MAURICE KIRK: “A sample of South Wales Police’s 23 years of conduct” 2 Dec. 2015

7.jpga  above: May, 2015

Maurice Kirk has been put in prison 6 times since 2008, the time totalling over 3 years behind bars, connected, basically, to the allegation that he broke a “restraining order” served upon him, relating to “harassing” or even “contacting” a now ex-NHS consultant doctor who manufactured a false report on Maurice, stating he had a “brain tumour“, and was a danger to society. It has now come to light officially that no “restraining order” was ever served upon Maurice, something he has always maintained, but been unable to prove.

The false medical report was made, presumably, in an attempt to  put Maurice in a closed psychiatric hospital forever. Why? Perhaps it was because he was deemed a thorn in the side of certain authorities he was trying to get justice over [via his “damages claim”] relating to endless alleged “targeting” he complained of that had been occurring for over 20 years. 

Maurice has been classed as a “MAPPA 3” level convict in the past, a classification so serious there are only  150+ subjects classified as this in the country, mostly violent psychopaths on life sentences in prison. Due to Maurice’s diligence and refusal to give in or be intimidated by the attempts to get him incarcerated forever in a criminal mental hospital, the attempts have, [so far],  failed. Maurice has just served nearly 18 months in prisons based on the allegation that he broke the terms of this [alleged non-existent] “restaining order” – a term which saw him go on “hunger strike” for over 30 days, simply to obtain a single letter out of those holding him, relavent to the non-existent “brain tumour”. 

During this incarceration he was denied an urgent medical operation for an extremely painful and serious stomach ailment – a colostomy or similar was urgently needed but always denied him – the ailment had him in a wheelchair for months as he was unable to walk. He tells us often there was no help for him to get on his bed at night, so he had to sleep in his wheelchair. The urgent operation he so urgently needed was always refused because certain of Maurice’s medical documents, linked to the false report made hy the now ex-NHS consultant, were always denied to the surgeons who were to do this operation, who needed to see the documents before acting, for safety’s sake. Letters to the Prime Minister and all the rest about this matter failed miserably, time after time. Painkillers were often not given to him, he alleges, when he most needed them, when he was in agony for hours as a result. Maurice’s site is

2 Dec. 2015 – A sample of South Wales Police’s 23 years of conduct =

1] DRAFT – Action 3, 5.1-3 – the VW Campervan around the Hayes Roundabout 21 May 2002.

2]  DRAFT – Retired Inspector  Howard Davies Spite repeated in RCVS Trial

3]    DRAFT – Action 1 claim 8.5 24th March 1993 stopped by PC Jane Lott.


Action 3, 5.1-3 the VW Campervan around the Hayes Roundabout 21 May 2002.

This is a claim that Mr Kirk was unlawfully arrested and thereafter unlawfully detained in custody, on allegation of driving whilst disqualified and failing to produce a driving licence. He was driving his VW campervan. On it there were displayed banners complaining of, as he would describe it, the appalling state of our courts. He drove the vehicle round and round the monument at The Hayes Cardiff. (The road layout has changed since, but at the relevant time it was possible for a vehicle to circle the monument). It is common ground that (the then) PC Cocksey 3619 and PC 1215 Osbourne attended, and that PC Cocksey arrested Mr Kirk on the basis that he was driving whilst disqualified. He was taken to the police station arriving there according to the custody log at 14.42 on 21 May 2002. In the event, he was detained in the police station until 08.32 the next morning when he was taken under escort to the Magistrates Court.

The pleaded case is that “on 21 May 2002 the Defendant, in Cardiff, maliciously and without reason or probable cause arrested and detained in custody the Claimant on motoring allegations that included driving whilst disqualified and failing to produce a driving licence. The Claimant held a valid driving licence about his person on the 21 May 2002 and was never asked to produce it. On the 22 May at Cardiff Magistrates, the Defendant withdrew the charges of driving whilst disqualified and failing to produce a driving licence” (Bundle A3/4.170).

The pleaded Defence is that “sometime after 2.00pm on 21 May 2002 the Claimant was observed to be driving his Volkswagen Caravanette, round and round the monument of The Hayes, Cardiff. A check was made on the Police National Computer, which identified the Claimant as a disqualified driver. Police Constable Cocksey then stopped and arrested the Claimant for driving whilst disqualified. The Claimant was then taken to Cardiff Central Police Station. Once at the police station the Claimant refused to cooperate with the Custody Officer by refusing to disclose his personal details….. He was subsequently charged with driving whilst disqualified and other road traffic offences. The Custody Officer then wished to bail the Claimant but the Claimant refused to be bailed. The Custody Sergeant who also suspected that in the circumstances the Claimant might further drive whilst disqualified, therefore authorised the Claimant’s detention until he could be brought before the magistrates the following day….. if, which is not admitted, the Claimant was not disqualified from driving, and the Defendant avers the officer was entitled to rely upon the information he had received from the Police National Computer and therefore was acting lawfully when relying upon the said information, he arrested the Claimant”.

I received witness statement and oral evidence from the following: Mr Kirk himself; PC Cocksey, PC Osbourne, PC 1060 Andrew Lloyd James who conducted a tape recorded interview with Mr Kirk at 16.21 to 16.35 hours (during which Mr Kirk denied that he was disqualified from driving) and who charged Mr Kirk (driving whilst disqualified, failing to produce a driving licence, no insurance, no MOT); PS 4008 Linda Canterbury, the custody sergeant on duty when Mr Kirk was brought in to Cardiff Central Police Station; PS 2788 Geoffrey Roberts, the custody sergeant who took over at 18.50 hours [and PC 1953 Andrew Williams the gaoler assistant to the custody sergeant from 19.00 hours that day, and who processed Mr Kirk’s property at the police station].

I also received the evidence of Mrs Kirstie Kirk, the former wife of Mr Kirk, who in May 2002 made a handwritten record of the contact she had had with the police about Mr Kirk’s detention, both overnight on 21 May 2002 and when he was arrested whilst driving in Cowbridge (see below). Her evidence was uncontroversial.

Mr Kirk had been disqualified from driving by reason of successive convictions then on his record. The disqualification was for a period of six months from 11 April 2002, taking into account 6 penalty points imposed by Cardiff Magistrates Court on 11 April 2000 for no insurance.

As recorded in a letter of 22 May 2002 (the day after arrest) from Cardiff Magistrates Court, under the hand of a T Dodson, ‘Principal Legal Adviser’, “Mr Kirk has convinced the Crown Prosecution Service that he did indeed have insurance cover in respect of that allegation and on 20 May 2002 District Judge Watkins used her common law powers to allow Mr Kirk to change his plea to not guilty. The CPS offered no evidence and the case was dismissed. With the consequent reduction in number of 6 points, Mr Kirk no longer falls to be disqualified under the provisions of section 35, and accordingly District Judge Morgan has today used his powers under Section 110 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to remove the disqualification imposed by the Crown Court.” (letter to DVLA asking they amend their records accordingly, Bundle A3/4.188, emphasis supplied).

There is no doubt that Mr Kirk was driving round and round the monument at The Hayes many times on 21 May 2002.  In his statement of 19 June 2009, he described it as well over 50 times; in a statement of 2002, he described it as “for some 30 to 40 times”. He was trailing his coat.

In his witness statement of 19 June 2009, he says that PC Cocksey, “well known to me”, arrested him for driving whilst disqualified and later, in custody, “765 … concocted other charges, including, of course no insurance. One I remember without any records at hand was having no licence, when I produced it in court for all to see before I was even released. 766. Later the police pursued the remaining charge, no insurance with all others slowly withdrawn or quashed in court. 767. The production of my insurance was, I remember, the 35th time I had been ordered to produce, so I refused. 768. Following much argument with a senior CPS Prosecutor, brought in especially to deal with this case and the clerk of the court,…. the case was quashed my never needing to produce proof of insurance”. (Bundle A3/4.173B).

It is common ground that on 21 May 2002 Mr Kirk insisted to those who arrested him, and detained him, that he was not disqualified from driving.

When eventually he did appear at the Magistrates Court on 13 August 2002, he declined to give evidence, yet the Magistrates Court acquitted him of the charge of failing to have insurance for the vehicle. He asked for a case to be stated by the Justices, and they did so, but in the following terms:

“The Defendant appeared in Court on 22 May 2002 and pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case was listed for a pre trial review on 4 July 2002 where the Defendant maintained his not guilty plea and declined to produce a certificate of insurance for inspection. We heard the case on 13 August 2002….. During cross examination of PC James the Defendant claimed he had been stopped 34 times by the police. The Prosecutor made an admission under Section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that the Defendant had been stopped on a number of occasions in the past and that he had no convictions for not having insurance. At the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution the Defence declined to give evidence, and submitted that the evidence that he had been stopped in the past when linked to no previous convictions for not having insurance was sufficient to discharge the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, that he had a valid policy of insurance on this occasion too….. we found that in all likelihood Maurice Kirk had been the holder of a valid certificate of insurance at the time he was arrested and accordingly dismissed the case.

The Defendant applied for costs from central funds. We found the following facts: The Defendant was the holder of a valid certificate of insurance. The Defendant had had ample opportunity to show that certificate to the Prosecutor on the two previous occasions that he had appeared in Court and had chosen not to do so. When asked why he did not produce it he said that if the police knew who his insurance was they would take steps to ensure the company would cease to insure him.

We were of the opinion the Defendant had been in a position to stop the proceedings at any time by producing his insurance. He had chosen not to because of his antipathy to the police whom he wished to inconvenience by making them come to court and give evidence. Through his actions he had forced the hand of the Crown Prosecution Service into prosecuting the case and he had acted unreasonably in all the circumstances. Accordingly we did not allow the Defendant’s costs to be met from Central Funds”. (Bundle A3/4.283-285).
Mr Kirk’s pleaded case in relation to the incident of 21 May 2002, (quoted above), makes no claim in respect of prosecution on the charge of no insurance which was brought but later dismissed, doubtless because of the caustic terms of the case stated by the magistrates who dismissed the charge. 

The other charges laid by PC James against Mr Kirk were driving while disqualified, failing to produce a driving licence for examination by the police, and driving a vehicle in respect of which no MOT Certificate had been issued (charge sheet Bundle A3/4.245). Mr Kirk’s reply on being charged is recorded as “I don’t believe I’m a bad driver”, a charge sheet which on this occasion he signed (same reference A3/4.245).

PC James states that he conducted a tape recorded interview, and it is stated, in “Summary of Evidence” (which I find is likely to be a police document, being on ‘Form NG5’, as is the charge sheet) that the interview was by means of audio tape cassette with a reference CA/6381/02. That summary records that Mr Kirk denied being a disqualified driver during this interview (Bundle A3/4.246). “During interview Kirk admitted driving motor vehicle…. Kirk believed that he was not disqualified when driving the vehicle as he stated that he has been to court and has had the driving points, to which the disqualification relates, taken off” (record of interview Bundle A3/4.247).

As to the driving licence, in an unsigned statement, (it would appear made in 2002 for his solicitors for the purpose of pleading the case), Mr Kirk stated that he appeared in court next day and “offered my driving licence for all to see from the dock once the charges were read out” (Bundle A3/4.240). The record of interview written by PC James is less than a dozen lines long, and is devoted only to driving whilst disqualified. There is no record of the driving licence being produced to the police at the police station; but I find this unsurprising, in that in cross examination, Mr Kirk told me that it was from his pocket that he produced the licence “before he was released”, but that he had had it “in my sock. I often kept it in my sock. So it wouldn’t go walkabout”.

Two days after his release from custody, Mr Kirk wrote to South Wales Police at Cardiff Central police station stating “I require full custody records relating to the above incident [21 May 2002] to include the unexpurgated version of both the overhead video showing the incident at the scene in The Hayes and in the custody suite.” (A3/4.258). He pursued these requests by further letters dated 27 May 2002, 6 June 2002 and 14 August 2002 (Bundle A3/4.259, 260 and 269).

I do not have, in any of the Bundles, documents identifying the date when other charges were withdrawn or dismissed. It is at least an oddity that Mr Kirk should be charged with an offence of having no MOT certificate, when at A3/4.212 the custody record documents the property on Mr Kirk’s person as including an ‘MOT certificate’ (not further specified) (A3/4.212). The custody sergeant Linda Canterbury says in her witness statement that she cannot now [statement 22/08/2003] remember which vehicle that certificate referred to, but it is likely that it related to another vehicle; “I cannot now however remember any specific detail in this regard”. It was in fact PC 3227 Adrian Williams who carried out the search of Mr Kirk’s personal possessions as items of property. Asked in oral evidence by Mr Kirk why the search showed an MOT certificate when Mr Kirk was charged with having no MOT, his answer was “Were you really? I didn’t know”. PC James was the charging officer. In answer to myself, he could not help me with which vehicle the MOT Certificate was for, or for what dates.

In cross examination PC Williams said to Mr Kirk, “You were furious. I’d say you were very agitated, I remember you definitely expressed a sense of injustice that you were there”. “He said something like, I’m not disqualified, as if he’d been brought in for no reason.  It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve heard that, to be honest, it’s the PNC which is usually the determinative factor which tells us whether someone is disqualified or not”.

It is convenient first to turn to the evidence of PC Cocksey and PC Osbourne, who left Cardiff Central Police Station to go to The Hayes, where Mr Kirk was stopped.

According to PC Osbourne, in his witness statement, he was at Cardiff Central Police Station at about 14.00 hours

“when I viewed the CCTV which showed a VW van with large signs fitted to its sides. I saw that the vehicle kept turning around the statue roundabout situated on The Hayes at its junction with Hill Street. I was made aware that the driver was Mr Maurice Kirk. As a result of the above I had a conversation with Police Constable Cocksey and we then drove to The Hayes in a marked police van…” (paragraphs 4 and 5, Bundle A3/4.190, emphasis supplied).

His notebook is to the same effect, namely that he saw the CCTV showing the van and “was made aware” that the driver was Mr Maurice Kirk (Bundle 3/4.194). In oral evidence in chief, Mr Osbourne described the beginnings of this incident in neutral terms, “I became aware of a van with a sign being attached to it being driven in the city…. I became aware the driver was Mr Kirk with whom I’d dealt on a couple of occasions”.

The account of PC 3619 Cocksey is somewhat different. According to his witness statement, at 14.00 hours he was on duty in the parade room at Cardiff Central Police Station, parading officers who were about to come onto the afternoon duty, and as he did so,

“I saw a green Volkswagen Campervan pass by the side of the police station. As it did so PC 1215 Osbourne, who stood at the side entrance door of the parade room suddenly shouted out, “It’s the flying vet, Maurice Kirk driving that van. I’m sure he is a disqualified driver” (emphasis supplied). A few minutes later PC Osbourne entered the parade room and informed me that Mr Kirk was a disqualified driver. It is my understanding that PC Osbourne had conducted a Police National Computer check and as a result of that check it was believed that he was a disqualified driver. At about 14.10 hours… we became aware from the CCTV shown in the parade room that Mr Kirk was driving a green and white caravanette van [around the monument at The Hayes]. It was reported that he kept driving round and round the monument” (witness statement 1st November 2008 paragraphs 5-7 Bundle A3/4.175).

This closely follows what is set out in a witness statement dated 21 May 2002 itself, signed by PC Cocksey, who said in oral evidence that this would have been typed up “probably within an hour of the incident” (Bundle A3/4.183, and oral evidence 5 April 2013).

The apparent enthusiasm, (indeed excitement), here described by PC Cocksey rings true, when I consider the quite remarkable shortness of time which elapsed in the incident on 5th April 2000 before PC Osbourne, having alighted from his police vehicle, was smashing the window of Mr Kirk’s car. I am not revisiting the claim made by Mr Kirk in respect of that incident, which stands struck out, but the fact that only a very few seconds elapsed between alighting and smashing the window of Mr Kirk’s car on that occasion, two years earlier, is a free standing fact easily visible on the video recording, which I permitted to be adduced at trial, and which I watched being played.

That police overhead video in Newport Road catches PC Osbourne smashing car window assaulting and dragging the Appellant out, both unlawfully, but enough both sides of the cut tape to see it is doctored.
 It almost succeeded in obliterating the serious assault by Osbourne on an unsuspecting parked driver in a lawfully driven road worthy vehicle.

This, with other violent acts, like Inspector Khilberg again doing exactly the same thing in a second Llantwitt Major incident but, as with similar incidents, stuck out of the claims which this Claimant disputes.

Again, contrary to the management’s judge’s November 2008 disclosure, by sworn affidavit, that original un cut video has never been disclosed.

The account of PC Cocksey for the trial before me is that at The Hayes Monument he got out of the police vehicle and,

“Using a number 1 stop signal, that means that I raised my right hand with my palm towards the driver of the vehicle, I indicated for him to stop. [Para 9] It appeared to me that Mr Kirk, although driving at a relatively slow speed, about 2-5 miles per hour, was not going to stop. He was still driving towards me although I had offered the stop signal. [Para 10] As Mr Kirk approached I stepped to the offside of the vehicle, that was towards the driver’s side and I could see that the driver’s door window was fully open. Mr Kirk stared directly at me, the vehicle was still moving. Through the open window I could see the ignition keys so I reached in through the window and I switched the ignition off. This caused the vehicle to stall and come to a stop” (witness statement paragraphs 8-10 Bundle A3/4.176, emphasis supplied).

In oral evidence, Mr Kirk agreed PC Cocksey stepped in front of his van and held his arm up, but he did not agree that he failed to stop: “No. I stopped”. In his written statement, prepared on the day of the incident itself, Mr Cocksey had stated not that he had to stop Mr Kirk by reaching in to remove the ignition key, but “I then approached the campervan which was still moving at slow speed and on nearing the side of the van, I indicated to the driver who I then saw to be Mr Maurice Kirk, stop. He immediately stopped as requested and I then opened the drivers door and removed the ignition key….” (Bundle A3/4.183, emphasis supplied).

Insofar as it goes to credit, I am fully satisfied that Mr Kirk did not fail to stop at the roundabout when required to do so. On the very day of the incident PC Cocksey, recorded that Mr Kirk had stopped when indicated by himself to stop. I therefore do not accept that the vehicle was caused to stop by PC Cocksey performing some manoeuvre of reaching into the vehicle window to take away the ignition keys and thus causing the vehicle to stall. The account of a driver having failed to stop, even at very low speed, when driving towards a police officer would be prejudicial to judgment upon what the driver did that day, and raises obvious question as to PC Cocksey should have given that account in 2008, and why he maintained it in cross examination before me. I regret that there is no reasonable explanation for the discrepancy in his evidence.
However this account of failing to stop when driving towards the policeman played no part in the report to the custody sergeant, and it appears that it played no part in the custody sergeant’s decision to detain Mr Kirk.

In oral evidence, Mr Kirk put to both police officers that at the scene he was dragged from his van by Mr Cocksey, with unreasonable force. PC Osbourne told me repeatedly that he “literally” didn’t remember the mode of arrest, and illustratively when Mr Kirk put it to him that he had been dragged from his high van seat so as to strike the pavement said “whether you hit the road, I don’t remember. I believe there was a struggle, but I don’t remember”.

On the one hand, PC, (now PS) Cocksey told me that he had not met Mr Kirk before; the sequence of events suggested by him on PC Osbourne’s first sighting of Mr Kirk rings true; and there is no evidence to indicate that there had been prior direct dealing between Mr Kirk and himself. On the other hand, PS Cocksey’s account as to stopping, in the witness statement and oral evidence at trial, is unacceptably different from his contemporaneous account.

On a later incident Cocksey violently assaulted the Appellant at the public counter of the Cardiff County Court and then caused further police bullying by provoking a false imprisonment the length of which was only cut by the intervention of a senior police officer with no evidence offered of any offence. That incident has not been allowed to be heard, for compensation because it was obviously involved HMCS staff who saw it all.

The particulars of claim for civil damages, identifying this incident, is just one of many unlawfully stayed claims by this trial judge when this judgment indicates all allegations over 23 years should have been consolidated for the High Court’s early consideration.

In turn, the account of PC Osbourne, as he then was, was that “the vehicle failed to stop so I pulled the police van in front of the still circling VW van, causing it to stop. I saw PC Cocksey go to the driver’s side of the car” (Bundle A3/4.190, emphasis supplied) is yet again different to either Mr Kirk’s account or that given by PC Cocksey. On the balance of probabilities I respectfully prefer, and unhesitatingly adopt, the factual account of Mr Kirk of the stopping at the roundabout to that of the police officers.

“He would say that, wouldn’t he?”  (Mandy Rice-Davis, High Court circa 1963)
As to arrest at the scene, the critical question is what the state of mind of the arresting officers was. The notebook of PC Osbourne does not record enquiry of the Police National Computer while at Cardiff Central police station as to the status of Mr Kirk as a qualified or disqualified driver, but it does record “placed into the hands of custody staff. Crown Court Liaison/PC Caroline Hopkins re copy of disqualification” (Bundle A3/4.195, emphasis supplied). In his 2003 witness statement, Mr Osbourne states that when Mr Kirk was conveyed to Cardiff Central police station and taken before the custody sergeant, “I made enquiries with PC Caroline Hopkins of the Crown Court Liaison staff and I obtained from her a copy of a document showing that Mr Kirk was disqualified from driving. I handed this document to PC Cocksey….” (witness statement paragraph 10 Bundle A3/4.191).

The summary of evidence on Form MG5 (see above) stated that, after PC Osbourne’s initial shouting out that it was the flying vet, “A few minutes later, after PC Osbourne had carried out a PNC check on Kirk, PC Osbourne re-entered the parade room at Cardiff Central Police Station and informed Acting Sergeant 3619 Cocksey that Kirk was still shown on the PNC as being a disqualified driver” (Bundle A3/4.246).

No document has been produced before me such as Mr Osbourne states he obtained from PC Caroline Hopkins; and the witness statements of Mr Cocksey make no reference to receiving a document from PC Osbourne, (compare PC Osbourne witness statement paragraph 10 referred to above). However the notebook of PC Osbourne does record contact with Caroline Hopkins in respect of disqualification (see quotation above).

I will shortly turn to the evidence of PS Linda Canterbury, but there is relevant and in my view important evidence given by PS Geoffrey Roberts who took over as custody sergeant for the 7.00pm tour of duty. At paragraph 20, he states that Mr Kirk spoke to him asking why he was still in custody, and at paragraph 21 “it is unusual to have a person of Mr Kirk’s qualifications and education in custody and I do have a great deal of respect for him and the work that he does. I therefore promised him that I would double check the records in relation to his disqualification, which I did. I discovered that he was a disqualified driver by the Courts and I further discovered earlier that day a lady from the Crown Court Liaison Department had obtained a document directly from the Crown Court confirming that Mr Kirk’s disqualification was still in being.” (Bundle 3/4.226, emphasis supplied). This was not challenged at trial.  This is consistent with the correspondence from Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, which records on 20 May 2002 the guilty plea entered by Mr Kirk in respect of no insurance on 5.4.2000 being vacated by the District Judge on 20 May 2002, all endorsements relating to that matter being therefore removed with immediate effect, and quite separately on 22 May 2002 District Judge Morgan using his powers to remove disqualification imposed by the Crown Court (respectively Bundle A3/4.186 and 188). This was, of course, after Mr Kirk had been detained overnight at Cardiff Central police station and produced to the court on 21 May 2002.
For completeness, I record that leading counsel for the Defendant showed PC Cocksey a Crown Court disqualification form at A2/6.270, which shows disqualification to run from 11 April 2002, but he did not recollect if this was the document referred to in notes of the Magistrates Court hearing of 13 August 2002.  He said that it was the type of document the female liaison officer would be able to get hold of.

The custody sergeant on the day of arrest was PS Canterbury. In the custody record, circumstances of arrest and grounds for detention are recorded as “14.42 Central arrest: The DP has been arrested for driving whilst disqualified….seen driving around and around the monument… was observed on camera and a PNC check was carried out and the DP was recognised as a disq. driver. Checks were made and the DP was arrested” (A3/4.204, emphasis supplied). The witness statement of Mr James states that at 16.00 hours he spoke with Acting Sergeant Cocksey who “showed me a document, which was the result of a Court appeal by Mr Kirk, showing that he had been banned from driving for 6 months commencing on 11 April 2002. He was also shown on the Police National Computer as being a disqualified driver”. (A3/4.197).

