SHOCKING! Maurice Kirk: Yet Another Example of South Wales Police Criminality – 24 Nov. 2021 + archive

 Yet Another Example of South Wales Police Criminality

In the Bristol County Court                                              

Case number GA00TA220

Maurice John Kirk (Applicant)

v

G4S Custodial Services Ltd (Respondent)

DRAFT

Revised Skeleton Argument

for the hearing of 2nd December 2021

Background

  1. This application has arisen because from 10 May 2021 to 20th May 2021 I was at a jury trial at Exeter Crown Court after which I was acquitted. Although attending my home address and accessing my emails I never saw any communication from Bristol County Court of a 15 May 2021 listing in case GA00TA220 or else I could simply have said to Bristol County Court that I was at Exeter Crown Court on that day.
  • I also paid a court fee of £10,000 which I believe demonstrates how seriously I regarded and committed I was to the G4S matter in Bristol linking it to BS614159 appeal (40 odd South Wales Police failed malicious criminal prosecutions).
  • I ask the Court also to take into account that in 2021 at 76 years I have what some may describe as an age-related cardiovascular deterioration (random GP letter enclosed) where I have been an NHS Hospital inpatient three times in May and June 2021 and was given an assortment of medication for severe AF (atrial fibrillation). It is well known that an elderly person starting such medication will have very considerable problems with struggling to be able to think and organise themselves (oxygen starvation to the brain). This ‘significant brain damage’ condition was first recorded in the Caswell Clinic, South Wales medical report dated 19th Oct 2009 advising the real medical need for legal representation.   
  • I brought the G4S case believing that there is a clear principle that it is essential for Courts to respect prisoner’s rights because of the high level of control that a Prison has over its prisoner (responsible for prisoners’ letters to their respective MPs – See T20200177 MP alleged ‘stalking’ acquittal and equally daft T20210178 ‘bladed instrument found in a vehicle’ acquittal)).
  • Regards my compliance with Case Management my understanding is that whereas I can be asked to do obvious easily achievable points of civil procedure it is unfair and potentially unlawful to request a lay person representing themselves to display the skill of a lawyer.
  • I also refer to Lord Thomas who before the Justice Select Committee said the Judiciary are concerned that efforts claiming to make the county courts more efficient were making the courts more unfair.
  • I do not believe a lay person should be asked to cost out their claim as though having the skill of a lawyer but rather a lay claimant should only be asked to do as has occurred in UK Courts for centuries that a lay person has a right to bring an injustice before the court.    
  • This claim arises from while I served an unlawful sentence as I should have been released in March 2019 at G4S privately run HMP Parc, Bridgend.
  • South Wales Police, the court heard, had telephoned my MP in May 2019 informing her that because I had sent a letter seeking help over my G4S stolen property I would remain in prison until at least December.
  1. On 1st Nov 2019 I was G4S violently assaulted while its staff confiscated the full content of my cell refusing, they thought amusing at the time, in supplying me with the statutory inventory of property stolen.
  1.  These legal papers included 1CF03361civil claim arising from South Wales Police’s T20097445 ‘trading in machineguns’ miserably failed malicious criminal prosecution, my three years of my Welsh GP medical records, my Caswell Clinic, Bridgend records specifically sent to me for my Taunton GP by Dr Gaynor Jones in November 2018 and clothes, books and two wheel chairs. They refused to hand them back even ignoring my Devon MP’s letter on the matter. As a consequence, I was prevented from case managing the machinegun claim and accordingly penalised for it at the October 2021 trial.
  1. However, when I say confiscated my legal papers and possessions it was all more brutal than that. On 1 November 2019 my cell was raided by eight prison officers who, without explanation, filmed on body cams, rammed both my arms behind my back and forced on over tight handcuffs. Despite prior knowledge they had no regard for my previously broken wrist, thumb, elbow and shoulder.
  1.  South Wales Police’s PNC remarkable disclosure, following my May 2021 MP alleged ‘stalking’ allegations acquittal revealed that during my G4S incarceration in 2018/19 there were, on record, my having previous false convictions including ‘firearms’, ‘child abuse’ and ‘narcotics’ (cultivating, supplying and using).
  1.  Whereas the probation officer had success in having these convictions removed for my successful October 2019 Parole Board hearing, ordering my immediate release, there will be similar false data still remaining on my MAPPA 3/3, MG6C, PII and OASys etc police-controlled fairy tale records.
  1. Five FALSE WARNINGS on the South /Wales Police’s PNC, including I was ‘likely to be violent upon arrest’, was revealed for the first time following my T20200177 MP/ police CPR disclosure under Article 6 etc.  
  1. I was then violently carried from the prison and without my feet touching the ground placed inside a vehicle and driven out of Wales without my legal papers and possessions.  Two bundles of my mail almost thrown at me identified as urgent mail sent to Cardiff prison in early 2019 with the remainder addressed to me, in June onwards, in HMP Parc!     
  1. Prior to 1st November 2019 while in custody under the control of G4S I was abused and denied adequate and appropriate medical care.
  1. The abuse included assaults on my person, some recorded in my snatched Comp1/2 prison complaint forms, my being denied my daily Omeprazole, for weeks on end, required for a diagnosed carcinogenic lesion, Barrett’s Oesophagus, following a flying accident for James Bond film, ‘Moonraker’, splitting my diaphragm and significantly damaging my phrenic nerve.
  1. Therefore, the tort includes:
  1. G4S and prisoner assaults in the Parc prison
  • G4S induced assaults by prisoners on their misconceived belief of my having been convicted as paedophile, drug dealer and for having a conviction relating to 1968 section 5 prohibited weapons.
  • G4S withheld my medicines for weeks
  •  and denied the return of my Caswell Clinic medical records sent into the prison for me in November 2018 by Dr Gaynor Jones specifically for my GP
  • HMP Cardiff also stole both my incoming and outgoing mail for HM Criminal Court of Appeal, Cardiff’s civil court, my GP and family.
  • Both Welsh prisons deliberately confiscated my applications for Parole, medical help, RCJ appeals, G4S judicial review applications and the recent machine gun case 1CF03361 papers being heard now on appeal in some Cardiff court as I am denied, of course, access to The Royal Courts of Justice.

Some of my stolen legal files were only returned to me by G4S in August 2021

  • G4S have stolen my MP/lawyer file including copies of letters to HM Secretary of State for Wales and MP I cannot name by court order, Holborn Adam solicitors, Law Society, Chris Daw QC and Bar Council.
  • My clothes, shoes and two wheelchairs remain stolen.

This list of loss is not exhaustive

Temporary photographic evidence of some of the retrieved Claimant files from G4S recently from four boxes from HMP Parc opened and checked by law

  • In addition to that critical principle to respect prisoners’ rights, this case is about conduct that is far more malicious than odd breaches of human rights and the background of why I was in HMP Parc is essential to grasp as a means to understand what motivates G4S and what is really going on.

Multi Agency working – colluding with errant police as a perception as to why G4S also acted in bad faith failing to disclose a Chief Constable was also in charge of Gold Group, the officer in charge of T20097445 unknown to the Claimant, 2017 jury or Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons over past 12 years.

  • As in the 1CF03361 South Wales Police ‘machinegun’ conspiracy, to secure a 10-year mandatory prison term to block my imminent BS614159 civil claim, both G4S and HMP Cardiff conspired to pervert the course of justice.
  • The background is important because it explains the motivation of G4S to try to do the same as SW police to obstruct if not swamp me with obstacles to make it difficult for me to manage my civil legal cases ALL against them.
  • This claim arises in a context where I am in a long term dispute with SW Police and their partners through multi agency working where I alleged that every time I tried to bring a case before the civil courts to prove my point, mischief occurs by SW Police and their partners (such as Dr T W and G4S), try to undermine my case at the civil courts. (Dr TW was the author of my notorious 19th Oct 2009 psychiatric report recommending I be further sectioned under the1983 Mental Health Act as an IPP prisoner in Ashworth’s high security psychiatric hospital- meaning for life.
  • By mid 2009 my case over years of harassment and deceit by SW Police was due to be heard at the civil court. The case concerned nearly two decades of being harassed by police trying to prosecute me and the sheer amount of times they tried to prosecute me made for an unassailable inference of mala fides.  I was acquitted or a case dropped over forty (40) times.. More than 40 prosecution cases were started and I won 89% at one point consisting of more than 123 criminal allegations. A trend which means that it is certain that the reasonable thinking man will suspect that some kind of mischief must be occurring (HHJ comment in 2000 BS614159 Bristol County Court hearing was an example of that).
  • Regards this 2009/2010 remand and prosecution over a WW1 film prop dummy Lewis gun the jury believed me and I was promptly acquitted.
  • But in August to December 2009 when SW Police felt their prosecution would fail they used their Gold Group  multi agency partner Dr TW to deploy reports he must have known were false to try to damage my credibility and get me sectioned to Ashworth indefinitely.
  • Importantly Dr TW used a series of one month applications for sectioning to Dr TW’s clinic at the ABM NHS in Bridgend starting 3 August 2009 to assess whether I may have brain damage from aeroplane crashes. This was to assess whether I had brain damage affecting my behaviour which of course included the ability to manage my life.
  • His colleague, Professor Rodger Wood, in on the act went further and said in writing my brain damage had been primarily due to my having been a ‘long term drinking partner, Actor, Oliver Reed;!
  • However by 29 August 2009 two experts from the ABM NHS Bridgend Radiology Department decided I had a normal brain scan for a man of my age. Therefore, just like my claim against G4S, Dr TW sought to collude with SW Police by not only hiding my NHS formal all clear result from the Cardiff Crown Court but also Dr TW made the leap to an area of medicine in which he is not qualified, to assert as an expert that I had significant irreversible brain damage which impacted on my behaviour.
  • Additionally Dr TW changed his early diagnosis to the Cardiff Crown Court of

“…….consistent with, but not diagnostic of a paranoid illness…”

Dr TW writing to Cardiff Crown Court early September 2009

  • In contrast between October and December 2009 Dr TW was trying to Section me indefinitely to Ashworth now claiming I suffered from Paranoid Delusional Order but was unable to explain any unreasonable or unusual behaviour to justify him saying that, other than I was suing SW Police.
  • Also the extreme number of attempted but failed prosecutions or like incidents, meant a reasonable person would think there was good reason to challenge SW Police.  Parliament has decided that legal action against the Chief Constable is the correct way to raise issue.
  • Dr TW was seemingly colluding with SW Police by attempting to Section me indefinitely on 2 December 2009 at Cardiff Crown Court before a jury trial could occur in January/February 2010. But he failed because no other doctors would support him.
  • SW Police now promote only the false report of Dr TW as if true while omitting from police records what all the other doctors say. Dr TW says in his report to the Cardiff Crown Court:-

“…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

Dr TW point 11 dated 30 September 2009

  • After my being acquitted by the jury in 2010 failed prosecutions that take up my time and resources did not stop.
  • One of eight of the jury in a nearby public house physically dragged me into a public house near the Cardiff crown court in order to tell me that after the first day od evidence in a two week trial it was clear I had been ‘stitched up’
  • As from 2010 while I tried to avoid SW Police and live in France, SW Police sent my local French police a copy of medical reports by Dr TW that police knew were untrue.
  • Additionally in 2010 SW Police tried to prosecute me over trivia of whether trying to attend the civil court amounted to common assault and after a year of disruption to my life that was eventually thrown out of the Magistrates court.
  • during the time period of of the BS614159 police incidents seven times I had HORT1producer documents served on me by south wales Police and seven times I flatly refused to produce, anymore, my driving licence, insurance and MOT documents that led to no cautions or prosecutions.
  • Furthermore as from 2011 SW Police started a series of many prosecutions claiming that my trying to complain with accurate truthful references about them using false reports by Dr TW, amounted to harassment of Dr TW.
  • I did mange a year free of SW Police where in 2016 I flew my aeroplane half way across Africa as reported with interest and excitement by the main UK news media and the main media across the world.
  • But I could not complete the second stage of my 2016 Africa trip because SW Police arrested me in 2017 for saying the truth at the police station in
  • My Cardiff Bay police station video account of the Dr Tegwyn Williams/South Wales police conspiracy was never investigated
  • SW Police do not like me saying the truth and I was given a two year sentence for publishing the truth and that is why I was at HMP Parc under the control of G4S.

Are my claims about saying the truth credible?

  • Dr TW must have known he was doing wrong because in 2007/8 he wrote Chapter 19 “The expert witness: professional practice and pitfalls” in the Handbook of Forensic Mental Health (Pub: William 2008)explaining not to go beyond one’s expertise and to use other experts if issues are outside of one’s expertise. Therefore, when Dr TW is not medically qualified as a neurologist
  •  Dr TW not only acted improperly but potentially even criminally in knowingly and so seemingly intentionally misleading the Crown Court, CPS and Police on important issues.
  • We can see potential dishonesty regards Dr TW and police use of Paranoid Delusional Disorder (PDD) because they use PDD when they feel it could cause harm, but hide it from the four prosecutions when it would have reduced my sentence by half or even no sentence at all.
  • We can use the example of the case of farmer Tony Martin who shot two young intruders as they fled his home. In the Tony Martin case PDD was an integral a part of the case and was the reason why he only received a reduced sentence of three years. Whereas Police and Dr TW arranged I served 5 years in prison for saying the truth on posters and on the interne
  • The Police cannot avoid the fact that even though I was acquitted in the 2009/10 Lewis gun case a film prop dummy Lewis gun was not a firearm. Yet the police still have to this day placed on the Police National Computer (and so for the attention of police across the world) that I am a 2009 firearms risk and that I am violent.

Honest Opinions of experienced G4S staff differ to that of police.

  • The staff at G4S did not find me as a violent or dangerous risk as SW Police maliciously say or having the severe medical conditions as Dr TW say and SW Police amplify.  It may well be one reason why G4S needed to hide my legal and other papers as G4S inadvertently prove the wrong SW Police do in persecuting me by a false assertion of risk that they know is not true.

Claimant won the Cardiff Crown Court jury trial in 2010 and the Exeter Crown Court jury trial in 2021 that both arose from a false assertion of risk 

  • As from the 2009/10 prosecution that SW Police lost they still placed the Claimant on the Critical Public Protection Risk as one of the very most dangerous people in the UK where by Critical Public Protection Risk those procedures require police local to the prison to inform the constituency Member of Parliament when the person may be released into their constituency and what risk there is.
  • When the Claimant was serving sentence for saying the truth at HMP Parc, SW Police took this opportunity of having placed the Claimant on the Critical Public Protection Risk to exaggerate risk to Rebecca Pow MP so that she became hysterical from false assertion by SW Police so that she ineptly claimed that the Claimant asking his constituency Member of Parliament for help amounted to stalking. But yet again we have another prosecution by police that the jury at Exeter Crown Court did not believe. 

Abuse at HMP Parc

  • G4S also may feel need to hide my legal and other papers because the papers can help me prove the abuse that occurred while I was at HMP Parc.

Example of HMP Cardiff and HMP Parc taking legal papers 

  • I believe the harsh treatment and raids of my cell with the confiscation of my legal papers was instigated by SW Police via multi agency working because the same occurred while I was at HMP Cardiff.
  • Please see the attached statement  by ….. prisoner statements confiscated

The Law

  • My understanding of the law is as online Human Rights groups say that –

“Make no mistake, no matter what your crime, you will be subject to the Prison Rules while you are a ‘guest of the state’, however many of your basic rights are unchanged. You still have the right to food, protection from assault and access to the courts.”

http://www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/prisoners-rights-if-convicted-crime-serving-sentence.html

  • Regards the set aside of the previous decision I understand there is to be a level playing field fairness and with a priority support the overriding interests of justice.
  • The Claimant did not see any notification from the County Court and would have easily responded if he had by saying he was at an Exeter Court trial. The Claimant was also an inpatient in hospitals for serious age- related cardiology problems. The Claimant understands the Court has good reason and discretion to set aside the previous decision if the Court so wishes.  
  • Although some it the court system may wish to try to establish a harsh approach that squeezes out litigant in person from having access to the courts, I believe the senior Judiciary under appeal on points of law, cannot support the imbalance in power and unfairness that is occurring or asking lay people to act with the skills of lawyer. 

The Claimant wishes to get on with is life without all these disputes and court cases and ask that G4S return his legal papers and other possessions as a matter of urgency.

Dated 21st September 2021

Let us now summarise the level of deceit within the South Wales authorities requiring an Englishman to be gaoled for five years of his life in order to block both his BS614159 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions civil claim and his 1CF03361 equally scandalous 1CF03361 ‘trading in prohibited weapons’ contrary to section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act

to be continued

Signed

MAURICE JOHN KIRK 

 Claimant in Person

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Maurice Kirk ACQUITTED: “Former Taunton vet Maurice Kirk NOT GUILTY of stalking MP” + BBC News 20 May 2021 + archive

Man cleared of stalking MP Rebecca Pow given restraining order

Published
 
 
Taunton Deane MP Rebecca Pow
Image source, UK Parliament
Ms Pow described Mr Kirk’s behaviour as “terrifying”, however a jury cleared him of stalking her

A man who sent his MP a letter covered in white powder has been cleared of stalking her but has been issued with a restraining order.

Maurice Kirk, 76, of Westgate Street, Taunton, said he wanted to enlist Rebecca Pow’s help in a police dispute.

The Conservative MP for Taunton Deane told Exeter Crown Court she found Mr Kirk’s behaviour “terrifying”.

His restraining order is for seven years but he may contact her by letter or email at the House of Commons.

Mr Kirk is not allowed to visit Ms Pow’s home or her constituency office in Taunton.

He represented himself in court and was cleared of one count of stalking that caused serious alarm or distress.

The prosecution claimed his stalking campaign started in May 2019 while he was in prison for an unconnected offence of breaching a harassment order against a doctor.

Social media restriction

Mr Kirk said he had contacted Ms Pow’s office to enlist her help in his attempt to sue South Wales Police.

The court heard he wanted to sue the force over a prosecution in which he was cleared of fixing a machine-gun on a vintage plane, after claiming it was a harmless piece of metal.

Mr Kirk said he used toothpaste to seal an envelope that he sent to Ms Pow’s office, which she mistook for possible anthrax.

He also turned up at Ms Pow’s home during the national lockdown in May 2020, but again said he was trying to get her to help him and that his contact was normal.

Mr Kirk posted a photo of himself carrying a shotgun with two pictures of Ms Pow posted directly beneath on his website.

Judge Peter Johnson banned Mr Kirk from making any comments about Ms Pow on social media or his website.

He was also ordered to remove a post he published while the jury was considering its verdict.

In a statement, Ms Pow said: “I would like to thank those who have supported me over the past two years, especially my dedicated staff and my close family.

“I welcome the decision to apply a robust restraining order for my protection so that Mr Kirk’s behaviour towards me as an MP is properly regulated in future.”

More on this story:

————————————————————————————————————————-

 
Maurice Kirk arriving at Exeter Crown Court during his trial

Former Taunton vet Maurice Kirk NOT GUILTY of stalking MP Rebecca Pow

A man who sent his MP a letter covered in white powder has been cleared of stalking her but has been issued with a restraining order.

Maurice Kirk, 76, of Westgate Street, Taunton, said he wanted to enlist Rebecca Pow’s help in a police dispute.

The Conservative MP for Taunton Deane told Exeter Crown Court she found Mr Kirk’s behaviour “terrifying”.

His restraining order is for seven years but he may contact her by letter or email at the House of Commons.

Mr Kirk is not allowed to visit Ms Pow’s home or her constituency office in Taunton.

He represented himself in court and was cleared of one count of stalking that caused serious alarm or distress.

The prosecution claimed his stalking campaign started in May 2019 while he was in prison for an unconnected offence of breaching a harassment order against a doctor.

Social media restriction

Mr Kirk said he had contacted Ms Pow’s office to enlist her help in his attempt to sue South Wales Police.

The court heard he wanted to sue the force over a prosecution in which he was cleared of fixing a machine-gun on a vintage plane, after claiming it was a harmless piece of metal.

Mr Kirk said he used toothpaste to seal an envelope that he sent to Ms Pow’s office, which she mistook for possible anthrax.

He also turned up at Ms Pow’s home during the national lockdown in May 2020, but again said he was trying to get her to help him and that his contact was normal.

Mr Kirk posted a photo of himself carrying a shotgun with two pictures of Ms Pow posted directly beneath on his website.

Judge Peter Johnson banned Mr Kirk from making any comments about Ms Pow on social media or his website.

He was also ordered to remove a post he published while the jury was considering its verdict.

In a statement, Ms Pow said: “I would like to thank those who have supported me over the past two years, especially my dedicated staff and my close family.

“I welcome the decision to apply a robust restraining order for my protection so that Mr Kirk’s behaviour towards me as an MP is properly regulated in future.”

Presentational grey line
 
source: https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/19317410.former-taunton-vet-maurice-kirk-not-guilty-stalking-mp-rebecca-pow/
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Archive [here] continues [from 2011]
https://www.butlincat.com/?s=maurice+kirk

Maurice’s site / updates from: “Flying Vet challenges South Wales Police” https://www.mauricejohnkirk.com

Email:  maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

 

A classic case of “you can’t believe all you read”:

Somerset MP allegedly stalked and sent white powder by constituent

   
   
 
   
 

Man denies stalking Taunton Dean MP Rebecca Pow

Maurice Kirk, 76, denies harassing Taunton Deane MP Rebecca Pow causing her to increase security.

 
   

Former vet stalked Somerset MP for more than a year, court hears

Maurice Kirk allegedly sent letter containing white powder to government minister Rebecca Pow

 
   
 

‘Stalker sent letter with white powder to MP Pow and posted gun photo’ c…

A STALKER left Taunton Deane MP Rebecca Pow fearful for her safety after posting a letter containing a white pow…

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

CAMPAIGN OPPOSING POLICE SURVEILLANCE: UPDATE: The Kate Wilson Case – Exposing Institutional Sexism of #Spycops – 27 April 2021

 Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance

The Kate Wilson Case – Exposing Institutional Sexism of Spycops

Kate Wilson outside the Royal Courts of Justice, 3 October 2018

Kate Wilson outside the Royal Courts of Justice

As Kate Wilson’s epic case makes its way through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, we delve in the legal arguments being made and their significance for everyone affected by the spycops scandal.

For the last ten years, Kate Wilson has been on a dogged fight for justice. Deceived into to a relationship by undercover police officer Mark Kennedy, she wanted answers.

Part of a group of eight women also deceived into relationships by spycops, she was granted an apology by the Metropolitan Police who sought to brush them off. However, where others were forced to settle, a single door was left open for Kate – the notoriously secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). It was a small chance, but she went for it anyway.

This week, her unique battle finally made it to court, coinciding with the second set of hearings in the Undercover Policing Inquiry, to which it provides a fascinating counterpoint. There has been some excellent media coverage of the case, highlighting evidence that has coming out, which we will not repeat here (The GuardianStandardMorning StarThe Canary) This article will explore Kate’s actual legal claim – and some of the surrounding context – in more depth.

TEN YEAR STRUGGLE

Kate has taking on the Metropolitan Police and exposing its institutional sexism. As anyone who has dealt with the police knows only too well, she was met with all the usual obstruction tactics. A full account of these is a tale in itself, and would take a book to recount properly. The short account is that this backfired on them, as it only made Kate more determined.

It is already common ground between all the parties that the relationships were unlawful and should never have happened. However it is the impact of the relationship that the Tribunal is, in part, being asked to address.

At first, the police claimed that because they had admitted that these relationships happened, the Tribunal did not need to consider any evidence about them; they could keep secret just who knew, and how they knew, about the various spycops’ sexual relationships. Kate successfully argued against that – the Tribunal could not possibly determine the extent to which her human rights were breached without looking at the evidence.

When that didn’t work, the police switched tactics – using outright denial, twisting and changing their story, ignoring court orders and abusing legal processes (for example, serving things late or chaotically). They admitted things but then withdrew their admissions, showing utter contempt for the court. As one observer put it, it was a ‘defence by malicious incompetence’.

That lengthy process took more than two years and priced Kate out of legal representation. Undeterred, she took on the case herself and continued fighting, later gaining a team of pro bono lawyers from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. It has culminated in this week’s hearing.

This case is about wider issues than just the relationships of one disgraced undercover. It is about challenging the culture that led to the undercovers abusing women in this way, while their bosses turned a blind eye – the institutional sexism at the heart of their system.

It is also emblematic of a wider disdain for the rights of people who engage in protest. These units viewed everyone politically active as extremists and this viewpoint allowed them to casually strip them of their privacy. The National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011) and the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) defined extremism so broadly that the notion of ‘collateral intrusion’ on innocent people adjacent to true targets became meaningless – almost everyone was considered fair game in their world.

TAKING SPIES TO THE SECRET COURT

However, just as this is not a standard court case, this is not your standard court either. The case is being held in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) – a body created under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which since 2000 has been the framework for undercover policing including the authorisation regime.

The IPT does not try cases as such, rather it looks at human rights claims arising under RIPA with a view to improving the regime. Importantly, however, it can make findings of fact.

The IPT is a secretive court, that makes its own rules, though it is clearly a judicial proceeding. The IPT is so secret that it won’t even say how many cases it hears, but it has numbered in the thousands and is only known to have ruled against the state once.

Although the IPT tries to follow established practice, if it wants, it can hold hearings entirely in secret, and a barrister is appointed to kind-of-represent the interests of the person bringing the claim. The person making the claim often never sees any of the evidence, and it is left entirely to the IPT’s discretion whether it even takes up a case.

The strength of Kate’s case – and her perseverance – allowed her to turn much of that on its head. The disclosure she has received is genuinely unique. The police have been forced by the IPT to turn over a great deal of evidence to her, including Kennedy’s own pocket notebooks and contact logs, and previously confidential NPOIU documents.

Days 1 and 2

The hearings opened with Charlotte Kilroy QC speaking on behalf of Kate Wilson. For two and half days she spoke solidly, taking the Tribunal through the evidence and multiple legal arguments.

Held at the Royal Courts of Justice and broadcast live online, the scene was striking, with boxes of evidence and arguments piled so high most could not see the faces of the three judges – Baron Boyd of DuncansbyProfessor Graham Zellick and Lady Justice Natalie Lieven.

SO WHAT IS KATE ARGUING?

Under the terms of RIPA, the IPT looks at human rights violations by the likes of the police and Secret Service (MI5). Any claim must be framed in that context.

Her case has many angles. The most prominent one is that she was deceived into a relationship by Mark Kennedy and this was a gross breach of her rights. Even the police have accepted this – that the relationship was breach of her Article 3 human rights, her right not to be subject to inhumane and degrading treatment or torture. This is an absolute right that no circumstances can justify breaching.

 Lord Boyd of Duncansby

Lord Boyd of Duncansby

With that also came a breach of her private life and that of her family and friends (Article 8). Kennedy made himself an integral part of her life for several years, furthering the abuse of her trust. Central to this is not the degree to which she and Kennedy had a relationship, but the degree to which this was encouraged and condoned by the unit that ran him – the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) – and their reasons for doing this.

However, Kate’s case is not just about Kennedy. Multiple undercovers intruded and reported on her over a decade of political activism. They too interfered in her private life, and also her right to protest.

She and her friends, and the other women deceived into relationships, were being targeted because they were exercising their rights to free speech and assembly (Articles 10 & 11). Once you look at the bigger picture, it becomes impossible to separate the relationship from the reason why Kennedy and the other undercovers were in her life in the first place.

This is where we get into the much wider aspects of the case, that the entire targeting of her was part and parcel of that abuse, and Kennedy’s spying has to be seen in the context of all those other undercovers. When you look at things this way, questions emerge not just about Kennedy’s operation but about all of the NPOIU’s activities.

STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, most of these rights are ‘qualified rights’. There are no possible exceptions when it comes to Article 3 rights (freedom from torture etc) but there are some for Articles 8, 10 and 11. This means governments are allowed to interfere with those rights, but must provide some justification for doing so.

For that justification to be lawful, it must be shown to be both necessary and proportionate. Kate has challenged the police to provide evidence that these undercover operations were necessary and proportionate. She argues that if they cannot provide such evidence, these operations may not have been lawful at all. Thus Kate’s case includes the assertion that the authorisations of Kennedy’s deployment, and thus the entire operation, not just aspects of it, were unlawful.

And further, when you factor in the interference with so many rights, there emerges a case that the legislation under which those authorisations were made failed as a reliable legal framework protecting individual’s rights.

Finally, Kate has pointed out the institutional sexism that lies at the heart of the police. This is not the sole cause of her human rights being breached, but has certainly exacerbated them, for her and all the other women wrongfully targeted for relationships. She is arguing that the way abuses discriminated against women should be taken into account when considering the other breaches, and a finding made on it as well. (Article 14: protection from discrimination).

As part of this legal argument there is an important concept of ‘positive obligation’. A substantive part of the legal discussion at the hearings is the degree to which they police were required to be proactive in protecting Kate from these violations of her rights. How this plays out varies from right to right, but comes down to who knew and what was the regime in place to protect her – and that means looking at the evidence around training and guidance, and structures of oversight and supervision, including the degree to which there was an embedded culture of sexism within the units which turned accepted the acts of Kennedy and his colleagues.

WRINGING THE EVIDENCE OUT OF THE POLICE

Assistant Commissioner Sir Stephen House

Assistant Commissioner Sir Stephen House

There have already been some notable successes in this case. One of these was an acknowledgement that to understand the severity of the human rights breaches the facts needed to be known.

At first the police tried to control this narrative and keep hold of the material, rather than releasing it to Kate. They produced a statement (signed off by Assistant Commissioner Sir Stephen House) giving their interpretation, based on a limited review of material they had gathered.

The statement was readily debunked as ineffective and flawed. Kate kept up the pressure, saying it was not good enough, and the IPT agreed. Bit by bit she forced the the police to surrender material to her. First came contact and decision logs for Kennedy’s case and internal reviews of his operation. Then authorisations for the undercovers and NPOIU intelligence reports.

Even these small samples were damning and opened the door for further requests. Unsurprisingly, the police did their best to prevent this disclosure. They ignored Tribunal orders, or deliberately misinterpreted them.

Another tactic was to make concessions on the case, claiming that meant there was no need for evidence. When that did not work, they withdrew the concessions, trying to blame their previous lawyers for having made admissions. It was disruptive and frustrating, but they underestimated Kate’s tenacity.

She was able to show that it was not just Kennedy she needed answers about, as there was a pattern of intrusion and spying on her life. For instance, there was the question about how Kennedy’s undercover predecessor ‘Rod Richardson’ had spied on her. Or how much did Kennedy’s contemporaries ‘Marco Jacobs‘ and ‘Lynn Watson‘ know about his many relationships?

This brought more disclosure, about other undercovers, such as Jim Boyling and Rod Richardson, who had spied on her as early as 1999 – years before Kennedy was deployed.

From all the material, it was obvious the right to privacy meant nothing to them; Kennedy filtered nothing out and his bosses appear to have said nothing. It was also painfully clear from the logs that anyone reading them would have been well aware that Kennedy and Kate were in a relationship.

As Kate puts it:

Disclosed #spycops cover logs contain more than 30 references to Kennedy staying with me in my parents’ home, moving in together, and time alone, not protest, or campaigning or crime, just ordinary activities. Kennedy’s handler records that Kennedy gives my name as his “next of kin”.

The evidence, particularly the contact logs that document Kennedy’s continual reports to his ‘handler’ officer, are a goldmine of information about these operations. Although limited, and hampered by the fact that much material (particularly from the key period when Kennedy began the relationship) has apparently been lost or deliberately destroyed, they nonetheless give useful insight into the units.

WHO ELSE KNEW?

It has been possible to build up a bigger picture using Kate’s own memories and those of her fellow campaigners, and other women targeted by the spycops.

NPOIU officer known as Rod Richardson

NPOIU officer ‘Rod Richardson’, Mark Kennedy’s predecessor, also spied on Kate Wilson

Kennedy had one cover officer, known by the cipher EN31, for the entirety of his deployment. The police have admitted that this cover officer must have known about Kennedy’s many relationships. However, EN31 denies this and has refused to cooperate with the police in this case.

It has become abundantly clear that there were multiple officers in close proximity to Kennedy, who were aware of his activities. Though there is no explicit mention of relationships in any of the documents disclosed, anyone reading them would have been immediately aware that something was going on.

As the picture built up, other players came into view: the heads of the NPOIU undercover units and their deputies; cover officers for other undercovers such as Lynn Watson; Nottinghamshire Special Branch.

According to Sir Stephen House, none of these people knew anything. But the contact logs and other material demonstrate otherwise. For instance, it was policy for these logs to be sent to the unit’s managers every week. They were written to be read by others – including messages left in the logs for the Senior Investigating Officer to read. This puts the lie to the police’s position that Kennedy was a ‘rogue’ operator – it is clear, as Kennedy himself told Parliament, that they knew what he was doing at all times.

Kate said:

The cover logs are damning. The Police try to claim senior officers didn’t read the logs. That is not borne out by the evidence – throughout the logs there are personal notes to the Senior Investigating Officer, including the problem of me wanting to meet MK’s mum.

Likewise, part of the police case has been that the undercover unit was a silo, kept discrete from even the rest of the NPOIU. But, again, this is demonstrably untrue.

And what of all the other material? The logs and intelligence reports show that campaigners’ relationships were regularly reported as a matter of course by the undercover and it was deemed important enough to be circulated onward? Yet not one of Kennedy or the other undercovers’ relationships appear in the material. The more one looks at that side of things, the more it is obvious something was amiss. It’s hard to be definitive, but it appears that any such material was being suppressed – ‘sanitised’, as they put it.

As Kate’s barrister, Charlotte Kilroy QC, argues there was a cultural practice of ignoring relationships deeply embedded in the unit, treating them as a given though not to be mentioned.

The police have relied heavily on there being a supposed prohibition on sexual relationships, but are unable to point to any concrete proof of this, other than general regulations against criminality and a duty to respect human rights. They claim that because they now accept sexual relationships are an abuse of Article 3, that means that must have always been the case. Plus, they argue, there are a some bits of circumstantial evidence in their favour, such as the denials of an undercover trainer, and a supposed role-playing exercise in the training given to undercovers.

Kilroy has ably unwound their dubious logic. For example, while there was an explicit prohibition on using drugs for the period in question, no equivalent guidance existed for sexual relationships (since the undercover policing scandal broke ten years ago, a more explicit prohibition on sexual relationships has been made police policy). And it didn’t appear to apply to the NPOIU’s sister unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, which spoke of ‘fleeting, disastrous relationships’ forming part of an undercover’s ‘tradecraft’.

Kate said:

The Tradecraft Manual shows that although it may have been suggested that #spycops sexual relationships should be “avoided” it was not said that they should never happen. Viewed alongside what happened in practice, relationships were not fleeting, although they were disastrous.

The importance of this was it showed there was no real prohibition on sexual relationships worth its salt within the undercover policing units.

CULTURAL PRACTICE

Kilroy also set out the cultural context around Kate’s case in two ways.

The first of these entailed exploring the obvious parallels with other undercovers’ deceitful relationships. Clearly both Lynn Watson and Marco Jacobs knew of Kennedy’s relationships, and Jacobs had his own. There seems to have been a culture of accepting these relationships, viewing them as unremarkable. Plus, there was a certain amount of cultural crossover between the Special Demonstration Squad and the NPOIU, the former unit clearly having a culture where relationships was permitted.

Kate said:

Police deny widespread indifference or encouragement for MK’s sexual relationships. But they also acknowledge that, by its very nature, a culture of sexism may not get written down. They have not investigated or presented any #spycops bosses as to be witnesses.

The second of Kilroy’s examinations of the culture concerned the ways in which the structures of these undercover policing units made them institutionally sexist. There were no proper monitoring systems. Training was inadequate, and supposedly relied on oral prohibitions, for which evidence is limited, to put it politely.

There was no acknowledgement that prolonged deployments increased the risk of such dishonest relationships occurring, as well as the likely impact on the women deceived in this way (for example, pregnancy, or lies about intentions). The spycops were content to manipulate these women, disregarding their dignity. The fact that these relationships were known about for many years in the SDS itself reveals a discriminatory attitude towards women and their rights.

AUTHORISATIONS DISMANTLED

Charlotte Kilroy QC

Charlotte Kilroy QC

Kilroy also criticised the regime under which undercover police operations were authorised. According to RIPA and related regulations, senior officers had to sign off the deployments. Deployments had to be justified, necessary and proportionate. Her line of attack was to ably demonstrate that the arguments for necessity in the authorisations simply were not met and inadequate.

The first authorisations made out for Mark Kennedy did not name specific individuals or organisations to target, as they should have. Instead, he was sent into Nottingham’s Sumac Centre, a community centre used by a wide variety of groups – it was a fishing trip to gather ‘pre-emptive intelligence’. A list of groups which used the centre is provided in in support, but is clearly spurious. It includes what is described as the ‘extreme left wing’ Stop the War Coalition.

Kilroy was able to demonstrate the excessive breadth of the authorisations, which essentially deemed everyone a potential target for spying.

Kate said:

Stop the War is listed, described as a “traditionally extreme left wing” movement. It then talks about the massive demonstrations in London attended by millions of people and peaceful demonstrations that took place in Nottingham. This is what #spycops target as “extreme”.

Once in place, the authorisations were self-perpetuating justifications – Mark collected intelligence and once that started that was deemed sufficient in itself. There were no objectives by which it could be measured, something the police’s own internal reports acknowledge. Mission-creep became a feature, his deployment extending to cover campaigns across Europe that had no bearing on the UK. Criminality was no longer the main reason given but replaced by purely policing resource arguments. Justifications move on to merely protecting his ‘legend’.

Within the authorisations, when it came to ‘collateral intrusion’ of spying on those around activists, anyone involved, however peripherally, in protest or campaigning was considered a legitimate target, and the focus is on privacy in the strictest, data protection sense. What it did not do was consider the kinds of friendships Kennedy was forming, and just how intrusive the operation would be for those whose lives he invaded and reported back on.

WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, SPYING IS UNLAWFUL

As such, the important consideration of collateral intrusion (an Article 8 ‘right to private and family life’ consideration in itself) was brushed aside, because almost everyone Kennedy came into contact with could be regarded as a target. The authorisations were based on calling everyone an extremist rather than particularising. There was no proper assessment, as required for it to be a justified deployment. As one of the judges put it, in the standard authorisations form the section for considering on collateral intrusion became an Article 8 box-ticking exercise.

Many of the authorisations were misleading and some contained lies. For example, in one of them, Kate is described as being a main organiser of a housing cooperative which was named as a target. This was utterly false, and the NPOIU officers signing off on it would have known this. She is only included as a named target when she was living in Spain and Kennedy wanted to maintain contact with her.

The authorisations show no pressing social need, being about pre-emptive intelligence gathering without clear targets or goal. It was an operation for its own sake, and became increasingly so as time went on. No proper assessment was made about the levels of interference that were actually required or justifiable. This is something that an internal report from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (into Kennedy and the NPOIU) was critical of.

This leads to an important legal point: once it becomes an undercover deployment for its own sake, with no specific outcomes, how can it be capable of meeting the criteria of being ‘necessary’? The ‘necessity’ condition must be met for such operations to be lawful. Kate’s argument is that it can be shown these operations were not necessary and therefore none of the Mark Kennedy authorisations, and possibly other undercover deployments, were lawful.

Day 3

THE RIGHT TO PROTEST

We began by returning to look at Articles 10 and 11 (free speech, and assembly), at the request of the judges. This pair of rights are often combined in this context as a general ‘right to protest’.

Kate is arguing that the extensive targeting of her over a decade amounted to not just an engagement of those rights but, more seriously, an actual interference with them.

This part of the case is not just about Kennedy, although he played a significant role in what can be termed ‘interference’, but the degree to which she was under surveillance and the impact it had on her. The basic argument is the State had no business monitoring her because of her political views and activities. It does not matter whether or not she was aware of the exact details of this surveillance, it still had an impact on her.

Kate’s barrister, Charlotte Kilroy QC, pointed to European case law that supported this position, recognising that extensive police surveillance in itself has a ‘chilling effect’ on protest.

As one of the judges, Professor Zellick, put it:

‘You might say the state has no business spying on the legitimate political activities of its opponents.’

The evidence allowed Kate to go further. By comparing her own memories with the contact logs, she could identify moments were she was being deliberately manipulated to meet Kennedy’s agenda (and that of his bosses) . He persuaded her to go to events that she was not interested in, or talked her out of others. In this he was leaning heavily on the closeness of their relationship and the trust she had placed in him.

She is still left wondering now just how much his influence affected her:

It is unchallenged in my witness statement that MK did influence and change my political views. #spycops were deeply manipulative and we were very close and he may have influenced me in ways I don’t even know. How many of the decisions and beliefs I held back then were my own?

Then there is the impact that the discovery has had on Kate and her comrades. She has gone from being deeply committed to political organising, to struggling to engage with people and large gatherings. She has become cut off from some groups as a result of her anxieties, which Kennedy and his cover officer knew affected her, which have now grown. Other groups were destroyed under the weight of the Kennedy revelations.

Kate explained:

I now find it very hard to engage with politics that reminds me of MK. The impact of betrayal by MK and other #spycops was devastating for the political groups and communities. Even if I wanted to continue, many of those wonderful projects, groups and movements no longer exist.

At this point one of the judges asked about the fact that some of the movements Kate was involved in were aware of the dangers of state surveillance. Kilroy responded that a concern was one thing, but what Kennedy exposed was the sheer extent the police were willing to go to gather information on political views.

Things were far worse than what the campaigners feared – in effect, their paranoia was nothing compared to the actual reality. And because it only came to light accidentally, it means the police cannot be trusted to be honest, to root out misbehaviour in their units.

So having argued that there Articles 10 and 11 were engaged, and breached, the next step is again to consider whether the State could make the case that this was justified. The police have already conceded that the sexual relationship with Kennedy did in itself interfere with Kate’s Articles 10 rights. However, she wants to make the point that this goes much wider than Kennedy, that all the spying on her amounted to an ‘interference’, and that the actions of all the other undercovers need to be taken into account.

As with Articles 3 and 8 (freedom from torture etc, right to private and family life), the interferences arose out of the same police desire to monitor and control protest. It was the reason Kennedy and the other undercovers were deployed, and even the police’s own internal reports acknowledge that when it came to peaceful protest, they overstepped the line. The scope and depth of the reporting that the NPOIU set out to do was not justified under the legal regime, as shown in the analysis of the authorisations.

A PROBLEM WITH RIPA

Since 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) has governed how bodies use covert monitoring tactics, including undercovers and informers, and issues such as collateral intrusion, should be handled.

There is also an important bit of case law, Malone v UK (1985), which requires that the law must be sufficiently clear to give citizens adequate indication of the circumstances and conditions on which authorities are empowered to use to this secret and potentially dangerous interference with the right to respect for private life.

Kilroy took the Tribunal through a careful analysis of RIPA, showing that Malone v UK was not satisfied. She pointed out that the level of authorisation required for undercover police was actually quite low in comparison to, say, planting a listening device or bugging a phone. Likewise, the conditions are much more stringent.

Kate said:

Who’d have thought that UK law, where uniformed officers need a warrant from a judge to search your garden shed, that all it would need would be the OK from another police officer for them to send #spycops to live in your home and sleep in your bed for years?

Kilroy argued this means that while some intrusion could be foreseeable, on the face of RIPA the public could not reasonably deduce that undercover policing would be used in such an intrusive way.

The judges questioned her, saying that while the relationships are agreed to be unlawful due to their violation of fundamental human rights, RIPA was not at fault, it’s just that the police hadn’t adhered to it.

To this, Kilroy responded that a related case, that of AKJ v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, had since ruled that the definition of relationships in RIPA as pertaining to undercovers did in fact encompass sexual/ intimate relationships. The law itself was not as clear as it should have been, given the extent of intrusion it permitted.

Without a clear prohibition on sexual relationships, the appropriate legal safeguards supposedly in place to properly reflect the severity of the intrusion were not actually there. So part of the problem lies with RIPA itself, something even HM Inspectorate of Constabulary had flagged up in previous reports.

THE POLICE REPLY

David Perry QC

David Perry QC

The Metropolitan Police and National Police Chiefs Council, the Defendants in the case, were represented by David Perry QC. He began by claiming that the police were approaching the case with the least adversarial approach possible and seeking to disclose everything that could be, thereby raising not a few eyebrows.

He acknowledged that the operations were ‘tainted by illegality’ and their authorisations could be stigmatised as unlawful on the basis of the concessions already made by the police. These concessions were on the basis of Articles 3 and 8 (freedom from torture etc, right to private life), not on the grounds of the interference with the right to protest, other than where Kennedy’s sexual relationship with Kate Wilson had an impact on these.

This breach was further exacerbated by the fact that Kennedy’s cover officer, EN31, ought to have known of the relationship, a failure of the police’s ‘positive obligation’ under Articles 3 and 8. However, Perry takes EN31’s denial of any knowledge of sexual relationship at face value.

Perry didn’t want to detract from the admitted breaches, but did want to address their severity by interpreting the material as disclosed. This is a problem with much of this case – the lack of any real witness from the police side to adequately testify on their behalf. As a result, there is an awful lot of freestyle interpretation going on, with Perry putting it out there what he reckons the officers involved might have been thinking.

From the start it is clear that they are hanging Kennedy out to dry. Considerable time was spent on going through the regime, codes and training that officers received. We were told that they were instructed on the ethical and moral standards expected from them at all times. They say that Kennedy completely violated these. According to Perry, this was the starting point by which his fellow officers would treat and judge him, and he betrayed all of them, including EN31.

The police say they couldn’t possibly have foreseen what Kennedy would do. After all, before joining the NPOIU, Kennedy had been an experienced police officer (of ten years) which included low level undercover work as a Test Purchasing Officer buying illegal drugs. He’d gone through the training which, according to them, included prohibition of sexual relationships. His fellow officers could surely expect him to comply with the standards set out for all police officers, as well as for undercovers.

Kate highlighted:

Lieven J: Is there any evidence, and I mean evidence in the broadest possible sense, of any officer every being subjected to disciplinary action for having engaged in a sexual relationship whilst undercover?

Perry: No, there is not.

Perry pointed out that in having sexual relationships, Kennedy destroyed his own credibility as an undercover. Kennedy would have known had he witnessed any serious criminality, he could have been required to give evidence in court – but any such evidence would be hopelessly compromised by his personal relationships.

It is unclear if the barrister is aware of the significance of his words – the police have for a long time argued that the undercovers were guaranteed secrecy for life, and indeed we have seen the extent to which they will protect their identities. However, Perry was effectively conceding that the policing regime itself meant this could not be the case, that undercovers could not have such an unqualified expectation.

He then went on to argue that Kennedy was passing himself off as an honourable officer to his colleagues in the NPOIU while lying to them. Events such as him reporting a sexual advance by an activist demonstrated that he could be relied on to report such things honestly.

However, other evidence from the logs show that he was lying to them about his actions and reasons for doing things. For instance, on one occasion that he spent alone with ‘Lisa‘ (another woman he deceived into a relationship), his log entry claims to have included other people with whom he discussed political activity. Elsewhere he exaggerated to suit his own ends, and probably to justify his continued deployment.

Kate observed:

It seems the police point is MK did report a sexual advance by someone else. So #spycops Cover Officer could assume anything untoward that happened with anyone else (such as me) he would know. (Note: my relationship had been going on for 10 months by then)

EN31, was Kennedy’s Principal Cover Officer, someone he was in daily contact with and who had responsibility for his welfare and other issues. We know from the evidence that he would be physically close to Kennedy, and knew where he was at all times. He was in that position for the entire seven years of the deployment and clearly had a close bond with Kennedy.

It is accepted by the police that EN31, as Kennedy’s cover officer, should have been more intrusive and asked more questions. According to Perry, though, EN31 simply accepted Kennedy’s word in good faith and had no reason to believe otherwise. After all, Kennedy never reported that he was having sexual relationships. There were failings here, but the blame remains entirely with the undercover who deceived everyone, not just the women he targeted for relationships. Furthermore, the relationships were not for tactical purposes, they were for his own personal reasons and needs.

Significant to Perry’s case is that the contact logs did not record relationships per se. This was because Kennedy knew he’d be removed from the field if he did admit them.

Kate said:

The police go on to read a #spycops intelligence report 18/11/2003 “Katja” (that’s me) spent the night of the 17th November 2003 at Mark Stone’s flat in Marshall Street. Somehow this is supposed to support their case, because it doesn’t say we had sex. (We did)

It is also the police position that Kennedy’s own evidence about this, such as that given before the Home Affairs Select Committee, shows him to be an unreliable witness, angry with his seniors and seeking to blame them (when he said they must have known about his relationships). Even the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which reviewed all Kennedy’s material in 2011, did not see a trace in the material of sexual relationships.

Kate noted the exchange:

Perry: “MK did not report any romantic or sexual advance by the claimant towards him whilst he was deployed.”

Judge: Mr Perry, is that really how you want that point to be recorded?

Apparently, yes, it is!

Overall, Perry is protective of EN31, presenting him as a trusting fella misled by Kennedy. He speculates on behalf of the cover officer as to what he was thinking and how he interpreted the the material, taking his statement very much at face value and focusing on the contact logs as if they gave the full picture. He did not explore the relationship between Kennedy and EN31, which appears from the logs to have been very close and matey.

Likewise, Perry has a very particular interpretation of the material in the logs on the grounds of viewing them through EN31’s eyes – as if they are the arbitrators of the facts themselves. Without going into detail, the Tribunal was presented with a weird interpretation of life among the campaigners targeted by Kennedy through this incomplete reporting. For instance, he spent some time on the fact that as they travelled around to events, campaigners would spend time at each others addresses. So mentions of this in the logs should not be taken as untoward or indicative of sexual relationships. Likewise, by the nature of the groups targeted, Kennedy would have to associate with people of both genders.

It was frankly weak stuff. It is a misleading reading of detailed contact logs which clearly infer Kennedy was conducting a relationship with Kate Wilson. At best, it is saying that in seven years, EN31 was so profoundly  incompetent that he suspected nothing and did nothing. Likewise, the various senior officers in the NPOIU who also read the logs. It also calls into to question the thoroughness of the SOCA report if they missed the obvious.

A TERRORIST AT THE HOME OFFICE?

Not long before the end of the day, there was an important exchange regarding an NPOIU intelligence report from the time Kate Wilson is recorded as having first stayed over at Kennedy’s house in Nottingham. Justice Lieven noted that it contained a reference to a family friend of Kate’s, describing him as a ‘South African terrorist working at the Home Office’ when he was in fact a Minister of State.

Perry was quick to distance the police from the outrageous comment, claiming it was an example of Kennedy’s inaccurate reporting, but Justice Lieven pointed out that Kennedy’s contact logs for that period are among the documents that have been ‘lost’, and that this report is authored by someone else in the NPOIU, not Kennedy, and that they clearly thought the information was of sufficient interest to send up the chain. Perry accepted that the information was derived from Kennedy, but that the report was written by someone else.

Lieven demanded that the police lawyers address the issue by producing something that would allow her to understand who authored, saw and commented on the reports. The police barrister said he would have to take instruction, and promised her something by Monday.

THE HEARINGS CONTINUE…

On Friday 23 April, the Tribunal sat in ‘closed session’. This is where evidence that was not shown to Kate was to be discussed. She was not allowed to be there, although the police will be. Instead her interests will be represented by the Counsel to The Tribunal, Sarah Hannett QC.

Monday 26 April will see the open hearings resume, with a continuation of the police case. This will be followed by a response from Kate’s lawyer, Charlotte Kilroy QC, to any new points. At which point the hearing finally ends. It is unknown when judgement will be handed down, but it may take several months.

sourcehttp://campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com/2021/04/24/kate-wilson-case-exposing-institutional-sexism-spycops/?fbclid=IwAR3191KbU6vC1JIVTzFSS0pJfPe69lhw2gfQEZPGb3J9Wr4cDgf1J8mLqlk

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

UPDATED 02APRIL: Michael K Jaco: COVID created at Fort Dietrich US – GLOBAL COUP CONTINUES March 25 2021 + update current news

#COVID CREATED AT #FORTDIETRICH #US 

Mar, 25, 2021 

– Update Current News

Michael Jaco Official

Michael Jaco Official

 

#MichaelKJaco 

LATEST 02 APRIL 2021 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

TARGETING THE UNVACCINATED: Defending the Undefendable: The Unvaccinated – By Steve Berger, November 22, 2021 – LewRockwell.com

 

Defending the Undefendable- The Unvaccinated

“The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them again in our lifetime.” Sir Edward Grey, 1914

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis

Darkness is indeed enveloping Europe almost two years into the global pandemic. Austria has announced full lockdowns with the unvaccinated bearing the harshest restrictions. Germany is set to follow the lead of its authoritarian neighbor. Defying Einstein’s dictum that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, France now has adjusted its definition of inoculation for the elderly to include a mandatory third shot. Globally, Australia remains an open-air prison ready on the trigger of just a few cases to retreat to restrictions of movement beggaring Orwell’s dystopic imagination.

Lest one think the United States is insulated, New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles have in place a draconian system of medical apartheid condemning the unvaccinated, many of whom are blacks already with natural immunity, to a new form of segregation. The Bank of America floated a trial balloon of putting the unvaccinated on different floors with different restrooms and eating facilities likely to house society’s scapegoats. So much for a diverse and inclusive workplace. For now, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed President Biden’s OSHA mandate to choose essentially between your jab and job, but efforts to cajole and coerce the hesitant intensify. Forgive the cognitive dissonance upon hearing these edicts. For even Biden’s court scientists, led by Dr. Fauci, have now conceded that the shots do not prevent transmission or infection and that, as is the case in almost fully vaccinated Israel, protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death may be waning rapidly too.  The only question left unanswered is how many boosters short of infinity will it take to set us free. Or will the madness cease once enough fully “protected” politicians contract Covid or suffer a disabling vaccine injury?

Politicians, public health officials, celebrities and the mainstream media bleat robotically that the vaccines are safe and effective. New York Governor Kathy Hochul calls the shots a gift from God and elevates the self-same pharmaceutical companies with a history of billion-dollar fines to saintly status. The drumbeat of applause grows more impassioned, if not hysterical, even as adverse events, deaths and disabling injuries reported on VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) are multiples of all vaccines combined over the last thirty years. If a vaccine that provides limited protection and requires frequent boosters while smashing all adverse event safety records qualifies as safe and effective, just what would trigger alarm bells at the CDC or FDA?

The virus will not bend to lockdowns, masks and mass vaccinations, so identifying a scapegoat is paramount for politicians. Admitting that their Covid mitigation policies were mistaken would sound a death knell for reelection chances. The unvaccinated are now the UNDEFENDABLES, defiled, subject to house arrest in many jurisdictions, separated, marginalized and demonized. Walter Block, eminent Austrian economist and libertarian political theorist, is most famous for his two- volume book Defending the Undefendable. Therein, Professor Block profiles, with his inimitable wit and piercing logic, many of society’s vagabonds, miscreants and outcasts, including slumlords, corporate raiders and usurers.  Examining these hard cases clarifies the non-aggression axiom at the core of natural rights, the animating philosophical basis of many of our founding documents. According to this philosophy, as long as force or fraud are not involved, consensual transactions, no matter how distasteful or imprudent, are not unlawful and subject to legal prohibition. Professor Block’s rogues’ gallery also brings to life some of the most important concepts of economics, including the law of unintended consequences and the seen vs. the unseen. Like the parables of the nineteenth-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat, Defending the Undefendable reveals that many of these reviled actors often play a valuable economic role and, in some cases, deserve our moral applause.

Would the unvaccinated deserve a leading chapter if there is trilogy in Dr. Block’s series? The answer is an unqualified yes. Refusing to get vaccinated or to take any drug or medical procedure is a personal choice that does not aggress upon any one’s else equal right of bodily autonomy. Informed refusal is the flip side of informed consent, no matter how dire one’s condition is. Indeed, without bodily integrity, all the other fundamental freedoms wither away. The Bill of Rights, drafted with both a smallpox and malaria pandemic in the recent rear-view mirror, did not contain an emergency or pandemic exception to the essential rights of life, liberty and property.  By contrast, governmentally mandated vaccines (or any medical procedure for that matter) would seem to be the ultimate form of aggression.  Suppose Dr. Block approached one of his students and forcibly injected him/her because he thought it was for the good of that student’s own health.  Would we not all find that morally reprehensible and a clear case of physical assault? If Dr. Block does not have that individual right to commit such an assault, how can we delegate that right to others? That the procedure may be FDA authorized or ordered by an elected official or for the theoretical good of the injectee does not seem to alter the essentially aggressive nature of the physical intrusion.

In the current Covid crisis, the response to this line of reasoning is usually two-fold. First, what if John Doe forgoes a vaccination and infects others, or what if John Doe’s refusal puts him at higher risk of severe disease that might strain hospital resources? Regarding the first retort, it is now clear, even by the public health authorities’ admission, that these vaccines do not prevent transmission or infection and that vaccinated individuals potentially carry just as high a viral load.  It is entirely possible scientifically that an asymptomatic vaccinated individual could be a riskier superspreader than an unvaccinated individual more likely to experience symptoms warranting caution.

The strain-on-hospital-resources rationale also seems to be a red herring. So few cases result in hospitalization, and early treatments, often prohibited or censored, reduce that risk dramatically. Would we now ban alcohol or tobacco consumption or restrict dietary habits in order to ease the hospital burden from those who engage in unhealthy activities? Moreover, the focus on the short- term benefits of the vaccine may be myopic.  What if the policy of mass mandatory vaccination causes debilitating side effects requiring frequent hospitalizations, especially for individuals under the age of 30 who have almost zero risk of hospitalization from Covid itself? What if mandated mass vaccination leads to antibody-dependent enhancement and/or the emergence of a highly dangerous viral mutant? What if the unknown but potential long-term side effects of the vaccine strain medical resources three to five years from now? These are the unseen costs of the alleged vaccine benefit coin. We do not denigrate the sincerely held beliefs of physicians and scientists that the vaccines are beneficial.  Nor do we quibble with the voluntary choice of individuals to take whatever precautions they deem necessary to mitigate the risk of contracting Covid.  But medical freedom should encompass the right to say no.

The unvaccinated hence do not aggress upon others and, if anything, are subject to aggression by governments seeking to mandate or coerce them into taking an unwanted (and in some cases unnecessary or ill-advised) shot.  Like some of the characters in Dr. Block’s book, the unvaccinated may deserve our commendation. They serve as a control group for the rollout of the vaccines since the drug manufacturers conveniently and prematurely unblinded their placebo group after a few months. Their defiance means someone is upholding the Nuremberg Code’s strictures against forced medical experimentation. The ranks of the unvaccinated include many nurses, EMT’s, physicians, firefighters and police officers who were especially valorous during the initial and more lethal first wave of Covid. Many contracted Covid (and hence have strong and durable natural immunity). They are now fallen angels, unceremoniously fired for their refusal to take a shot. Some of the refuseniks have sincerely held religious objections and are courageously standing up for the First Amendment freedom of religion while political tyrants eviscerate our constitutional rights. Many of the unvaccinated and brave doctors and scientists speaking on their behalf are incurring tremendous personal and professional costs. They may be our last best hope for freedom as the world descends into Covid madness.

Red Alert: Renowned Cardiac Surgeon Steven Gundry Warns About RNA Covid-19 Vaccines

Bill Sardi

 
 

Dumb Politician Tries To Defend Fauci

Tom Woods

 
 

BlackRock – The Fed’s Wall Street Croupier

David Stockman

 
 

Vaccinated English Adults Under 60 Are Dying at Twice the Rate of Unvaccinated People the Same Age

Alex Berenson

 
 

‘We’ll Never Give Up’ – Protests Erupt Across World Over Gov’t Covid Tyranny

Tyler Durden

 
 

Biden’s Incompetent Presidency – A Feature, Not a Bug

Thomas Luongo

 
 

Evangelicalism

Bionic Mosquito

 
 

Why Ivermectin Is Superior to Pfizer’s Antiviral Pill

Jeremy Loffredo

 
 

Terror in the Capitol Tunnel

Julie Kelly

 
 

The Utter Orwellian Stupidity of Masks on Airplanes

Jeffrey I. Barke, M.D.

 
 

Covid Shots Are the Deadliest ‘Vaccines’ in Medical History

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SHOCKING DECEIT: Maurice Kirk: “South Wales Chief Superintendent Caught Lying on Oath” + archive 06 Nov. 2021

South Wales Chief Superintendent Caught Lying on Oath

by Maurice Kirk

At my recent one million pound 1CF03361 ‘machine gun’ damages Cardiff claim, euphemistically called a trial before Judge Petts, retired Chief Stuart Superintendent Mackenzie was swiftly arrested following his being caught lying on the tape records.——would you like a copy?

.

He said the 2008 Chief Constable Barbara Wilding Gold Group led criminal investigation, into my being ‘in possession’ of a ‘prohibited weapon’, was run by him and exclusively by him, which we all knew procedures for a MAPPA 3/3 registered victim by standard policing, was a blatant l

Chief Constable Barbara Wilding, the Defendant in my civil claims, had to have been in charge of her latest ridiculous allegations over a film prop replica WW2 Lewis machine gun , not just because she was also the Defendant in my 90s BS614159 forty three failed police malicious criminal prosecutions but it was listed, in January 2010, to soon ‘hit the proverbial fan’!

This meant the Gold, Silver and Bronze Group police investigations and their findings were deliberately kept completely hidden from the Criminal and Civil Procedure Rules procedures of ‘disclosure’ of facts identifying malfeasance.

It identifies yet another tranche of deceitful senior SWP officers not disclosed under primary or secondary CPR in the daft maliciously brought ‘machine gun’ criminal trial either, such is the level of welsh so called ‘justice’ for those interested into what ‘what actually goes on in our UK law courts.

THE APPARENT CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF MY MP LIVING OFF IMMORAL EARNINGS

That must explain why my designated MP refuses to answer any of my pleas, my letters from Welsh prisons, for help both before and following the 1st November 2019 robbery by by G4S Park prison staff to steal, on behalf of the South Wales Police, my ‘machine gun’ privileged legal papers together with my clothes and two wheel chairs…..someone clearly needs a visit, at home and without notice this time.

 
sourceMaurice Kirk | November 6, 2021 at 5:58 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p13xk8-5c

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Archive [here] continues [from 2011]
https://www.butlincat.com/?s=maurice+kirk

Maurice’s site / updates from: “Flying Vet challenges South Wales Police” https://www.mauricejohnkirk.com

Email:  maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

don’t trust them.   Patrick Cullinane R.I.P. sadly missed.”The People’s Lawyer”, barred from so many “courts” because he stood by the truth, which they refused to accept. 

Share this!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Maurice Kirk: No justice and IGNORED BY ALL: “South Wales Police G4S Robbery Hushed Up” – 03 Nov. 2021

South Wales Police G4S Robbery Hushed Up

Such is the level of deceit within Gold Group’s Chief Constable in Bridgend police HQ, just over the wall of Park Prison, I can find no MP allowed to receive reply from G4S concerning the return of my stolen property when violently ejected by eight G4S prison staff on 1st November 2019.

Remember , G4S was instructed to steal my 1CF03361 ‘machinegun’ court papers as they reveal widespread fraud within Dolmans solicitors who sat in in on the many MAPPA 3/3 and Gold Group hearing in the HQ in order, if possible to have me shot (see leaked committee contemporaneous notes).

to: HM Speaker of The House of Commons

https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/19687966.maurice-kirk-considering-standing-taunton-deane-general-election

https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/19687966.maurice-kirk-considering-standing-taunton-deane-general-election

Westminster

https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/19687966.maurice-kirk-considering-standing-taunton-deane-general-election

 London SW1 1AA

31st October 2021

Dear Sir,

I apologise for taking up any of your very busy time but I have nowhere else to turn to as the Exeter Crown Court directed me to email my constituency member of parliament for help over my ignored South Wales Police statement of complaint (incident number incident number1900418801).

(Extract)

10th Jan 2020 Complaint against HMP Parc South Wales G4S Staff

I, Maurice John Kirk, file complaints against HMP Parc, Bridgend, G4S custody staff for their seriously inflicting injuries, harassment and false imprisonment to cause numerous thefts of my possessions……..

Sir Lindsey Hoyle, none of my letters to my MP have been replied to.

I therefore asked my past MP, Alun Cairns MP but he also ignores my letters. I turned to my then temporary parliamentary representative for North Devon, Ms Selaine Saxby MP.

Ms Saxby immediately wrote to the G4S barbarically run Welsh prison, where the brutal robbery took place and has also between repeatedly ignored, of course, ever since.

Please, can anyone else, of any political persuasion, take on the Taffia for my property back which include two wheelchairs, clothes and current Cardiff County Court and RCJ ‘machinegun’ legal papers?

Thankyou

Yours faithfully,

Maurice j Kirk BVSc

Taunton, Somerset, England.

REPLY

From: HOC Enquiries <HCEnquiries@parliament.uk>
Sent: 02 November 2021 15:37
To: 
Subject: RE: FAO The Speaker of the House 

Dear Maurice

Thank you for sending us your letter marked for the attention of Mr Speaker.

However, as you do not live in Mr Speaker’s constituency, this office would normally reply in the first instance.

It will help you to know that MPs will only normally be able to help their own constituents. Therefore, if you are living temporarily in the North Devon constituency, you may wish to go back to Selaine Saxby MP’s office and ask that they persist with your case by taking this matter up with the ministers or officials at the Ministry of Justice on your behalf, or by referring your case to the Parliamentary Ombudsman?

If, however, you are based in Taunton you should contact your current MP there to do this for you. You can confirm who your MP is by typing your current postcode into the box at: Find MPs – MPs and Lords – UK Parliament

Should you still wish to contact Mr Speaker directly, you can of course do so to: speakersoffice@parliament.uk

I hope this is helpful.

Very best wishes

Jean

 
House of Commons Enquiry Service
House of Commons | London | SW1A 0AA
0800 112 4272 (Freephone) | 020 7219 4272
Text Relay: 18001 followed by our full number
And so the the apparent ‘treacle treatment’ continues

HM Speaker of The House of Commons

Westminster

London SW1 1AA

3rd November 2021

Dear Jean,

I am most grateful for such a swift reply.

My designated MP has ignored all my letters for years so Selaine Haxby MP tried to recover my significant stolen property from G4S run Park prison, on my behalf and was also completely ignored.

In the old day’s with similar problems of ‘misfeasance in a public office’ criminal conduct another MP was allocated by the Speaker’s office or by some similar such branch of Parliament.

Do I really have to resort to the Taunton police, again, over this proven fraud, theft and some one continuing to live off ‘immoral earnings’ from the proceeds of crime?

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Maurice Kirk: the targeting continues: “Operation Bridger Police come to Arrest Twice in a Week” + “I am arrested for ‘Threatening an MP” – VIDEO 01 Nov. 2021

Operation Bridger

Police come to Arrest Twice in a Week

Posted on  by Maurice Kirk

.

Maurice seeks help from Mr Speaker from HM House of Commons

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL                                                REF. NO.

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

THE QUEEN

– v –

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

_____________________________________________________________

AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE
MAKING OF A RESTRAINING ORDER

_____________________________________________________________

DRAFT REDACTED VERSION

(These grounds have been prepared with the assistance of lay McKenzie advisers assisting Mr. Kirk with Mr. Kirk’s permission, who was unrepresented at the trial and conducted his own defence.)

APPEAL AGAINST THE MAKING OF A RESTRAINING ORDER UNDER SECTION 5A(5)(A),(B) OF THE PROTECTION OF HARASSMENT ACT 1997

  1. The Appellant was acquitted of 1 count of Harassment by Stalking, contrary to section 2A(a),(b) of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 before HHJ Johnson and a jury at the Crown Court at Exeter on 20th May 2021.
  • At the conclusion of the trial, HHJ Johnson imposed a Restraining Order for a limited time against the Appellant under section 5A(1) of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 on the same date in respect of an MP.
  • The Appellant now seeks leave to appeal against the making of that Restraining Order as though it had been made on his conviction as part of his sentence under section 5A(1),(5)(a),(b) of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

LACK OF PROPER REASONS JUSTIFYING THE MAKING OF THE RESTRAINT ORDER

  • It is contended that although the learned Judge applied the correct civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities in making the Restraining Order against him, the learned Judge failed to give sufficient reasons for the making of the Order, in view of the fact that the Appellant had been acquitted of the charge against him by the jury.
  • In particular, the learned Judge failed to identify the acts or any specific acts in relating to the Appellant’s conduct that in his view would have justified the Restraining Order being made against the Appellant.

ARTICLE 10(1) ECH, HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

  • The learned Judge erred in law and/or in principle in directing that the Appellant may not publish anything concerning an MP, thereby interfering with the Appellant’s “right to freedom of expression” under article 10(1) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998.
  • Further, the learned Judge failed to take into account or consider the Appellant’s “Convention Rights” and in particular his “right to freedom of expression” under article 10(1) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998 when making the Restraining Order against him.
  • The prohibition against the Appellant from publishing anything about an MP restrains the Appellant from commenting on the competence and reliability of an MP, when such matters as to her conduct in not responding to the Appellant’s requests to her and her constituency officer for help is a matter of public interest and importance regarding the democratic system and accountability of elected MPs to their electorates.
  • In the premises, the making of the Restraining Order against the Appellant was disproportionate and was not “prescribed by law, or “necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” for the purposes of article 10(2) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998.

MEDICAL REASONS AND GROUNDS

  1. During the Exeter hearing before the learned Judge, the Appellant experienced medical problems that he had not experienced before and medical evidence will be sent to the court regarding this.
  1. The outcome of the Atrial Fibrillation caused the Appellant confusion and with the loss of the Appellant’s hearing aids at the hearing, the Appellant was deprived of a clear understanding of the relevance of a Restraining Order being required following an obviously predicted acquittal. (The CPS had conceded the Appellant sent only two letters to an MP, which is not correct and were a year apart!).
  1. During the morning of 10th May 2021, the Appellant had to go to the accident and emergency Department of Exeter Hospital by ambulance from the court, and the learned Judge was informed regarding this, so that the proceedings did not resume until the afternoon session.
  1. The Appellant’s condition caused memory loss with the lack of oxygen to his brain for proper concentration so that he was unable to comprehend the circumstances of the order being sought.

Dated 28th Oct 2021

Signed

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

Appellant in Person

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

I am arrested for ‘Threatening’ an MP

My emails for an MP’s help, re G4S robbery to my Parliament building, are being blocked .. . I will therefore have to jump to PLAN J

At the Conservative Party’s London HQ yesterday, despite a judge’s directions, I was again refused an MP to act on my behalf concerning the Wales G4S robbery to steel my legal papers against Gold Group chief, Barbara Wilding, because the then HM Secretary of State, Alun Cairns MP, was sent from my prison cell what was believed to be heroin we were told. I was further gaoled for a further five months for apparently sending what was believed to be anthrax spores to another MP

Could Enid Blyton have written a better fairy tale?

HM Speaker of The House of Commons

Westminster

London SW1 1AA

31st October 2021

Dear Sir,

I apologise for taking up any of your very busytime but I have nowhere else to turn to as the Exeter Crown Court directed me to email my constituency member of parliament for help over my ignored South Wales Police statement of complaint (incident number incident number1900418801).

(Extract)

10th Jan 2020 Complaint against HMP Parc South Wales G4S Staff

I, Maurice John Kirk, file complaints against HMP Parc, Bridgend, G4S custody staff for their seriously inflicting injuries, harassment and false imprisonment to cause numerous thefts of my possessions……..

Sir Lindsey Hoyle, none of my letters to my MP have been replied to.

I therefore asked my past MP, Alun Cairns MP but he also ignores my letters. I turned to my then temporary parliamentary representative for North Devon, Ms Selaine Saxby MP.

Ms Saxby immediately wrote to the G4S barbarically run Welsh prison, where the brutal robbery took place and has also between repeatedly ignored, of course, ever since.

Please, can anyone else, of any political persuasion, take on the Taffia for my property back which include two wheelchairs, clothes and current Cardiff County Court and RCJ ‘machinegun’ legal papers?

Thankyou

Yours faithfully,

Maurice j Kirk BVSc

Taunton, Somerset, England.

Even my political party appears not to help

Defendant’s Legal Submission

      An idle MP and Maurice John Kirk were like ‘two ships passing in the night’

Extracts from 1997 Prevention of Harassment Act

Prohibition of harassment

  • A person must not pursue a course of conduct— (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
  • Subsection (1) [ F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows— (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

2 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40) Document Generated: 2021-03-25 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. (See end of Document for details) (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

The fundamental issue was an ‘objective’ one while both parties in the case had quite different ‘subjective’ beliefs much based  on ‘hearsay’

The 1st November 2019 robbery of the Defendant, by staff of G4S Custodial Services in HMP Parc, Bridgend, South Wales, resulted in the loss of the South Wales Police’s victim’s personality.

