company and Pembrokeshire Agricultural Society that two test events could be held at the centre on 30^th March 2002 and 11^th May 2003 following a meeting between Thomas Sinclair Jnr, the then Managing Director of the defendant company, County Councillor Mark Edwards who was assisting financially with the concerts and the Estates Committee of the Pembrokeshire Agricultural Society.

8.      It was further agreed that should the events be well organised, attended and pass without incident then further events could be held at the venue.

9.      Following negotiations with the statutory authorities it was agreed that the numbers permitted at the venue could be increased to 1,800 persons and that music and dancing could be extended from midnight to 1am. This was entertained due to the excellent track record Evolution Experience had with the statutory authorities, including the County Council, who had often praised the organisers.

10. The first event on 30^th March 2002 was successful, passed without incident, and was well attended. The second event, which took place on 11^th May 2002 was again fairly successful, although numbers were considerably down due to the sudden and unexpected closure of the ITV Digital call centre in Pembroke Dock. This saw the major employer of young persons in the area disappear. This naturally had an impact on the numbers attending the concert, which was aimed mainly at young people.

11. After the first event on 30^th May 2003 it was established that there were a small number of complaints from nearby residencies that the music was too loud. Following consultation with Pembrokeshire County Councils Principle Officer of Public Protection, Gareth Watts, it was decided that he and his accompanying officer would take sound measurements at the 11^th May event and liase with the event management should the music be too loud or there be any complaints about noise. The Motorola VHF handheld radios were given to the council to enable contact between themselves and the organisers, but during the event no contact was received therefore noise levels were presumed to have been set correctly. At the end of the event, however, assistant police licensing officer Max Bevan informed organisers that several complaints had been received from members of the public. Thomas Sinclair explained to the officer that no instructions had been received to turn the volume down as a result of the County Councils noise-monitoring programme.

12. An hour earlier, County Councillor Mark Edwards, Thomas Sinclair Jnr and Helen Sinclair (Mr Sinclair Jnrs mother) had an impromptu meeting with representatives of R U Sorted Limited in the office of the Park House Centre whilst the event was still going on. The persons attending from R U Sorted Limited were Fed Pierera, Eduardo Pierera and Mr Pierera; their father. R U Sorted Limited had been working closely with Evolution Event Promotions Limited since its formation and R U Sorted Limited, who printed leaflets to promote Evolution Experience events, waived bills in lieu of Evolution Event Promotions Limited assisting with the distribution of their free magazine, R U Sorted?, along with other help. Indeed the 30^th March 2002 event was the official West Wales launch for R U Sorted magazine.

13. R U Sorted Limited said that they sympathised with the position of Evolution Event Promotions Limited due sudden and unexpected closure of the ITV Digital call centre in Pembroke Dock, and agreed there and then that they would assist the defendant company with the promotion of the next event, in return for assistance with the advertising of their magazine, and promotion of the water product, RU Fluid.

14. On the Monday following the event of 11^th May 2002 an email was received by the company from the council informing them that Gareth Watts had lost both of the radios given to him on the night, which is why no instructions to turn the music down had been given or received. It was suggested in the same email that the next event would be stopped at 12 midnight because of the noise problems.

15. Over the following weeks a number of meetings were held between Evolution Event Promotions Limited and RU Sorted Limited. In early June 2002, a large-scale meeting was held between the Evolution Event Promotions Limited voluntary team and representatives from R U Sorted Limited. In this meeting the Director of the defendant company and then its staff, were informed that R U Sorted Limited were going to assist Evolution Event Promotions Ltd by booking Sacha Baron Cohen for the 20^th July 2002 event at the same venue. The Pembrokeshire Agricultural Society had agreed that following the good organisation of the first two events; a third much larger event would be permitted.

16. Following a meeting with Pembrokeshire County Council and Dyfed Powys Police at County Hall, along with representatives from the Pembrokeshire Agricultural Society and Evolution Event Promotions Limited, it was decided that there would not be a 12-midnight restriction put on the event. The issuing of a noise abatement order of any consequence could and would be avoided as significant improvement works were to take place at the venue including the construction of new fire exit doors, which previously had been just a raised rolling shutter, with no sound insulation.