The system in being at that time appears profoundly unsatisfactory to me. It exposed a driver to the risk of being stopped and detained for driving while disqualified, where the underlying reason for his disqualification had been removed. However in law he remains disqualified until by order of the court the disqualification is removed.  Thus the driver remains at risk of being stopped on suspicion of driving while disqualified. There ought to be a system or mechanism which ensured that a driver is not a risk of being stopped, and/or detained when the underlying reason for disqualification has been removed by court order. However I find on the balance of probabilities that as of 20 and 21 May 2002 the DVLA record would have recorded Mr Kirk as being disqualified: see the letter Cardiff Magistrates court addressed to the DVLA dated 22 May 2002 above which shows that it was only on that date that the disqualification was removed. The DVLA record would have been corrected only after receipt of that letter; and this independently corroborates the police evidence of what they received by way of information on enquiry.

In his undated statement, probably of 2002, Mr Kirk says, “As I left the Cardiff Magistrates Court on 20 May 2002 after District Judge Ms Watkins reinstated my driving licence (sic) I stopped and refused to go any further until I had the assurance that the CPS would notify all the police in the area and the other courts that I was entitled to drive AND I would not drive until I had a fax from the Court in confirmation” (Bundle A3/4.240). There is no evidence that such a fax was sent or received; from Mr Kirk or elsewhere; the manuscript notes of Mrs Kirstie Kirk record “a letter drafted – obviously had not received” (A3/4.173H) . Unless some such step were taken to notify those responsible for the Police National Computer, the PNC would continue to show Mr Kirk as a disqualified driver. PS Geoffrey Roberts was called to give oral evidence, but his evidence (namely that ‘he discovered earlier that day a lady from the Crown Court Liaison Department had obtained a document directly from the Crown Court confirming that Mr Kirk’s disqualification was still in being’) was not challenged.

I have reflected on all of the evidence. On the balance of probability, and on the totality of the evidence, I find it more likely than not that (a) the PNC was consulted by PC Osbourne before he and PC Cocksey left the Cardiff Central Police Station and that (b) after Mr Kirk was arrested and taken to the police station a later and further check was made with a Liaison Officer to the Crown Court which respectively (i) still showed Mr Kirk as a disqualified driver, and (ii) did not reveal that at the Magistrates Court the step had been taken which would lead inevitably to a disqualification being set aside.

In making this finding, I have relied first and foremost on the evidence of other police officers: PS Geoffrey Roberts, the record of disqualification which was at the time on the PNC, the contemporaneous correspondence from Cardiff Magistrates’ court, and the contemporaneous entry in the notebook of PC Osbourne in relation to the female police liaison officer, rather than the witness evidence of PC Cocksey or PC Osbourne alone, each of whom I found most unimpressive as witnesses. The accounts of these two officers as to the stopping itself of Mr Kirk’s vehicle in the Hayes are, with the exception of PC Cocksey’s contemporaneous witness statement of 21 May 2002, conspicuously not acceptable.

By August 2002 when the contested hearing took place at the Magistrates Court, the question of driving whilst disqualified was no longer live (see eg prosecution note at A3/4.265).

It follows that the claim for unlawful arrest cannot succeed. The arresting officers did in fact honestly suspect Mr Kirk of committing the offence of driving while disqualified, and on the basis of the information available to them there were reasonable grounds to support that suspicion.

At trial Mr Kirk did not pursue criticism of the custody officers for his detention (as opposed to the actions of the arresting officers). Nonetheless I should briefly consider their actions because the pleaded case is, in general terms, “unlawfully arrested and detained in custody on motoring allegations”. PS Linda Canterbury, according to evidence which was not challenged, (and which is mirrored in the custody record at A3/4.207), was willing to bail Mr Kirk with conditions that he was not to drive a vehicle but he stated that he would sign the bail only under duress; she therefore believed that if bailed he would drive again, and she remanded him in custody to prevent further offences being committed (custody record A3/4.207 at 18.02, 18.03). The same view was taken by PS Roberts on his taking over (custody record A3/4.208 at 19.12) and on review shortly before 4 am (A3/4.210 at 03.57). Each custody officer had, in these circumstances, power to detain Mr Kirk and in the absence of anything to show that contrary to the PNC record Mr Kirk was not (or was no longer) disqualified it is not possible to argue that the decision to detain was Wednesbury unreasonable.

There is no claim alleged of malicious prosecution

But there is for overarching repetition of such conduct over 23 years of police bullying.  



Retired Inspector  Howard Davies Spite repeated in RCVS Trial

  1. Action 1 claim 8.16 re-arrest 9 August 1994 for alleged damage to wing mirror. This is on the same day as the preceding incident. The pleaded claim is that Mr Kirk was the subject of unlawful arrest, that he was wrongfully charged with criminal damage and that he was unlawfully detained in custody between 13.00 and 16.00 or thereabouts.
  1. It is helpful first of all to set out the factual background. Almost as soon as Mr Kirk was released from custody he went via the police station car park to a security door, and as Inspector Davies opened it to leave the police station Mr Kirk brushed past him and entered the secure area. He was in search of his dog, Molly. In short, Mr Kirk had to be physically forced out of the police station, initially being restrained by Mr Davies who was then assisted by DC Vennors.
  1. To put it neutrally, Mr Kirk was consumed by intense physical determination to resist removal, in pursuit of his wish urgently to remove his dog from conditions where he thought her at risk of infection where waif and stray dogs were sometimes kept. I do not relate the detail, from witness statements or oral evidence, because there is in essence no difference in the account of Mr Kirk, Mr Davies, or Mr Vennors as to the physical circumstances; subject to this, that Mr Kirk told me that Mr Davies “was having fun, he was baiting” whereas Mr Davies told me that the situation was all of Mr Kirk’s own making. Mr Kirk did not dispute that his re-entry by the security door was some 6 minutes after his release on bail. If, as he says in his witness statement of 15 November 1994, at first he had waited his turn in the foyer to speak to the enquiry clerks about his dog (A1/4.36I) then it is plain that he had not waited very long.

This is yet another police provoking incident of typical spite mentality with the usual bullying in a vain attempt to cause their victim to either just close the palm of his hand and/or lift an arm, sufficient to guarantee an assault conviction (not jury eligible), while laughingly indicating a deliberate initial delay for the release of his gun dog. Delay only now cut short by the Appellant’s unrepentant actions.

A not dissimilar tactic to the second 22nd June 2009 police unit, this time unarmed, to provoke their victim by their surrounding his wife and 10 year old daughter, Genevieve, at their home with admitted intention of taking their daughter into Vale of Glamorgan Council care. Kirstie was faced with a police pre prepared MG11 witness statement to sign citing a history of perceived mental abhorrations sufficient to have him legally sectioned to avoid the deliberately delayed machine-gun jury trial for yet another longer incarceration whist their victim was unconvicted.

The main police purpose was to further delay this civil trial to allow witnesses to move away or die off, vital documents to go missing and memories for both parties to fade.

The initial police Trojan unit, via helicopter and six plus police vehicles (twenty four officers were counted) Barbara Wilding knew was doomed for failure from the very start but provoked by Dolmans solicitors laying false allegations, anything to make money for their planned new premises in the centre of Cardiff.

After it was found the police had painted the WWI decommissioned antique, first bolted to his Replica 1916 DH2 biplane, to try and fool the jury he was later further tricked and found guilty and fined £50 for ‘attempting to shoot the Lord Mayor’ with it.

  1. Neither Mr Davies nor Mr Vennors suggested that Mr Kirk physically assaulted either of them, rather that he braced himself rigidly, first trying to hold onto a hand rail against removal. I am satisfied that he was impatient, demanding, intransigent, and difficult. I see no reason to doubt that Mr Davies told Mr Kirk, when he first went in, “You can’t come in this entrance, Mr Kirk” and shortly afterwards, “You can’t go this way. Go back to the front foyer and sort it out there” (Mr Davies witness statement A1/4.57). In evidence before me, the whole demeanour of Mr Kirk was that he was entitled to disregard the police secure custody area arrangements. I consider it likely that Mr Kirk was in a temper when he entered the police station by this door. Conversely, he describes Mr Davies as “angry, very angry”. I suspect he was, and understandably so, faced with the intemperate behaviour of Mr Kirk.
  1. Whilst the witness statement of Mr Kirk refers to “assault” by Inspector Davies, and his letter of 10 August 1994 states he wishes to make a complaint of “assault” by Inspector Davies ( A1/4.139), the pleaded allegation is as recited above, that he was unlawfully arrested and the subject of an unlawful charge of criminal damage.
  1. The pleaded allegation is that “As the Plaintiff left the police station and went to his car on the 9th August 1994 he was stopped and pushed by one of the Defendant’s police officers”. This is plainly incorrect. However this is a pleading drafted by solicitors, and it is not what Mr Kirk set out in his statement of 15 November 1994 (or in his witness statement of 19 June 2009 which deals with this in the two paragraphs 581-582 at A1/4.36C). The Particulars of Claim allege that after he was pushed by one of the Defendant’s police officers, “he was immediately re-arrested upon an unlawful charge of criminal damage at 1:00pm. He was released at 4:00pm. The charge of criminal damage was subsequently withdrawn”.
  1. In more detail it is pleaded that Mr Kirk “was manhandled by one Inspector Davies and pushed or dragged onto the door of the coroner’s officer car coming into contact with the door mirror” and that “he was unlawfully detained in custody between 13:00 and 16:00 hours or thereabouts”. He was in fact in detention for broadly that period: the custody record shows that he was arrested at 13:02 hours; that at 13:20 the custody sergeant noted the earlier record of Dr Baig suggesting he be x-rayed; that at 15:20 Mr Kirk was taken to Barry Accident Unit for x-ray returned at 16:07; and that he was released at 16:10 hours (A1/4.129 to 131).
  1. The Defence pleads the factual detail of trying to remove Mr Kirk from the police station and then asserts that “eventually the officers were able to take the Plaintiff out of the building. The Plaintiff continued to struggle violently. He then struck the wing mirror of the motor vehicle belonging to the coroner. The wing mirror fell to the floor in several pieces. Chief Inspector Davies then arrested the Plaintiff for criminal damage. Subsequently the wing mirror was put back together, whereupon the Plaintiff was released having been informed that no further action would be taken. At all material times the police officer had reasonable cause to suspect that the Plaintiff had committed an arrestable offence”.
  1. In his witness statement of November 1994 Mr Kirk states that “clearly the 2 policemen had lost their tempers… I was dragged out… when we got to the custody suite Inspector Davies said “Book him for criminal damage and lock him up”. The Inspector refused to give further details saying that it could be dealt with by the next shift at 2 o’clock. It was still only about 1 o’clock”. In oral evidence, Mr Kirk told me that Mr Davies lost his temper and “he caused the minor damage to the car by his actions not mine”; it was Mr Davies who was the belligerent officer. He stressed the words “lock him up”. In cross examination, he said that he was deliberately pushed against the car, by Mr Davies, not by the other officer. “He pushed me, not threw me, he pushed me violently”. As to the mirror of the car, he told me that he never saw it, that it was one of those folding types, but “I can’t say yes or no” to whether the mirror on the car was broken.
  1. As to matters once Mr Kirk was removed outside the police station door, the account of Mr Davies is that “at this stage Kirk was walking backwards but still leaning forwards pushing and struggling against myself and my colleague. I still had hold of one arm and DC Vennors had hold of the other arm. As we passed the coroner’s vehicle Kirk was still struggling violently and tumbled against the coroner’s vehicle hitting the wing mirror, which then fell to the floor in several pieces” (witness statement A1/4.108 paragraph 9). He arrested Mr Kirk for criminal damage, cautioned him and escorted him up the stairs to the custody suite, Mr Kirk at one point stopping and appearing to deliberately fall backwards. [Mr Kirk dissented from ‘deliberately falling’ but did remember clenching his fists and saying “that’s all you people understand”]. Mr Davies says that he returned via the car park and noted “that the wing mirror appeared to be badly damaged lying in pieces on the ground” (emphasis supplied). At about 4.00pm he met in the car park with PS Kendall, PC Crabtree and PC Ruth Wells “who were attempting to repair the broken wing mirror. After several minutes of trying to place the pieces back together to see precisely what was broken and or missing it suddenly sprang back into place” (paragraph 12). He then instructed Sergeant Kendall to release Mr Kirk with no further action to be taken.
  1. I have no statement from PCs Crabtree or Ruth Wells. In his statement, Mr Vennors says “as we got Mr Kirk outside into the car park and moved him a short distance from the door, part of Mr Kirk’s body, the middle part, struck a wing mirror on a car door. At this time we still had hold of him trying to restrain him but he still continued to struggle and resist. I can’t remember much about the mirror, I can’t remember if it fell to the floor but all I remember is hearing a cracking sound. At this point Inspector Davies told Mr Kirk that he was arresting him for causing criminal damage”. In oral evidence, Mr Vennors did not dissent from the proposition that the wing mirror was pushed backwards: it was Mr Kirk’s actions which caused that by struggling with himself and Mr Davies, but he would say that Mr Kirk did not do it intentionally: if he had thought that he would have noted it in his notebook.
  1. Mr Davies spoke of Mr Kirk being known to him. Of some interest, Mr Vennors, asked about the general view in the police station of Mr Kirk, said he had heard as a passing remark, “Not to be disrespectful, but he was a bit of a pain in the arse – of a difficult nature” and he thought he was made aware of “many many” incidents of contact between Mr Kirk and the police.