The victim’s stolen ‘personalty’ includes:

  1. his clothes
  2. his shoes
  3. his two wheelchairs
  4. legal papers including from his civil claim 1CF03361 (trading in machine gun conspiracy)
  5. his BS614159 papers resulting from 40 odd failed police malicious criminal prosecutions
  6. his 3 years of NHS (Wales) record currently being requested by his GP, cardiac and gastroenterologist specialists in Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset
  7. his full 2009/10 records from Glanrhyd Hospital’s Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, resulting from three months of horrific incarceration under section 35 of 1983 Mental Health Act.

At Conservative Party HQ, yesterday, I was refused an MP to act on my behalf concerning the G4S robbery to steel my legal papers against Gold Group chief, Barbara Wilding, because then Secretary of State, Alun Cairns MP, was sent from my prison cell what was believed to be heroin we were told.

10th Jan 2020 Complaint against HMP Parc South Wales G4S Staff

I, Maurice John Kirk, file complaints against HMP Parc, Bridgend, G4S custody staff for their seriously inflicting injuries, harassment and false imprisonment to cause numerous thefts of my possessions.

Serious Assaults   (Article 3)                                                                             Incident 1900418801

  1. After my Feb 2019 unlawful ‘recall’ to prison from a Cardiff parole hostel I was assaulted on numerous occasions in Parc prison with one incident already reported over the ‘floor buffer’  on A2 wing. All required medical attention and captured on CCTV & body cameras. 
  2. The 2nd filmed significant assault was in June 2019 when I was forcibly removed from my 2nd missing wheel chair by unnecessary force from seven officers carrying me back to B block.
  3. The 3rd main incident was in Nov 2019 when I was snatched from my cell by unprovoked excessive force using no less than eight G4S officers using handcuffs on my wrists behind my back. This deliberate pain was inflicted from B wing to the main gate where I was ‘released’ for Bristol Royal Infirmary attention. This included x-rays due to my hip prosthesis having suffered partial subluxation of my hip joint and prescription analgesics for a month.
  4. The incidents have left me feeling severely intimidated, vulnerable and in constant pain.

Deliberate False Forensic History Yet Again (Article 6)

  1. In Sept & Dec18 G4S had inadvertently released Caswell Clinic medical data by fabricated police criminal convictions including ‘child abuse’, ‘firearms’, ‘narcotics’, ABH and ‘FTA’.
  2. Oct 19 HM Parole Board hearing, with evidence from a retired magistrate, had also revealed why a prison had needed such violent ‘constraints’. Both parole officer & prison supervisors had vehemently opposed release as I was, ‘violent and extremely dangerous’. To whom was I a danger, exactly, turned out to be only the Chief Constable? This caused my swift release.
  3. That CCTV and more leaked 2009 Barry police station MAPPA level 3 category 3 data of Barbara Wilding’s conspiracy, to have me shot, is applied for to be disclosed at the ‘machine gun’ hearing on 24th January as it all identifies the original culprit’s nefarious conduct. 

‘Heroin’ to Alun Cairns MP & ‘Anthrax Spores’ to another MP false Allegations  (Article 8)

  1. My Feb 19 release was due so police concocted reasons to stop my mail in and out of Cardiff & Parc prisons to protract time in prison and delay my civil claims. The ‘white powder’ found in my two MP letters had simply been remaining traces of toothpaste originally used for gluing exhibits onto my cell wall when originals had been stolen by my key liaison officer.

Further Deliberate Theft of my Possessions (Article 7)

Despite my pleadings and requests by parole staff G4S continues to refuse to return my wheelchair and legal papers as the latter is needed, of course, for my 10am 24th January 2020 civil court proceedings against both G4S and the South Wales Police. Today’s MG11 VPS written complaint to very patient South Wales police officers will, no doubt, end up in the police HQ shredder as did the ones, re police paint gun, to try and fool the 2010 jury!

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

source: https://mauricejohnkirk.com/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Maurice Kirk: the injustices continue” “I am arrested for ‘Threatening’ an MP” – VIDEO – 30 Oct. 2021

I am arrested for ‘Threatening’ an MP

At the Conservative Party’s London HQ yesterday, despite a judge’s directions, I was again refused an MP to act on my behalf concerning the Wales G4S robbery to steel my legal papers against Gold Group chief, Barbara Wilding, because the then HM Secretary of State, Alun Cairns MP, was sent from my prison cell what was believed to be heroin we were told.

Defendant’s Legal Submission

      An idle MP and Maurice John Kirk were like ‘two ships passing in the night’

Extracts from 1997 Prevention of Harassment Act

Prohibition of harassment

  • A person must not pursue a course of conduct— (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
  • Subsection (1) [ F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows— (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

2 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40) Document Generated: 2021-03-25 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. (See end of Document for details) (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

The fundamental issue was an ‘objective’ one while both parties in the case had quite different ‘subjective’ beliefs much based  on ‘hearsay’

The 1st November 2019 robbery of the Defendant, by staff of G4S Custodial Services in HMP Parc, Bridgend, South Wales, resulted in the loss of the South Wales Police’s victim’s personality.

The victim’s stolen ‘personalty’ includes:

  1. his clothes
  2. his shoes
  3. his two wheelchairs
  4. legal papers including from his civil claim 1CF03361 (trading in machine gun conspiracy)
  5. his BS614159 papers resulting from 40 odd failed police malicious criminal prosecutions
  6. his 3 years of NHS (Wales) record currently being requested by his GP, cardiac and gastroenterologist specialists in Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset
  7. his full 2009/10 records from Glanrhyd Hospital’s Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, resulting from three months of horrific incarceration under section 35 of 1983 Mental Health Act.

At Conservative Party HQ, yesterday, I was refused an MP to act on my behalf concerning the G4S robbery to steel my legal papers against Gold Group chief, Barbara Wilding, because then Secretary of State, Alun Cairns MP, was sent from my prison cell what was believed to be heroin we were told.

10th Jan 2020 Complaint against HMP Parc South Wales G4S Staff

I, Maurice John Kirk, file complaints against HMP Parc, Bridgend, G4S custody staff for their seriously inflicting injuries, harassment and false imprisonment to cause numerous thefts of my possessions.

Serious Assaults   (Article 3)                                                                             Incident 1900418801

  1. After my Feb 2019 unlawful ‘recall’ to prison from a Cardiff parole hostel I was assaulted on numerous occasions in Parc prison with one incident already reported over the ‘floor buffer’  on A2 wing. All required medical attention and captured on CCTV & body cameras. 
  2. The 2nd filmed significant assault was in June 2019 when I was forcibly removed from my 2nd missing wheel chair by unnecessary force from seven officers carrying me back to B block.
  3. The 3rd main incident was in Nov 2019 when I was snatched from my cell by unprovoked excessive force using no less than eight G4S officers using handcuffs on my wrists behind my back. This deliberate pain was inflicted from B wing to the main gate where I was ‘released’ for Bristol Royal Infirmary attention. This included x-rays due to my hip prosthesis having suffered partial subluxation of my hip joint and prescription analgesics for a month.
  4. The incidents have left me feeling severely intimidated, vulnerable and in constant pain.

Deliberate False Forensic History Yet Again (Article 6)

  1. In Sept & Dec18 G4S had inadvertently released Caswell Clinic medical data by fabricated police criminal convictions including ‘child abuse’, ‘firearms’, ‘narcotics’, ABH and ‘FTA’.
  2. Oct 19 HM Parole Board hearing, with evidence from a retired magistrate, had also revealed why a prison had needed such violent ‘constraints’. Both parole officer & prison supervisors had vehemently opposed release as I was, ‘violent and extremely dangerous’. To whom was I a danger, exactly, turned out to be only the Chief Constable? This caused my swift release.
  3. That CCTV and more leaked 2009 Barry police station MAPPA level 3 category 3 data of Barbara Wilding’s conspiracy, to have me shot, is applied for to be disclosed at the ‘machine gun’ hearing on 24th January as it all identifies the original culprit’s nefarious conduct. 

‘Heroin’ to Alun Cairns MP & ‘Anthrax Spores’ to another MP false Allegations  (Article 8)

  1. My Feb 19 release was due so police concocted reasons to stop my mail in and out of Cardiff & Parc prisons to protract time in prison and delay my civil claims. The ‘white powder’ found in my two MP letters had simply been remaining traces of toothpaste originally used for gluing exhibits onto my cell wall when originals had been stolen by my key liaison officer.

Further Deliberate Theft of my Possessions (Article 7)

Despite my pleadings and requests by parole staff G4S continues to refuse to return my wheelchair and legal papers as the latter is needed, of course, for my 10am 24th January 2020 civil court proceedings against both G4S and the South Wales Police. Today’s MG11 VPS written complaint to very patient South Wales police officers will, no doubt, end up in the police HQ shredder as did the ones, re police paint gun, to try and fool the 2010 jury!

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Rushed Recruitment Risks More Villains Amongst the Police – Ian Gould – 30 Oct. 2021

Iain Gould- Actions Against the Police Solicitor

Rushed Recruitment Risks More Villains Amongst the Police

Regular readers of this blog will no doubt recall the case of my client Ben Joynes, who was subjected to an un-provoked headbutt by PC Mark Knights of Derbyshire Police, after he tried to complain about the officer calling him a “fat cunt”.

Knights was convicted of common assault in Derby Magistrates Court in December 2020 and then in March 2021 dismissed from the Force, and placed upon the Police Barred List.

It has now been revealed that Knights was also under investigation for the  harassment of a female Police colleague, and was convicted of this latest offence by Southern Derbyshire Magistrates Court earlier this month. His behaviour, including asking his victim to “come and sit on my ****” reduced his victim to tears, and the best defence which Mr Knights’ barrister could offer – it seems – was to describe Knights’ behaviour as “immature” and “stupid”. In reality, his behaviour was a lot more sinister than that. He was a serving Police officer, not a school boy. The woman he harassed summed up Knights’ behaviour as follows –

“It was predatory. He thought I was new in the service and thought he could get away with it.”

Knights received a suspended sentence as well as a fine and 120 hours of unpaid community service. District Judge Jonathan Taaffe informed Knights that he was very lucky not to be going to prison, admonishing him with the following words –

The fact that you were a police officer is of course relevant because the public have the right to expect police officers to uphold high standards. It leads me to question what on earth was your attitude to members of the public? There is a breach of trust here to the public and to your colleagues…You have let the people of Derbyshire down and you have let your colleagues down.”

The latest court proceedings also revealed that Knights was frustrated after his application to become a firearms officer was rejected- shortly before his assault upon Mr Joynes; however, a man like this should never have been allowed to become a Police Officer at all.

It is salutary to reflect on this in the context of the Government’s push to recruit 20,000 new Police Officers by 2023. On the day that the Government proudly boasted that half the recruitment total had already been achieved (27 October 2021), HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Thomas Winsor, sounded the following note of warning to the Home Affairs Committee- “If you’re going that fast in recruitment there is a danger the wrong people will get in…” cautioning that when officers during their probationary service display “attitudes or preferences which are incompatible with the office of constable, the police need to be much more assiduous in recognising that and throwing them out.”

I whole-heartedly endorse his comments, as the list of vices and character flaws which Sir Thomas warned against have, in my experience, been amply displayed amongst many of the current crop of Police Officers who have abused, assaulted and mistreated my clients – a propensity for violence, a fondness for exercising power over their fellow citizens, misogyny, racism, homophobia and a basic “lack of maturity and judgement.”

Ex- PC Knights is just one such example against all too many.

The doorway to the Police profession needs to be vigilantly guarded, but sadly I suspect the Government’s current programme is more focused on quantity than quality.

source: https://iaingould.co.uk/2021/10/29/rushed-recruitment-risks-more-villains-amongst-the-police/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

#FreeAssange: Conference: ‘Stop the Torture: Free Assange’ VIDEO – London, Consortium News 26 Oct. 2021

sharethis sharing button

Consortium News

——————————————————————————————————————


#FreeAssange Stop The #Torture: Free #JulianAssange #FreeTheTruth (Part 1)

4G Live TV

ass166

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

More police corruption: Operation Insiped – Police Spied on Father of Cement Mixer ‘Murder’ Victim Les Balkwell – “The Upsetter” – 24 Oct. 2021

OPERATION INSIPID

Police Spied on Father of Cement Mixer ‘Murder’ Victim

DETECTIVES targeted a grieving father for exposing the corrupt police investigation into his son’s suspicious death on a remote farm linked to organised crime.

A ‘confidential’ police report reveals Essex and Kent police were concerned about Les Balkwell confronting senior officers at their homes and embarrassing them through the media.

A senior management team authorised a secret operation codenamed Intrepid to discredit and silence Balkwell by putting him behind bars for perverting the course of justice.

The shocking revelations have echoes of the police spying operation targeting the family of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence at the height of their campaign for justice against the Metropolitan police. 

Les Balkwell (copyright Michael Gillard)

33-year-old Lee Balkwell was found wedged between the drum and chassis of a cement mixer on Baldwins Farm in Ockendon, Essex.

His boss, a local drug trafficker and gun runner, claimed the death was an accident while they were cleaning out the vehicle in the early hours of the morning on 18 July 2002

Operation Intrepid was launched in 2013 just months after an excoriating report by the watchdog had concluded that Essex police’s investigation was ‘seriously flawed’ and praised the family for its ‘tenacity’. 

Balkwell suspected that corrupt policing had also undermined the incompetent investigation into his son death. Police whistleblowers were supplying him with information about criminal activities on Baldwins Farm.  

Essex, Kent and the Met police had failed to identify Balkwell’s sources when Operation Intrepid was launched. It involved months of covert investigation into the grieving father and his adviser, retired solicitor Tony Bennett.

However, the Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute the pair on the grounds there was insufficient evidence and it was not in the public interest.

Balkwell, 74, only found out about Operation Intrepid last month. He told The Upsetter it supports a long held belief that his family home and phone were being monitored.

“I’m disgusted. They wanted something to discredit me because they are aware of the golden nuggets I hold. When they couldn’t find out who my sources were they tried the other way.”

The revelations emerged in documents disclosed to Balkwell after a High Court judge agreed in July to hear his plea for an outside force to investigate his son’s death as a murder.

Lee Balkwell’s body wedged between the drum and chassis

Essex police closed the case in 2018 and refuses to reopen it as a murder. However, for the last 6 years Balkwell has been aided by a team of ex-Met murder detectives, forensic scientists and a leading human rights barrister.

The High Court will hear evidence next year that the crime scene at Baldwins Farm was ‘staged’ to look like an accident and that Lee was likely dead before he was wedged between the cement mixer drum and chassis.

Operation Intrepid will feature in the judicial review as an abuse of police power. Essex, Kent and the Met police are facing questions over who authorised it and why.

Balkwell drew comparisons with the Lawrence family, whose campaign for justice and legal action against the Met was infiltrated by undercover officers posing as anti-racist activists. 

Last night, he said:

“Given the outcry over the intrusion into the Lawrence family it should be the same with what the police did to us.”

Portwing

Almost immediately after he discovered his son had died that night nineteen years ago, Les Balkwell was on to detective superintendent Graeme Bull about his investigation.

Although Balkwell didn’t know it at the time, there was no strategy for retrieval of CCTV and phone data, no strategy for financial and intelligence gathering and the suspect, Simon Bromley, Lee’s boss, was never forensically tested for drugs and alcohol.

Bromley maintained, and still does, that Lee’s death was a tragic accident while the pair were cleaning out the cement mixer drum at 1am. He was never treated as a suspect even though Supt Bull had designated him as one on paper. 

Simon Bromley insists he is innocent of murder

The post mortem was another farce. It was incomplete and carried out by a discredited Home Office pathologist. Lee’s clothes were destroyed hours later on police instructions.

Supt Bull submitted a thin file to the CPS without any witness statements taken from those first at the scene, the fire fighters and paramedics, who suspected foul play straight away.

Predictably, the CPS recommended no further action. It was almost as if Supt Bull wanted to put down the case with little chance of Bromley being prosecuted, even for manslaughter by gross negligence.

It was Balkwell’s determination that led to a review of Supt Bull’s efforts. Detective Superintendent Simon Coxall was given a box of documents and told to see if there were any leads. He didn’t ask for telephone records, made no policy file and again the CPS said no to any prosecution.

Eventually, Balkwell’s complaints were passed to Essex police’s Professional Standards Department in 2004. The Line of Duty squad decided there was nothing in the complaints and that the investigation into Lee’s death was of an acceptable standard.

By now, the police felt Balkwell was a thorn in their side and difficult to ‘manage’, especially after he rebuffed an attempt to recruit him as an informant.

Significantly, Balkwell had become aware from a police source that an undercover operation codenamed Portwing was looking at Bromley and his associates for dealing drugs and selling guns from Baldwins Farm.

Balkwell was tipped off that intelligence had come out of that undercover operation suggesting Lee was killed because Bromley believed he was having an affair with his wife.

This turned out not to be the case, but the fact Balkwell knew so much and was talking to the local media about a ‘cover up’ was a major concern to Essex police.

Operation Portwing ended successfully in 2006 with the jailing of Bromley for 8 years on drugs and gun charges.

Nereus

After an inquest jury into Lee Balkwell’s death returned a verdict of ‘unlawful killing’ in 2009, Essex police did yet another review. This one looked very belatedly at forensic opportunities – which obviously had been largely lost because of the earlier inexplicable incompetence, if that’s what it was.

The review was a snub by Essex police to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), whose interim report had recommended that:

“Essex police consider appointing an external independent force to re-invesitgate Lee Balkwell’s death.”

Instead, assistant commissioner Andrew Bliss decided to get West Midlands to do yet another review of his force’s work. In 2010, the West Midlands police recommendations were given to Kent police to address and discharge.

This review was not in any way a murder investigation or even an investigation into the death. It was called Operation Nereus.

Between August 2011 and July 2012, the Nereus team met Baulkwell and Tony Bennett, a colourful retired solicitor who was also challenging Essex police over its poor handling of the death in 2001 of Stuart Lubbock in Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool.

Stuart Lubbock (l) and Michael Barrymore

Balkwell would meet the Nereus team at the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent or at a Ministry of Defence facility in Essex where the cement mixer lorry that his son had died in was stored.

The Nereus team of detectives did not like that Balkwell had been given access to sensitive documents by police sources – for example the entire Operation Portwing file, which he told them had been posted through his door.

A secret intelligence cell was already up and running trying to identify Balkwell’s sources. It was also looking at any relevant police corruption in  Essex and the Met, covert activity around telephones and discreet financial enquires.

Lee Balkwell

Intrepid

Out of the blue, in November 2013 Operation Nereus charged Simon Bromley with manslaughter by gross negligence and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury for inconsistencies in his accounts since 2002.

Balkwell thought the prosecution was a corrupt decision to try and rescue Essex police’s reputation without actually investigating the death as a possible murder. He made his feelings known to the Nereus team and told the CPS about his police sources alleging corruption had played a part in the failure to investigate the case properly.

The CPS directed Balkwell to Alaric Bonthron, the head of the Met’s infamous anti-corruption squad of so called Untouchables.

Balkwell, however, refused to identify his sources unless they were given immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. This was rejected and in any event the Nereus intelligence cell had already identified one of the police whistleblowers, who was dealt with and later left the force.  

By late 2013, there was a growing consensus among police officers that Balkwell and Bennett, who had made no secret he was writing a book on the case, were a problem.

The pair’s many time consuming complaints against senior officers that had to be investigated, the turning up at the doors of senior cops, the visiting of witnesses who had been interviewed by the Nereus team, the bad mouthing in the local media and on the website and youtube were becoming too much.

Documents show a feeling was developing that something needed to be done about the pair. Something serious. Words and warnings were not working. Trust had broken down irreversibly.

But there was a problem. Balkwell had received a boost when the IPCC, the police watchdog, released its final report in 2012 that Essex police’s inquiry into Lee’s death was ‘seriously flawed’ and the family’s campaign for justice should be lauded for its ‘endurance and tenacity.’

Despite this, a decision was taken at a high level to launch a covert operation codenamed Intrepid to deal with the Balkwell problem.

What is known from internal documents is that a ‘Gold command group’ of senior officers with oversight of Nereus included at various times assistant chief constable Bliss of Essex and deputy chief constable Alan Pughsley of Kent, a former Met Untouchable with an interesting past in anti-corruption work.

Pughsley was replaced by Gary Beautridge, who in turn was replaced by Rob Price. The senior investigator on Nereus was Detective chief superintendent Lee Catlin, who on his retirement from Kent police in December 2012 was replaced by detective inspector Janine Farrell.

According to a ‘confidential’ report dated July 2015 by Farrell, she ‘commissioned’ Operation Intrepid and Price was copied in on her reasons, which was to protect the forthcoming manslaughter prosecution of Simon Bromley.

Essex and Kent police had taken the view that by talking to witnesses, Balkwell and Bennett were doing a ‘criminal’ act of perverting the course of justice.

Tony Bennett

It is an established principle in British law that there is no property in a witness and Balkwell said he was simply trying to discover the truth in the face of official intransigence and incompetence.

Another part of DI Farrell’s rationale for launching Operating Intrepid was that Balkwell was using the media and undermining the good name of the police and judicial system.

The detective also felt it would leave the police open to criticism if while prosecuting Bromley for perverting the course of justice, Balkwell was not investigated for doing the same.

In the end, only a manslaughter charge was put before a jury in October 2014 and even then Bromley was acquitted because of failings in the early police investigations.

The jury did however convict him of minor health and safety violations and possession of cannabis, for which he got 3 years.

DI Farrell had also sent a file on Balkwell and Bennett to the CPS. But she writes that the CPS refused to prosecute the pair on the grounds of an insufficiency of evidence.

The CPS also felt it was not in the public interest to prosecute a victim of crime who would argue in front of a jury that he was just trying to expose injustice.

Dirty Tricks

Various questions are now swirling around Les Balkwell’s head. Was his home and car bugged? Were his phones tapped? Was he followed? Have his finances and phone records been trawled for evidence of skulduggery?

The inevitable consequence of long family campaigns for justice is that grief mixes freely with the stress of not being believed and leads to a deep anger towards the authorities who failed you that can turn inwards.

Les Balkwell admits he suffers from ‘paranoia’. For years he carried a brown leather bag everywhere containing dog-eared police documents to prove to anyone who would listen that he was not a nutter.

His distrust of the police is justified and that’s why he refused to give up his sources. He also played tricks on detectives to see if he was under surveillance. He recalls one day sitting outside by the kitchen window and telling his brother a rehearsed piece of information about the case to see if it ever came back in police documents. It did, he says.

There are many questions about Operation Intrepid that the family’s lawyers intend to raise at the judicial review hearing at the High Court next year.

Given that the operation crosses three police forces – Essex, Kent and the Met – none of them can be considered independent enough to investigate the death of Lee Balkwell, if that is what the High Court directs should happen. 

Adam Hunt, the Essex police lawyer handling the judicial review, was across Operations Nereus and Intrepid. He has instructed a heavyweight barrister, whose argument for opposing a review of the decision to close the Balkwell case could be summed up as follows:

Yes we fucked up, fucked up real bad. And then we fucked up again. But then we fucked up less and soon we were done fucking up. In fact in the last ten years no stone has been left unturned looking into this terrible tragedy. Trust us when we say there is no chance of finding any new evidence of murder – because we fucked it so badly in the first place and could never recover the position.

That said, there’s nothing sinister in what we did, so no one needed to fall on their truncheon. Its just one of those things that happened back then. We are all very sorry and lessons have been learned.

Asked to comment on concerns that Operation Intrepid amounted to an abuse of police power to silence a grieving father and chief critic, a spokesperson for Essex police said:

“The investigation into the death of Lee Balkwell is currently subject to a judicial review and as such it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”

And so it goes.

source: https://theupsetterstrikes.substack.com/p/operation-insiped?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozOTg0NzA0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDI5NzQyNDIsIl8iOiJOSG5NOCIsImlhdCI6MTYzNTA4NzYyMywiZXhwIjoxNjM1MDkxMjIzLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzEyMjk5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.LDC5UA-nhYMhAHzJftzs1bGvyURLNjtTFycp-SQLmZM

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment