As the date for our action approaches here are some of the details for our protest event. To ensure everyone’s health and safety during the Covid pandemic as well as not to give the excuse for Police interference, arrests and fines curtailing our legitimate right to protest, the action is planned as follows.
We shall arrive promptly at 11:30 and form a human chain on the pavement outside the building which houses the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Pavement is long and can accommodate most participants. There is space to safely form two rows of human chain if required. When we finish our action at 12 noon we shall travel independently to our next meeting point, Westminster Magistrates court for 1pm and so on and so forth.
Join our solidarity vigils as and when you can on the 11th of April. We shall be at 11:30-12:00 outside the Ecuadorian Embassy, at 1-1:30 pm outside Westminster magistrates Court and 3-4pm outside Belmarsh prison. We shall be tracing Julian Assange’s steps on that day when the UK violated every possible Human Rights standard it pretends to hold dear.
“On Sunday, April the 11th, Julian will have spent 2 full years in Belmarsh prison. 730 days. It marks the beginning of the third year of Julian’s incarceration.
Protests and solidarity actions are planned around the world to raise awareness.
Reporters Without Borders (@rsf_inter on Twitter) has changed its banner into a Free Assange message for the anniversary. When I tell Julian about these actions it lifts his spirits.
Anniversaries are a platform to educate, nurture compassion and solidarity, and bring like-minded people onboard.
I was recently speaking to someone who was not particularly familiar with the case. The striking thing to them, they said, was the passage of time. It changes people’s perception of the situation.
Remind people that the judge threw out the US extradition request in January. Remind them that Julian published information because he defends people’s right to know what the government does in their name. Remind them that he has done nothing wrong and to put him in prison is to criminalize journalism. Remind them that he has a family and that he is suffering.
Please join protests and solidarity actions where you are, and share information online too. Follow @deacampaign and my account (@stellamoris1) and others, and please share this fundraiser to your networks too.
That is the state of play, tonight, after a scandalous nonsense morning in court when it was clear the English judicial system are ‘walking on eggshells’ and far to frightened to challenge the corrupt welsh courts as to what G4S prison Parc and South Wales Police did, in November 2019,, when robbing me of my medical records, machine gun legal files , letter log, wheelchair and clothes ….
Today, two years too late South Wales Police disclose it stopped many more of my prison mail from HMP Cardiff and G4S’ HMP Parc than previously admitted,
CPS (England) in the post to me today reveals the true level of deceit in the Welsh authority’s conspiracy in May/June 2019 , confiscating my mail without my knowledge, until now, to my doctor , family, courts and MPs there to help me in this 24/7 crimi9jnal conduct.
a sample of hidden evidence to disrupt my civil claims against the South Wales Police
‘Bad Character’ Scrutiny at Last!
I had the privilege of meeting Nick Hardwick Esq, then HM Inspector of Prisons, in HMP Swansea while I was serving an alleged ‘breach’ of a restraining order that I knew nothing about until I was arrested !
The rogue Caswell Clinic doctor, in Bridgend, South Wales, with wicked liar Professor Rodger Wood of Swansea University , who had put the forensic psychiatrist ‘up to it’ in the first place, together had concocted a MAPPA3/3 report in order to have me locked away for life in Ashworth’s high security psychiatric hospital if not ‘shot’ which was actually the case , in police Operation Challice. [see leaked MAPPA 3/3 leaked memos of Barry police station’s 8th June 2009clandestine cabal of corrupt crooked celtic coppers, once more.
By stating my ‘brain damage’ was so significant, causing PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disorder), in believing the welsh police were acting unlawfully, was all blamed on my having ditched in the Caribbean in my WW2 D-Day Piper cub and from being a ‘long term’ drinking partner of actor, and veterinary client, Oliver Reed Esq, it would prevent the Crown Court from allowing me to cross examine police witnesses.
This was not the first time I had witnessed the corrupt Celtic coppers collude in conspiracies to prevent the truth coming out before a jury and nor would it be the last.
I would win the scandalous allegation, the then ‘trading in prohibited weapons’ conspiracy led by the then Chief Constable, Barbara Wilding, as it had been hurriedly cobbled together to frustrate my damages claim resulting from my 40 odd acquittals proving malice aforethought.
War monger-er, Tony Blair’s almost first statute law passed by The House was the ill conceived 1997 Prevention of Harassment Act designed, in haste, liked the Dangerous Dogs and Hunting Acts to now leave so much misery within our country’s community.
My letters to both the blackmailed now sacked NHS (Wales) doctor and Alun Cairns MP were a reflection of a member of the public being a victim of the cruel state of South Wales’s Judiciary driven by greed and appearing answerable to no one and especially the ‘rule of law’ respected here in England.
Alas, my letters to Alun Cairns , for over a decade were to record for any future high profile HM Crown Court, is just what I want now, with alun, to indicate as to ‘what really goes on in our UK law courts.
Had Boris kept us in the EU for just a little longer, to get an orderly withdrawal, I was convinced serious needed reform would have occurred to our antiquated self servicing England and Wales penal code driven by avarice by those in positions of invincible prejudice.
For twelve years have been patiently waiting for the opportunity for an English court of law to examine the overwhelming evidence that I was never served a’ restraining order’ before it was breached but instead, I have uncovered a level of deceit and intrigue beyond imagination practiced daily in the Wales law courts.
P Crean Esq, T20200177
Cardiff Crown Court T20097445
6th April 2021 Your ref T20170239
FICTITIOUS SERVED RESTRAININGORDERS
I repeat my application to have ‘varied’ outstanding purported restraining orders in my name
I asked for D Leathley Esq, Barrister at Law, to represent me in Cardiff Magistrates but he was refused even sight of the court files, in open court, of my 1st Dec 2011 and later purported varied ‘restraining, as the court records had been found to be unlawfully tampered with.
On 9th April 2021, before an Exeter Crown Court judge, I will be asking His Honour to study, initially, my numerous witnesses accounts, including those from HM Crown Prosecution Service officers and eye witnesses from the public galleries, confirming that I was neither in court each time and nor did I know about their content until I was arrested and gaoled.
I will be applying for all relevant welsh disclosure of court documents at the hearing unless they can be released to me, by email, before Friday, please? I have copies of forgeries in files.
If you indicate I was ‘served’ correctly please, when, where and by whom and who were present as witnesses at the time?
‘Above is an extract of the transcript from the secret 2nd December 2009 Cardiff Crown Court, held in my forced absence, whilst unrepresented, fabricated from the start that I was ‘dangerous’.
However, just in time for my future jury trials but only by a cock-up in Cardiff’s County Court, caused explanation of the Dr xxxxxxxxxx, sacked Caswell Clinic forensic psychiatrist, stating I was mentally ill at the time, so as to stop the already doomed ‘machine-gun ‘jury trial carrying, of course, the mandatory prison trerm of ten years.
Only by January 2021 did I discover the full extent of South Wales Police’s criminal conspiracy while I was in Cardiff prison’s F block just days before the comical machine gun trial.
Huxtable had been told to hide the HM Home Office mandatory video he took in SWP HQ, in Bridgend, of his ‘[sripping down’ the ‘gun’ knowing it was not a ‘prohibited weapon’at all.
‘Inherent deceit’ and ‘cheating on the rugby field’ is little of what I personally witnessed in my informative years at Taunton School and why my mother,from a direct line of Captain Morgan, cried so much when she heard I had bought a veterinary practice in the Vale of Glamorgan.
This document was withheld from me and the jury
This document was also withheld from me and the jury revealing the ‘gun’ was never a ‘prohibited weapon’
is to be called for May 2021 jury trial as both my ‘character’ and ‘defence’ witness in the current criminal and civil proceedings (1CF03361) emanating from the South Wales Police’s criminal conspiracy revealed in T20097445 ‘trading in machine guns’ Crown Court fiasco will expose.
There I was acquitted, without need of a defence, as the police only revealed this year the ‘prohibited weapon’ was a film prop replica WW1 Lewis machine gun certified by Birmingham Proof House as a single shot 0.410 condemned gardening gun! All to disrupt my compensation following 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions by withholding Huxtable’s 4th Jan10 witness statement stating even the barrel was too wide to retain even rim fire o.303 rounds!
So desperate were the South Wales Police, at trial, it had both unblocked the unrifled barrel and had painted the exhibit ARH1 a completely different colour to when I had owned it in order to try and fool the jury. This whole matter now needs a police investigation from England
Maurice J Kirk BVSc
No wonder the South Wales Police were examining each and every sealed and unsealed letter of mine from HMP Park and HMP Cardiff
Andy, please do not leave Avon & Somerset Police on my account
South Wales Police failure to disclose evidence is routine & deliberate
“If you don’t want the defence to see it, then it goes onto MG6D” a list of sensitive unusedmaterial which the defence doesn’t have access to”. Police “have been trained to put items on there (MG6D) that they do not want disclosed to the defence”Quote from Cdf Chief Inspector
The Times, Centre for Criminal Appeals (CCA)’s, Cardiff Law School’s ‘Innocence’ project, Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s & Inspectorate of Constabulary’s dossiers, re ‘police disclosure evidence’, were all submitted to London’s HM Justice Select Committee
“Officers put undermining material on the MG6D list to hide it”
These are just a few of the undisclosed facts, themselves hidden but now ‘surfaced’ following a Freedom of Information Act application, in relation to an ongoing investigation in Cardiff.
Suzanne Gower, solicitor and Managing Director at the CCA said, “These documents show why the responsibility for providing full and fair disclosure must be taken out of the hands of police and prosecutors. The truth is they see themselves first and foremost as adversaries to the defence and in some cases, deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence”.
The South Wales Police have lost over 50 malicious prosecutions against one victim, with 89% of its first 113 allegations struck out by 2004. Subsequent prosecutions, of greater concoction, needed ‘machine-guns’ and ‘radio isotopes’ injected into their victim’s brain for a MAPPA level3 category3 for Ashworth high security psychiatric prison eligibility, for life.
Their 1993 victim had naively employed lawyers for an obvious ‘an out of court’ settlement scenario but Cardiff’s cabal refused to even ‘negotiate’ cut & dried facts! Their tax payer funded ‘gravy train’, with all it’s unchecked money from point of ‘arrest’ to ‘deals’ tonight in prison, was just too good to be true. Our Welsh judiciary’s real purpose is as a huge money-making commercial enterprise. This rampant fraud is not investigated so those in positions of privilege can continue abusing their MAPPA so called ‘authority’ to keep bullying victims.
Cardiff Crown Court Protocol to Remove/Vary a Restraining Order
Why is ‘protocol’ riddled with court directions this Applicant has already been denied?
Is current ‘protocol’ as in 2012 1st trial & since machine-gun conspiracy hatched in 2008?
1(e) Request previous Dr Tegwyn Williams’ statements repeatedly refused him by CPS
2(a) Request court log records copy in 4(5) ‘restraining order’ trials & Cardiff magistrates 1st Dec 2011 ‘harassment’ conviction , before & after ‘re-written’, redacted or destroyed
Why was ‘harassment’ conviction exhibit ‘switched’ and court records falsified, thrice?
2(c) Request copy of a law enforcement competent to obtain Dr Williams’ & Dr Hillier’s statements re 1st March12 ‘harassment appeal’ & why 2nd ‘breach’ ‘arson’ trial stopped?
2(d) Request copy of cited ‘Sentencing Guidelines’ (not in court letter) as needed for Applicant’s 1(c) statement of ‘better particulars’ in these 25 years of deliberate injustice
2(e) What’s the purported past & current relationship between Applicant & Dr Williams?
3(b) Request CPS ‘case papers’ of the 2011’ Cardiff chaotic ‘harassment’ conviction and as to ‘where, when and by whom’ purported ‘retraining orders’ were drafted & ‘served’?
Will it include guard’s & court clerk’s (hiding in cell) ‘notes’ of 1st ‘service’, in corridor on crutches while surrounded by 4 armed MAPPA guards or 2nd ‘service’ in victim’s cell or 3rd ‘service’ at ‘gate arrest’ (6 witnesses again)? Judge Curran refused any disclosure
Will 5th jury see lovely Inspector Lucas’ 4th RO ‘service’ warning re hidden ‘restraining order’ or her 5th’service’? [She recorded Dr TW/m-gun complaint, all ‘buried’ of course].
3(d) Why were Applicant’s antecedents still wrong for 14th Dec17 ‘sentencing’ hearing?
Why then, was he MAPPA registered or again registered and not informed and not now?
Why ‘varied’, by whom and with whom, from its 2008 inception, if not to be vindictive?
Why again false antecedents if not to block his release to progress his civil police claims?
Why did ‘sentencing’ judge have ‘no authority’ to direct that GMC be notified of fraud?
Why do police refuse disclosure via his lawyers and Criminal Cases Review Commission? Why for 3rd time court has asked and allowing his letters and complaints, in past 25 years, be ignored if not complicit? Disclosure of this relevant evidence will avoid need of a 5th jury trial
Why1st jury refused jury notes data for a court then deny existed? Leverson LJ & Melling J, at RCJ appeal, were deliberately lied to (see transcripts & The Sun article), why?
Why is Applicant still denied MAPPA ‘minutes’ of machine-gun meetings to kill him?
This level of hypocrisy means ‘the rule of law’ is replaced by ‘political expediency’ under the legitimacy of its unusual MAPPA & Freemasonry devil worship, so who will be next?
When did court have this ‘protocol’ typed for ‘striking out’ or ‘varying’ a restraining order?
Who’s explaining ‘variation’, when, where and by who served, to allow web site publication?
Why does HM Crown Prosecution Service refuse CD data release, concocted for his 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th ‘breach of a restraining order’ jury trials, while Legal Aid prisoners here are ‘in possession’ of theirs? Why did magistrates refuse his lawyer’s the right to apply for legal aid?
HM Prison Wales is where the young leave in a far worse shape, to respect society, than when first entered. Which bureaucratic ‘back-hander’ ensured this Buntlines holiday camp mentality, if not to fuel the judicial ‘gravy train’? None available to ‘privately funded’ victims
Why does NHS (Wales) withhold Professor Rodger Wood’s deceitful Caswell Clinic ‘brain damage’ report? Did it fool Dr Williams enough to concoct his Applicant’s 19th Oct medical report? Is this why, in secret 2nd Dec court, no machine-gun ‘strike out’ but all MAPPA was?
Did Dr Williams ever state the Applicant was a ‘risk’ to the general public? No. The only ‘risk’ was to the Chief Constable if he pursued his 50 police failed malicious prosecution claims, including the Caswell clinic ‘break-in’(for corrected medical reports). Why machine-gun trial not stopped when Barbara Wilding had it re-painted to fool jury using transvestite, ‘Foxy’ & after victim was imprisoned for days on pretext he was ‘unidentifiable’ by clients?
Cardiff refuses to process his 50 police failed prosecutions, machine-gun & Caswell ‘break-in’ damage claims and at 7.42 a 4th May ‘court order’ was put under cell door, post stamped 10th, making it 27 hrs too late to appeal. Judge had refused any progress until next year on all!
Are conditions this bad across the Severn Bridge where lying, at least, is not taught in school?
These 40 odd questions are hopefully the basis for a ‘Noddy Land’ children’s book best seller
Yours faithfully, Maurice J Kirk BVSc Cc The Secretary of State for Wales HMP Park. You Tube Association of McKenzie Friends Bridgend. mauricejohnkirk.com RCVS GMC, CCRC, HMCPS
I am currently deep in the middle of a South Wales Police criminal conspiracy, an experience lasting almost three decades, that makes the words set out below simply a fanciful fairy tale but alas, it is at the heart of a far more serious case in England, right now!
As usual for those who attend this week I buy the substantive ‘lunch’!
Friday’s T20200177 hearing re failed HM Prosecution Service Disclosure
Maurice Kirk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
14:44 (1 minute ago)
to South, Enquiries, Celia, butlincat, Alun, bcc: me
1. I am even being refused electronic copies of the evidence in the case from lawyers in order I may instruct a solicitor and barrister so there is little chance of my getting it off you, is there?
2. I, of course, refer also to the prosecution’s deliberate withholding of its alleged ‘ ‘unused ‘ material you relied upon in the other charges now dropped but were maliciously used, at the time, to have me locked up in Cardiff, HMP Parc and Exeter gaols for almost a year unconvicted.
3. Remember, you are also reliant on the South Wales Police having also fabricated I had criminal convictions of ‘child abuse’, ‘firearms’ and ‘narcotics’ to make sure all prison staff know
4. But you will not even disclose the evidence in the case to me, in electronic form, as it would not just undermine another lucrative police advantage, you have over your victims, it would also be bad in appearing to ‘level the playing field’ of this far outdated England & Wales judicial system
THE POLICE CONSTABLE’S oath of attestation as follows: “I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality; upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property, and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.
Once bound by this oath, Section 50 of the same act binds officers to regulations set by the Secretary of State. One set of these are the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, which contain a schedule of behaviours to which officers must adhere to. These behaviours include:
Honesty and Integrity: Police Officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.
Orders and Instructions: Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions. Discreditable Conduct: Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.
Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct: Police officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the standards of professional behaviour. Ministers are bound, as another type of public office holder, in much the same way, by the Ministerial Code 2010.
Under Common Law, if a public officer wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification neglects to perform any duty they are bound to perform, by Common Law or Statute, then they are guilty of the offence of misconduct in a public office.
The elements of this offence are that:
a) public officer was acting as such b) wilfully neglected to perform their duty and/or c) wilfully misconducted themselves in a way which amounted to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder d) without reasonable excuse or justification
The misconduct is not restricted to dishonesty, bribery or corruption but must injure the public interest and call for condemnation and punishment. For example in the case of R v Dynham  a police officer watched a man being beaten but did not intervene; the officer was convicted.
A further Common Law offence is called Perverting the Course of Justice and is committed where a person embarks on a course of conduct, which has a tendency to, and was intended to, pervert the course of public justice. The ways in which this can be committed include; concealing offences, assisting others to evade arrest and failing to prosecute.
The Police Act 1996 once again makes a further provision of note, in Section 89(2). It states that any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence. And another in Section 30, which defines the jurisdiction of a Constable as: “throughout England and Wales and the adjacent United Kingdom waters”.
So, in summary: The rules are that I must act; that if I don’t I break the law.
The Trial judge will sit on a case management hearing on 9th April 21 and has allocated only one hour when it requires at least half a day, if not a whole one with police in attendance concerning the SWP perverting the course of justice.
My outstanding applications include disclosure requests o
my four prisoner letter logs retained in Exeter, Cardiff and Parc and Swansea prisons copies of which were supplied to HM Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) and some to CPS (England) to cause the recent dropped charges.
my MG6D SWP unlawfully withheld data for 28 years, CPS & police data as evidence, if disclosed under CPR, would have ‘undermined’ almost all their criminal allegations 89% of which were quashed when standing at 113 in all
my FTAC logs confirm I am ‘no risk’ to stop my cross examination of Asher.
my MAPPA logs that record that I am of ‘good character’ hence requiring the police doctor giving evidence in support and also requires a witness summons
my OASYsis logs the SWP had deliberately falsified to cause years of delay in my release before HM Parole Board when parole office identified ‘no risk’.
my confiscated South Wales Police defence data as the Claimant in ten plus civil claims, alone, would quash criminal proceedings.
The return of my Volvo car containing vital evidence for current proceedings
I yet again apply for G4S to return my 1st Nov 2019 property brutally robbed from me during my violent exit from HMP Parc. My personalty included my new wheelchair, my comprehensive medical records from Caswell Clinic and NHS (Wales) secure psychiatric hospital delivered to the prison by Dr Gaynor Jones, my legal papers including my MP letter log, cases BS614159 (40 plus failed SWP malicious criminal prosecutions, currently at the RCJ and Cardiff barrister’s chambers, 1CF03361 (SWP ‘trading in machine guns’ failed malicious criminal prosecution) currently before a quasi-Cardiff county court.
And witness summonses to attend with relevant records, if not disclosed before, are Cardiff & Parc HM Governors, Alun Cairns MP & B Hughes, probation officer, to confirm my SWP faked convictions, included ‘firearms’, ‘narcotics’ and ‘child abuse’. A liaison officer was seen stealing, twice, my legal papers from my cell is required.
AND to again argue re ‘bad character’, banning me from cross examining prosecution witnesses again resulted from Dr TW’s testimony written, is a joke, when it was he that was mentally ill. He said I suffer from irreversible ‘significant brain damage’ and PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disclosure) in my misconceived belief that I am being ‘stalked’ by the South Wales Police,” no, perish the thought”!
My restraining order and ‘bad character’ convictions are now in serious doubt due to
the T20097445 trial prosecution exhibitARH1, labelled for the jury as ‘Lewis machine gun ‘, was far from the truth. My ‘possession’, which had me MAPPA 3/3 registered, as contrary to1968 Firearms Act, was nothing more than an unserviceable 0.410 single shot ‘garden gun’ for rats and tree rats! Inspection by Huxtable (see his 4th Jan 2010 witness statement, deliberately withheld from both me and the jury) recorded the non-rifled barrel was condemned and too wide a bore to fire either a 0.303 or US 0.300 round.
Andrew Huxtable at SWP HQ, on 23rd June 09, knew this when that nigh the Nottinghamshire police confirmed the exhibit was NOT a ‘gun’ and confirmed when he ‘stripped it down’ and videoed it. Also, my speaking directly to Birmingham Proof House, after my acquittal, it was confirmed there were no ‘machine gun’ parts found inside the ‘Gunbus’ film prop WW1 replica!
I have already instructed and paid, in advance, a London QC and law firm of solicitors, specialising in malicious criminal prosecutions, which is another reason why the South Wales Police lied to CPS (England) over the malicious criminal prosecutions that had me gaoled in Exeter prison last year to further frustrate my right of civil redress in ten or so civil claims.
My May 2019 Alun Cairns MP letter from Cardiff prison, staff told me, was stuffed with a ‘bag of white powder’ believed to be heroin while my white powder contaminated letter, to John Graham, contained possible anthrax.
The SWP forensic psychiatrist, who applied at 2nd Dec 2009 secret Cardiff Crown court in my absence, that I should be locked away for life as ‘very dangerous, due to ‘significant brain damage’ while blaming Professor Rodger Wood’s similarly daft medical reports upon which ‘he relied’, flagrant liar, said my frontal brain damage was from my ‘ditching in the Caribbean in my D-Day 1944 Piper cub and for having been a too long a term drinking partner of my veterinary client and actor, Oliver Reed Esq.
If there is still doubt in the trial judge’s mind that I am not ‘fit’ to cross examine the culprit in this nonsense then I invite His Honour to cause disclosure as to why ‘vulnerable’? My £20,000 plus paid for court transcripts confirm I am ‘no risk’ to anyone but the deceitful % found over Offa’s Dyke.
(I offer below witnesses £1000 each to come forward)
My telephone number is 07708586202 & Email email@example.com if you can assist. please, in establishing why I am blocked from communicating with anyone in the Conservative Party’s administration?
When I was a member of the Welsh Conservative Party, while working as a veterinary surgeon in the Vale of Glamorgan, Alun Cairns MP’s predecessors, such as John Smith MP and Walter Sweeney MP, spent much time with me and both had invited me for tea in the House, overlooking the river Thames. The subjects talked about always included the same old matter of South Wales Police bullying following their latest malicious criminal convictions failure.
In the early 2000s I did a ‘scalp’ count:
Of the last 113 criminal allegations levelled at me I had won 89% of them and that was without either a lawyer and little, if any, independent defence witnesses not frightened by their local South Wales Police’s notorious reputation not having to answer to anyone for its persistent lying and other nefarious conduct.
Seven times, for example, I was stopped on the roads around Barry to produce my driving documents and seven times I had refused as, identifying the name of my insurance company invariably led to a visit to the brokers’ offices by the ‘men in blue’ only for the boss to ring and suggest I move my cover to another company.
This was the same tactic in Guernsey, of course, after the Taunton police, following my acquittal of ‘theft’, again requiring no defence, having ‘put the boot in’ over their ‘missing’ Chief Superintendent’s personal pocket note book borrowed from his office in order to gain my decisive ‘acquittal over their latest bizarre tantrum
I was accused of a firearms offence with an old worn out 18 century flintlock that caused ‘the biggest man hunt’ Taunton had ever known, the court heard. Anything to stop me from practicing veterinary surgery.
Exeter Crown Court
28th March 2021
Mr Robin Shellard of Queens Square Chambers, Bristol, tomorrow, will be asked to prove I ever knew or should have known about the Cardiff magistrates court 1st December 2011 ‘restraining order’ before it was allegedly ‘breached.
The R/O was mischievously designed to cover-up Caswell Clinic’s psychiatrist having been blackmailed by South Wales Police to fabricate his 19th Oct 2009 quite unqualified medical report of me that I suffer PDD (paranoid delusional disorder), in the belief I am being persecuted by the South Wales Police and that I have ‘significant’ and irreversible brain damages and so registered MAPPA 3/3 and should be locked away for life, without a trial, in Ashworth’s high security psychiatric hospital.
Mr Robin Shellard tomorrow, will be asked to produce documentary proof as to when, where and by whom, with five witnesses present, did I get served this purported 1st December 2011restraining order?
Mr Shellard , tomorrow, will be asked to produce a statement that prison officer Lea-Barker was present when he or another tried to stuff my discharge custody papers down my left sock as I I was being dragged the length of the floor out of the Cardiff magistrates custody suite, without my crutches, after 5pm.
Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will also be asked to show proof I ever knew or should have known about someone from a later Cardiff court having ‘handed me’ a ‘variation’ to that original ‘restraining order and when, where and by whom was it to finally supply me with a certified true copy also for HM Recorder of Exeter?
Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will also be asked to confirm, again by documentation, that I had then been immediately ‘gate arrested’, on 1st December 2011 by the South Wales Police, within the court building but no ‘restraining order’ was then given to me or found about my person.
Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will also be asked to confirm, in the custody records, following my then overnight Tottenham police station stay before release from Haringey Corner magistrates with a £50 fine I still refuse to pay, that there is no record of any ‘restraining order’ relating to the rogue sacked ‘deported ‘ to New Zealand Caswell Clinic police psychiatrist ever found by the Met police either.
Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will be also asked to confirm his colleague, barrister Chris Smythe, had even taken the trouble, with my barrister, David Leathley Esq, to try and examine the court records from both Cardiff Crown Magistrate’s court files but were both refused access. It stinks does it not?
Both were lawyers refused as I had already been into the court building in disguise and ‘got away’ with photocopies of court record displaying they had been ‘tampered with’ (deliberately falsified) once I had arrested the original HM Prosecutor, David Gareth Evans, who is another eye witness to the truth.
The CPS barrister therefore was forced to give evidence in Bristol Crown Court that he was also a witness that I could never have been ‘served’ the 1st December 2011 restraining order before I had, unknowingly, breached the purported district magistrate John Charles hand written order created, incidentally, between CPS and him in my absence!
Restraining orders are still unlawfully in place, 10 years later, in order to prevent my obtaining relevant disclosure and applying for my 19th October 2009 seriously damaging Dr TW unqualified psychiatric report being corrected or getting the original prosecutor to repeat his Bristol Crown Court evidence, years ago, before His Honour Judge Johnson tomorrow as it would wipe out 5 years of my false imprisonments.
EXTRACT from 8th Feb 2010 concocted Machine Gun jury trial
Summing -up by Judge Paul Thomas
“Andrew Huxtable of the national ballistic services, again attached to the South Wales Police at Bridgend, he, for five and a half years was with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers before his present role. He researched the weapon on the internet. He said that the weapon appeared to be built or made around 1911, was from a light machine gun, that’s to say a Lewis gun is a light machine gun, American design, gas operated, and the gases operate the piston to drive to the rear, against the spring. He gave other technical details of the mechanism, which, I confess, I didn’t follow, but perhaps have little significance to this. Again a matter for you. I can remind you of them, if you wish me to, in due course. He says that a .303 calibre ammunition would be fed into
Page 89 of 94
a gun, the gun by a feed arm from the magazine, and he says that when he looked at this Exhibit 1, there were components missing which would have allowed the gun to fire automatically”.
TRANSCRIPT OF 8th FEB 10 TO WITNESS THE LYING I ROUTINELY WITNESS IN WELSH COURTS
Exeter Crown Court 28th March 2021 hearing before HM Recorder of Exeter
26th March 2021
Maurice Kirk’s Complaint re Dr TW for Deliberately Falsifying His Victim’s MAPPA Level 3 Records to Inflict Maximum Harm
I now wish to explore the possibility of criminal prosecutions against the perpetrators, indeed, a criminal investigation into his repeated decisions.
Suggestions and recommendations to include:
1. Call for a criminal forensic investigation into Dr T Ws’ conduct.
2. Cease and desist the use of the failed 2003 Maurice Kirk Vexatious Court Precedent until further notice.
3. Instruct the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice that without any clear Legal Definition of both VEXATIOUS and HARASSMENT that there be no more Vexatious and Harassment appeals/cases should navigate UK Court and Tribunals.
4. Call for an outside police investigation into the conduct of the South Wales Police
5. Immediately instruct the ICO to remove their VEXATIOUS guidelines from their website
I would argue that Dr T Ws’ decision caused numerous MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS and he has labelled me as MAPPA level 3 Category 3 most dangerous which at best, is a stigma upon my reputation and at worst libellous that leads to incessant harassment by other police forces with loss of my liberty.
I consider that the emphasis should be on an objective standard and that the starting point is that alleged harassment primarily involves making a request which has reasonable foundation, that is, reasonable foundation for thinking that the information
sought to be simply corrected by a single Exeter Crown Court judge would be of value to me and be in the interest of the general public to the public or any section of the public
How many other people’s lives has this psychiatrist ruined by not correcting his reports?
Dr T W facilitating MAPPA, as from 8 June 2009 before he was Cardiff court ordered to provide a Psychiatric Report implies or is consistent with that early on Dr TW was a major player in the “maliciously orchestrated deceit” to stop my BS 614159 +2 (40 odd failed South Wales Police malicious criminal prosecutions) civil claims for damages.
HM Clerk of the Court
Exeter’s 29th March 2021 HM Crown Court case no T20200177
25th January 2021
Yet another South Wales Police Malicious Criminal Prosecution
South Wales Police’s conspiracies include a failed ‘trading in machine guns’ malicious criminal prosecution, a failed MAPPA 3/3 registration from failed Caswell Clinic fabricated forensic evidence that I have ‘irreversible significant brain damage’ and forty odd other failed malicious criminal prosecutions many emanating from the now sacked police blackmailed forensic psychiatrist, T W , who applied and failed, at a secret Cardiff Crown Court, that I should be incarcerated, for life, in Ashworth’s high security psychiatric hospital.
All concocted in order to frustrate my 1CF003361 and BS614159 plus 10 civil damages claims.
The 44th welsh conspiracy is destined, it appears, most likely to terminate with HM Crown Prosecution Service in believing the South Wales Police would release my stolen property from G4S. at HMP Parc and disclose my prison letter logs from HMP Cardiff and HMP Parc that would reveal a tissue of lies surrounding this current remaining indictment.
Only this year the South Wales Police inadvertently disclosed to me the highly contentious 4th January 2010 police HQ’s Andrew Huxtable witness statement which is why it was deliberately withheld from both me and the jury, during the 28th January 2010 comical Cardiff Crown Court hearing, as its facts reveal, alongside his being cross examined, his flagrant perjury that the investigating senior police officers, such witness yet to be heard, Detective Inspect o Rebecca Hughes, sitting in the back of the court, would you believe!
HUXTABLE IGNORES HOME OFFICE REGULATION TO VIDEO ‘STRIPPING DOWN’ THE ‘GUN’
The 4th Jann 2010 Huxtable hidden MG 11 witness statement disclosed the police exhibit ARH1 was NOT a WW1 Lewis machine gun in my ‘possession’ at all as he had written in his 23rd June 2009 witness statement but a condemned 0.410 shot gun barrel screwed to a piece of old wood, as film prop, to look like a gun in WW1 depicting the 1916 Battle of the Somme!
Yesterday I traced yet another eye witness who was in my1st December 2011 Cardiff magistrates court room to confirm no restraining order was ‘handed down’ by District Judge John Charles to me as I was in the cells. The only document the district judge had was his part hand written one, using blue ink, as draft to ‘beef -up’ prosecution barrister David Gareth Evans’s typed draft for my possible agreement
No documents were given to me, that day, while I was in the cell and the four guards in the doorway of the cell will confirm. Mr Lee-Barker , featured in the photo below, will confirm as it was he that unlocked my cell door.
£1000 REWARD to those witnessing my being given any paperwork at all that day
EXTRACT from Police psychiatrist 19th Oct 2009 Medical Report (para32-40)
32. Maurice Kirk’s history is highly complex, convoluted and difficult to understand. The clinical picture appears to be of a man who has always had a background of minor cognitive difficulties (poor writing and spelling). He developed a personality characterised by narcissism (an abnormal sense of entitlement), grandiosity (believing that normal rules and regulations do not apply to him) and paranoia (believing he is the victim of persecution). He also shows evidence of poor judgement, impulsivity and a willingness to hold himself hostage by way of hunger strike in an attempt to manipulate his environment. Whilst these personality characteristics have undoubtedly overshadowed Maurice Kirk’s life and probably had a negative affect on his social and family functioning, they appear to have been reasonably stable throughout his life. However, Maurice Kirk and the evidence both suggest that over the past two years both his functioning has deteriorated and that his beliefs have become more intense and overwhelming and at sometimes, though not others, are clearly ” abnormal. Maurice Kirk now shows clear evidence of some degree of neuro-cognitive damage (brain damage), probably as a result of a combination of normal ageing, previous heavy alcohol misuse and deceleration injuries following plane crashes. The specific area of brain damage affects his ability to monitor and control his behaviour, decreases self-awareness, judgement and decision making abilities and have compounded his paranoid beliefs to the extent that when subjected to further stress, his beliefs intensify so that for periods they have a quality of a paranoid delusional disorder (mental illness characterised by fixed false beliefs unamenable to reason of a paranoid nature).
33. With regard to treatment, neither Maurice Kirk’s underlying personality nor brain damage will respond to medical intervention. Due to the transient nature of his clearly abnormal beliefs (as opposed to his general paranoid view of the world) it is unlikely that medication will make any significant impact, though it is impossible to be certain. Appropriate medication has been offered to Maurice Kirk which he has refused.
34. Clinically it is unclear whether Maurice Kirk’s brain damage is likely to progress. Should it do so his difficulties will become more marked and he will become more obviously disabled. Of particular concern is that this may well involve increasing impulsivity and poor judgement, features which are already apparent.
35. With regard to risk, risk is always difficult to quantify especially in highly complex cases such as this and it is also impossible to consider Maurice Kirk’s risk in isolation from those who he encourages to act on his behalf. The risk of Maurice Kirk continuing with his action against South Wales Police and acting in a way that he feels justified to achieve his ends is high, though whether Maurice Kirk himself would be involved in inter-personal violence is less, is cannot be discounted nor can the risk that others would act violently with his encouragement. If Maurice Kirk’s condition is progressive, these risks are likely to increase over time
36.1have been asked to give my mind to the issue as to whether or not Maurice Kirk is fit to plead and stand trial. Maurice Kirk clearly understands the nature of the charge and the significance of his plea. However, due to Maurice Kirk’s mental disorder described above, specifically his brain damage and its relationship to self-awareness, judgement, decision making, self-regulation of behaviour and control of emotions, combined with difficulty organising and sequencing information, his inability to filter out relevant information and his ‘ problems with attention and concentration, his overwhelming perception of himself as being a victim of persecution by the system, all of which are clearly evident in discussions with him concerning the alleged offence, he appears unable to address a specific legal and technical area of law necessary to appropriately conduct his defence.
37. Should Maurice Kirk be legally represented in court I would consider him fit to stand trial as a legal representation would be able to focus on the relevant matters.
38. Maurice Kirk’s current clinical presentation is clearly causing major problems for the Criminal Justice System, though is not of a nature and degree to warrant compulsory treatment. He would, however, benefit from continued contact with Mental Health Services to both monitor his condition and attempt to establish a relationship which would allow other treatment avenues to be explored.
39.1 I am aware that my opinion will cause significant difficulty for the court. I am also aware of the difficulties the court has had gaining further psychiatric evidence which to a degree is due to Maurice Kirk’s perceived ability to intimidate and threaten those who become involved in his case. Should Maurice Kirk require in-patient hospital treatment, I have concerns that a Medium Secure Unit would not be able to provide the degree of procedural security necessary to maintain the safety of its staff the confidentiality of other patients and the necessary security. Should the court wish a second opinion, they may wish to consider instructing a psychiatrist from a High Secure Hospital to assess Maurice Kirk both as to treatment and the environment in which that treatment should take place. I stress that the requirement for conditions of Special Security are purely as a result of Maurice Kirk’s communication with and encouragement of others, rather than his clinical presentation.
40. Maurice Kirk can return to court for any disposal that the court sees fit
This forensic psychiatrist was blackmailed by the South Wales Police to write a string of unqualified medical reports as the police’s T20097445 (my trading in machine guns) imminent jury trial was doomed fore failure.
NEW EVIDENCE IN EXETER CROWN COURTMAY QUOSH 5 YEARS of GOAL
Barrister Robin Shellard of Queen’s Square Chambers, Bristol, has been asked to attend, at my expense. Exeter Crown Court this week, to serve still further documentary proof on His Honour Judge Johnson that one his CPS colleagues, barrister, Chis Smyth who, with my barrister, David Leathley, were both denied the ‘court file‘ with both being told that the pertinent pages re ‘service’ or not, of not just one but two purported restraining orders, in my absence, ‘could not be found’!
As I was familiar with the day to day nefarious conduct, within Cardiff courts, I took the precaution of arresting HM Crown Prosecutor, barrister David Gareth Evans, in order for him, on oath in Bristol Crown court years later, to admit neither his draft of the 1st Dec 2011 restraining nor any variation of the order could have been ‘served’ on me or taken taken to me in the cells or on my release as the four guards and HM Clerk of the court, the latter hiding, terrified, in the adjacent cell will confirm
SO, HOW DO THESE ABOVE PRETEND THAT BELOW IS WRONG?
Mr R Killick
HM Crown Prosecution Service Cardiff Wales
7th October 2017
A Proposed Draft Restraining Order re My Fabricated MAPPA Records
My telephone call was again to seek disclosure for Criminal Court of Appeal, ECHR and Civil Appeals Registry, as to which, when, why and where purported restraining orders were ever served on me in the first place relating to unlawfully obtained fabricated MAPPA records?
I recall no ‘restraining order’, relating to my police forensic history, having ever been served on me until an alleged breach of one has led to my eventually being arrested.
Only one draft, in all purported ‘variations’ of the original restraining order, may have been attempted to be served on me if the evidence, on oath, of the original CPS barrister in Bristol Crown Court is to be believed. That draft is again requested for the 17th Nov 2017 hearing.
The Court of Appeal dismissed my appeal re 1st Dec 2011 ‘breach’ as both Their Lordships, Leverson LJ and Mitting J, were seriously misled into believing (see transcript) that a jury had not written the enclosed jury-note specifically asking for CCTV, Geoamey, police and magistrate’s clerk notes of ‘service’ of a purported ‘draft’ or otherwise.
The ‘purported ‘service’ was inside my cell surrounded by no less than 4 guards protecting Lee Barker, he said, as I was branded a rare level 3 category 3 MAPPA and very violent prisoner! No one, to this day, has told me when and why I was registered and now, why not? Until a court considers the interests of the general public, by ordering my false MAPPA forensic history, to be disclosed and appropriately corrected by an outside police force called in to investigate, then there will be a 5th jury to convene to ask the obvious questions again
This court withheld evidence was also denied me at my civil claim ‘strike-out’ hearing, done and dusted in mere nanoseconds, polluting both my HM Ministry of Justice and Parole Board in this travesty of justice that could so easily be remedied by a single Crown Court judge.
You refuse to email me the proposed restraining order but I am likely to agree with it, in any event, just as long it will finally put a stop to police forces around the world-wide continuing to apprehend me on any spurious excuses knowing charges will never achieve a conviction.
OUTRAGEOUS: Why does the UK Government always kow tow to the Islamists? How wrong is that favouritism? #AbdulRauf is a convicted serial sex monster – get him out of the country as was the original decision that was renaged upon by inept high-ups on some flimsy reasoning instead of letting him roam the streets of Rochdale, Yorkshire, after being released from a prison sentence after being convicted for paedophilia. When will he strike again – because formal statistics show a huge majority of convicted paedophiles reoffend with exactly the same crimes again? Who will his next victim be?
PETITION: DEPORT CONVICTEDROCHDALE GROOMING GANG LEADER!
ADDRESSED TO: HOME SECRETARY, PRITI PATEL, HOME OFFICE
Convicted Rochdale grooming gang paedophileAbdul Rauf is still free to roam around Rochdale and the north of England, even though he was supposed to have been deported to Pakistan after his release on license in 2014.
One of his victims hassaid she had ‘never been so scared in all her life’ when she bumped into him while out shopping in the town.
The failure to deport foreign criminals like Abdul Rauf continues to blight the lives of victims, many of whom have been subjected to horrendous abuse at the hands of these Islamist paedophiles.
We demand that the Home Secretary orders the deportation of Abdul Rauf back to Pakistan and in addition, urgently reviews all such cases of foreign criminal paedophiles who have no business remaining in our country.
Please sign our petition below and add your name to the list of concerned citizens and patriots who are rightly appalled by the lack of urgency displayed by the government on this issue.
The appellants’ challenge focused on the alleged participation of undercover MI5 agents in criminality. Particular emphasis was placed upon the infamous killing in 1989 of Northern Irish solicitor, Pat Finucane, who was involved in representing those accused of terrorist activities. Of note, in 2012, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated that there was “state collusion” in the murder . This led to a report prepared by Desmond de Silva QC in December 2012, who expressed “significant doubt” that the murder would have occurred without the involvement of “elements of the State”; and suggested that there were “positive actions by employees of the State” to further and facilitate the murder .
In this case, the focus of challenge was a policy document issued by the Security Service in March 2011 entitled, “Guidelines on the Use of Agents who participate in Criminality – Official Guidance” (“the Guidance”). This document delineates the Security Service’s procedure for “authorising” the participation in criminal conduct by Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Ultimately, the Court had to determine the legitimacy of this policy by reference to the provisions of the Security Service Act 1989, which was the first piece of legislation to put the activities of the Security Service on a statutory footing. The Service had previously been governed by the Royal Prerogative.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) found by a majority for the respondents, but the minority disagreed on the issue of whether the relevant policy amounted to an unlawful de facto power to “dispense” with the criminal law (and therefore also whether it was compliant with the ECHR).
Discussion and Disposal
Ground 1: does the Security Service have the legal power (vires) to run agents who participate in criminality?
The Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal that the Security Service does have the legal power to run agents who participate in criminality.
Importantly, the minority in the Tribunal themselves agreed with the majority that in operational terms that it was not simply desirable but “necessary” (or “essential”) for the Security Service to have the power to run agents who participate in criminality (which was also consistent with the de Silva Report). Nevertheless, the minority held such a power was neither available under the Royal Prerogative nor could it be implied into the 1989 Act as a matter of necessary implication. Instead, because the Act says nothing expressly about these powers, they construed s.1(2) to be a provision which merely defines or limits the scope of the Security Service’s activities.
Professor Zellick QC, who was in the minority, had sought to address this apparent inconsistency by suggesting that if MI5 were to turn a “blind eye” to offences in relation to proscribed organisations, then that would not be “subversive” to the rule of law. The Court of Appeal described this “middle position” as “unprincipled”. The Guidance could only possibly be lawful or unlawful.
The fact is that before the 1989 Act, there would have been some situations where agents committed crimes in the course of their operations. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Tribunal majority that such a power, if lawful before the 1989 Act, would “continue” to be lawful in the language of s.1(1) and s.2(1). The Court further agreed with the majority that the availability of such a power is consistent – and necessarily consistent – with the “efficient” running of the Security Service for the purposes of s.2(2). 
It followed by way of “necessary implication” that the “1989 Act [confirms] the continuance of powers which the Security Service previously had, in order to fulfil the functions now specified in s.1(2) and (3).”  The Court buttressed this conclusion by reference to authority. In R(A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service  EWCA Civ 24, Laws LJ stated at para 28 of his judgment that “All the functions of the Security Service are and have been since the coming into force of the Security Service Act 1989, statutory functions”. Therefore, despite the Act’s lack of express words, it is “not at all fanciful” to reason that Parliament intended the Security Service to retain its “operationally necessary” powers after the passage of the Act. 
The “key question”, said the Court, would be whether that power could be necessarily implied if the instruction to participate in criminality could not be lawfully given (as was contended by the minority in the Tribunal). To address this issue, the Court explored the distinction between a power and an immunity . Importantly, the Guidance is specific that the “authorisation” to participate in criminality has no legal effect and does not confer on either the agent or those involved in the authorisation process any immunity from prosecution . This meant that it “cannot properly be said that the 1989 Act or the Guidance seek to place the Security Service and its officers and agents above the criminal (or other) law.” 
It was held that the functions of the Security Service and Director-General (as stated in s. 1 and s. 2 of the 1989 Act) are “all essentially geared to maintaining peace and stability within the realm” and it was noted that there was a lack of express statutory prohibition against the operational necessity of running criminally participating agents :
All this, in our opinion, further points strongly to the Security Service having, and always having had, the power, by its officers, to run agents who participate in criminality, whether possible or actual, in order to fulfil its function to protect the public: provided that there is no immunity from criminal sanction. 
The Court deemed it further salient that paragraph 8 of the Guidance “stipulates that authorisation may only be given where the authorising officer is satisfied that the potential harm to the public interest from the criminal activity is outweighed by the benefit to the public interest derived from the anticipated information the agent may provide and that the benefit is proportionate to the activity in question.” 
The Court’s conclusion was reinforced by three other matters.
First, the case of Buckoke v Greater London Council  1 Ch 655 provides a “powerful analogy” to the present case. That case concerned the lawfulness of “Brigade Orders”, which permitted the drivers of fire brigade vehicles to cross through red traffic lights in emergency circumstances. The judges accepted that in these circumstances, a breach of law would have occurred and that prosecution could result (though emphasising than an exercise of discretion ordinarily not to prosecute should be expected). Lord Denning MR said (at p.699E) that “if a driver had made clear that he was not going to pass through a red light except when there was no risk of collision and after taking due precautions, then an order to crewmen to travel with such a driver was a lawful order.” 
As for the Brigade Order itself, Buckley LJ said (at p. 679B): “The Order does not confer any discretion on drivers to break the law: it limits that discretion which they individually exercise.” In a similar way, the Guidance “acknowledges the obligations of individuals to comply with the law and acknowledges the risk of prosecution if that is not done; but, amongst other things, it gives guidance as to the public interest and proportionality considerations which must be taken into account before any instruction is given by an individual officer.” 
Second, the Court quoted at length the comments of the dissenting judge in the Spycatcher litigation, Sir John Donaldson MR, who pondered the extent of “wrongdoing” by the Security Service that would be considered excusable. Whilst he put his limit at physical violence, he opined that it would be “absurd to contend that any breach of law, whatever its character, will constitute such “wrongdoing” as to deprive the service of the secrecy without which it cannot possibly operate.” [p.189-190 quoted at 91]
Third, the Court considered the principle of legality articulated in Lord Hoffman’s dicta in R v SSHD, ex parte Simms  2 AC 115 that courts must “presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual” [p.131 E-G]. Indeed, the Court ruled that it would be “paradoxical” for the appellants to rely on this argument, “given that the activities of the agents are being “authorised” precisely with a view to preventing the taking of innocent life and to inhibiting the activities of those having no regard whatsoever to any principle of legality.”  In any event, it is “very difficult” to see how “fundamental rights” will necessarily be “overridden” if the 1989 Act is interpreted as permitting the continuation of the “authorisation” of undercover agents to participate in criminality, without immunity from criminal or civil sanction .
Ground 2: does the Guidance create a de facto immunity from prosecution?
The Court of Appeal was brief in its dismissal of this argument, stating that they found it “very difficult” to ascertain the basis for “the very generalised assertions of de facto immunity.”  The Court agreed with the Tribunal’s disposal of this issue. Overall, “this argument presupposes what the outcome would be after the event in a criminal court on the individual facts of a particular case.” [para 79 quoted at 110].
The Court was similarly unpersuaded by the appellants’ suggestion that the Security Service by its Guidance is undermining the independence of prosecution (or police) authorities. Rather, the Guidance “respects” that independence, merely indicating what representations it might make to argue a prosecution would not be in the public interest.
Ground 3: is the Guidance in accordance with the domestic law?
Following the Court’s dismissal of the first ground of appeal, this argument was deemed to be “devoid of any real substance” . The 1989 Act is subject to judicial oversight via the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Grounds 4, 5 and 6: is the Guidance in accordance with the ECHR?
The Court held the appellants lacked the standing to advance claims under Articles 2,3, 5 and 6 ECHR as they themselves were not victims of any unlawful act.
Significantly, at the time this case was being decided by the Court of Appeal, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill 2020 was proceeding through Parliament. The Court emphasised that this proposed legislation could not “legitimately be used to cast light on the meaning and effect of the 1989 Act.”  Nonetheless, it speculated the Bill may “to a very considerable extent resolve on a statutory basis some of the issues and uncertainties thrown up by these proceedings.”  Future litigation is certain to examine whether the 2021 Act confers full civil and criminal immunity for those undercover operatives who act within the terms of the authorisation given by their handlers.
Sapan Maini-Thompson is training to become a barrister specialising in criminal, public and human rights law. He tweets @SapanMaini
Norman Baker, Former Liberal Democrat MP, (pictured) discusses how Britons have been used for Government experiments
On July 26, 1963, passengers boarded a Northern Line tube train at Morden in South London heading for the City. Their short journey to work, perhaps to London Bridge or Bank, seemed the same as any other day. But it was far from ordinary.
What those passengers did not know – could not know – was they were an unwitting cast of extras in a secret experiment conducted by government scientists from Porton Down, headquarters for the country’s military research since 1916.
As the train wound northwards through the dark tunnels between Colliers Wood and Tooting Broadway, a window was opened and a scented powder puff was thrown out on to the tracks below.
This particular powder puff contained not cosmetics but freeze-dried spores from the anthrax family, B globigii bacteria, which can cause eye infections, food poisoning and, more serious still, septicaemia, the cause of deadly sepsis.
The Northern Line was chosen because, at 17 miles, the line heading north is the longest tunnelled section on the London Underground, ensuring the spores now wafting along it were trapped, unable to disperse in the wind.
Pushed and pulled along the system by passing trains, the spores took 15 minutes to travel ten miles to Camden Town, contaminating all stops on the way.
There is no record of precisely why this reckless operation took place, although it was doubtless to gauge the behaviour of biological weapons in the event of an enemy attack. It was certainly important enough to be repeated on the same stretch of the Underground a year later.
There is no record, either, of who – if anyone – was made ill by the spores or if anyone complained. But then the health of the London population was clearly not a priority for the military planners in charge.
The only certainty is that this was one of many ways that successive governments chose to play with the lives of ordinary people. Barely remembered today, let alone acknowledged, these experiments are, as my continuing research is making clear, a sinister part of our post-war history – and a warning.
On July 26, 1963, passengers boarded a Northern Line tube train at Morden in South London heading for the City. What those passengers did not know – could not know – was they were an unwitting cast of extras in a secret experiment conducted by government scientists from Porton Down, headquarters for the country’s military research since 1916.
Pictured: Commuters on a London Underground station on December 4, 1969
At first, the British authorities confined their tests to service personnel. In 1951, Porton Down (properly known as the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory) began testing nerve gas on soldiers, including those unwillingly enlisted as part of mandatory National Service. Volunteers were offered a small payment of £2 and three days’ extra leave.
The victims were given no meaningful information about the tests. As one Porton Down scientist observed at the time: ‘If you advertised for people to suffer agony, you would not get them [volunteers].’
Many were told the experiments were about finding a cure for the common cold, assured by the medical officer present they were at ‘no risk’. A total of 21,752 soldiers would eventually be exposed to dangerous substances, including LSD .
Some 1,500 were exposed to nerve agents, 400 of them to sarin, a substance that is potentially lethal even in minute quantities.
The sarin caused a number of serious adverse reactions in early 1953, including one man who fell into a coma. The scientists were asked to reduce the dosage to the possible lowest range, which would have been about 10 to 15 milligrams.
But they didn’t, cutting it instead from 300 to 200mg. The servicemen the scientists were dealing with were nothing more than guinea pigs.
One week later, another six servicemen were given 200mg of sarin, applied to a cloth on the inside of their left forearms. Within half an hour, one of the men, 20-year-old Ronald Maddison, was on his way to hospital. Within three hours he was dead.
As the train wound northwards through the dark tunnels between Colliers Wood and Tooting Broadway, a window was opened and a scented powder puff was thrown out on to the tracks below (stock image)
Following improper pressure from the then Home Secretary, David Maxwell Fyfe, the coroner’s conclusion made no reference to sarin. But when the inquest was reopened in 2004, the jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing and concluded that a chemical warfare agent was the cause of death.
Many of Britain’s post-war experiments were inspired by the Americans, who had no compunction in using civilians and servicemen alike.
US officials even used unwitting hospital patients as guinea pigs, shockingly with the consent of their doctors. Between 1953 and 1957, at least 11 terminally ill patients were injected with uranium 235 to test the effects of radioactivity. More than 800 pregnant women were fed a cocktail laced with a radioactive isotope to study the effects on the foetus.
The US army, working with the CIA, was especially interested in mind control. In the 1960s, organised experiments were carried out at an addiction clinic in Lexington, Kentucky, where patients were fed the hallucinogenic drug LSD as part of a depraved ‘memory impairment test’.
Patients who were black or gay were first in line. The US invited the UK and Canada to participate in its research on people and the UK eagerly agreed to be part of a programme named Artichoke.
In 1972, 19-year-old airman Richard Skinner was told he was at Porton Down to help test protective kit. Instead he was injected with a new drug, T3436, designed to incapacitate the brain. He spent almost five hours in conversation with a fire extinguisher.
A recent survey of veterans who survived Operation Artichoke – and the range of substances involved – found symptoms including premature ageing, hypertension (high blood pressure), chest problems and, for at least one man whose eyes had been exposed to a nameless chemical, blindness.
This particular powder puff contained not cosmetics but freeze-dried spores from the anthrax family, B globigii bacteria, which can cause eye infections, food poisoning and, more serious still, septicaemia, the cause of deadly sepsis (stock image)
By 1999, volunteers were still being used in Porton Down’s Chemical and Biological Defence Sector – 71 of them that year. And as recently as 2014, Porton Down was asking for volunteers to test its chemical decontamination showers.
In 2002, while an MP, I forced the government to release a report giving details of germ war tests they had conducted. The report, which covered the period 1940 to 1979, ran to 56 pages.
It revealed that a trial involving live plague bacteria took place off the west coast of Scotland, near the Isle of Lewis, in 1952. Mid-experiment, a fishing vessel passed through the cloud that was generated.
Another test had seen clouds of dangerous Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis viruses released in the Bahamas. These can cause high fever, even death. Mosquitoes spread the disease.
In Nigeria, Britain conducted open-air experiments with nerve gas weapons. Indeed, the report revealed that more than 750 secret operations, including the Northern Line experiments, had been carried out with members of the public subjected to mock biological and chemical warfare attacks.
It emerged that some four-and- a-half tons of the chemical zinc cadmium sulphide – classed as a chemical weapon in the Second World War – were released into the atmosphere by ship, vehicle and plane.
In one case, a machine was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset to throw it into the air. In 1961, a Land Rover spewed out cadmium sulphide on the roads between Ilchester and Bristol. The scientists in the Land Rover wore full protective clothing and were told to be careful. The general public was left in ignorance.
Cadmium is an impurity found in zinc and those working with it in, for example, battery manufacturing wear protective clothing to prevent it being inhaled. It was identified as carcinogenic more than a century ago.
Yet cadmium was also showered over Cardington in Bedfordshire, Chippenham, Dorchester, and villages around Salisbury. And planes dropped tons of the stuff over a 40- mile stretch of East Anglia, including Norwich in the 1960s.
The aim of this cynical Porton Down exercise? To see what would happen.
I recently spoke to a senior throat consultant, Dr Wyn Parry, who was struck by the high incidence of oesophagus cancer in the Norwich area when he arrived there in 1999, a suspicion confirmed by inspecting pathology reports.
He told me he was seeing as many throat cancer cases as in his previous role in the Nottingham area – even though that population had been three times as large. He observed that many of those affected by the throat cancers had links to the land, such as through farming or gardening.
The Northern Line was chosen because, at 17 miles, the line heading north is the longest tunnelled section on the London Underground, ensuring the spores now wafting along it were trapped, unable to disperse in the wind (stock image)
Further investigation revealed that the unusual spike in cases corresponded to a degree to the flight path taken by the aeroplane that dropped the chemical. Numbers seemed unusually high in Norwich and King’s Lynn, for example, but normal in Great Yarmouth and Ipswich.
After the story gained attention in the local newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, Dr Parry received an unexpected phone call from a senior person at Public Health England who told him the incidence of the disease was nothing to worry about.
Dr Parry, it was unmistakeably suggested, could safely let the matter rest. The then Defence Minister Lewis Moonie also conceded to me in a parliamentary answer that ‘numerous experiments to assess the spread and transmission of bacterial spores’ had been carried out. In total, more than a million people were exposed to bacteria that mimicked anthrax.
On one occasion spores were sprayed inland from a ship off the Dorset coast.
In 2016, the government issued this statement about the tests on people at Porton Down: ‘The Volunteer Programme has always been operated to the highest ethical standards of the day.’ What Ministers failed to note is that the highest ethical standards of the day were very low indeed.
The world was rightly horrified when the truth came out about the experiments conducted by the Nazi regime, most notably by Dr Josef Mengele. Never again, the world said, as it watched the Nuremberg trial in 1946 of 23 German doctors who had conducted the most appalling experiments on people.
At first, the British authorities confined their tests to service personnel. In 1951, Porton Down (properly known as the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory) began testing nerve gas on soldiers, including those unwillingly enlisted as part of mandatory National Service. Volunteers were offered a small payment of £2 and three days’ extra leave.
Pictured: File image of Porton Down on July 7, 2018
Yet before Nuremberg, both the UK and US had been perfectly willing to conduct their own experiments on people. In British India, our military scientists deliberately exposed hundreds of Indians to mustard gas in specially created gas chambers, for example.
It is all the more disturbing then that Britain – hand-in-hand as ever with the US – actually intensified experiments on our own people in the post-war years. The Nuremberg Code on chemical and biological experiments, it seemed, was good for barbarians but not something that should interfere with the freedom of our own scientists.
These are extraordinary times, and few can doubt the extraordinary triumph of the current vaccination programme against Covid-19. Yet remember this, too: hand-in-hand with medical scientists, government agents have taken control over the lives of ordinary people in a way unprecedented since wartime.
Conducted openly and with the best of intentions, such things as test and trace, lockdowns, school closures and the jabs themselves are nonetheless experiments.
How quickly will Ministers and their advisers relinquish the powers they now enjoy? What further mass experiments will be judged necessary in the name of fighting Covid-19?
And who, these days, is willing to hold those in authority to account?
Not the complaisant BBC, or even ITV, who seem terrified of questioning the Government’s coronavirus message.
They have not, for example, reported that the British Army’s 77th Brigade has been charged with the task of countering Covid-19 misinformation. Is countering misinformation really a military objective? Who decided that? And what is the 77th Brigade doing?
Even in a democracy, we should never assume the government of the day is right or even well-intentioned. That’s not how a democracy works. Even now, at a time of a public health crisis, it is our duty to question. We have the right to know the facts and make up our own minds – as the disgraceful secrecy of the post-war years makes clear.
We must never, out of fear, trade our freedom and our liberties for the warm feeling of security.
Statement of Maurice John Kirk: To whom it may concern
and that includes you, Robert Buckland, HM Minister of Justice
‘Unfortunate Collateral Collusion‘ – LAW IN ACTION BBC4 tonight
That is what the welsh police fooled you lot with in England?
A ‘human under cover intelligent force’ HM House of Lords considers next week.
Mr Robert Buckland, from the heart of welsh incestuous judicial inherent deceit,
Please consider, may I suggest,
You chose to not to assist John Graham Esq in having his letter back, of course, snatched by HMP Parc’s G4S badly bullyingly prison, a copy of it stolen by robbery from me on 1stNov 2019, for the South Wales Police. I had purportedly sent to him it from Cardiff prison, in May 2019, laced with 100% pure heroin, prison officers thought. .
Purportedly sprinkled in ‘white powder’, contrary to 2002 Prevention of Terrorism Act, Taunton Crown Court was told, just across road from me! Dear God, give me strength
What utter nonsense you welsh lawyer bstd. I was gaoled for it , despite un-convicted!
Barrister Robin Shellard, of Queens Square Chambers, Bristol, a personal friend of yours, ever since, in various English hood-winked Crown Courts, as HM Crown Prosecutor, has repeatedly promised me, lying againor far more likely, bamboozled by South Wales Police inherent deceit.
l will get John Graham’s letter back along with my HM Secretary of State for Wales’ letter, my local MP for almost 10 years, Alun Cairns MP, succeeding an equally diligent John Smith MP to ‘help’ constituency members.
So, where is it, Mr Robert Buckland?
JOHN, A DEMONSTRATION IN WHITEHALL APPEARS APPROPRIATE ?
Robin Shellard,? Do you or your HM Prosecutor, Mr NC Evans, of Bristol’s HM Crown Prosecution Service office welsh designated , in 2009, to cover -up the welsh police machine gun conspiracy, know where my letters are, key prosecution exhibits, my letters, simply asking for help?
If Mr Graham cannot get back my allegedly sent Cardiff prison letter to him, that had me gaoled in Exeter prison for so many weeks, YOU idiots or are you, to drop the criminal charge against me for sending it, despite my Exeter Crown Court voracious expletives wishing to the contrary, are the Welsh Authorities, who started this vendetta nearly three decades ago, by having me struck off as a veterinary surgeon and destroying my family life, going to be allowed to get away with it, yet again?
Dream on, you ‘jobs for life’ dreamers, I am still breathing and I have not even changed up to 2nd gear, yet.
Has not the real welsh reason dawned on you , Mr Buckland and your side kick, fellow barrister, Robin Shellard, why the South Wales Police had. yet again, fabricated the whole bl..dy nonsense in the first place.
After my last eleven years, with five of them in welsh prisons, the South Wales Police conspiracy of my ‘trading in machine guns’, in order to stop my BS614159 civil claim arising from the chief constable having lost over 40 odd maliciously brought criminal prosecutions. it is finally blown apart.
I am, at last, in possession of 20 odd arch lever police files of which many were illegally police/Dolmans withheld from my February 2010 jury trial facing a mandatory 10 year prison term.
Upon my incarceration in Caswell Clinic in July 2009 in an attempt to avoid the ‘machine-gun trial, as by 23rd June 2009 Nottinghamshire police had already examined the replica, after taking statements from the new owners, the Coopers, to confirm it was pieces of water pipe and plumber’s scrap put together as a make believe Battle of the Somme Lewis Machine Gun.
I invite readers of this website, from all around the world, to stimulate my ideas as to what I do with this horde of welsh police/Dolmans criminal conduct bearing in mind , as I quote Voltairam yet again:
‘When the State get it wrong it is dangerous to be right’
All this was withheld from me while smouldering in my Cardiff prison cell. for nearly eight months, until the Cardiff Crown Court farcical hearing ( see full transcript illegally withheld from me for over 10years despite having paid a string of corrupt solicitors, in advance, to grab it before it was shredded like my RCJ’s RCVS tapes of John Thomas LCJ admitting the multiple errors, at last, of my veterinary college’s hearing dependant on south Wales Police voracity or complete lack of it!
The ‘gun’ was videoed, as stripped down by ‘gun’ expert Huxtable at police HQ, to find thieves had ‘raided the larder’ before him. The inside of the replica Lewis was empty, of course, purloined years earlier due to the weapons WW1 parts value, to build a second but working Lewis this time, were nnever in my ‘possession’ The mere weight of it was a give away.
The South Wales Police , in desperation, therefore switched its senior officer MAPPA level 3 category 3 committee conspiracy, on 7th August 2009 and blackmailed their doctor for ‘sexual indiscretions in Caswell Clinic with Dr Roger Thomas as one of the ring leaders.
Caswell clinic staff, with judge Richard Thomlow, then the bent HM Crown Prosecutor, had a secret hearing with a certain Crown Court judge , without my knowing of it, until 2020, to have me locked away in Ashworth high security psychiatric prison for life.
Note the welsh police waited until 13th July 2009 before recording it was going to ‘examine’ Exhibit ARH 1
Deliberate lies to deliberately cover- up, first by the South Wales Police and then Adrian Oliver of Dolmams , solicitors, defending the Chief Constable, ‘shoot to kill’ Barbara Wilding, in order to stop my 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecution 1CF03361+2 damages claim , requiring well in excess of 200 witnesses, nearly all police officers
The sheer spite and greed in Adrian Oliver, senior partner of Dolmans, manifests itself time and time again in these last new thirty years, that he was actually present at my 18th June 2009 impromptu visit to police HQ, Bridgend with my ‘witness statements’ for ‘mutual ‘exchange’ clearly tucked under my arm’ is revealed.
Only this week, with my having to spend many hundreds of pounds having the recently acquired withheld police files scanned, again, as the court had heard, he and his QC, Lloyd Williams, feared if I ever laid my hands on this vast treasure trove of police/lawyer deceit, as all implicated are immune to prosecution , of course, by not simply emailing me the 20 odd arch leaver files it would frustrate my prosecution by even more months.
Now and lest we forget, only due to a cock-up for Judge Keiser’s absence from court in October had ‘triggered’ this discovery that now needs and English police force to cause a criminal investigation,
Lloyd Williams QC in on the act back in 2000 in Bristol County Court
Andrew Keiser QC , the HHJ Beard QC court had heard this Summer, from leading police counsel , had already decided to be the jury trial judge and had already fixed my machine gun damages claim, ‘behind closed doors’.
Barrister Lloyd Williams told the startled new judge, clearly unaware of the daily level of deceit, to expect, metered out in welsh law courts, was going to be no jury and Keiser will dispose of the 200 odd witnesses within no more than five days!
“Are you gentlemen looking for machine-guns, by any chance, as Jacques and I were surrounded at Bridgend’s South Wales Police HQ, by armed police in tin hats and sporting flak jackets and stun grenades?”
Readers, I am only on the first 100 odd pages in these approximate 3000 pages of police conspiracy withheld relevant documentation, from my bemused jury, including key eye witness MG 11 statements taken down before the January 2010 trial, number T20097445 had even started.
All 10 years too late for my two million pound civil damages claim, Case number BS614169 +2, delayed, of course, by most senior judge of the welsh courts, Seys Llewellyn QC (quaintly corrupt).
Seys Llewellyn , after his ridiculous BS case judgement, had deliberately waited 16 months, no less, before the the law could be changed for a mere Englishman was no longer able to appeal it to HM Royal Courts of Justice,
Clever was he not? Judge Seys Llewellyn QC had waited until his day of retirement to simply ‘seal’ his court order’ in order for HM Criminal Court of Appeal, in law be allowed to hear it BUT now only in the same incestuous court in the Cardiff’s Civil Justice Centre ..
Meantime, Luigi Stranati, court manager, if not caught red handed emptying my 1st December 2011 Cardiff Magistrates court room of chairs to prevent my followers, like Sabine MacNeill and 20 others being allowed into the clandestine despicably run hearing, to witness my cooked-up ‘restraining order’ conviction, he takes it upon himself , then as Wales regional manger , to ban my entry yo yhe public counter for 10 years.
Why, you may well ask, to prevent my obtaining the transcript of BS614159 +2 civil claims, in order to appeal it or the copy of the court log notorious in my decades suffering under the stench of welsh civil and criminal court rooms .
All refused to this day, of course.
My diagnosed history is ‘highly complex, convoluted and difficult to understand’. ‘The clinical picture appears to be of a man who has always had a background of minor cognitive difficulties (poor writing and spelling)’ I, apparently, ‘developed a personality characterised by ‘narcissism (an abnormal sense of entitlement), grandiosity (believing that normal rules and regulations do not apply to me) and paranoia (believing I am the victim of persecution). I also show evidence of poor judgement.
‘impulsivity and a willingness to hold myself hostage by way of hunger strike in an attempt to manipulate his environment’. [I have never lost a hunger strike] Whilst these personality characteristics have undoubtedly overshadowed my life and probably had a negative affect on my social and family functioning, they appear to have been reasonably stable throughout my life.
However, as for myself and the evidence both suggest that over the past two years both my functioning has deteriorated and that my beliefs have ” become more intense and overwhelming and at sometimes, though not others, are clearly abnormal. I now show clear evidence of some degree of neuro-cognitive damage (brain damage), probably as a result of a combination of normal ageing, previous heavy alcohol misuse and deceleration injuries following plane crashes.
Brain scans both before this ‘opinion’, in Texas, England and Wales and after, in France and Wales, identified no damage beyond the normal aging parameters. Where is the evidence of alcohol abuse other than having been, briefly, a drinking partner of my dear old friend, actor, Oliver Reed?
‘Deceleration’ injuries, as being a possible factor, is totally fabricated to justify quite unqualified Professor Rodger Wood using me as a human guinea pig, in Caswell Clinic for SPEC brain scans in August 2009, requiring intravenous radio isotopes into my brain. I have experienced significant hearing difficulties ever since.
The specific area of brain damage affects my ability to monitor and control my behaviour, decreases self-awareness, judgement and decision making abilities and have compounded my paranoid beliefs to the extent that when subjected to further stress, my beliefs intensify so that for periods they have a quality of a paranoid delusional disorder (mental illness characterised by fixed false beliefs unamenable to reason of a paranoid nature). Poor judgment, alright, in my believing normal standards within the local law courts and local police force would be on a par to those in England!
‘ Welsh Authority’ is reliant on the doctor’s premise that I suffer misbelief in what the South Wales Police has done to me and my family.
With regard to treatment, neither my underlying personality nor brain damage will respond to medical intervention. Due to the transient nature of my clearly abnormal beliefs (as opposed to my general paranoid view of the world) it is unlikely that medication will make any significant impact, though it is impossible to be certain. Appropriate medication, apparently, has been offered which I have refused.
The relative safety of Cardiff prison within that s35 three-month horror, as a ‘human guinea pig’ for couple of ignorant clinicians to play games, cannot be expunged from my mind.
Clinically it is unclear whether my brain damage is likely to progress. Should it do so my difficulties will become more marked and I will become more obviously disabled. Of particular concern is that this may well involve increasing impulsivity and poor judgement, features which are already apparent.
With regard to risk, risk is always difficult to quantify especially in highly complex cases such as this and it is also impossible to consider my risk in isolation from those who I may encourage to act on my behalf.
Where is the proof of this police doctor’s ‘mumbo jumbo’? What was the ‘appropriate’ medication?
My remedy is very simple, the Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary stops the campaign of police bullying and deceit or stop losing cases in your own police courts.
‘The risk of my continuing with my actions against South Wales Police and acting in a way that I feel justified to achieve my ends is high’, though whether I myself would be involved in inter-personal violence is less, is cannot be discounted. I am also told nor can the risk that others would act violently without my encouragement. If my condition is progressive, these risks are likely to increase. It cannot be discounted I may, someday without help from my MP, fall under a bus, the prize idiot.
If this Caswell Clinic diagnosis is true then the validity of my five years in Welsh prisons must be in doubt.
I therefore, in the absence of help, change my plea to that of insanity,
I wish to make an application at your earliest available court for an outside police force to investigate as to why neither the South Wales Police and now, nor will the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, investigate fraud.
Clerk to HM Crown Court
The Shire Hall
Somerset TA1 4EU
13th Nov 2020
South Wales Police fraud
I wish to make an application at your earliest available court for an outside police force to investigate as to why neither the South Wales Police and now, nor will the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, investigate fraud.
This, again, implicates a number of CPS and Dolmans lawyers and senior police officer in South Wales (see failed disclosure in Exeter Crown court proceedings) and why the violent 1st Nov 2019 robbery on me by G4S HMP Parc staff was so instructed to purloin my court & medical papers in order obstruct my court claims against them and dep-rive my Taunton GP now a consultant is involved following the prison denying my essential daily Omeprazole.
My written complaints to each police force, both stating my letters to Alun Cairns MP and John Graham were stuffed with heroin or similar substance ,contrary to the 2001 Prevention of Terrorism Act, neither Mr Graham, prosecution witness turned defence witness, nor myself can obtain.
Of these missives we are denied sight of originals or even purported photo copies of either all for one very good reason, The welsh three decades of nefarious conduct is now, at last, starting to fall apart around their ears.
As neither police force, one year on, still will not recover my stolen G4S property or retrieve my purported two letters I ask that this, my application, be expedited.
Maurice J Kirk BVSc
MY reply from complaint to Independent Office of
JUST HOW MUCH MORE INCESTUOUS CAN THIS COVER-UP GET?
Dear Maurice Kirk,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). We acknowledge the details of your complaint against South Wales Police. The IOPC case reference number is 2020/145308. Please use this if you contact us regarding this matter.
We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. Our role at this stage is to forward your complaint to the relevant police force, which must decide whether to record the complaint.
Recording means that a record is made of the complaint giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002. I have therefore passed the matter to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of South Wales Police.
Please contact them directly if you have not had a response from them using the details below: South Wales PoliceProfessional Standards DepartmentTy Richard ThomasNewlands AvenueBrackla Industrial EstateBridgendCF31 2DATel: 01656 655 555Email: Professional.standards@South-Wales.pnn.police.uk If you have any further information you wish to pass on, please forward it directly to the PSD using the above details.
You should, usually, hear from the PSD within 15 working days. However, given the current corona virus (Covid-19) pandemic it may take longer for the PSD to be in contact. Yours sincerely,
James BromleyCustomer Contact Advisor Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) PO Box 473 Sale M33 0BW Email: firstname.lastname@example.orgWebsite: www.policeconduct.gov.uk Follow us on twitter @policeconductFind out how we handle your personal data How satisfied were you with your experience with the IOPC’s Customer Contact Centre? Let us know by taking this short survey.All information will be treated in accordance with the Data Protection Act. Os bydd arnoch angen yr arolwg hwn yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â ni ar email@example.com os gwelwch yn dda. This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or attachments may be read by monitoring staff….
Dear Mr Stellard,
Is it the 4th or 5th occasion that I have heard from you and counterparts, in your absence, assure me that the South Wales Police will disclose to you my original letter to JOHN GRAHAM Esq, from Cardiff prison and my one to alun Cairns MP.
But you very well know the South Wales Police and G4S are congenital liars, proven so many times in the past.
I will be seeking an urgent application at my nearest HM Crown Court, Taunton’s across the road, for and outside police force to be called in to investigate on how the South Wales Police have, yet again, hood-winked English authorities, this time, the Avon & Somerset Constabulary and HM Crown Prosecution Service (England) ,meaning you
Prison staff, you must have been made aware of by now, told me that the ‘white powder’, regularly found in my outgoing mail, was assumed to be the heroin that I had routinely been supplying my Vale of Glamorgan member of parliament, Alun Cairns MP. The ‘white powder’, stinking remarkably of prison issue toothpaste’ appears to have put me in no alternative position but to obtain a witness statement for my next court application ,shortly. from Alun Cairns MP.
Were we go again, this time English lawyers cashing in on their immunity to prosecution when employed by bent Welsh clients like some of those in the South Wales judiciary I have encountered over the last near thirty years.
I was forced to explain, publically, to HM Recorder of Exeter Crown Court,that the South Wales Police , with malice aforethought, covered up Alun Cairns MP’s involvement in my being accused of running a thriving business in the narcotics trade from my F block psychiatric wing of HMP Cardiff
1. Between a day in May 2019 and June 2019 G4S staff at HMP Cardiff conducted a 32 minute cell search,with drug sniffer dogs, in the absence of the occupant, Maurice Kirk.
2. My Kirk who was locked, throughout the search, in the shower room in his wheelchair.
3. This prisoner’s correspondence was taken from his F block cell and possibly along with his BS614159 and 1CF03361 civil claim papers during his time locked in the shower
4. Both civil claims resulted from South Wales Police’s 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions and the notorious Maurice ‘trading in machine guns’ acquittal, requiring no defence or summing up , what so ever.
5. Late police disclosure reveals both John Graham’s and then HM Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Cairns MP’s letters from Mr Kirk were amongst documents stolen from his cell or in the days shortly after in June 2019 all allegedly containing ‘ an unknown ‘harmless white powder’;6. Late disclosure by way of Mr Kirk’s police interrogation on 1st August 2019 and witness statements by prominent eye witnesses revealed the ‘investigation was still ongoing .
6. On 1st November 2019 Mr Kirk was violently ejected from the prison but G4S refusing to give him any of the contents of his cell , no doubt , handed over to the defendant in the multi-million pound damages claims
7. Mr Kirk wrote to MPs both before and since his 2019 incarceration in HMP Parc but still unable to recover his incriminating property that included his Caswell Clinic medical records sent to the prison by Dr Gaynor Jones
8. On 1st November 2019 G4S staff handed to the driver of a car, picking up Mr Kirk, a package of Cardiff prison stopped letters , both in or out of prison with a 2nd bundle of prison stopped letters addressed to or from HMP Parc, Bridgend.
9. John Graham’s ‘stopped’ letters were found in both prison’s letter bundles (containing many 1st class stamps) but no letter, purportedly from Mr Kirk , with ‘white powder’ the exhibit relied on for the criminal charge that had Mr Kirk imprisoned for a long time until the charge was dropped.
10. Similarly , Mr Kirk’s letters purported to Alun Cairns MP and other MPs with ‘white powder’ could not be found in the returned HMP Parc letter bundles on the 1st November 2019
JOHN , that was a draft on my personal involvement so, please, to enlighten an outside police force invetigation list audit trail of welsh authorities putting up two fingers to0 your FOI and Data Protection Act requests.
My current website, mauricejohnkirk.com reminds you that G4S, at HMP Parc, was clearly immune to prosecution when robbing me for the machine gun papers for South Wales Police’s defending my various multi million pound damages claims for their 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions, including my ‘trading in machine-guns’ blown conspiracy.
Tomorrow, with the CPS and South Wales Police refusing to disclose its court prosecution exhibits that forced their dropping the proposed charge, I have been supplying HM Secretary of State for Wales with raw undiluted suspect heroin, to John Graham, by mutual consent and to another MP I cannot not name.
(this is only a sound bite precis of the hidden welsh prison records that I am asking you to obtain for our presiding judge.
Mr Stellard , your barrister colleague, Mr Christopher Smythe, one of my proposed witnesses in my action again the South Wales’ judicial authorities, will be only too willing to confirm to you and judge Johnson, I have no doubt , he never found sufficient evidence that I had ever been ‘served’ a restraining order in a December 201i magistrate cell, in the first place, by a cabal of the Taffia that crowed around my open cell door.
HM Crown Prosecutor Evans, remember, who I had deliberately arrested in the foyer of Cardiff’s Civil Justice Centre, in order he tell your Bristol Crown Court, on my cross examination, precisely what I wanted.
EVANS “Yes, it was my 2nd preliminary draft of the Magistrate’s proposed ‘restraining order’ offered to me for negotiation but not accepted by me at the cell door
Remember, Mr Stellard , I was then promptly arrested in the Cardiff magistates and handcuffed in my wheelchair, for not attending the 28th Nov 2011 notorious Nigerian, MUSA family six snatched kids by Haringay Council court hearing.
Why? Because the welsh prison deliberately would not allow me to attend!
The stupid Taunton Magistrate, Ms Williams, fell for it and even referred to that day’s criminal offence, FTA, of not attending a London court, to oppose my bail application,
She sent me, instead, to Exeter gaol, nine years later. This current incident is again appearing to be fraud to be repeated by the lawyers employed by CPS’s Mr Evans,
No wonder the G4S did such serious bullying of me, all last year, as it was protected by the mickey mouse Min of J J /G4S SPV contract to make it difficult for prisoners from claiming for their injuries.
Lastly, but far from not least, I wrote to you and waited the statutory time , laid down for your CPS Review of the case. This was triggered in the light of the startling new evidence, I referred to in court, of how the South Wales Police are constantly lying to you, as they do, as to just where are the court exhibits John Graham has been denied?
Such is the real risk their not keeping their fat state funded pensions I am putting you on notice I am filing a Judicial Review application in the RCJ in HM Administrative Court without further ado.
If by tomorrow you disclose or give me written assurances that those defence exhibits to which the learned judge considers I am entitled will come to me with the CDs of my two police interviews, under caution, within 10 days then I will turn my ‘guns’ back on the human excrement I so regularly find in Cardiff court rooms.
— Maurice J Kirk BVSc Tel 07708586202 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Police Stratagem to Arrest Maurice John Kirk or Get Him Shot
This is a very telling only just disclosed anonymous document from Dolmans’, the chief constable’s private lawyers defending so many of my substantial damages claims brought by me due to 40 odd failed police and Dolmans assisted malicious criminal prosecutions.
This Strategy memo was deliberately withheld from my T20097445 ‘trading in machine guns’ jury trial in 2010 as it again reveals the delay from South Wales Police seeing the replica Lewis machine gun on the WW1 DH2 replica biplane, advertised worldwide so many times, suggests that as ‘exchange’ of BS614159 witness statements’ with Dolmans was due no later than 4pm on the 19th June 09 by court order and I had already phoned earlier in the day and week on when and where will ‘exchange’ take place. It was abundantly clear to me Dolmans had no intention of expediting the court order civil trial had to be buried alongside me.
South Wales Police record that I went to Barry police station on several occasions indicating I needed to serve witness summonses on serving police officers., I left ones for officers, Inspector Trigg, Sergeant Rice and PC Nicholas Khilberg at least, eye witnesses on multiple arrest incidents concluding in my favour.
The 15th June 09 MAPPA level 3 meeting, in Barry police station, just down the road from my veterinary hospital included the police blackmailed doctor and senior social worker from Caswell clinic who’s notes also recorded that I was ‘likely to be shot’ in the planned armed police helicopter raid on our home, in South Wales.
Called under covert name, ‘Operation Challis’ a parallel planned raid was set up, if I was arrested and not shot. That was ‘Operation Dandelion’, which was launched as I was taken away in handcuffs to closed down Port Talbot police station for days of questioning. Police and social workers arrived at the family home to snatch our then 10-year old daughter, Genevieve, to be taken into Vale of Glamorgan Council Care as I was now a registered in the top 5% most dangerous MAPPA level3/3 victim. .
Despite my arrest had been agreed on or before 1st June, at the police HQ AIG meeting many weeks before, it was further delayed by both 8th and 15th June 2009 MAPPA level 3/3 covert meetings in Barry and Bridgend police stations. Police records now release, 11 years later, that they already had known about the world-wide advertisement of my film replica ‘gun’ and knew exactly where it was in 2008.
Why? The Chief Constable, Barbara Wilding, had just instigated her ‘shoot to kill;’ policy into the Metropolitan police force as if a parting gift from their Deputy Chief Constable. Her remedy for ridding herself of my continuing irritation and nuisance to the South Wales Police force, by generating such adverse publicity, was obvious.
It was also obvious both me and my 100 plus arch lever files, accurately recording both her and predecessor’s criminal conduct, including 40 odd failed prosecutions, was to be covered up in the bizarre Cardiff Civil Justice Centre hearings.
My BS614159 +10 substantial damages claims, in those days exceeded one million pounds in my claims for damages and Dolmans’ fiddled costs, alone, exceeded one million. Dolmans refuse to disclose the ‘break down of its bill of costs for fear of the media from proven fraud. I refer especially to the documents Adrian Oliver personally had drafted for both criminal and civil courts, for others to sign as true.
The manner in which Oliver had personally had me nearly shot on Sunday 21st October was from maliciously instructing one of his office staff to visit Cardiff’s central police station on the Saturday morning triggering the chaotic execution of Operation Challis and Operation Dandelion, on our quiet country home, was only partly prepared owing to the un fortunate absence of both Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart McKenzie and 2nd in command, Detective Inspector Suzanne Hughes, were considering on the Friday afternoon. “Why don’t I just ring up Maurice and ask him if he knows where the replica WW1 biplane went after he had sold it after flying his aircraft in the 2000 Farnborough Air Show”?
But on the Saturday with a signed Dolmans written complaint of my ‘threat to cause criminal damage caused Oliver, also wishing to hide adverse publicity, pressed that I should be immediately.
Under Judge Seys Llewellin, I only just recently found out was the most senior judge in Wales, had me banned from the Cardiff’s criminal and civil courts’ public counters for 10 years, making sure he left no tell-tale audit trail as to the real reasons why?
The same judge also attempted to bury his disastrously managed many weeks of oral evidence, from 99 witnesses, ever to see ‘the light of day’.
For a further16 months he delayed my appeal to the RCJ until sealing his 2013 inaccurate judgment on the day of his retirement and which had given sufficient time for the RCJ to say the laws had changed, meantime, making an appeal from Wales no longer available to the RCJ and only allowed to be heard in Wales!
Now refused at the RCJ’s HM Court of Appeal back to appeal BS614159 in the Cardiff Civil court, as I was now registered MAPPA 3/3 most dangerous with police continuing to deliberately concoct evidence to having me ‘lawfully’ shot to stop my civil claim ‘risk’ to her pension with the now new 1CF03361 two million pound damages claim, wrongfully prosecuted for ‘trading in machine guns’. Police had painted the dummy film prop back to black and had unblocked the piece of water pipe, imitating the gun barrel, in an attempt to fool the jury.
I had only the day before, remember on 18th June when I was well inside the South Wales Police’s Bridgend HQ and even had gained entry to the Chief Constable’s inner sanctum with my ‘exchange’ civil claim witness file tucked under my arm
Why didn’t anyone ask me about the film prop ‘gun’ then? About ten of them, many in ant flak jackets carrying automatic rifles, stun grenades and sporting tin hats surrounded me and not only searched me and my car thoroughly (an assault) only then allowed to leave, after rounding up my three legged terrier they had allowed to be let loose, After a senior female officer, Griffiths, conferred with Wilding ,refusing her to accept the file on Wilding’s behalf I quickly signed the visitors book as proof, at least to the judge, Seys Llewellyn, well , at least I had tried.
While we all hunted for our three-legged Jack Russel, Jacques, around the grounds of the police station I casually asked the police men present if their search had discovered any machine guns about or live ammunition for it?
I have always thought the premature arrest of me was a Mr Plod ‘knee jerk’ right hand on the 20th of June not knowing what the left hand was doing as it is revealed the statement of Dolmans’ hand written letter, dated on the Saturday 20th, while Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart McKenzie was in transit to a conference somewhere in England at the time, Adrian Oliver insistence I be arrested with no further delay.
Had he overlooked the ‘Foxy’ witness statement he had drafted just a week or so earlier for the police woman to sign ‘he’ had telephoned my wife who in tune had told me a woman had phoned enquiring about the WW1 Lewis machine gun with ammo for sale? Eight of the jury, after my 9th Feb 2010 acquittal, told me and members of my family it must have been first an undercover police woman now switched to a man giving the behind the screen to hide his identity. Possibly on maternity leave.
Having witnessed Adrian Oliver’s lies and read so many of his drafted witness statements for those to give evidence and had unlawfully failed disclosure incidents all screams bias in these welsh law courts so much so the welsh police were dependent on the power of ‘authority’ the same’ authority’ that adversely prejudiced my family’s Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to cut off my income needed to fund the now ten or so damages claims against the welsh authorities including the police, HMP prisons and specifically named members of the Caswell clinic psychiatric prison just down the road from the G4S prison and police HQ,
All very cosy with almost all of the 113 criminal allegations thrown at me, while trying to practice veterinary science in the Vale of Glamorgan, came from the same close-knit police cabal but losing 89% of the malicious criminal prosecutions in court, if not withdrawn by the HM Crown Prosecution Service as plain stupid.
Prosecuted for ‘smuggling’ pigs into Ireland from a farmer’s field outside Cowbridge, in a 1950 two seat Piper Colt, seven times my refusing to produce any driving documents at all when ordered to by a uniformed police officer, for ‘speeding’ when it turned out the police representative , in court, had all the time, in his file, a clear photograph of the driver, one of my ‘work man’ that lead to an arrerst, a gang of South Wales Police had caused my Cardiff surgery front door to be smashed in by sledge-hammer to assist squatters to enter my premises, again, with the Chief Superintendent’s pregnant daughter and cause more substantial criminal damage are but a few of the CPS blocked criminal prosecutions once the truth, from my cross examinations, began to leak out.
It was the CPS, remember, as recorded in the June 2009 MAPPA level 3 meeting minutes was opposed, from the start, in having me arrested on once owning what may have been, at the time, a prohibited weapon. The CPS consulted and at the MAPPA meeting explained that it was my intent on serving at least 40 odd witness summons before trial commenced only to be achieved by following the daily ‘school run’ to respective homes as each police station, in turn, Cardiff, Barry and Llantwit Major had all refused ‘acknowledgment of service’ of £40 paid for at a time witness subpoenas. Even blocked at the airport for service on a air traffic controller, where I has intimidated by police with guns surrounding me stating that if I did not leave the Cardiff airport, immediately, I would be arrested.
That daft but dangerous incident arose in the frightening low level, even for me, police helicopter chase terrifying the pilot with me so much we had to put the D-Day cub down in first appropriate farmers very rough and almost too small 200-yard field.
Oliver’s misleading police signed MG11 witness statements, such as Barbara Wilding ‘s 6 weeks late affidavit ,contrary to court order and the countless other Dolmans drafted witness statements (almost 100 of them) some clearly bungled to be false, purported to be those of serving eye witnessing officers on their beat, over the years, had finally triggered my arrest due to a hoax ‘girt brick’ potential through his solicitor’s office window.
This left floundering police in Port Talbot police station that 22nd June 2009 night clearly not knowing how to proceed as they were now about to be faced with not just all the medical reports from Caswell Clinic already ordered, those of my own GP of 18 years, PEH specialists and hordes of CAA medical professionals all contradicting what they wanted, that I had relevant ‘brain damage’ and a ‘mental disorder’ of PDD sufficient for me to be locked away, for life, in Ashworth’s high security psychiatric hospital because the planned assassination on me had gone ‘belly up’ due to Dolmans week-end interference to have caused someone senior to press the ‘panic button’ to launch Operations Challis and Dandelion.
The police were now faced with forensic psychiatrist, Dr Bridget Craddock, having examined me in the station, also stating the police black mailed Caswell Clinic doctor was a liar when misleading the MAPPA covert meetings.
The consequences of their joint actions caused the 5 years loss in my life, loss of my wife, health, wealth and damned near my sanity.
There are £1000 rewards to anyone who can significantly enhance my current predicament with donating new evidence in my civil claims against the Welsh authorities brought by an Englishman hoping for justice in a welsh court room.
Adrian Oliver, senior partner, continues to enjoy immunity to criminal prosecution, only because he is in Cardiff and because he is defending the South Wales Chief Constable in Barbara Wilding’s 2009 ‘machine-gun’ conspiracy when attempting to having me shot.
To have me shot for welsh police losing over 40 malicious criminal prosecutions.
Now, the machine -gun civil claim enters its 11th year not a patch on my civil claim BS614159 etc (40failed prosecutions) as that goes on now into its 3rd decade, not unlikeJarndyce and Jarndycein dickens’ Bleak House.
Why? well the corrupt welsh first stopped my entering the court building for nearly 10 years, to slow me down and because the HM Royal Courts of Justice are refusing, due the stench of it, to allow to hear my appeal with its transcripts and court log records confiscated — what really goes on in our welsh law courts.
The police bullying continues…….
IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT
MAURICE JOHN KIRK
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY
This is an N244 Application (Cases 1CF03361 and D00CF279) to vary and remove all sanctions in the Order 31 May 2019 and for Directions as to how to proceed when not understanding past Court Directions and Orders. And is made in response to a Cardiff County Court email message 14 January 2019 to the unrepresented Claimant from HHJ Keyser QC, kindly explaining the meaning of the Order 31 May 2019 that the stay is lifted as from 9 January 2020 and the Claimant should now make this application promptly.
The Defendant have for ten years stood by what Dr XX says in his reports as a part of the Lewis Gun prosecution 2009 as true reliable fair and accurate. Yet as a part of this Lewis Gun case Dr XX in his report to the Cardiff Crown Court 30 September 2009 point 11 says:-
“…My current preliminary position is that whilst Maurice Kirk is fit to plead, his difficulty in organising ……as a result of brain injury……..he would be unable to conduct his own defence”
As Dr XX says the Claimant has significant “irreversible” brain damage it follows that by what Dr XX says in 2009 may apply in 2019 so that the Claimant would be unable to organise a complex case at a Court.
If the Defendant does not stand by Dr XX as being true reliable fair and accurate then that opens up how the Defendant has maliciously and dishonestly imprisoned the Claimant from 2011 to 2019 based on prosecution papers that the Defendant knew was untrue and as a way to obstruct the Claimant’s ability to progress his civil proceedings. Which the Claimant believes is what has happened.
Importantly to understand the deceit by the Defendant and prove they have done wrong by dishonesty at the Courts and to have interfered with the Claimant’s ability to progress civil proceedings, we do not need to go into whether the Claimant was guilty of harassment of the doctor who wrote false and malicious reports.
We only need to look at how the Defendant when bring prosecution deceitfully portraying the doctor as all good having done no wrong and the Claimant as all bad. So that the sentencing and subsequent harsh treatment was grossly disproportionate for the Claimant ‘rationally’ saying the truth that under the Section 12 annual and periodic renewal process of Mental Health Act 1983, the public and UK wide profession needs to know.
It is the proportionality of the sentence and harshness of the treatment there after, as a result of deceit, malice and dishonesty (by not admitting the serious, if not criminal wrong Dr XX does) is actually how the Defendant has interfered in the Claimant’s ability to progress his civil cases and the Lewis Gun case civil claim.
In short the Defendant has directly and indirectly deliberately triggered so many problems for the Claimant that a normal person could not manage Court procedure and deadlines with the Defendant causing so many civil and criminal proceedings and disputes, all with intense detail and while the Claimant has a loss of liberty with legal papers confiscated and formal post to and from Courts and relevant parties blocked or withheld.
While experiencing loss of liberty the Claimant had a number of potentially serious health issues where because the Defendant triggers the Claimant be dealt with harshly so that access to care became an embroiled dispute. And physical assaults occurred on top of potentially serious physical medical problems. Yet while all this occurred the Claimant was left without adequate medical care.
Also from what the Defendant caused while at the Bail Hostel for a short period, the Claimant was singled out for a different set of conditions which were far stricter and harsher regime to his peers. Again this led to more dispute casework.
The problems and number of disputes and issues are by far too many, too detailed and too hard going for the Client/lawyer relationship to cope. And the cost of trying to fight back in defence using lawyers is far too expense for any lay person.
The Defendant Interfered and obstructed the main substantive civil case hearing in Cardiff in 2013
The Claimant takes this opportunity to point out that the Defendant improperly used one of the four criminal prosecutions over Dr XX (based on evidence they knew was untrue) to prevent the Claimant being able to organise and have essential police evidence and witnesses in the 2013 main BS614159 substantive hearing into the wrongdoing by South Wales Police.
The Claimant is not understanding what to do.
The unrepresented lay Claimant genuinely cannot understand Court Orders and what is required of him and that includes how he was supposed to respond in case D00CF279. The Claimant does not understand how to go about listing his Document when the Defendant’s lawyers block the Claimant reading their Documents. And other example is, do Documents listed in the Further Particulars need to be again listed in a list of Documents?
The Defendant provoke problems from Multi Agencies as a way to obstruct the Claimant from taking part in civil proceedings
Regards the material time to comply with Court Orders. It took all manner of failed attempt by lawyers to try to urgently protect the Claimant by addressing huge problems, to only then realise that the Claimant and Claimant’s lawyer’s time is wasted trying to get an organisation to treat the Claimant fairly if the Defendant as police (and senior police) use their authority to tell the organisation to do different and the Defendant as police impose organisations use false information and cause organisations to treat the Claimant harshly and unfairly .
When the Lewis Gun case prosecution failed and the Defendant has use and continue obvious events within the Lewis Gun case to imprison the Claimant each year since the Lewis Gun case ended in 2010.
A simple way to get through a decade of detail is to compare the 2008/9 Lewis Gun case with the last prosecution by the Defendants knew what they saying was not true fair reasonable or proportionate.
The Defendant as senior police control Multi Agency working and the information on which multi agencies make decisions regards the Claimant.
Intensely false criminal records – including child abuse and fire arms Narcotics, ABH and FTA false convictions. So many false entries the problem is hard to deal with.
False and wildly exaggerated risk assessments are caused by endless untrue comments on top of a false criminal history. So many false comments they are hard to deal with.
Being wrongly regarded as very high risk causes loss of liberty and rights to further obstruct the Claimant and triggers he be treated harshly and unfairly. Which again leads to so very many problems and disputes they are hard to deal with.
The Defendant triggered obstructing if not blocking access to health care leading to considerable hardship and more disputes that arise where they resist the Claimant be allowed his basic rights. Which over the last two-year sentence led to so many problems and disputes they are hard to deal with.
Parole decisions were based on false data maliciously supplied by police to cause extra prison terms in all convictions and in both prison recalls
The G4S subculture take it upon themselves that given the Defendant senior police say such of the Claimant that G4S not only can obstruct the Claimant’s legal papers and proceedings but are free to subject the Claimant to beatings and bullying and also to get the fellow violent prisoners to do same to the Claimant. Again, there were so many incidents which are also part of a prison dispute system it is all too much and too difficult to cope with.
Things became so wild that when the Claimant sent the usual harmless letters to his English and Welsh MPs streets were sealed off and the Claimant interviewed under caution in case the very small residue of the Claimant’s toothpaste on the back of his letters posed a most serious risk to the public and Members of Parliament. Again, the Defendant saw to it that this ongoing episode was not a small matter so that again made it hard for the Claimant to manage all of the above and the civil proceedings.
The Claimant personal life has turmoil from similar outside of prison and his lawyer along with family has to try to address matters there.
So many intense problems were occurring that the volume of quite unnecessary work caused by the Defendant becomes unmanageable for the Claimant and the huge volume and intensity would undermine any lawyer client relationship and be far too expensive for a normal lay Claimant.
Claimant needs the Court to explain what is expected of him.
The Claimant needed and still needs the Court to explain to him what was and what now is required of him given the increased complexity.
Normally where a lay Claimant is unable to get legal advice, then the lawyers representing the public sector Defendant would act as Officers of the Court and explain the procedure and what to do next to the lay unrepresented Claimant. But in this case the Defendant’s lawyers act in bad faith.
The Claimant received an email from Cardiff County Court 14 January 2020 at 15.08pm, saying the Claimant’s email regards not being able to understand the Order 31 May 2019, was put before HHJ Keyser QC who comments:-
”……the case was stayed until 9 January 2020. The stay
is now ended. Any application for relief from sanction
must be made promptly”
The lay Claimant promptly makes this N244 application because the ex-parte hearing and Order of 31 May 2019 being controlled by the Defendant in the absence of the Claimant, is too far removed from the very obvious truth and facts of the Defendant’s agenda and actions in the 2009 Lewis Gun case at the Crown Court.
One main reason to bring an action that is a good use of Court time, is to stop problems continuing.
One problem is the aim of the Defendant in bringing the failed Lewis Gun prosecution of 2009 and the subsequent directly four prosecutions, was to prevent the Claimant address his Judicial Review and civil case where both were looming.
And that the Defendant continually prosecutes and imprisons the Claimant to obstruct and prevent the Claimant addressing his civil proceedings where the Defendant knows the prosecution papers and police information systems are not true.
The Order 31 May 2019 is too far removed from very obvious truth and facts of what the Defendant does to continue their 2008/9 agenda to obstruct the Claimants from taking and addressing civil proceedings by harming the Claimant each year since 2009.
So that the Claimant was imprisoned for five years due to blatant deceit by the Defendant, and particularly between 2016/17 to late 2019. – based on papers and police information systems where it is obvious the Defendant did not and cannot possibly believe are true or fair.
But there is (and will be) much new evidence as to the extent that the Defendant works to harm the Claimant is actually via multi agency collusion and as explained below the deceit and malice by the Defendant and how they aim to obstruct the lay Claimant, – is getting even worse. And without the intervention of the Courts will be indefinite.
The Claimant lives in England and is not safe entering South Wales.
An obvious need is for the case to be transferred to England so that the Claimant can avoid entering South Wales. As the Claimant lives in England not transferring the case would put the Claimant at risk of serious harm.
Should the Claimant start a new civil action in England regards the Defendant prosecuting using information they know is not true and ask English Court for the Lewis Gun case be drawn into that new civil action?
From yet again being recently put in prison it has become obvious to the Claimant that he needs to bring a civil action to stop the Defendant bringing or provoking prosecutions based on details that they know is not proportionate, and so far from what is proportionate, is therefore not true.
The information the Defendant knows to be untrue but still continually uses that information to prosecute the Claimant, has arisen out of the 2009 Lewis Gun case. A new civil action would rely on the same papers plus more. The extra would be related the prosecution cases brought by the Defendant since 2009 to 2019 and ongoing.
The Claimant needs to seek legal advice as to whether to state the new claim to include Maladministration, Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Malicious Prosecution (and even nonfeasance for colluding with a medical writer who acted seemingly criminally) as even if convicted a civil action can still be bought in rare situations, such as here where the Defendant cannot possibly believe their own prosecution papers as proportionate and therefore the Defendant knew the prosecution papers were not true.
Malfeasance – Request to assist, include and monitor the Claimant’s pre action request of the Chief Constable regards 2020. Or should this be a pre action protocol that is integrated into the Lewis Gun Case?
The Claimant seeks time and opportunity to take legal advice on the technicalities of these issues.
Possibly Malfeasance can occur if the Chief Constable does not in 2020 personally impose into police systems and procedures, new Decisions and measures by the Chief Constable that ensure the Defendant end their deceit in police information systems and particularly any response by the Defendants lawyers.
It can be said these 2020 issues have arisen out of the 2009 Lewis Gun case.
The outcome of a new claim around malfeasance could be a way to address the deceitful and dishonest conduct of the Defendant’s internal and external lawyers.
Directions of the Court on potential applications by the Claimant regards solicitors Adrian Oliver’s and Richard Leighton Hill’s conduct during proceedings before the Courts and Warning to Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill regards perverting the Course of Justice
We are all aware responsibility comes with control and that Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill have high level of control over the Defendant, because any Police Officer no matter how senior cannot go against what the Police ‘senior’ lawyers says.
If Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill adequately communicate to the Defendant the truth of the horrific wrong that Dr XX has done and also communicate to the Defendant that the false information (see letter form Belinda Kirk 25 July 2019 regards the Defendant totally falsified that the Claimant is a risk to his family)
It follows that the wrongdoing and potentially criminal acts of bring prosecutions based on what they know is not true has occurred quite directly as a result of Adrian Oliver’s and Richard Leighton Hill’s actions and inactions for which they can be personally liable before the criminal and civil courts.
The Claimant request Directions form the Court for a date when Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill update on and if that response regards correcting false information (See attached letter 17 July 2019 from Belinda Kirk) and admitting the wrong Dr XX does, is not satisfactory to give directions such as:-.
As to how the false information and highly improper and potentially criminal actions and inactions of Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill be a part of civil proceedings
And/or the false information and highly improper and potentially criminal actions and inactions of Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill be part of a new claim in England
And/or that to maintain confidence in the profession and the Courts that the Court give Directions for a hearing to sanction and potentially strike off the roll Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill and they can apply to the SRA if the wish to be reinstated.
Why the Defendant brought a malicious prosecution of the Lewis Gun case when they knew what they were saying was not true was to obstruct and prevent the Claimant in bring civil proceedings.
The context of the Lewis Gun case was according to the MAPPA minutes to prevent the publicity that may occur with the Claimant taking civil proceedings where any normal person can be expected to veer towards thinking that so very many prosecutions there must be wrongdoing by police and those in authority who collude with those police. Please documents see as attached.
Request Order for Disclosure and an Order to read the Defendant’s lawyers documents.
Please would the Court Order a date, time and duration and a neutral location such as a conference room in Bristol or Taunton (at a Court or a business room such as a hotel conference room or lawyers firm) where the Defendant’s lawyers must allow the Claimant to read documents.
The Defendants lawyers are asked to be able to tell the Court how they will arrange the Document being made available at a neutral venue within easy travelling distance to the Claimant’s home in Taunton.
Please could the Court Order disclosure for the Claimant for the Lewis Gun case and also request the Chief Constable to decide the Defendant to stop their deceit
As we are all aware In the UK there has been a major scandal at how police have improperly withheld disclosure at Criminal trials and this scandal is wider spread in the national media and is clearly acknowledged by the Police College who have new procedures to try to ensure police start to disclose adequately.
Please can the Court Order the Disclosure that the Claimant should have had in the 2009/2010 Lewis Gun case.
Please could the Court Order the Disclosure that the Claimant should have had in the four criminal trials from 2011 to present that have arisen out the dispute of a collusion regards false police MAPPA NHS medical report(s). Where the medical writer colluded with the Defendant via MAPPA in the Lewis gun case and when the Claimant makes protests at their deceit they both (Defendant and medical writer) prosecute the Claimant using information they know is not true. And they also do this to obstruct the Claimant taking civil proceedings regards their deceit and malice in the Lewis Gun case.
The Claimant’s 2019 lay version of Further Particulars that worries the Defendants as too close to the truth. But did the Defendant obstruct the Claimant complying with civil proceedings by imprisoning the Claimant by a prosecution using information the Defendant knew was untrue?
The Claimant complied with the Court Order to supply Further Particulars by a stipulated date and did so using a lawyer.
However, in February 2019 the Claimant could not approve what the lawyer sent to the Court as the Defendant’s arrested the Claimant that weekend in the middle of the period of Claimant meeting with his lawyer. The lawyer could not meet the claimant in custody during an arrest period and did not know where the Claimant was but rather did a best effort at what the Claimant wished so as not to miss the deadline.
Furthermore, it is very obvious that regards at least proportionality or the excessive length of the prison sentence (that meant the Claimant could not meet with his lawyer) is due to the Defendant lawyers and the Defendant being deceitful before the Courts, as to the medical report being blatantly untrue. Or if the medical reports are true to first examine that a prosecution would not be appropriate but rather NHS assessment and care would be appropriate.
The fact the Defendant did not start with a reassessment of the medical states of the Claimant shows they brought a prosecution not believing the medical reports that the Claimant protests (or allegedly harasses) about, were true.
Possibly the Court may wish to ignore and put to one side the Defendant’s lawyers panic at a lay version of the truth, until the Chief Constable responds to potential pre action communications regards “a management Decision” of the Chief Constable that there will be no further deceit by the Defendants on specific issues that will be raised?
However especially as the lay Claimant has not failed to comply with an Order to submit Further Particulars, as he did submit a lawyers document on time, but it can appear fair, reasonable and common sense that a lay Claimant if doing a complex case himself for the Claimant to be allowed use his way of explaining the case by his “additional” lay document.
An example where the Order 31 May 2019 is not acknowledging obvious material issues – Please compare the Doctor’s writing with the Caswell Team’s medical evidence quoted below from 2009.
For example we also have to consider that either the Defendant’s August to October 2009 medical report(s) of the Lewis Gun case mean that the Claimant has significant irreversible brain damage (where the rate of deterioration was said to be not known and needs to be monitored/reassessment). And is also delusional in a number of ways. And so should not be expect to cope with complying with Court Directions and Orders. Or if not given the unusual facts (for example that two Radiologists give a normal all clear result 28 August 2009) it follows for all parties should admit the Defendant’s medical report(s) as intentionally false, biased and malicious and so leading to how the Defendant has unlawfully imprisoned the lay Claimant for five years from 2011 to 2019 by the Defendant and their lawyers being deceitful at Courts and it has been the Defendant who has prevented the Claimant from addressing civil proceedings.
Please note some detail on the prosecution of cases since 2009 where the Claimant is accused of harassing the writer of the medical reports. If to keep things simple we imagine hypothetically that responses of the Claimant were excessive and so the conviction is not in doubt, we are then left with the prosecution papers are deceitful and dishonest because of if the writer of the medical reports was accurate and the prosecution was honest, then a man with significant irreversible brain damage and with PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disorder) would not have served 5 years in prison. In the well-known farmer Tony Martin who had PDD, when he was convicted of murder (shot at two youths escaping his property) he had a sentence of only 3 years due to PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disorder).
If on the other hand, if the Defendants prosecution cases were to be honest and admitted the bias, deceit, malice and dishonesty of the writer of the medical reports, then either a prosecution would not have proceeded. Or the Claimant would not have served five years in prison because the Claimant would have been recognised as saying the truth that the public and profession need to know. Or the writer of the medical reports could be prosecuted for his exceptional dishonesty before the Courts and to police – on five occasions in five criminal cases between 2009 and 2019.
It must be emphasised that the evidence that Dr XX (and so the Defendant and their lawyers) acted and still acts potentially criminally is very much more. What is said in this document is only a sample in order to be as brief as possible.
The Lewis Gun case 2009 Caswell Clinic Team assessment of the Claimant
An additional dimension is that as part of the Lewis Gun case there was a team assessment by Caswell Clinic the result of which differed to what the doctor who colluded with the Defendant and the 2009 team report page 42 says that the Claimant is not delusion but
“…suffering from a significant degree of anxiety..”
“…continued physical and psychological stress could
have an adverse effect on him in the future…”
Suffering from high levels of anxiety often means a person is not normally well enough to conduct complex legal proceedings at the usual pace and speed and would need to be given extra time and leniency.
We need to add the extra dimension and extra level of harm was caused by the Defendant’s quite sinister use of a collusion with multi agencies that the Defendant organised from 2009 to the present ‘and indefinitely’, is causing the obstruction that has prevented the Claimant from dealing with all of his civil claims.
As explained below the Defendant has been extending their bullying of the Claimant by a deceitful use of multi agency working that would damage anyone’s mental state, so that the Claimant cannot participate in his civil legal proceedings against the Defendant.
But then when the Claimant mental state is not the best, to exaggerate that as if the Claimant is a high or highest risk to the community.
The Claimant seeks new Directions that recognise how the Defendant’s trend of deceit and malice within the Lewis Gun case has been continued each year. And the Claimant asks the Court that the truth and facts in the trend of what the Defendant actually does is allowed to become evidence before the Court.
Request Chief Constable personally confirm that specific deceit and dishonesty regards the writer of the Lewis Gun medical reports will not reoccur in prosecutions, any Court papers or in police information systems.
It is therefore becoming obvious that the direction of the claims against the Defendant needs to be varied to address the main problem. Whether by changes to the present claim or by a new claim which can potentially be added to the present claim. With an emphasis on identifying the deceit and dishonesty and to prevent similar deceit in prosecutions and police information systems in future.
As we are aware the Chief Constable as the Chief of all police officers staff and lawyers and is liable for what they do. The writer of the Lewis Gun medical reports requested the loss of liberty of the Claimant and the Defendant has continued to use these obviously false reports as if true and accurate. To know how to make requests of the Court or to particularise papers the Claimant requests the Chief Constable personally makes the decision that South Wales Police and it’s information systems, multi-agency communications and it’s lawyers will permanently acknowledge that the writer of the medical reports of 2009 “did some wrong” so contrary to what arrests and prosecutions since 2010 to present, that the Claimant acts with genuine grievance and to specify as explained below
Example of a just some of the criminal case against Dr TW and police who colluded with him that the Chief Constable and Defendant need to act on.
Does the Claimant have Significant Irreversible Brain Damage? Or is the Defendant dishonest to even a criminal level of deceit?
8Dr Aisling Butler and then a second opinion check by Dr Gareth Tudor , which the Claimant understands as a message to all other doctors of an
30 September 2009 that writes to request loss of liberty by Section for another month where Dr XX says to apply for a Mental Health Act Section that
The Assessment of Maurice Kirk has concentrated on several areas, mainly the presence or absence of any mental illness and the presence or absence of any traumatic brain injury”
But if we examine Dr XX report of 29 September 2009 which is used as evidence at the Crown Court, Dr XX has totally left out and hidden from the Crown Court that the two Radiologist 28 August 2009 have given a normal all clear result and Dr XX deceitfully states:-
“Maurice Kirk has been referred for detailed brain scans”.
29 September 2009 in point 7
“….suffers with dysfunction of the ventral prefrontal cortex
of the brain….further neuropsychological testing is required
to confirm the severity of such damage.”
29 September 2009 in point 8
“Maurice Kirk has evidence of significant brain damage …..”
29 September 2009 in point 10
When in truth the fact is Maurice kirk has already been given a normal all clear result but the deceit goes on to the final report by Dr XX of 19 October 2009 please see the extract attached.
Dr XX was the Clinical director responsible for training and controlling that doctors at Caswell Clinic did not go beyond their expertise.
But when the brain scan result is normal all clear by 28 August 2009 Dr XX knew he was being dishonest when he wrote formally to the Cardiff Crown Court as a part of proceedings to say there was brain damage while there was no evidence to say that, and if Dr XX was wishing to say there was brain damage Dr TXX knew he would have to use a doctor who medically qualified by trained and experienced in the interpretation of brain scans to provide written evidence.
Claims of Delusions and PDD Paranoid Delusional Disorder are obviously intentionally deceitful assertions that are not based on evidence.
Firstly it is not for a doctor when either writing for NHS records or giving evidence to a Court to determine facts and the decisions Courts should make.
If a person is often prosecuted or subject to disproportionate attention by police, that is seemingly unfair Parliament has decided that people should sue the Chief Constable as a means to explore issues and gain accountability. But for Dr XX to say the Claimant is delusional he is persecuted by police Dr XX would have to determine the facts of the Claimant case as being totally without merit and the Defendant has not managed to do that.
Dr XX in 2009 implies the Claimant is mentally ill for being concerned as to whether the NHS would covertly put psychiatric medication in his food as if Dr XX says the NHS could never do that so the Claimant must be mentally ill. When DR TW would have known as Clinical Director that the Nursing and Midwifery Council in 2005 and Royal College of Psychiatry in 2008 gave guidelines on when to covertly put psychiatric medication in patients’ food.
Dr XX tries to discredit the Claimant by saying the Claimant is paranoid or delusional regards occasionally using the word Freemasonry. But the Claimant does not focus on Freemasonry and the oblique references the Claimant may make to Freemasonry would be no different to the National Assembly of Wales and for example one of its past leaders Rhodri Morgan who sought a ban on appointing Freemasons in some key positions. So that as the Claimant does not focus on Freemasonry any more than others the Dr XX would know there is no evidence of delusional behaviour.
Essentially every key assertion by Dr XX that the Claimant was delusional can be shown as that Dr XX knew he was being deceitful.
There is even a letter by Dr Rose Marnell 3 March 2014 (copy attached) saying there is no evidence of the conditions that Dr XX asserts the Claimant has. And indeed, many other doctors also, confirms a picture that is consistent with Dr XX being malicious and deliberately dishonest and totally deceitful.
For example, not all in the multi-agency staff colluded but rather could not prevent what the Defendant did. Those multi agency staff from 2009 to present need to become witnesses. As well as multi agency staff who are hostile to the Claimant.
Also the Claimant out of prison is taking statements from numerous people.
The Claimant has found a letter 1 June 2010 where the Defendant refuses to investigate wrongdoing by police in the Lewis gun case based on witness statements not disclosed to the Claimant.
Defendant’s influence means endless failed Disclosure. The Claimant now requests, yet again, Court Orders for Disclosure.
Parole’s Oasysis Assessment
Police eligible data where there have been applications since 2009 with MAPPA, MG6D and PII protected evidence having been applied for many times under Subject Access Requests.
Request for an Order regards withheld evidence regards Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun were interviewed under caution but were not prosecuted
The Claimant requests an Order for Disclosure regards the evidence the Defendant withheld during the Lewis Gun case in 2009/10 regards Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun from the Claimant
South Wales Police were in close contact liaising with Police in Nottingham. That caused Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun from the Claimant to be interviewed under caution and there are tapes and records or why Mr & Ms Cooper were not prosecuted – when the claimant was which South Wales Police had access to and knowledge of but all of which was deliberately hidden from the prosecution process, the Claimant and the trial at Cardiff Crown Court.
The Claimant seeks Order(s) for Disclosure from ‘all’ parties.
Request Disclosure of withheld statements from 2009
On 1 June 2012 Detective Inspector Holden of South Wales Police refused to progress the complaint into the Lewis Gun case when obviously there are issues that honest police would need to look at in order to maintain professional standards. But D.I. Holder inadvertently says of statements and evidence obtained by the Defendant in 2009 that were not disclosed to the Claimant in 2009.
For example as a part of the deceit the defendant uses statements from people who are not expert in the relevant issues of firearms law relevant to why the Lewis gun was legal.
SWP deliberately and deceitful used quasi-experts to mislead where quasi experts are people or staff who are not experts but rather work a speciality and can useful expertise on what they do, But the quasi expert is not experienced enough to be an expert who can comment with expertise on the wider full picture such as being an expert on contradictions and complications of fire arms law such as is found in the 2015 Law Commission report and the 2009 Consultation.
As the Home Office Consults Police forces in a consultation ending May 2009 Police knew the legal issues regards the Lewis Gun within the law earlier in 2009.
Disclosure can help show how the Defendant deceitfully and maliciously manipulated the evidence by not asking for comment to explain how Lewis
Disclosure can also show that the Defendant avoids issues like (which can easily be )by
New Evidence – Legal Advice needed on new evidence is emerging and the transcripts of the 2009 trial became available to people in 2019 who are starting to respond with information.
If the Defendant had been honest in prosecution documents and if the Defendant had not colluded with the writer of the 2009 medical reports in 2009 would not have been in prison
Now the Claimant is out of prison and not restricted in travel by licence conditions the Lewis Gun case transcripts from 2010 have become available to people the Claimant is learning more.
The Claimant needs time to put all this new evidence together and request the Directions of the Court so that the truth can be evidence at trial.
Directions on additional Further and Better Particulars to include how the Defendant manipulated and used multi agencies to harm the Claimant
In proving a case at Court and addressing accountability, establishing a trend is important to show it is not just a one-off problem.
For truth to be come evidence and to avoid issuing new proceedings with a messy duplicate civil trial the Claimant needs Legal advice on how to add the actions how the Defendant has manipulated multi agencies in 2009 onwards to the present moment and 2020, which of means also including the writer of the medical reports, and the Defendant’s lawyers conduct
It must be emphasised that the evidence that Dr XX (and so the Defendant and their lawyers) acted and still acts potentially criminally is very much more. What is said in this document is only a sample in order to be as brief as possible.
As can be seen by all this events and the have been too much for a lay Claimant to cope with such complex civil proceedings and he request the Court set new Directions so that he can manage and include all the new issues and evidence.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this application are true.
Maurice John Kirk BVSc
Date 21 January 2020
IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT
MAURICE JOHN KIRK
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY
List of Documents in Support of the N244 Application 21 January 2020
28 Aug 2009
NHS Radiology Brain Scan results.
Two doctors at ABMU NHS confirm a normal all clear result.
30 Sept 2009
Dr XX reports to the Cardiff Crown Court
Dr XX hides the above from the Court and totally makes up that this is brain damage.
19 Oct 2009
Extract of Dr XX final Opinion to Cardiff Crown Court
16 June 2010
CAA Medical says Claimant is fit to fly
Obviously Claimant Maurice Kirk does not appear mentally ill or brain damaged as Dr XX says.
28 Nov 2013
University Hospital of Wales (UHW) Cardiff
Radiology at UHW gives a normal all clear brain scan
14 March 2014
Dr Rose Marnell Clinical Director at HMP Cardiff
Says no evidence of any brain damage or PDD/delusion.
25 July 2019
Belinda Kirk (Oxford educated TV/film maker daughter of Claimant)
Writes regards the Defendant falsely saying the Claimant is a risk to her and her family when Belinda Kirk says that is not true. .