17.  Following a verbal agreement from R U Sorted Limited about the booking of Sacha Baron Cohen in his role as Ali-G the company proceeded to advertise the fact that the star would be coming to Pembrokeshire on its website (www.evolution-expereince.co.uk) and on promotional leaflets. It is important to point out that the top attraction at the event was not Ali-G but The Warp Brothers who were a chart-topping dance act appealing directly to the regular customer base at Evolution Experience events. However, it was hoped that Ali-G would attract a new type of customer to the events.

18. Following the receipt of a letter from David Howlett, Chairman of the Haverfordwest Round Table seeking assistance, the defendant company contacted him by letter (signed by Mr Thomas Sinclair as director) and informed him that Evolution Event Promotions Limited would be entering a float into the carnival and that Sacha Baron Cohen would be appearing on the float.

19. Furthermore the defendant company agreed to pay for the design and printing of the carnival programme and posters for the carnival event.

20.  The defendant company also booked a look-a-like or stand-in for Sacha Baron Cohen, which seemed to the defendant company to be common sense as this was the first time that a non-DJ of such calibre had been booked by the defendant company. The main thinking behind this was that if for any reason such as illness, flight delays etc, Sacha Baron Cohen could not appear, then an identical stand in could be used for the carnival and advertised as so. This would cause the minimum disappointment for young children at the carnival. A copy of the contract for the stand in Ali-G was sent to R U Sorted by fax and post. The defendant company retains the fax receipt.

21. The booking of a look a like was agreed upon between the organisers of the event due to an experience the previous November where Anne Savage, a famous female DJ failed to turn up to an event at the Night Owl Club in Tenby following falling and breaking her collar bone. The recommendation for a look a like was first recommended by Philip White who is a thirty percent shareholder in the defendant company.

22.  Towards early July, R U Sorted Limited became difficult to contact and there were concerns about the whereabouts of the senior management of the company. However, the defendant company was given assurances that everything was fine, and that Ali-G had been booked for the 20^th July. A fax was received by the defendant company showing this to be the case, which has been retained. [Which the defendant company will produce]

23.  On 10^th July 2002 the defendant company received a fax from Pembrokeshire County Council containing a Noise Abatement notice served under S. (80)1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [Which the defendant company produce] Following consultation with Acoustics and Noise Partnership in Newport, it was decided that the noise abatement order was impossible to comply with and too late to appeal. The event was cancelled due to the order and for no other reason. Every one of the 700 or so tickets then sold were refunded in full by Evolution Event Promotions Ltd. The County Council informed the defendant company that there was not one single complaint to Trading Standards.

24. Mr Gareth Watts, Principle Officer of Pembrokeshire County Councils Public Protection Division spoke on Radio Pembrokeshire to explain and justify why he had served the order effectively cancelling the event.

25.  At all material times the defendant company did not knowingly or recklessly make any false statements as to the appearance of Sacha Baron Cohen at Haverfordwest on 20^th July 2002. It was a booking made in good faith with a company that the defendant company had a long history with and implicitly trusted.

26.  There was no reason to doubt the booking, as the defendant company had prior knowledge that Eduardo Pierera, Managing Director of R U Sorted Limited had already successfully organised an event with Judge Jules, who at the time was more famous than Sacha Baron Cohen.

27. The event of 20^th July 2003 was cancelled due to the noise abatement order, which made it impossible to run the event without the noise abatement order being breached according to a letter from the Acoustics and Noise Partnership. [Which the defendant company produce]

28. No legal action was taken against R U Sorted Limited by the defendant company because (a) the defendant company owed money to R U Sorted Limited (b) the senior management of R U Sorted Limited seemed to have disappeared and the company had stopped trading

29. It is the understanding of the defendant company that the County Councils Trading Standards Department are taking the unusual step of launching a prosecution under S.18 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 without any complaints having been made by the public, or the Haverfordwest Round Table.

30. There are no injured parties as all ticket holders received a full refund; the carnival organisers reported a bumper year and the defendant company carried through on its promise to print promotional brochures and posters for the carnival remaining one of their main sponsors.

31. The reason that the stand-in Ali-G did not appear at the Carnival on the same day was (1) the company did not have enough funds to pay for the stand in who was UKP1000+VAT, nor could it afford to build the carnival float now that the main event had been cancelled (2) the disappearance of R U Sorted Limited put the future of Evolution Experience events, and their long term viability in West Wales in serious doubt. (3) there were further financial pressures caused by the bills accrued in the marketing, production and deposits for acts of the non-event and this was made even more untenable by the refunding of every ticket purchased.

32.  Mr Eduardo Pierera, in his statement, claims that there was no involvement between Evolution Event Promotions Limited and RU Sorted Limited after 11^th May 2003. The defendant company will aver that this is simply not true.

33. This prosecution is also against Thomas Sinclair Jnr, the previous director of Evolution Event Promotions Limited. The defentant company argues that the sole reason this case is being perused, over a year later, is an attempt by the Pembrokeshire County Council to obtain a criminal conviction against Mr Sinclair, which would make him arguably not fit and proper to hold a public entertainment licence should the prosecution be successful. Mr Sinclair is involved with an ongoing battle with Pembrokeshire County Council stretching over 12 months or more to obtain a licence for the premises known at Chequers in Penally, Tenby. The application for the said licence is now on appeal to Swansea Crown Court whilst a new application is waiting to be heard by Pembrokeshire County Councils licensing sub-committee.

34. The defendant company was offered a caution in relation to the alleged offences but chose not to accept it, and to deny the charges. Mr Sinclair Jnr as the director at the time was also offered a caution but similarly chose not to accept it.

35. Where as the defendant company will maintain a lack of knowledge of the falsity of the statement(s), it also puts the Prosecution on notice that it relies upon the statutory defence afforded by Section 24 (1) of the Trades Description Act 1968 in that, and without prejudice; the commission of any offence by Evolution Event Promotions Limited was due to reliance on information supplied to it by the act or default of Mr Eduardo Piererra of R U Sorted Limited. The defendant company took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of any offence by him or others under its control.

The defendant company believes that the facts in this defence statement are true

Signed: ____________________________________

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF EVOLUTION EVENT PROMOTIONS LIMITED

Company Seal:_______________________________

Date: ___1^st September 2003____________________

The Editor

Milford Mercury

92 Charles Street

Milford Haven

Pembrokeshire

Friday, 23 April 2004

Dear Editor,

RE: STOP THIS LUNACY! WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH CHEQUERS?

It has been interesting to note the actions of the local authorities since efforts have been made to re-open Chequers Nightclub in Tenby. As Tom Sinclair Jnrs landlord I have got to know a lot about what has been going on and thought it in the public interest that the truth be known.

Firstly, in June 2002, I read with interest in the Tenby Observer that licensing officer Tony Davies persuaded Tenby Magistrates Court to dismiss an application made by Thomas Sinclair Junior as Mr Davies was confused and thought that the application was by a gentleman called Mr Thomas Junior. This was despite Mr Davies holding a telephone conversation with the applicants mother and warning her that Carl Ryan was behind Principality Taverns Limited, the company making the application. This has been confirmed in a letter, and a witness statement, which now will form part of the Ali-G case (Ill get back to that later)

After delay and counter delay and Thomas Sinclair Jnrs accusations that his application was not being dealt with fairly a hearing is finally set for 17^th December 2002, six months after the original application was made and almost five months outside the Councils own 28-day policy for dealing with applications (by the way the Council lost the first application, and claimed that the second was not complete but later changed their minds)

Mr Sinclair prepared a 600 page report on Chequers covering every angle as to why the premises was wrongly closed in the first place and why it should be licensed again. Claire Incledon from the Councils legal department told Mr Sinclair that the Committee members would not find this relevant and said therefore the Council would not be distributing the report to members. At a cost of UKP800, and despite having paid a fee of nearly UKP500 to make the application to the Council, Mr Sinclair photocopied his own reports and distributed them by hand to the newspapers, libraries and to all the Committee members. He also set up a website with the report on line so that other Councillors who were not on the committee could also see the report, and wrote to every councillor to explain the situation to them.

By law, Mr Sinclair was able to see a copy of the Polices (or any authoritys) final report prior to it being distributed to committee, so that he could include his formal response. However, Mr Sinclair was refused the opportunity of seeing Mr Tony Davies representations for the Police before they went to press.

Luckily, no one objected to the application not even the police, fire brigade or council within the time frame allowed by law (28-days), but this did not stop the committee ignoring statutory time limits and allowing all the late objections in anyway; this is not illegal, but in my view extremely unfair.

This then turned into a sham of a meeting, with Tony Davies from the police accusing Mr Sinclair of being a liar, a criminal and of not disclosing his criminal record on his application form, (a few traffic offences and using vehicle mounted loud speakers without permission) however, Mr Sinclair had mentioned them with detailed explanation in his 600 page report (the one, remember, that the Council illegally refused to circulate). There was mention of Mr Sinclair being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, and the fact that he was on police bail following an arrest in July for bouncing a Cheque. Interesting to note that Mr Sinclair is no longer on bail and that all his charges were dropped by the CPS because of lack of evidence. Guilty until proven innocent, and then it turns out he was not convicted of anything.

At mid-day the meeting turned from sham to farce when a solicitor acting for Newsquest took to the microphone at the behest of Tony Davies who was clearly seen by all at the meeting to beckon him over. Indeed, I and up to twenty others saw Mr Davies pressing the button and adjusting the microphone to his mouth. The solicitor announced that there was an application to make Mr Sinclair bankrupt the following day. The next day in that Court case the judge told Mr Sinclair that there was a police officer in the courtroom keeping Police Watch over the proceedings. What were the police doing in the County Court?

I think that even some of the Councillors felt that what was being said at the meeting was highly unfair. I was shocked at some of the things said in the meeting.

Mr Sinclair Jnr: How many people would you say are staying at the MOD Camp next to Chequers at any one time?

Mr Tony Davies: I cant tell you because of the Official Secrets Act, Id have to shoot you if I told you

Cllr Wilcox: I think someone better shoot you if you carry on like this

And so the meeting went on, until 5:30pm, when an obviously warn out licensing committee finally returned to say that they were turning the application down because the applicant was not a fit and proper person at this juncture, the premises were not suitable and the premises were not in a suitable location. The at this juncture part of the decision was left out of all the official paperwork leaving Mr Sinclair not fit and proper FULL STOP. Attempts by Mr Sinclair to rectify this have proved fruitless.

Mr Sinclair allowed the Magistrates at the appeal against the decision to go on without him as he thought, and rightly so I believe, that he would not get a fair hearing. The Chequers case has now gone to Crown Court in Swansea. At a preliminary hearing the judge asked John Morse, solicitor acting for Mr Sinclair why the Licensing Committee had found him unfit and proper. He has never held an entertainment licence and he has no serious convictions. This is going to be an interesting case said the Judge. It was the same judge, I believe who acquitted Andrew Price and Danny Slade in 1997 before Dafydd Gittins, previous Chequers Licensee, was wrongly convicted and sent to prison for a crime he did not commit. The Court of Appeal said, The police officers involved in this case at best exaggerated and at worst lied in order to secure the conviction against Mr Gittins [and therefore close the club down in 1997]

While the appeal was pending in Crown Court, Mr Sinclair as chairman of The Evolution Experience Members Club was involved with the opening of the club on a members only basis. Perfectly legal, and no licenses required, as long as the club was non-profit making. Based on Mr Sinclairs bankruptcy and track record with Evolution Experience I doubt that not making a profit would be a problem.

The minute that the council heard about the application, Gareth Watts, principle officer of Public Protection issued noise abatement orders on the premises because of the likely occurance of noise problems if the club were to re-open. There orders were served on Evolution Experience Members Club and 6 other parties believed to be involved with the premises.

These notices, unbelievably, included an aerial photograph of Chequers. Around the club and encompassing the front car park was a thick red line. The notice read that between 11:30pm and 8am no person or vehicle was to cross the line into or out of the club except in an emergency. The effect of this notice was to effectively stop it being used as a nightclub, as well as stopping the postman making his morning delivery at 7am each morning. These daft notices were appealed, on 12 June, to the Magistrates Court who altered them in favour of Evolution Experience Members Club and others so that the line could be crossed at the point of the east double doors to the club. Mr Watts had told Mr Tim Jones, solicitor for the appellants, that no one was allowed to cross the line – in Court on 12^th June Mr Watts said on oath, that people could cross the line. The court case took a dramatic twist when Mr Jones was sworn into the witness box by Mrs Jones, co-owner of Chequers who happens to be a barrister for the CPS (believe it or not), and gave rebuttal evidence that Mr Watts was in fact lying. Mr Jones said that it was the first time he had to give rebuttal evidence himself in a case he was dealing with in all his years as a solicitor and that this reflected the seriousness of the false statements which Mr Watts was making.

From this point on the barrage of letters, faxes and notices from the County Council seemed to be unrelenting. It would be no word of a lie to say that on average, between all the parties involved, seven or eight notices or letters are received every day. The departments in the Council, which have been dealing with Chequers, are Building Regulations, Planning, Highways, Legal, Licensing & Public Protection not to mention the fire brigade and police.

Following only a few weeks of operation as a private members club the council saw fit to make an application to the high court that Evolution Experience Members Club are injuncted to make them obey the noise abatement order. This order as well as closing the car park off (which the highways department disagree with and advise is dangerous) means that vehicles in the day, and someone so much as sneezing at night would cause a breach of the order. The orders stand until a successful appeal and are not suspended in the meantime. It is interesting to note that no complaints were made to the Council before all this action was taken by people staying in the caravan park next door, and that the owner of the caravan park said on oath on 12^th June that he only gets around 2 complaints a year when the club was operating full tilt until 1997. Granted that Chequers is open later than pre-1997, but there is no spill into the car park and rush for taxis at 2am as previously, which is biggest (or was the biggest) concern according to Gareth Watts report in on the premises dated 2001.

The noise abatement orders are unfair. Why do they differ to the abatement orders served on SAMS Members Club in 1999? What has changed? What happened to Mr Watts statement that he recommended a 1am closure for the premises in 2001 [to do with the Oceans application by Mr Brown]? Why the obvious moves by certain people involved with licensing in Pembrokeshire to so vehemently appose any plans to re-use this premises? Why is a purpose built club not suitable to be a club, and if it is the wrong location why was it given planning permission? Why was Mr Brown told that he would be unfit to hold a licence for the premises in 2001, but now he is the licensee of the Prince of Wales in Tenby.

It seems very obvious that there is some deep running grudge against the place. This is highlighted by the amount of time effort and tax payers money the authorities are prepared to spend to ensure the club remains closed indefinitely.

Whats next? Why not leave Chequers alone and stop this lunacy? Its only a building!

Yours sincerely

H. B. HENRICKSEN

*The Ali-G case is not directly connected to Chequers but you can bet your bottom dollar that this case would be brought to court, a year after the alleged offence, where there are no complainants and no injured party if the Chequers application was not proceeding in the Crown Court. The council previously offered Mr Sinclair and Evolution Event Promotions Limited a caution, but they refused them claiming they had done nothing wrong.

PS: COST OF ALI-G CASE WORKED OUT BY 10 DAYS IN COURT, 2 BARRIESTERS AT UKP4000 EACH AND TWO INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS AT UKP1000 EACH PER DAY