12th July 2012
Complaint against South Wales Police
Dear Ms Costello,
I am having difficulty sending this on the more direct e-mail to
Cardiff I require some proof the IPCC have received this today.
Please forward copying me in so I know next time the shortest route
I need to send documents to support but as my website is currently
dedicated to this matter could some one indicate if any further
documents are indeed needed in the light of the police conduct
indicated in their enclosed 1st June 2012 letter?
IPCC 2009/016588 & 2012/001471
IPCC Investigate South Wales Police Conduct
My IPPC reply to 18 June 12 South Wales Police Professional Standards Dept. refusals to properly investigate my many complaints arising from one decommissioned Lewis Machine Gun attached to my Farnborough DH2 WWI fighter display aircraft.
1. The police letter exudes bias in many paragraphs and quite erroneous about their conduct.
2. The gun was used to prosecute me under Section 5(1)(a) of 1968 Fire Arms Act.
3. The gun was used to have me remanded in custody for nearly eight months.
4. Used to have me imprisoned under Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act.
5. Police have not even re interviewed the owners despite their new August 2011 statements!
South Wales Police accept in their original August 2009 gathered evidence that the new owner had painted the black gun to part silver immediately after their 2008 purchase from me.
The police then returned the gun, after my 2010 successful trial, even in a different shade of silver!
I had sold the gun as ‘all black’ just as the gun was then presented in my 2010 jury trial and in my August 2008 U Tube video, also shown the jury, having been filmed an hour before it was collected.
The same video can be seen on http://www.kirkflyingvet.com as used by the police for the Cardiff trial.
6. The ‘investigation’ was wholly disproportionate because:
a) I faced a minimum five year prison sentence on each of the remaining charges
b) I was registered MAPPA level 3 at level 3 management, meaning 24/7 armed surveillance
c) aided by their forensic psychiatrist, also using falsified evidence and quite unqualified medical reports, stating I had ‘significant brain damage’ and possible brain tumour
d) allowed the police to ask His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC, on 2
December 2009 (transcript available), I be further sectioned under the 1983 Act in order I be further incarcerated to Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital, IPP, meaning possibly for life
e) Inspector Richard Holder continues to refuse to let me finish or even give me copy of my part written signed witness statement, for the IPCC, I made in Cardiff prison on 7
February 2012 in the presence of his colleague, Inspector King.
f) Aircraft mechanics, when I owned it, Civil Aviation Authority and Lincolnshire museum licenced mechanics, all state it was decommissioned and that the barrel was blocked.
7. The police admit firing the gun only after the new owner’s August 09 statement that it was blocked when the police took possession of it on 22
June 2009, on the day of my arrest.
8. Since this IPCC inquiry started solicitors for the police have only, this month, now disclosed but only by a court order from an English court, all previous orders from Cardiff courts having been ignored, that my arrest had been instigated by Dolmans, solicitors, defending in a 20 year running civil damages claim for numerous other malicious and failed prosecutions.
9. Since this IPCC complaint was registered I have established that seven MAPPA monthly meetings were only conducted within the knowledge of police and NHS (Wales) staff at Caswell Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend. All documents proving these facts are available.
10. A policy to ‘having me shot’ was the only reason to delay my arrest for well over three weeks and is recorded in the leaked MAPPA minutes and original executive summaries of this conspiracy to again pervert the course of justice.
Under Cover Tactics
11. ‘Foxy’ was the name given at the 2010 Cardiff Crown Court trial to the anonymous screened off male police officer I was denied, as with others, to properly cross examine.
He pretended to be the officer who telephoned each time when attempting to purchase the machine gun. He knew, full well, it had been advertised on my web site for almost ten years and had been sold a year earlier!
Female police communication to me included a telephone call to my then wife, Kirstie Kirk.
The police have not even interviewed Kirstie Kirk following my current allegations to the IPCC.
Police refused to disclose evidence recorded during her original interrogation, during ‘Operation Chalice’, for the machine gun coinciding with ‘Operation Orchid’, the latter being to coerce her into signing a witness statement that I had a history of mental health issues.
It was for the purpose of ‘snatching’ our ten year old daughter on behalf of the Vale of Glamorgan Social Services following the 8
tJune 2009 discussions at the clandestine MAPPA meeting at Barry police station with only police and Caswell Clinic staff in attendance.
12. The August 2010 MAPPA ‘Executive Summary’, of the so far disclosed MAPPA meetings, was only written following my paid for application before His honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC.
13. As for the 8
th June 2009 minutes, leaked from Caswell Clinic, the document clearly indicates I would be shot should I again approach Barbara Wilding, the then Chief Constable, as I had done following her 26th
February 2009 now proven to be false sworn affidavit on disclosure.
14. Crown Prosecution Service advice was recorded in the minutes to the effect that my intentions to expedite the ‘mutual exchange’ of witness statements, in the on-going civil trial, appeared legitimate. Dolmans, solicitors, it was disclosed, were giving contrary advice.
15. His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC’s refusal to order further disclosure of the monthly minutes he confirmed only yesterday in that his responsibilities were only for the civil action.
16. My private prosecution applications, except via Bristol, in anticipation of the usual negative response by those ultimately responsible, have also been blocked in all the criminal courts.
17. Just which copy of 7th Feb 2012 ‘victim’ statements did South Wales Police submit to IPCC?
Maurice Kirk BVSc 11
Our Ref/Ein Cyf: RH/DAW/32ICO/006 04 I 1 1
1’t June 2012
Chief Superintendent Tim JONES
Complaint aqainst the Police bv Maurice John KIRK
This report relates to a Proportionate lnvestigation carried out following a complaint
against the Police by Mr KIRK.
He is a man with an extensive history of making complaints and pursuing Civil Claims
against the Police and other organisations. ln fact, in his witness statement he describes
his occupation as a chronic litigant.
ln June 2009, Mr KIRK was arrested for possession of a prohibited weapon and other
offences. The weapon concerned is a World War Lewis machine gun and he ultimately
appeared at Crown Court, charged with offences relating to that.
Mr KIRK complained via letter, dated 21’t August2011, concerning South Wales Police
perverting the course of justice, concerning the investigation into him. He included a
self-written witness statement, in which he details various allegations.
On 18th October 2A11, a dispensation application was sent to the IPCC, on the grounds
that the complaint was out of time.
On 6th December 2011, the IPCC wrote to South Wales Police and advised that the
dispensation was granted, with the exception of two areas that should be investigated,
i. Officers tampered with the machine gun in order to make it capable of firing.
ii. Discrepancies regarding an undercover operation and the subsequent evidence
The investigation has therefore concentrated on those two areas. ln addition, when
visited, Mr KIRK raised a further issue regarding his MAPPA status and I will comment
about this further on.
Lewis Machine Gun
Mr Ronald COOPER is a collector of historic aircraft and in around April 2008,
purchased a World War Aircraft from Mr KIRK, having seen it on Mr KIRK’S website.
Included in the purchase was a Lewis machine gun, which was a necessary part of the
purchase in order to balance the aircraft properly.
Mr COOPER states that Mr KIRK told him that the gun had been deactivated, that is, the
gun was not capable of firing as certain parts had been removed. Mr COOPER actually
states that it was deactivated and describes missing parts. He states he does not know
the serial number of the gun.
Mr COOPER states that he painted the gun black and the magazine silver, after
cleaning the outside but not the inside of it.
After being contacted by the Civil Aviation Authority, Mr COOPER left the Lewis
machine gun with Mike SCOTT, a registered firearms dealer, for the purpose of further
deactivation, the reason being that the present deactivation did not meet the
requirements of new legislation.
Mr SCOTT confirms that he received the Machine gun from Mr COOPER and describes
how he felt that the gun had not been properly deactivated. He states the serial number
was 2221, possibly ending in 66.
Mr SCOTT explains how he handed the gun to the Police and there are statements
attached showing continuity of possession of the gun until its arrival with Mr Andrew
HUXTABLE, the National Ballistics lntelligence Service Armourer based at the Scientific
Support Unit, Police Headquarters, Bridgend.
Mr HUXTABLE formed the opinion that this was a Firearm that was capable of firing.
The gun was further examined by Mr Phillip RYDEARD, a Forensic Scientist, who
provided expert evidence. He gives the serial number as 222166 and details why he
feels the gun is not deactivated. He actually test fired it using ammunition and shotgun
Mr Richard MABBIT is the Superintendent of London Proof House whose role mainly
entails the lnspection of Military weapons. He also gives the serial number as 222166.
He field stripped the gun and concluded that it had not been deactivated.
Mr Samuel PERRY, the Superintendent of Birmingham Proof House, also conducted a
field stripping of the gun and concluded that it had not been decommissioned. He also
gives the serial number as 222166.
The gun was later shown again to Mr COOPER who stated that he could now push a
wire rod down the barrel whereas previously he could not. This is quite likely to be as a
result of the weapon being field stripped on a number of occasions.
Mr KIRK alleges that the Police deliberately unblocked the barrel of the gun so as to
make it capable of firing.
There is clear continuity of the weapon from Mr COOPER through to the various
experts, all of whom say it was capable of firing and in fact it did fire. There is no doubt it
is one and the same gun and there is no evidence whatsoever to say the Police
deliberately unblocked the barrel.
Mr COOPER makes reference to the unblocked barrel in a statement taken by the
Police during the Criminal lnvestigation; the fact is not hidden as suggested by Mr KIRK
who states that Mr COOPER raised it under cross examination. ln fact, if a Firearm is
properly deactivated, the barrel can not be later unblocked.
Mr KIRK makes reference to the magazine of the gun being painted by the Police. This
is his word only and frankly makes no difference to whether the weapon was capable of
ln conclusion, I find in relation to this issue that there is no evidence of Misconduct but
this is simply one of a series of unfounded conspiracy theories currently being flaunted
by Mr KIRK.
Mr KIRK makes reference to phone calls to his home, by a female officer, claiming to be
interested in purchasing a gun. He states that a male Officer gave evidence at Court,
concealed behind a screen, to the effect that he had made the phone calls. He states
this person used the pseudonym of ‘Foxy’.
I can confirm that an ‘undercover’ Officer from another Police force was actually utilised
in attempts to purchase a gun from Mr KIRK. This is clearly sensitive and confidential
so !will only mention it briefly.
Needless to say, I have listened to audio recording of phone calls from the Officer who
made the calls, he is clearly male and identifies himself as ‘Foxy’.
My suggestion is that Mr KIRK has been sighted on the name Foxy during the
disclosure and court processes and has assumed that Foxy is a female, dare I say as
most people would.
I can say categorically that the Officer is male and that Mr KIRK is mistaken in this
Mr KIRK wishes to complain about lack of disclosure to him over his MAPPA status. A
copy of the MAPPA meeting minutes executive summary is attached which shows a
summary of the meetings held in 2009 when Mr KIRK was categorised as Level 3
MAPPA. He has attempted to obtain further minutes from individual agencies.
He makes mention of minutes referring to him being shot if he approached the then
Chief Constable. This is incorrect although it is clear that because of the threat posed at
the time by Mr KIRK, the Chief Constable was subject of close protection
It can be clearly seen from an attached Court Order that on 14th July 2011, it was
ordered by His Honour Seys LLEWELLYN, QC, at a County Court Hearing, that Mr
KIRK’S application for disclosure of full minutes was dismissed. There is in fact no
obligation to provide minutes to a person subject of MAPPA and this has been
reinforced by the County Court judgement.
The partner agencies are therefore within their rights not to disclose individual minutes
to Mr KIRK and he is fully aware of this. To complain about this is in fact an abuse of the
I should point out that Mr KIRK has not been very cooperative during this investigation.
On 7th February 2012,1 visited him at HMP Cardiff in order to take a witness statement,
which I duly did. He refused to sign it until I gave him a photocopy which the prison staff
obliged with and I provided him with a copy immediately.
Mr KIRK signed the statement then demanded a photocopy of the signed version, which
the prison staff did not do. Mr KIRK then stated that I hid taken the statement under
duress and he wished to withdraw it. He has subsequently written to me requesting a
copy of the statement and has been directed to submit a Subject Access application.
ln fact, on Monday 21’t May 2012, I spoke over the phone to Mr KIRK and it was clear
that he had forgotten that I had given him a copy of his unsigned statement. He has also
criticised me on his website and provided my Office telefihone number, encouraging
people to ring me, although nobody has to date.
Of the three areas that have been investigated, I have not identified any Misconduct or
criminal offences and recommend there is no case to answer.
Regulation Notices have not been served.
R A HOLDER
Professional Standards Department
Pffi*?gCY – IN\IESTIffiATIOruS
Professional Standards Depa(ment, South Wales Police Headquarters, Cowbridge Road, Bridgend CF31 35U
Adran Safonnau Proffesiynol,Pencadlys Heddlu de Cymiu, Heoty Bont-fain, penybonttF3l 3SU