“Many, many incidents”

  1. Police Sergeant Kendall, the Custody Sergeant from 2:00pm, noted in the custody record “Maurice Kirk arrested at 13:02 hours by A/C Insp Davies for an offence of criminal damage caused after Kirk was seen in the station yard and having refused to leave fell against a motor vehicle parked in the station causing damage to a wing mirror [emphasis supplied] …. 13:10 notification rights no reply personal details refused – Mr Kirk refuses to speak at this time; and at 16:10, “while examining the damage – vehicle subject of this event the mirror was able to be replaced and no apparent damage had been caused [emphasis supplied]. These window [illegible word] have a design feature enabling them to be pushed back. Accused informed of this and released NFA”. Mr Kendall told me in oral evidence that the information in the entry at 16:10 would have been given to him by another officer; but he told me that it became apparent to him that there was no damage on the vehicle, no glass was broken and the mirror could be put back.
  1. It will be seen that Mr Davies says that the mirror had fallen to the floor in several pieces. (i) If Mr Davies’ account is correct that the wing mirror fell to the floor in several pieces it is at least odd that the mirror “suddenly sprang back into place”. (ii)  If it had fallen to the floor in pieces, in my view it is strongly probable view that Mr Vennors would have noticed that; but he did not, and he does not suggest that it was broken in pieces. (iii) Mr Davies says that PS Kendall was present with PC Crabtree and PC Ruth Wells (from whom I have no statements) when the mirror sprang back into place: Mr Kendall gives, and gave, no account of re-assembling parts which had fallen from the wing mirror, or of the mirror springing back into place, and he told me that it became apparent to him that there was no damage – not that there had been damage but damage which it proved possible to repair. (iv) The entry in the custody record (“have a design feature enabling them to be pushed back”) suggests that it was straightforward to push the mirror back. (v) I note that when Mr Kirk was making formal complaint, in November 1994, he stated that the wing mirror clicked outwards but did not come off the car and that he could see the mirror and its mounting was not damaged. (vi) It would be odd, if there were a complete answer to this in the efforts of PC Crabtree and PC Ruth Wells, that there was and is no note, or witness statement, or explanation of difficulty in tracing them.

The classic example of a pragmatic busy custody police sergeant, PS Kendall, ‘taking it in the neck’ ever since for acting responsibly contrary to an irate inspector in charge of Barry police station following the collapse of yet more motoring prosecutions. Davies was intent on further promotion for his fast approaching retirement pension.

  1. Mr Davies’ demeanour in giving evidence as a witness was extremely wary. I am careful not to attach undue importance to the demeanour of a witness. Equally I take no account of Mr Kirk’s complaint that he was assaulted by Mr Davies in an incident at the Vale of Glamorgan Show some years later, because the claim in respect of that incident has been struck out. Nonetheless, in the light of the evidence and observations set out above, I find Mr Davies’ account of the mirror failing to pieces improbable. In oral evidence, Mr Davies said that the decision to detain Mr Kirk was that of the custody sergeant, but he also said that he did not remember whether he did or did not say “lock him up”. I am satisfied that he did say that, and that he did so in anger and temper, outraged by the intemperate stance of Mr Kirk at and within the secure door of the police station.

Stuck out? Prosecuting barrister at the 2002 RCVS hearing, to obtain the Appellant’s name being removed from the veterinary register for life, wrote to the court stating Howard had ‘struck the first blow’ before Mr Kirk was successfully convicted, for life, for simply brushing the arm off   his shoulder of a huge security guard who had then been called to run down the slope to knock the appellant, from behind, to the ground.

The outcome of any summary prosecution of ‘common assault’ in Bridgend or Cardiff magistrates had the notoriety of favouring the South Wales Police and in this case both CPS and police custody records needed to be changed by then cutody officer, the recurrent Sgt Rice in these three Actions, from a ‘Breach of the Peace’ type arrest.

In that initial hearing, before the Appellant’s un noticed secretary, owing to the forged ‘information laid the appellant was denied the opportunity to plead guilty to a BOP allegation as the CPS file was withheld from the Their Worships.

  1. Mr Kirk can have no complaint about being forcibly removed from the secure area of the police station. He was acting with lordly contempt, oblivious of what any reasonable member of the public would and should have done. I am not entirely without sympathy for Mr Davies’ anger. However I find on the strong balance of probability that in fact all that had happened was Mr Kirk fell against the wing mirror and it was pushed back, it had not fallen to the floor in pieces, and the absence of real damage could and should have been established by Mr Davies or other officers almost immediately afterwards. I am not in a position safely to conclude on the balance of probability that he did in fact establish that immediately afterwards; but in my judgment, even allowing for the margin of appreciation to be allowed to a police officer, Mr Davies did not have reasonable cause to suspect that Mr Kirk had committed an arrestable offence proper and the decision to arrest was not one which was within the wide ambit of permissible discretion in the Wednesbury sense. It follows that the Defendant has not shown that his detention from 13.02 to 16.10 was lawful and that there was unlawful arrest.
  1. Mr Kirk was not ever charged with malicious damage, and so the claim for malicious prosecution fails.
  1. This is not an occasion which arose out of police conspiracy. It arose out of Mr Kirk’s own intemperate actions, and his patrician contempt for the ordinary and reasonable restriction of the public from entering certain parts of the police station.   



3]    DRAFT

1. Action 1 claim 8.5 24th March 1993 stopped by PC Jane Lott.

The allegation is that on 24 March 1993 “the Defendant maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause stopped the Plaintiff outside his hospital and reported him for various alleged offences and laid an information before local Magistrates” for having a tyre with insufficient tread. “The Defendant knew that no examination of the tyre took place in the presence of the Plaintiff and his passenger and that the Defendant knowingly altered the HORT 1 to pervert the course of justice after the motorists copy had been issued”.

1. The Defence is that PC Jane Lott was driving in Church Road, Barry when she noticed an oncoming Ford Escort car which appeared not to be displaying a vehicle excise licence; she turned round and followed the vehicle until it stopped at Tynewydd Road; the Plaintiff was reluctant to answer questions; the police officer examined the vehicle and observed that one of the tyres appeared to have “insufficient” tread. It is denied that PC Lott falsified any document or evidence. It is further denied that she acted unlawfully or that the mattbers complained of give rise to the alleged or any cause of action.

A pattern of again falsifying police documents, to obtain a conviction for their ’bread and butter’, that only luckily failed to succeed in that the appeal judge held a private pilot’s licence. Barry police followed their regular clandestine night examination of the Appellant’s veterinary vehicles all parked outside his surgery, over a part worn tyre, that had already been changed before the date of this incident.

The unfair passage of time caused the 24/7 surveillance evidence, on oath by the Appellant, being devoid of corroboration by his own secretary in attending, living retired some many years abroad, to attend the hearing.

Demise of one witness and disappearance of two more plus the fact it would have been the ‘kiss of death’ for the Appellant’s income should 24/7 of the surgery, later veterinary hospital, been known to his other clients.  

1. It is common ground that PC Lott issued an HORT 1 form to Mr Kirk at the roadside. Following that, a summons was issued. It is common ground that Mr Kirk was driving the Ford Escort vehicle 54925 (it being a Channel Islands registration); that Mr Scott Parry, a young trainee veterinary nurse, was in the passenger seat of the car while it was being driven; and that the car came to a stop outside Mr Kirk’s veterinary surgery in Barry.

1. As I will relate, it is clear that after the initial conversation between PC Lott and Mr Kirk at his car window, Mr Parry got out and made trips from the car into the surgery to carry items from the car into the surgery.

When both Appellant and veterinary nurse, Mr Parry, gave evidence that Lott had pulled up alongside, abreast, approached the driver’s window and immediately referred to both tax disc and rear tyre, unable to have been seen from where she admitted standing, did the Crown Court judge find in the Appellant’s acquittal.

Family have since asked the obvious whether the current civil court judge, who adjudicated on more than one of these incidents in current civil claims, had been sitting on the Lott Appeal would the Claimant have been acquitted?

Mr Parry’s hand written statement, made almost immediately after the incident, was never ever shown again to him again during the lapse of 20 years to prove the point.

In nearly all motoring incidents South Wales Police always attempted to refer to any Guernsey motorcycles, a van or various cars as Jersey registered deliberately, it is submitted, to avoid observation by successive welsh courts that Barry police, including LLantwitt Major & Cowbridge sub stations, appeared to have a singularly close interest in the Appellant’s welfare originating from Guernsey since 1993.

A still outstanding warrant for his arrest on the Bailiwick was tested by his deliberately visiting St Peter Port central police station, some years ago, when attempting, it appeared, to be applying for asylum. No such arrest was forthcoming.

Some alleged failure by the Appellant to attend Guernsey for some minor public order allegation, doomed with the previously sixteen similarly spurious charges in a row, Barry police had propagated to justify for 24/7 surveillance culminating in their quarry later being registered as a most rare MAPPA 3/3 victim.

1. In terms of prosecution, the procedural history is as follows. On 30th March 1993 Mr Kirk attended Barry Police Station where force civilian clerk Clare (then) Reohorn recorded that he had produced his licence, and an insurance certificate (which Miss Reohorn recorded as “also covers policy held to drive any other vehicle not owned by policyholder”) (A1/1.89).

. By late May it must have been intended that the tyre matter be prosecuted, since on 31st May 1993 PC Lott made a handwritten section 9 statement (A1/1.94). A summons was issued on 28th June 1993 for having one tyre with insufficient tread (A1/1.96).

1. Mr Kirk having pleaded not guilty, the matter was tried at the Barry Magistrates Court on 11th October 1993 when both Mr Kirk and PC Lott gave evidence. It seems more likely, on his own evidence, that Mr Parry was not called to give evidence on that occasion. On 25th October 1993, dealing with sentence, the magistrates imposed a disqualification from driving for 6 months but suspended it pending appeal (A1/1.110). Mr Kirk lodged handwritten Notices of Appeal both on 11th October 1993 and 25th October 1993 (A1/1.113 and 115). The appeal was heard by His Honour Judge Burr and magistrates at Cardiff Crown Court on 17 December 1993 when appeal against conviction was allowed.

1. In his witness statement of 19 June 2009 Mr Kirk states that he saw the female police officer driving (at speed) in the opposite direction to himself but that as he and his passenger arrived at his surgery in Tynewydd Road Barry, and he was about to get out, the same police car pulled up alongside and PC Lott quickly alighted. “[She] came directly to me, still sitting in the driver’s seat. She immediately stated I had no tax and that I had a damaged non-roadworthy tyre. I found this amazing because this was all said without her walking sufficiently around to the front of the car to even see the windscreen or walk to the rear of the car to examine the tyres” (paragraphs 442, 443 A1/1.63B). He states that it was obvious to him that the car had been examined before, “by the police surveillance team, one night, who checked up with Guernsey as to whether the tax was up to date”. In his witness statement, Mr Kirk says that after the conversation at the window of his car the police woman only then went to the front of the car, as if having forgotten, quickly glanced “and never even stooped once to examine the tyre” (para 449).

1. Mr Kirk states that at the Crown Court Appeal, PC Lott “in the face of the Court, had produced her HORT 1 carbon copy significantly different to the original retained by me, my having experienced so many such falsified police documents in the past….. the police officer between Magistrates hearing and Crown Court had altered her written records and was made to admit it, tape recorded. The judge seriously rebuked her” (paragraphs 484 and 485).

1. In her witness statement of 28 February 2000 Ms Lott (by then Sergeant 4059 Lott) states that she was unable to locate her official pocket book in that when she transferred from the Traffic Department, certain pocket books were mislaid including this one. She saw the Ford Escort motor car driving towards her; her attention was drawn to it because it was not displaying a vehicle excise licence and looked in a poor state of repair; as a result she turned and followed and pulled in when it stopped. Mr Kirk was obstructive in his manner from the time that she started to talk to him; initially he did not answer questions with regard to the ownership of the vehicle but did eventually tell her that it was owned by Marianne, refusing to give her the address. In particular she states on getting out of her vehicle and speaking to Mr Kirk she indicated that she had stopped him as no tax had been displayed, and went through the normal procedure namely requesting driving licence and insurance; she then checked the vehicle “including tyres by walking round the vehicle”; and that this was her normal practice on stopping a vehicle. She remembered indicating to Mr Kirk a defective tyre on the vehicle. She could not remember what he said to her or whether he even looked at her or acknowledged that the tyre was defective. During her dealings with Mr Kirk his demeanour “was of non cooperation, bordering on being offensive”. Having reported Mr Kirk, she then continued her duties. She states that with an HORT 1 form, the top copy is given to the motorist, with another two carbon copies retained. “If there are any other relevant details then I will write these at the side of the other copies”.

Was it convenient for police to ‘mislay’ contemporaneous reord in the light of His Honour Judge Burr’s castigation?

1. At page A1/1.87 is a copy of the HORT form issued on this occasion. In evidence before me, Mrs Lott (she retired as a police officer in August 2010) told me that this was the carbonated copy, retained by her, of which she could be sure because it was a matter of course for her at the time to make any notes around the carbonated copy, “every time I stopped a vehicle”, if there was a defective tyre identified. At page A1/1.88 is a copy of the HORT 1 form issued on that occasion, which appears to be the top copy given to Mr Kirk. It identifies under “defects found”, “rear O/S tyre”.

1. On the copy of the form, at A1/1.87, there is handwriting which does not appear on A1/1.88, namely at the top there is written “Def tyre no VEL” and at the side “no markings”. In her section 9 witness statement, she had described the tyre as “devoid of tread”. Her evidence to me was clear that this was not a case of a worn tyre, but one which was bald. She did not measure the tyre because “if there is no tread at all, you don’t need to”. Asked whether a rectification ticket was issued, she was unsure of the year when such forms were introduced and said “if it’s borderline, you would consider a VDR, but this tyre was bald”. I note that she was then attached to the traffic department at Eastern Traffic Sector.
2. She told me that this vehicle looked an older car, in a poor state of repair, that she was an experienced traffic officer at the time and “you see no vehicle licence and quite often you find there’s no documents [i.e., if you stop the driver]”. In his own evidence later, Mr Kirk was surprised that he had given the police officer so much detail, such as the name of the registered keeper Marianne Fanshawe, but he did not challenge that he had done so, and it is clear he did since it is written on the copy of the HORT 1 form itself (see A1/1.87).

1. It was put to her that Mr Kirk’s passenger said that she had not even gone to the front of the car, answering “obviously when you stopped I could see that there was no excise licence displayed”, in that she did not accuse Mr Kirk of not having a vehicle licence but asked about the vehicle licence, and, “after, I asked about the tyre”. She said that at no time was she the subject of direct criticism addressed to her by the judge and she did not remember a complaint being made against her after the event. (There is no transcript of what the judge may have said in allowing the appeal).

She lied. His Honour Judge Burr had castigated her for altering the HORT 1 between magistrates conviction and Crown Court just as did this same civil court judge when another similarly minded Barry police officer was caught at the subsequent criminal appeal for an incident not a stone’s throw away from Lott’s high speed U turn to give chase on the unsuspecting motorist.

The Claimant had the habit of reserving evidence of corruption for inevitable Crown Court appeals as they were the only courts of record. When denied his own tape recording, with clerk of the court’s note invariably being denied him if there was even the slightest whiff of police impropriety.

The Appellant’s very high rate of success in Guernsey’s summary hearings, angering their local police, was only because he could produce transcripts at the appeals, if needed, despite their permanent jury, many of which were magistrates, were part voted on by the Bailiwick’s magistrate’s prosecutors.

1. I heard evidence from Mr Scott Parry. He was the passenger. At the time, he was a very young man, a trainee veterinary nurse. This incident was on 24 March 1993 and the HORT 1 form records the time when stopped as being 13:50 hours. At A1/1.63F there is a statement, handwritten by Mr Parry, with written at its foot “24.3.93 3pm”. He told me that after the initial conversation between the police officer and Mr Kirk, he left the car. (“To be honest, I was quite concerned, as a young person, with the police being involved and I did not want to be any part of it”). He did not remember whether he was then taking things in and out of the surgery, but thought it possible. (The evidence of Mr Kirk and Mrs Lott is that he was doing so). He told me that when Mr Kirk was coming into the surgery, after the stop, he was asked by Mr Kirk do you remember what you heard? “Good. Go straight back in and write it down”, and that he did so.

1. The statement of ‘24.3.93’ reads “Mr Kirk and myself were driving at a slow speed, close behind another car along the Church Road. The police car with a policewoman driving and no passengers drove past us at a steady speed without looking at our car. As Mr Kirk and myself pulled alongside the veterinary practice the same police car drove up from behind and pulled alongside our car. The policewoman got out of her car and came straight to the driver’s door and declared that Mr Kirk had no tax. She did not lean to look at the tax disc nor the damaged tyre”.

1. In oral evidence, his recollection was that the police officer pulled in behind them and then came straight to the driver’s door and Mr Kirk’s window. He agreed that there may have been conversation between the police officer and Mr Kirk during the time that he was taking things in and out of the surgery and he might have missed some of that conversation. Such is in my view illustrated, in that he did not remember hearing any enquiry about ownership of the car [“definitely not”] or that it belonged to a Marianne Fanshawe. As to the time when the police officer drove past [“without looking at our car”] he agreed that he couldn’t say that she did not look towards their car [“absolutely not”]. He acknowledged that his statement of the time had referred to the police car pulling “alongside”, not behind their car, and said that that must be correct; he did not remember that in great detail. Asked whether he saw whether she went to the rear of the car he answered “No. She went to the window, they had a conversation, and then I left”.

1. Mr Kirk, on his own evidence, did not call Mr Parry as a witness at the magistrates’ court. In cross-examination, he put to Mrs Lott “He didn’t give evidence at the magistrates’ as I wanted to lose so I could have you.  I keep my witnesses for appeal cases to show the deceitfulness of people like you”. It is an unusual stance.

Police harassment was ‘unusual and extreme’ since December 1992 when accused of burning out his beloved WW2 piper cub aircraft that was not even insured.

1. For the record, Mrs Lott said in her witness statement that she was led to believe that the young man who had given evidence at the Magistrates Court also gave his evidence at the appeal and that this differed from what he had said on that occasion (witness statement paragraph 18 A1/1.69).  Nothing placed before me supports the assertion that he had done so. 

1. If there was ever a witness who was transparently honest, it was Mr Parry. He was anxious to confine himself to that which he had, not that which he had not, observed. He agreed that the initial enquiry might have been, not about not having tax, but about not displaying a tax disc [“quite possibly”]. He agreed that he had left to take things in to the surgery. He adhered to his evidence that the policewoman did not lean to look at the tax disc nor the damaged tyre while he was there.

So how could this incident fall in favour of the defence?

1. In oral evidence, Mr Kirk did not have any command of the detail of his complaints to the police after this incident. I therefore myself directed his attention to them one by one. By letter dated 26 October 1993 he wrote to the ‘Chief Police Officer, Barry Police Station’ complaining of a number of incidents recently involving his arrest and detention, and stating “I have been to see Inspector Trigg on a number of occasions concerning harassment and still certain officers under your control persist in squandering the tax payers money hoping to gain early promotion. Last week for example a WPC Lott or Stott blatantly lied to the Court saying that I had a totally bald rear tyre. When did you last see a local businessman driving a car with a bald tyre as opposed to an illegal tread?” (A1/1.97, this clearly being a reference to the evidence of PC Lott at Barry Magistrates Court on 11 October 1993).

1. I further directed his attention to a formal record of complaint dated 28.10.1993, recorded by Inspector Coliandris of Barry Police Station on 28 October 1993 on his attendance in person at that station. On re-reading it, he told me that it was a “pretty good summary” of his weekly complaints. “Mr Kirk is making complaints at two levels: Firstly he is alleging some sort of ‘conspiracy between police officers to target him and to prosecute and to harass his staff. He claims he has ‘inside’ information [i.e. from inside the job and from ‘gossip’ overheard by his acquaintances of what officers have been overheard to say off duty] that local police are mounting a campaign against him. He states he has information in this respect but is not ready at this time to disclose it. More specifically, Mr Kirk refers to an incident which occurred believed in Barry in March of this year. On this occasion he was stopped by PC Lott who was driving a traffic vehicle. Mr Kirk was subsequently reported for a defective tyre offence and appeared at Barry Magistrates Court on 25.10.93…. Mr Kirk alleges that the reporting officer, PC Lott perjured herself at this Court hearing… in two respects (1) she told the Court the tyre was bald (and it was not according to the Complainant) and (2) she told the Court that she had examined the defective tyre (when she had not)”. (A1/1.84 – 86).

1. By letter dated 3 February 1994 to Inspector Manners at Bridgend Police Headquarters, he wrote “PC Lott . Further to our interview yesterday I wish to confirm that my complaint covered the following points: 1. At the incident she was extremely officious, did not examine the vehicle before saying I had a damaged tyre and no tax and did not inform me verbally, or in writing, that I had a tyre that was totally devoid of tread and no wall marking. 2. At the Magistrates hearing she said that she examined the tyre and tax situation prior to speaking to me…. 3. At the Appeal she said the same but this time that Mr Parry was not present when she spoke to me contrary to my evidence and that of Mr Parry. At the appeal she was made to admit that she altered her notebook since the incident contrary to her evidence in chief and altered the HORT form causing a rebuke from the judge” (A1/1.105).

1. For completeness, I record that in the Bundle at A1/1.111 there are handwritten notes by Mr Kirk relating to the hearing of 11/10/1993, but the internal evidence suggests they were written after the appearance of 25.10.1993.  They do not in themselves assist me. 

1. First, Mr Kirk’s memory for what has happened at a court is not, or is not consistently, reliable. Illustratively only, in the course of the hearing before me he has on occasions completely mis-remembered what a witness has said even shortly before; and he has continued to remember the successful appeal court hearing at Cardiff Crown Court of 14 May 1998 (in respect of Action 2 claim 4) as being before His Honour Judge Gaskell, whereas it was in fact before myself sitting as a Recorder.  Second, these notes were, by their internal evidence, not made contemporaneously.

This learned civil judge erred by refusing to recuse himself when having been significantly involved with several of the incidents appearing in this civil claim

1. An earlier letter of complaint of 20 May 1993 (to the Chief Officer, Barry Police Station, headed “harassment” refers to an accusation by PC Lott concerning no tax “and bald tyre”. (A1/1.93). This is of significance, because it was written by Mr Kirk before he will have seen any document or section 9 statement from PC Lott referring to a bald tyre, suggesting that reference to or assertion of a bald tyre was made by her at the scene, not merely later. Mr Kirk is an intelligent man, and in cross examination when his attention was drawn to this reference to a bald tyre he quickly grasped the point and indeed said to leading counsel for the Defendant, “I’m warming to your suggestion”.

1. As to the sequence of enquiry, he either agreed, or was not inclined to doubt, that PC Lott had asked whether he was the owner of the vehicle, for details of the registered keeper, and that he would have expressed the question ‘Had she nothing better to do with her time?’ (as PC Lott said he did).

1. He gave two answers of potential importance in cross examination. First, he told me that he did not ever see PC Lott go round to the front of the car but she might have gone round the back; and “I think I may have seen her go round the back, she did not go round the front…. [Q. She would have been in the area where the rear tyre was?] Yes”. Second, he did not dissent when it was put to him that PC Lott said at the scene that no excise licence was displayed.

1. On the other hand, he remained adamant that PC Lott raised the question at the time before she had any opportunity to observe it. He said with emphasis, can you imagine a veterinary surgeon driving round on a bald tyre. He also told me that the last thing he wished was to give a reason for the police to stop him, and that he had given very clear instructions to those who maintained the vehicles which he used to ensure that they were in legal condition.

1. Mrs Lott had told me in cross examination that she would have to bend down to look at the condition of a tyre.  In some respects her evidence varied. At one point she said that she may have checked Mr Kirk out on the PNC (Police National Computer) and that it didn’t happen all the time; whereas earlier she told me that she would have carried out a PNC check.

1. At one point she said that ‘every time she stopped a vehicle’ she would make notes around the carbonated copy of the HORT 1 form; shortly thereafter she said that she imagined she probably would have done. These variations in evidence, when given for events of 20 years before, are of less force than if recorded at the time, when also she had transferred from the Traffic Division in July 1995.

1. In itself it is surprising if she recorded jottings only on the carbonated copy. It is even less obvious why she should do so, if as she told me (i) “those notes would be made at the time whilst I was with the person I was speaking to” and (ii) she would “write [her] note right after, either in the driving seat or at the police station”.  It may not be unlawful but it is plainly unsatisfactory that she should have done so.

The Claimant’s submission is that Lott’s jottings only on the HORT 1 carbonated copy was unlawful.

1. Her police notebook is not available. After she was called to give evidence, I heard evidence from Inspector David Griffiths who in 1996 was tasked with enquiries into complaints by Mr Kirk. In response to Mr Leighton Hill of the Force Solicitor’s Office he wrote by letter December 5 1996 in respect of this incident “the officer…was PC 4059 Jane Lott. This officer is currently on maternity leave. However I have spoken to the officer and informed her of the claim….. The officer is making enquiries to locate and forward to me a copy of her pocket notebook for the relevant date”. I have recorded at paragraph 43 above her explanation of it not being found, which relates to a transfer of duties which took place in 1995. Given the strength of Mr Kirk’s complaint one might expect PC Lott to have become aware of the complaint, in the period following the incident itself, but this she denies. Inspector Coliandris, who received Mr Kirk’s complaint, was not called to give evidence. I make no inference adverse to the Defendant from this in itself, because it appears that he was reluctant to appear in particular for reasons of ill health. Nonetheless it means that I have no evidence from him of what investigation direct with PC Lott he did or did not make. It is however true that he had taken the record of complaint on 28 October 1993, prior to the successful appeal at the Crown Court on 17 December 1993.

1. After the successful appeal at Crown Court, it is plain that Mr Kirk sought an appointment with Inspector Manners to discuss the allegations; but a letter dated 24th January 1994 indicates that Mr Kirk had not attended the arranged appointment at his own premises and the matter was left by letter for him to renew the matter, “Should I not hear from you within the next 14 days, I will assume that you do not wish to pursue the matter” (A1/1.118).

1. In the light of the detailed complaint by letter, and then by personal attendance on Inspector Coliandris, it seems unlikely to me that the fact of complaint was not brought in some way to the attention of PC Lott. Either her evidence on this point is not right, or there was a signal failure on the part of the police at the time to follow up the complaint with enquiry of the police officer against whom the complaint was made. In the light of her evidence (in general terms) that she was not made aware of complaint “after the event”, when there is contemporaneous correspondence of Inspector David Griffiths in 1996 that he had spoken to the officer and informed her of the complaint (paragraph 65 above), the former is the more likely.    

1. Mr Kirk placed before the Crown Court evidence from Mr Holmes of WF Holmes and Sons Limited Garage, Barry: “16 December 1993 we serviced Maurice Kirk’s vehicles and would be very surprised that we would have missed a defective tyre during routine inspection. During the 2 years we have dealt with Mr Kirk I do not recall any of his vehicles running on defective tyres”. I heard evidence from Anthony Holmes, the brother of the author of the letter, that he ‘totally agreed with’ what his brother there said. He did remember an old left hand drive Escort. He said that they did not actually do tyres, but if on servicing Mr Kirk’s vehicle they had seen a bald tyre they would have told him and he would have taken it elsewhere. He pointed out that they may have seen the car only on MOT. As is plain from its date, this letter was produced for the Crown Court appeal hearing the next day.

Neither a tax disc nor an MOT was legally required in Barry and was necessary for one of many reasons for the Claimant needing to regularly change his fleet of foreign cars and motor bikes, at significant personal expense, to make it more difficult to be identified as a driver when trying to practice his vocation on the farms in the Vale of Glamorgan.

Appellant’s June 2009 64 page unfinished witness statement, recording this, was cut short due to the armed arrival of a police helicopter and police cars on the pretext of looking for prohibited weapons at his home.

The witness statement referred to his need to even have a blow-up sex doll in the passenger seat at night as used in both Taunton and Guernsey on night farm visits.

1. There was also in evidence, as there was before the Crown Court, from the depot manager Mr S Kirke of Watts Tyres and Exhausts, Cadoxton, Barry that “over the past year we have changed many tyres for Mr M J Kirk. In my experience I have found him to be very conscientious about legality of his tyres” (signed, 15 December 1993). Leading counsel for the Defendant accepted that this could go in evidence, Mr Kirk not having been able to locate the witness, without accepting the content or accuracy of the letter. 

There were at least four more witnesses in this and other incidents lost due to the passage of time.

1. Lastly, the record of allowing the appeal includes ‘reason for decision’ “Bench are not entirely sure that the police officer got it right on the day, find it a matter of concern that defect of tyre was not spelt out to the appellant. Not satisfied so as to be sure that tyre was bald as exact state and condition of tyre should have been recorded. Appeal therefore allowed” (A1/1.101).

1. The evidence of PC Lott is unsatisfactory in certain respects, as I relate above. In my judgment on the strong balance of probabilities the tyre was not literally bald, in the light of the independent general evidence as to servicing and Mr Kirk’s then wish to avoid drawing the attention of the police to his vehicle or vehicles. It is this, rather than complaint of any possible defective condition, which is the thread running through Mr Kirk’s complaints at the time. I conclude that (a) PC Lott did raise with Mr Kirk a defective, and asserted bald, tyre in the light of (i) the fact that he thought he may have seen her go round the back of the car where the tyre in question was, (ii) the top copy of the HORT1 form given to him referring to a defective tyre, and (iii) the fact that he wrote referring to accusation of a “bald tyre” before he had seen her witness statement or heard her give her evidence; (b) as Mr Scott Parry relates, PC Lott did not raise the tyre when she first stopped Mr Kirk but rather spoke to Mr Kirk about the excise licence; this is also what she herself said, in that she did so after questions about driving licence and insurance and then looking round the car (paragraph 43 above). The reasons given for writing further words on a copy of the HORT1 form not given to the motorist are unsatisfactory: see above.

1. Did PC Lott consciously fabricate account of a bald tyre, or a defective tyre at all? The latter is inherently improbable – a motorist given the HORT1 form stating “defects found defective tyre” could go straight to a garage to have the contrary recorded. On the evidence relating to this incident alone I have concluded, not without hesitation, that it is more likely that her description of the tyre was the product of a momentary and cavalier inspection, maybe nettled by Mr Kirk’s attitude. Mrs Lott gave evidence fairly early during the course of trial. I understood Mr Kirk at that stage to consider that this incident had been set up, perhaps by her husband also then a serving police officer (see statement at paragraph 453, Bundle at 63C). It is not a suggestion that Mr Kirk pursued further, in particular when Mr Lott gave evidence in the trial much later.

Again there was no good reason for the applicant to raise a question guaranteed a preplanned rebuttal and a negative answer or was it likely police were ‘out to get him’ being admitted? (see affidavit for JR by veterinary nurse overhearing police stating just this phrase at the back of the magistrate’s court).

1. However before reaching a final conclusion on this incident, (or on others), I have studied with care the pattern of incidents relied upon.

1. On the one hand, as I observed in his demeanour to various witnesses over 49 days of evidence, Mr Kirk can vary between charm, warmth, and self-deprecating humour to dismissive sarcasm, anger and/or great verbal hostility. On his own evidence, he is capable of mixing with persons of all classes, (including those whom he would describe as “pond life”) but there is a strong element of the patrician in him. Different police officers spoke of him on the one hand as ‘a character’, eccentric, or personally liking him; and at the other extreme, and – much more often – as frustrating, awkward, obtuse, and dismissive. I have no doubt of his capacity to provoke strong reaction in some police officers by willingness to dismiss their enquiries, or adopt toward them an openly contemptuous attitude – even if it may have been fuelled by his experience actual or perceived of the police elsewhere. If he is known by local police officers to be a, or the, local veterinary surgeon, it would be surprising if his manner of dealing with police officers in one complaint call or incident were not often related to other police officers in local stations.
2. On the other hand, as I conclude elsewhere, his own view of his notoriety or importance in the news, is greatly disproportionate to its true measure. Mr Kirk considers, I am sure with conviction, that he is extremely widely known by reason of his history, his aviation exploits, his high profile when in Guernsey (being eager to publish the picture of himself going in to court in Guernsey dressed in a Nazi officer’s uniform), and not least the undoubted fact of arson to a building of his in which a beloved small aircraft was destroyed. The latter, in Barry, is likely to have lingered in local memory. I heard from a considerable number of police officers during the hearing.  This has been trial by a judge without a jury and I encouraged them, without dissent from Mr Kirk and a good deal of approval on his part, to tell me frankly what his reputation was and I have summarised the range of views immediately above.  I am satisfied that the majority of those stationed in Barry had some idea of him and of the canteen view of him, but that many of those who had dealings with him, from a number of police stations, were simply unacquainted with him or with any reputation of his. Where he accepted this or did not challenge it, as is so in many cases, he appeared disappointed. In the aviation world he may have been well known; it does not follow that police officers in other police stations will have known him or of him.

1. In turn, the thesis of ongoing police surveillance involves expenditure of considerable police resource.  It would have been of a professional man, a veterinary surgeon and one called in on occasion by the police to deal with animals; and one who at this comparatively early stage of involvement with South Wales police, was only fairly recently resident in South Wales. 

1. I indicated during case management before trial that I would be alert to which police officers were stationed at which police stations, in which departments, and on which shifts, in order to consider what degree of acquaintance there was or may have been those police officers involved in one incident and those involved in others. For the record, I did so throughout trial and I have done so in the course of preparing this judgment. 

1. PC Lott was attached to Eastern Traffic Sector, based at Cardiff; not one of the police stations local to Mr Kirk’s then residence or practice.  There is no evidence to suggest knowledge by her at the relevant time of a reputation of Mr Kirk, either with the police generally or with individual police officers. For the record, the first involvement with Mr Kirk of Jonathan Lott her husband was much later.

1. Later in this judgment I examine enquiries, by South Wales Police, of the police in Guernsey.  The vehicle in question in this incident had a Guernsey registration.  There is however nothing in the documents or the oral evidence given, (nor was there suggestion by Mr Kirk to PC Lott in cross-examination), that the stop was motivated by awareness of any feud of the Guernsey police against Mr Kirk or a request to her arising from it. In particular, enquiries were made of Mr Kirk’s background by PS Booker, who became aware of a list of convictions of Mr Kirk in Guernsey, but PS Booker was stationed at another police station local to Mr Kirk and his involvement with Mr Kirk was in October 1993.

1. For completeness, the detention of Mr Kirk for some days, following what has come to be referred to in these proceedings as the Grand Avenue arrest, was yet to occur. 

Seriously Incorrect Representation

The Appellant was not even prosecuted for a ‘bald tyre’ until AFTER the May 1993 Grand Avenue ‘garrotte type instrument’ fiasco when a string of charges all had to be ignominiously dropped with subsequent damaging publicity distantly related to our Prince of Wales.

The malicious May 1993 incarceration in Cardiff prison of their graphically described Guernsey victim, over the phone from the Channel Islands, was specifically explained in this civil court by the very Grand Avenue arresting officer who had been deliberately advised by Dolmans, solicitors, not to mention the outstanding Guernsey warrant either to His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC or the Appellant.

Within hours of this very information being recorded in Cardiff’s police station a senior South Wales Police officer was on his feet to inform Cardiff magistrates that the Appellant could not be identified.

The real reason for the indefinite incarceration of their victim was while Guernsey made up its mind that the alleged offence in Guernsey, a year earlier, could justify extradition. This took four days.

What is at the heart of this matter is that with the majority of these failed South Wales Police prosecutions over 23 years, when a member of the public annot find legal representation in the locality was committed to commence civil damages claims from outside Wales.

 He first had to be persuaded by hisBristol lawyers, Bobbetts Mackan, that only way ‘to get the deceitful little bastards of his back’ we needed first a jury trial, move it all to the High Court outside Wales and they would settle out of court.

Plain avarice by the Defendant’s lawyers, Dolmans, of Cardiff, caused no such early settlement or mediation for the tax payer.

The management civil judge in this case, His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, knew a great deal more about the Grande Avenue and seven other distinct police conspiracies in this case than he we was prepared to publically disclose.

It was not necessarily his responsibility but he did order, despite complaint by Dolmans, just before handing the case over to the trial judge, to order Barbara Wilding to personally sign a sworn affidavit that, amongst a plethora of still undisclosed relevant police records, this Guernsey warrant of arrest was in existence, relevant to the next 20 years of police conduct but under CPR it was to be disclosed to the Claimant BEFORE the 47 day trial due to commence in the summer of 2009.

It is the Appellant’s humble submission that the Chief Constable’s February 2009 affidavit, deliberately signed six weeks late, as the Appellant had already pre empted her move and had already approached, by a house visit to Highgrove bearing the letter asking for His Royal Highness’ intervention over this false imprisonment and malicious prosecutions originating from his farm in Llantwitt Major.
First FTAC/ GP intervention of their victim failed, then MAPPA 3/3 terrorism registration, reliant of their Chief Psychiatrist, failed, then the criminal complaint by Dolmans failed, then the machine-gun and proceeds of crime charges failed, to affect their proposed ‘coups de gras’ on 2nd December 2009 before his Honour Judge Nicholas Bidder QC.

Application included evidence that the Appellant had ‘significant brain damage’ and a possible brain tumour needing him to have him immediately transferred from Cardiff prison, on remand, to Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Hospital, indefinitely to avoid the already doomed 2010 machine gun trial as it had become known the police had been identified painting the antique a different colour to try and fool the jury.

1. As to the thesis of targeting of him by PC Lott, I may summarise. In a number of the incidents which I have to examine, the evidence of both police officers and Mr Kirk is that the vehicle he was driving was in, to put it politely, anything but mint condition.  There was in fact no challenge by Mr Kirk to the evidence of PC Lott that this car was in somewhat scruffy condition. I would accept that it is easy enough for a traffic police officer to spot when a vehicle is not displaying a road tax licence. Mr Kirk did not suggest that it did display one. This incident is early in the series of encounters between Mr Kirk and those police based at stations local to his residence and surgeries. PC Lott was attached to Eastern Traffic Sector, based at Cardiff. I am un-persuaded that the “stop” by PC Lott was a targeted stop of Mr Kirk, as opposed to a “stop” of a vehicle not displaying a road tax licence.

1. Where on earth in the law is there written a veterinary surgeon or anyone else for that matter, be allowed to drive a car that is anything but safe and unlawful? One of the cases completely lost on all allegations by the police, appealed before this civil judge, featured, from memory, one of his practice cars happening to have a recently acquired cracked windscreen for which he was acquitted.

1. There was in fact no stop, since Mr Kirk had brought his car to a stop.  If it was not a targeted intervention but one in response to seeing a vehicle without a displayed road tax licence, it was lawful for a police officer to ask the driver questions in respect of it.

1. It is demonstrated that PC Lott referred to a bald tyre at the scene itself, (witness Mr Kirk’s letter complaining that she accused him of a bald tyre, before ever hearing or seeing her evidence).

1. On the balance of probabilities on the whole of the evidence in the case, I do reach the conclusion that the description of this tyre as bald and the consequent prosecution for a defective tyre was the product of a cursory and cavalier inspection, one maybe nettled by Mr Kirk’s attitude, but not shown to be one motivated by malice or lack of good faith. The Claimant in such an action must show not only that the prosecution as determined in his favour but that the Defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause and that the Defendant acted maliciously. This incident reflects extremely poorly on the judgment and practice of PC Lott at that time, but (i) I am left uncertain whether there was absence of reasonable and probable cause, and critically (ii) the evidence does not permit me fairly to conclude that the Defendant by PC Lott acted maliciously.

to be continued



maurice 9 june 20152

Maurice Kirk has been put in prison 6 times since 2008, the time totalling over 3 years behind bars, connected, basically, to the allegation that he broke a “restraining order” served upon him, relating to “harassing” or even “contacting” a now ex-NHS consultant doctor who manufactured a false report on Maurice, stating he had a “brain tumour“, and was a danger to society. It has now come to light officially that no “restraining order” was ever served upon Maurice, something he has always maintained, but been unable to prove.

The false medical report was made, presumably, in an attempt to  put Maurice in a closed psychiatric hospital forever. Why? Perhaps it was because he was deemed a thorn in the side of certain authorities he was trying to get justice over [via his “damages claim”] relating to endless alleged “targeting” he complained of that had been occurring for over 20 years. 

Maurice has been classed as a “MAPPA 3” level convict in the past, a classification so serious there are only  150+ subjects classified as this in the country, mostly violent psychopaths on life sentences in prison. Due to Maurice’s diligence and refusal to give in or be intimidated by the attempts to get him incarcerated forever in a criminal mental hospital, the attempts have, [so far],  failed. Maurice has just served nearly 18 months in prisons based on the allegation that he broke the terms of this [alleged non-existent] “restaining order” – a term which saw him go on “hunger strike” for over 30 days, simply to obtain a single letter out of those holding him, relavent to the non-existent “brain tumour”. 

During this incarceration he was denied an urgent medical operation for an extremely painful and serious stomach ailment – a colostomy or similar was urgently needed but always denied him – the ailment had him in a wheelchair for months as he was unable to walk. He tells us often there was no help for him to get on his bed at night, so he had to sleep in his wheelchair. The urgent operation he so urgently needed was always refused because certain of Maurice’s medical documents, linked to the false report made hy the now ex-NHS consultant, were always denied to the surgeons who were to do this operation, who needed to see the documents before acting, for safety’s sake. Letters to the Prime Minister and all the rest about this matter failed miserably, time after time. Painkillers were often not given to him, he alleges, when he most needed them, when he was in agony for hours as a result.

UPDATE 27 Oct. 2015:

HMC&TS Manager
Cardiff County Court
Wales, UK.

Your ref BS614159 etc

27th Oct 2015

Dear Sir/Madam,

Am I entitled to an approved copy of the judgment, please, as I assume the police have had copies for some time?

Does this mean the unfortunate staying of the police machine gun conspiracy/falsified medical records/vexatious litigant damages claims and a host of others, of almost daily harassment up to and including this month  and still  displaying police nefarious conduct, will now be expedited and heard in an open public court?

Are these outstanding claims now also being allowed to be expedited to Court of Appeal in the light of both your court and transcribers having refused me the current transcript for BS614159 to draft an appeal in remaining 20 days?

Likewise, does the joint police/HMC&TS behaviour, refusing  both a lawyer’s and my requests for copies for these outstanding damages claims, release of Cardiff (original and forged) courts records (including the clandestine quashing of sacked  Dr T W’s originally unlawful restraining order)  and release of police seised Crown Court exhibits matters, to be also expedited to Court of Appeal?

Yours truly,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc


On 27 Oct 2015 HMCTS wrote:

Dear Mr Kirk,

I will be sending out copies of the approved Judgment today. As yet no-one has had a copy apart from the draft which was sent to both parties.

May I ask that you let me have a current postal address for you?

The remaining matters in your email I have forwarded to His Honour for his comments.


On 27 Oct 2015 11:21, “Maurice Kirk” wrote:

Last email   cut short by some error on my part do doubt.

My addess is currently in France which is too slow and xx  xxxxxxx xx Barry  has squatters ……suggest I collect from court sometime if not too dangerous to enter Wales now

On 27 Oct 2015 11:06, “Maurice Kirk” wrote:

The police, I have noticed over the years, obtain documemts from courts in electronic form but repeatedly I am refused copy by email either from the court or police solicitors


Thank you


On 19 Oct 2015 14:17, H”.M. Court Service”  wrote:

Dear Ms Standley and Mr Kirk,
I am writing to inform you that the Judgment will be formally handed down on Monday 26th October at 10.00am with a time estimate of 5 minutes. Parties are not to attend.
The matter will be re-listed to address any consequential matters and costs on a date yet to be fixed.
May I please have availability for November and December? Thank you.


Personal Assistant to His Honour Judge Z  QC
Designated Civil Judge for Wales


The Judgement:

KIRK jmt ASL 2014 02 09 final corrected for typos 2015 10 26


UPDATE:  21 OCTOBER 2015:  “Jury Notes Witheld: Criminal Cases Review Commission: New Evidence”:12

Maurice writes on the latest development to a saga of targeting that has lasted over 20 years – he has the proof that the “restraining order” on him was never served in the first place – something that he has been trying to get since 2011.

Maurice Kirk 13 Oct. 2015: [ from: ]  

“Breaking News:

‘Breached’ Restraining Order never ever was served on their victim in the first place!

Their Lordships’ March 2013 judgement has been located to reveal, in paragraph 9, they were never aware of a ‘jury note’, as with the victim, specifically asking Judge X, QC, on 4th May 2012, for 1st December 2011 Cardiff clerk of the court’s court file re ‘harassment of a doctor’ conviction.

para 9

His Honour, apparently, in the police victim’s forced absence for urgent medical attention, was informed by the HM Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) there were no court records available relevant to the jury’s wishing to see proof after the gaoler had specifically admitted, but only on cross examination, Geoamy had no record either of any ‘service’ in the cells by them.  So just who did then?

It has only just been established, via Bristol solicitors and the Criminal Cases Review Commission, when the latter seized the court file in February 2012, that there was no record at all in either the clerk’s contemporaneous notes or court log either.

 Police records of their victim’s ‘gate arrest’, immediately after his 1st Dec 2011 release, show no evidence either of a ‘restraining order’ was served. 

Their blackmailed police psychiatrist, made to fabricate psychiatric reports to scupper their victim’s long running damages claims of police bullying, harassment, malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments, was soon sacked from NHS (Wales).

Their victim has served six prison terms so far, over this, totalling well over three years of his life.”  –   [ends].

Below, jury note withheld from MK and their Lordships. Below that, part of a transcript relating to the alleged “non-existent” order:4th May 2015 REDACT Jury Note withheld from victim and Lordshipsnote 2 REDACT2 res. order comment by judge

From Maurice Kirk: 2 official requests for documents, so far denied:APP FOR DOCS REDACT


Scroll down for many posts relating to Maurice’s 20+ years of being targeted and his battle for justice.

Maurice’s site is


Maurice Kirk 02 October 2015 

“Released from police cells, following yet more Cardiff police nonsense, Maurice’s next talk in Wales is being planned for this Wednesday, 7th Oct 15……who wants it where and what about?

Subjects usually include:

Flight to Australia in 1943 Piper Cub, crash in Japan, ditch in Caribbean,
Trading in ‘machine guns’,being falsely sectioned and gaoled under UK, French and Texan Mental Health Acts following rogue Caswell Clinic, Bridgend police psychiatrist was given immunity to prosecution.

Immunity given by GMC,all Cardiff law courts, HM Crown Prosecution Service and Welsh police for him to write Maurice’s medical records without either qualification or the remotest of understanding of five brain specialists reports in his possession proving him a blatant liar.

With this forensic psychiatrist’s support, before HHJ Neil Bidder QC with Maurice locked up below, South Wales Police applied for Maurice to be incarcerated indefinitely, to avoid the imminent,doomed from the start, machine gun trial, to Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital for their protection for further civil damages claims by Maurice and others being filed with the courts.”2 oct 152 oct 15 2

Above: October 1 at 3:27pm ·

“Jersey police chose not to carry out the South Wales Police arrest warrant owing to its stupidity but this did not deter the one facing the camera, who refused to identify himself, giving the usual ‘Starskey and Hutch’ with his mate. Radio’ing on to Dinard the authorites refused me access to my aircraft to tie her down for the night , for fear I may fly away. If it had not been for a passing couple from Egland, in their PA140, nothing would have been tied down……I was forced to return to England by boat without all my papers and luggage left in the aircraft , with William, only to be arrested by bemused English police at Portsmouth Harbour!

Oil leak 5 nautical east of Sark and then invited to Jersey as a precaution.”


from Maurice Kirk UPDATE 1/10/15


South Wales Police had to spring a six month old allegation on me at Portsmouth docks yesterday to cause maximum damage to both me and my family and have me gaoled again over the ‘machine gun’ conspiracy due to be broadcast last night at Cardiff Aero Club.
SO, I will give the talk next week and go global…….watch this space.

Below: MK = “A sample of falsified legal documents by court clerk altering Cardiff Magistrates log book the CCRC now refuse to disclose as also promised immunity to Judicial Review legislation…..All to stop my further exposing the deceit that is rife across South Wales’ judiciary and penal system with both about to go autonomous, would you believe!!””

kirk altered docfrom 29/09/2015 =

Re MAURICE KIRK: : the latest farce, message from MK = “Just released no charge or summons or interview 14 hours in custody to block machine gun talk tonight”  – S Wales police have been targeting MK for over 20 years and this latest is just another example!

From yesterday afternoon: = Maurice [Kirk] sends his profuse apologies but tells us he is unable to do his presentation tonight in Cardiff due to the S. Wales’ police’s need to interview him, and when he is freed he will contact all accordingly.

“Maurice Kirk
6 hrs · ago 02.30am =
Just released from Fareham police station after 14 hours deliberate custody to stop my Cardiff aero club two hour illistrated talk, this evening, including detailed facts of South Wales Police concocted machine gun conspiracy with NHS (Wales) to gaol me to delay my civil damages claim for being stopped over 40 times to identify and lean on my motoring insurance companies. Then, when police realised an acquittal imminent, had me falsely sectioned to further delay cicil damages claim of now 23 years! Then rogue police doctor fabricated brain scan results ans applied I be further section, this time for life, in Ashworth high security psychiatric gaol . After acquittal the police had to again paint the gun a different colour this time not the jury but the man who bought it the jury queried should have been in the dock with me!”

Check the archives below for many “Maurice Kirk” posts. Maurice’s site is:

pic below from last year when mk doing another extremely questionable sentence:

Butlin Cat's photo.

Maurice writes 29/07/15:

“Maurice Kirk’s Complaint of Theft to City of London Police Online

1. The victim was either in South Wales Police (MAPPA) custody or in prison throughout the period of time of the fraud. 

2. Following the victim’s allocation to a so called ‘friend’, to collect both monies due direct from tenants and receive, via the Vale of Glamorgan Council, housing benefit from other tenants, Jeffrey Matthews stole the lot.

3. The monies were to be paid into the victim’s bank account and pay for his so called ‘friend’s ‘out of pocket’ expenses.

4. The monies (approximately 23,000 pounds sterling) was also to pay for victim’s mortgage, council taxes and standing orders etc

5. MAPPA level 3 category 3 surveillance of the victim by South Wales Police means a police authority is already a witness to this well documented fraud.

6. Jeffrey Matthews has been a police informant, to the South Wales Police, since or before 1st December 2011. 

7. The delay in reporting this serious crime is due to the victim’s personal experiences of the possible consequences to the thief if only left in the hands of the South Wales Police.

8. Irrespective of either Jeffrey Matthews’ current state of mental health or immunity to prosecution he need only return the monies or produce proof as to its whereabouts to avoid alternative consequences.

29th July 2015″




Maurice Kirk with Norman Scarth, Ireland, June 9th ’15.

Facts came to light very recently regarding an individual everyone connected to Maurice trusted as a loyal supporter many had met on occasions, usually during court hearings where Maurice Kirk was having to defend his good name against often fictitious charges brought by a certain police force in Wales. It transpires that this individual was nothing more than a professional police informant, and had been alongside Maurice in his legal dealings in the courts on occasions in the role of a Mackenzie Friend for Maurice as far back as 2011, when Maurice was having to endure court hearings over a lengthy period of time. In 2009 Maurice faced serious firearms charges against him, brought by S. Wales police. This case has hitherto been entitled “the machine gun case”, and involved MK having in his possession and old WW2 machine gun that had been acquired when MK purchased an old WW2 airplane – this machine gun being still mounted on the airplane when it was purchased, although rendered useless and inoperable. This informant came on the scene during a court case involving Maurice in 2011, where this 2009 non-conviction played a role.

One might have thought the purchase of an old World War 2 airplane, with its mounted but inoperable machine gun mounted upon would have been a relatively harmless affair, but no – this was an ideal situation for a certain police force to manipulate and bring serious firearms charges against MK – the very same police force which has been allegedly hounding MK for 20+ years – in an attempt to get MK locked away for a very long time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. Fortunately for Maurice, after a lengthy trial over these firearms charges where he defended himself, he was acquitted of all charges but not after having to be imprisoned on remand for 8 months – something he has never been compensated for. Maurice has, or are pending, at least 35 legal cases against this police force, for alleged harassment.

Where does this “‘police informant” fit into all this? Well, a stranger appeared during a 2011 magistrate’s court hearing trial – a person nobody at the time knew, who posed as a simple interested member of the public. It turns out this seemingly harmless “interested member of the public” was allegedly working for the police, and was aqllegedly actually wired for sound during those court hearings which had the ramifications from the 2009 machine gun trial – it emerged later that this JM, as mentioned in the statement below, had allegedly audio recorded the entire court hearings – recording everything said by anybody – as an alleged police informant, perhaps to provide a complete audio record for the police to be used at a later date.

A lot cannot be reported here and now but recent developments have transpired to show that this informant, JM in MK’s statement below from a couple of days ago, had allegedly defrauded MK of some thousands of pounds whilst MK was locked away recently for 17 months on an alleged completely fictitious charge. MK had trusting this individual so much that he was given the privilege of handling the financial aspect of rent being paid for accommodation a 3rd party was paying in a property MK owned. It is alleged now that this individual did not see to it that the rent for the accommodation was paid, and instead kept the money for himself – the amount being allegedly misdirected into this person’s possession accruing to some thousands of pounds over a period of many months, this alleged fraud only coming to light after MK was released from custody in late March this year after being locked away for some 17+ months. This individual used to visit MK often during this time period as a Mackenzie Friend, but all the time acting in a duplicitious role – that of a complete and utter traitor also. There is much more to be said that cannot because of an ongoing matters regarding the allegedly stolen money involving this character MK references in his statement below, who everyone connected to MK past and present trusted implicitly, and who was considered a loyal and trusty friend. Unfortunately, this wasnt the case. More news when we have it.

Below, Maurice Kirk’s statement from a couple of days ago:

Queens Square Barrister Chambers Bristol  further implicated in the Cardiff ‘machine gun’ Conspiracy

1.Police informant, Jeff Matthews, was first tape recording for the police in my 1st December 2011 Cardiff Magistrates where the district judge, John Charles, was attempting to cover up the South Wales Police conspiracy by using a Caswell Clinic police psychiatrist and a WW1 Lewis machine gun. Remember, John, Judge Richard Thomlow and the now sacked doctor failed to convince His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC I must be sectioned MAPPA 3/3 to Ashworth psychiatric prison.

2.At that section 2 ‘harassment’ allegations hearing, the area court manager, Luigi Strinati, was seen frantically taking chairs out of the court room to avoid members of the public, gathering in significant numbers, to witness barrister, David Gareth Evans, switching and later confiscating, on behalf of the police, the court exhibits. Even the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), when asked to investigate the apparent string of abuses, would not disclose them to my jury.

3.Norman will remember, in the late 90s, it was under the same Luigi numerous of my Kirk v South Wales Police damages claims files had been ‘lost’ in that ‘leaked memos’ ‘to and frowing’ between HM Solicitor General’s offices only to fail getting me registered a ‘vexatious litigant’!

4.Both Cardiff and Bristol judges, in turn, have directed Queen Square Chambers and elsewhere to obtain the 1st December 2011 magistrates records, that prove my innocence and no ‘restraining order’ was ever served on me that day but the cabal in court , yesterday, over rides each time.

5.The latest twist Guy, for example, would be interested to know, having sat through the 2010 farcical ‘machine gun trial, when the police had painted her a different colour to fool the jury, Jeff has also defrauded Cardiff County Council for thousands in benefits.

6.Sabine, you remember, brought retired lawyers to witness the early stages of the Cardiff cabal antics while Steve observed both police and NHS (Wales) lawyers in the well of the court. Why?

7.Another Queens Square barrister, yesterday (Trevis or Travis), thought ‘I might like to see these’, quote unquote, when handing to me a same date Jeff Matthews comical witness statement, in rebuttal, concerning my reluctant need to suing him for stealing as I languished in Swansea gaol.

8.Judge Denyer ruled had he known I had not paid some minor solicitor’s bill, some four years ago, he would never have granted his June 2015 ‘freezing order’ on Matthews in the first place!  It was clearly in my affidavit. The prosecuting CPS barrister for my incarceration, a Mr Smyth, also from Travis’s same chambers, would you believe, had often given legal advice to my then so called ‘McKenzie friend’ Matthews explaining, may be, why my each successive lawyer has been warned off, ever since, from obtaining the original CPS promised custody and court files. 

Cardiff court/custody records have now been‘re written’ following the 2013 CCRC’s request to see them. Documents of conspiracies are on 

  Please see these attatchments from MK’s site:

15 07 12 blog (2).docx


Scroll down for a list of MK posts from this site, from the present back to 2013:


Maurice Kirk’s site, soon to be relocated, is .

Below – pic taken 09 May ’15


 More posts from 2015 + until September 2014 – see archives for posts before that:




NEW!! Maurice Kirk uncaged and branchaged 3 April 2015


MAURICE KIRK RELEASED + Documents [02/02/2015]: “Regina v. Kirk M. J. – “Summing Up”: IMPORTANT IRREGULARITIES EXPLAINED







MAURICE KIRK UPDATE 15 FEB. 2015 – regarding “the fairness, proportionality, apparent bias and bad faith in the decisions of 11 July 2014 to recall Mr. Maurice Kirk to prison”, + more:

MAURICE KIRK – THE STORY SO FAR – A BRIEF SYNOPSIS [UNTIL OCT. 2014] – FILES B, C, D. [30 pages] inc. “Fabicated Medical Records”, “Breach of Restraining Order Appeal” statement 6/6/14, + more:


























See archives at bottom of page from before 19 September ’14, or on right for posts from 2013 / 14.

M kirk SEPT 2013 1ba.jpgA.jpgB 

The above is a pic from Febuary 2013, outside the Cardiff Civic Centre – MK with some of his legal files to be used in his case against S. Wales police force.

 >>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 photo BARRY_zps0hjorw7k.jpg 


– see the radio broadcast interview with MK’s sister on “Dialect Radio”, September 2014 =

video: “Rough Justice: South Wales Police persecute former vet & pilot Maurice Kirk who’s them”


Barry’s ‘flying vet’ fails in legal bid Barry And District News: APPEAL: Flying vet Maurice Kirk. 7:40am Thursday 7 July 2011

Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template

ATTEMPTS by Barry’s ‘flying vet’ to bring criminal charges against a former chief constable, psychiatrist and solicitor were thwarted by a judge last week. Firearms charges for Barry’s ‘Flying Vet’ Barry And District News: Firearms charges for Barry's 'Flying Vet' 7:30am Thursday 25 June 2009

Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template

BARRY’S ‘Flying Vet’ Maurice Kirk has been charged with alleged firearms offences Barry’s ‘Flying Vet’ Maurice Kirk cleared of firearms charges Barry And District News: FLYING VET: Maurice Kirk. 7:30am Thursday 11 February 2010

Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template

BARRY’S ‘flying vet’ was this week cleared of charges relating to owning and trying to sell a machine gun.

‘Flying Vet’ sent to US psychiatric unit 11:33am Thursday 1 May 2008

  • Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template Barry And District News: Image of a star used for marking the article relevance on the search results template
  • BARRY’S ‘Flying Vet’ Maurice Kirk was this week locked up in an American psychiatric unit – after landing his plane near George W Bush’s Texas ranch.


About butlincat

my butlincats blog: [2 a/cs : pink cat logo is main a/c, winking cat logo is secondary] linkedin -
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: