UPDATE 1 June 2016: 1june16 1773821 Position Statement – Defendant – 01.06.16 (1)

MACHINE-GUN MAPPA 3/3 Restraining Order Conspiracy

This enclosed ‘position statement’ is a superb document to circulate world-wide, please, as it reveals the regular aromas I have experienced, these past 20 odd years, emanating from Cardiff Judges, magistrates,NHS (Wales), HMCS, HMP Cardiff, Crown Prosecution Service (Wales), Parole Board (Wales) and loads of lawyers at work….

…anything to prevent the ‘machine gun’ case ever re-surfacing.

So has His Honour caused the police QC to be ‘tipped off’ to write something appropriate? No, perish the thought.

To get the learned judge out of saying, maybe, “a pity all 8 cases were not ‘consolidated’ as Mr Kirk pleaded 6 years and tried in England in the high court”.

Well, Minister for Wales, my very own MP,

Does it all stink or does it stink????

I enclose legal argument, ‘knocked up’, as to why the police, not the pilot , ‘simply acting under orders’ 

Maurice J Kirk BVSc ” 


Case Nos. 7CF07345











Save that the Court, at a date to be fixed, intends to consider what further Directions

should be made in these actions, they presently remained stayed.

2. There are a number of issues which touch upon both actions, in particular in which order

the actions should be dealt with and whether they should be tried by jury or by Judge


3. Each action, however, has a number of issues that are particular to that action, that need

to be addressed before the Court can go on to consider the general matters which impact

on both actions. The purpose of this Position Statement is to identify the particular

issues which affect the individual actions and how those particular matters feed into the

way that the Court may need to address the matters set out in paragraph 2 hereof. This

Positon Statement will not set out at length the various arguments or legal propositions

upon which the Defendant will seek to rely when the Court comes to consider the

Page 2 of 9

particular issues in respect of each action.


This action consists of sixty separate claims, some of which break down to other

individual claims. The clearest example of this, is in paragraph 59, which appears to

identify forty-one other matters that the Claimant wishes to pursue in this case. The total

number of individual claims are therefore well over one hundred, considerably in excess

of the total number of claims made in the first three actions. The claims appear to cover a

period from 1993 to 2007. It seems that the Claimant will contend that a number of

these claims are linked to disciplinary proceedings taken by the Royal College of

Veterinary Surgeons which resulted in the Claimant’s name being taken off the Register

of Practising Veterinary Surgeons. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant’s officers

and others were in conspiracy with the RCVS and their lawyers, to have his name

removed from the Register. It is further alleged that those parties and others, perhaps

including members or former members of the judiciary, conspired with each other to

prevent the Claimant from successfully appealing against the decision of the RCVS. In

this regard, it is said by the Claimant that there have been seven Hearings before the

Privy Council which were materially affected by this conspiracy.

5. Quite what implications these allegations have in terms of the number of witnesses to be

called and the number of documents there may need to be considered, is, as yet, unclear.

It is apparent, however, that this action has the potential to require many more witnesses

and documents than were required in the first three actions, so that the Trial of this action

will last considerably longer than that of the first three actions.

6. The chronology of the action is as follows:

 24/10/07 The Claimant issued a Part 8 Claim Form which, together

with the Particulars of Claim, were served on the

Defendant in November 2007.

 28/11/07 The Defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service.

 17/12/07 A CMC took place, when further consideration of the first three

actions, together with this action, was adjourned to


Page 3 of 9

 18/03/08 The Defendant was ordered to file and serve a Defence.

 24/05/08 The Defendant’s Defence was filed and served. This document,

which was of some twenty-seven pages, raised a number of

generic issues in respect of the Claimant’s claim, namely:

limitation; whether the facts pleaded by the Claimant gave

rise to a private law right of action; duplication of matters

pleaded in Actions 1 to 3; the extent to which the Claimant

was seeking to mount an attack on existing convictions

and/or disciplinary findings and the extent to which the

Claimant had failed to provide sufficient particulars in his

Particulars of Claim.

 30/07/08 A CMC took place when the Defendant was ordered to file a

Position Statement. That was done by 24/09/08. It

identified, in general terms, the generic issues which arose

in respect of the fourth action.

 03/10/08 A CMC took place when the Claimant and the Defendant were

ordered to serve and file witness statements and Skeleton

Arguments setting out their respective positions.

 17/11/08 A witness statement from Mr. Adrian Paul Oliver was filed and

served on behalf of the Defendant. This statement dealt in

detail with all the maters raised in the Defence, particularly

the issue of limitation, especially the suggestion made in

the first paragraph of the Particulars of Claim that there

was a “mutual agreement” between the parties to “delay

(pursuing) the substantive claim against the Defendant”.

The Claimant was therefore making the allegation that

there was an agreement that time would not run in respect

of limitation.

 24/11/08 The Defendant filed and served a Skeleton Argument setting out

the legal propositions on which the Defendant sought to


 25/11/08 A CMC took place at which His Honour Judge Chambers, Q.C.

stayed the fourth action “pending the determination ….”

Page 4 of 9

.of Actions 1 to 3. The Learned Judge also gave detailed

Directions in respect of Actions 1 to 3 identifying all the

steps that would need to be taken up to the Hearing of the

first three actions.

 21/01/16 A CMC took place. The Defendant served a Position Statement

highlighting the issues which arose in this particular action.

At paragraph 1 of the Order, the Defendant was required

by 04/02/16 to serve a list of those allegations contained

within the Particulars of Claim in respect of which full

particulars were required. By paragraph 2, the Claimant

was ordered to serve a Response to that Request by

18/03/16. By paragraph 3 the Claimant was required to

provide full particulars of the allegation that there was a

mutual agreement on the issue of limitation. The

Defendant served the Claimant with a Request within the

specified time. Notwithstanding there being evidence that

both the Court and the Defendant served the Claimant with

a copy of this Order, the Claimant has contended that he

did not receive the Order in good time. There was no

compliance on his part with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the


 15/04/16 A CMC took place, following which an Order was made which

repeated the previous Order of 21/01/16, save that the

previous paragraph 2 became paragraph 1 and the previous

paragraph 3 became paragraph 2. The Claimant had until

27/05/16 to comply with the Order. The Claimant was

provided with a hand amended Order on the day of the

Hearing and has subsequently been served with the final

copy of the Order. The Claimant has served a Response in

accordance with paragraph 1 but has failed to comply with

paragraph 2.

Page 5 of 9

7. The Defendant has always taken the view that the Court will need to resolve the various

generic issues referred to above before going on to consider the other issues which will

need to be considered in this case, e.g. disclosure and exchange of witness statements.

Thereafter the Court will need to consider the extent to which this action inter-relates

with the sixth action and resolve the issues as to whether one or both should be tried by a

jury and, in any event, which action is to be brought on first.

8. The Defendant, therefore, invites the Court to order that a Preliminary Hearing should be

listed where the generic issues of limitation, cause of action, duplication, collateral

attacks on existing convictions/findings into disciplinary proceedings, and lack of

particulars, can be adjudicated upon.

9. In view of the fact that many of the issues raised in action four are intertwined with

Actions 1 to 3, it might be thought appropriate that these preliminary issues are decided

by the Judge who heard Actions 1 to 3. Once those matters have been resolved, further

Directions can then be given, in particular for disclosure, exchange of witness statements

and the Claimant’s wish for trial by jury; these matters can be dealt with by whichever

Judge takes on responsibility for the future conduct of those actions.

10. The question as to whether there should be jury trial is, to a great extent, dependant on

how many witnesses there will be and how much documentation will be required. These

matters can only be addressed once the preliminary issues have been resolved. Given the

Claimant’s occasional confusion as to which case he is dealing with and which action

deals with any particular allegation, it might be thought appropriate that consideration of

these further Directions should be given after the final conclusion of Actions 1 to 3.


This matter has regularly been referred to as the “machine gun case”, however, it covers

more than just the Claimant’s arrest and trial for his possession of an offensive weapon.

Including the machine gun case, there are a total of five separate allegations. The

machine gun claim itself appears to include within it various sub-claims including

placing the Claimant on the MAPPA Register and a conspiracy between the Defendant

and Dr. Williams, Consultant Psychiatrist, to have the Claimant certified as being unfit to

Page 6 of 9

stand for Trial. There is much within the Particulars of Claim which is unclear and which

may require the Defendant to serve upon the Claimant a Request for Further Particulars.

Without such clarification, it will remain unclear whether much of what has been pleaded

is merely the background to the specific allegations made against the Defendant, or

whether these background matters also form part of the allegations made against the

Defendant. If the latter were so, then it is likely that there are far more allegations than

the five which have so far been identified in the pleading.

12. The history of the sixth action is relatively straightforward. The Claimant served

Particulars of Claim dated 26th May 2011. Thereafter the Defendant served and filed a

Defence, followed thereafter by an Amended Defence in October 2011. The matter was

then stayed by Order of the Court on 12th July 2011. At that same time the Claimant’s

Application to have the sixth action consolidated with the first three actions was


13. As the Court has been informed on previous occasions, following the stay which was put

on the case at an early stage, there has been no attempt to bring together all the witness

statements required for this matter to proceed to Trial, nor has there been a gathering

together of the documentation. At the time when the Amended Defence was prepared, a

preliminary view suggested that there were likely to be very many documents which

might have some relevance to the sixth action. Before a considered view can be reached

on the number of witnesses likely to be called and the amount of documentation that will

be required, the case will have to go through further revision by way of particulars being

sought from the Claimant, and, if necessary, the matter being listed for a Preliminary

Hearing in respect of some of the claims being advanced by the Claimant. In the sixth

action the matter is not quite so acute as it is in the fourth action, but, nonetheless, there

appears to be some alleged causes of action which may, on close examination, reveal no

right of action against the Defendant. It would be as well that these matters are weeded

out at an early stage in order to avoid unnecessary work by way of the obtaining of

witness statements or the collection of documents.

14. It is clearly the case that the Claimant will contend that the matters contained in the sixth

action, in particular the machine gun case, is the culmination of the misbehaviour of the

Defendant and his officers over the last twenty-three years. To that extent, the events

Page 7 of 9

surrounding the machine gun case and the other allegations contained in action six are

necessarily intertwined with the previous history contained in Actions 1 to 4.

Nonetheless, although this may be relevant as to whether or not there is a jury trial, it can

be argued that the sixth action can be treated as a discreet matter, in which case, there is

no pressing need for the Trial Judge in the first and third actions to be the Judge who

deals with either Preliminary Hearings or Final Directions in the sixth action. The

Defendant would contend that these matters can be considered once there has been a

final resolution of Actions 1 to 3 and, at least, the resolution of the preliminary issues in

action four.


In a case of this nature, there is no easy way forward in resolving the various issues

which arise either in respect of the individual cases themselves, or in regard to the

complaints made by the Claimant as a whole. The Defendant’s tentative suggestions are

advanced with a view to clarifying what matters raised by the Claimant can properly

proceed to Trial, and what can be struck out at an early stage. Thereafter, once the

matters which are justiciable have been identified, further Directions can be given for the

future conduct of both the fourth and sixth actions.

16. In view of the history of these actions, and in particular the time covered by them, it

seems eminently sensible for the fourth action to be dealt with before considerations turn

to the sixth action. Given the time constraints which now exist, the Defendant would

contend that the preliminary generic issues which arise in the fourth action can proceed

with appropriate Directions for the filing of Skeleton Arguments, with the matter being

listed sometime in the autumn. Once those matters have been resolved, further

Directions can be given in 2017. Thereafter, once the total number of witnesses and the

amount of documentation likely to be required in the case are known, the matter of jury

trial can be considered perhaps in the summer of 2017.

17. In regard to the sixth action, there remains a lot to be done before the Court will be able

to identify precisely what allegations the Claimant is making and which of those

allegations form a legitimate basis of complaint against the Defendant which should be

allowed to go to Trial. Given the already full diary of matters which need resolving in

Page 8 of 9

this case in the period leading up to December 2016, it may be thought appropriate to put

the sixth action back for consideration in 2017. At that stage Directions can be given for

the Defendant to serve a Request for Further Particulars and thereafter, if appropriate, a

Direction for trial of preliminary issues. Directions can then be given for disclosure and

exchange of witness statements. It is only thereafter that the Court will be in a position

to resolve the issue of jury trial in respect of the sixth action.

18. Although the Court may be concerned at the speed at which the fourth and sixth actions

are making their way to Trial, this necessarily arises as a result of the involved nature of

both actions and the way in which they are intertwined with Actions 1 to 3. Further,

Actions 1 to 3 have not yet finally been resolved, and with the prospect of the Claimant

seeking to appeal against the Judgment on liability in those actions, there seems little

prospect of being able to advance actions four to six, save in respect of the resolution of

the preliminary generic issues in action four.

30 Park Place Lloyd Williams, Q.C.


1 June 2016

Case Nos: 7CF07345

>>> Maurice Kirk’s site is <<<


To: Alun Cairns Secretary of State for Wales

by mauricekirky

Secretary of State for Wales
The Welsh Government
Cathays Park
CF10 3NQ

30th May 2016

Dear Mr Cairns,

‘What really goes on in our Law Courts’

‘Only last week, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, recalled that “the principle of open justice is fundamental to the rule of law and to democratic accountability”. (BBC)

16 02 04 RCJ note take Judgment

This was stated following the findings of Burnett LJ and Mr Justice Sweeney in my favour regarding my ex-wife, Janet, on the first occasion and then again by a concerned McKenzie Friend also being prevented from taking notes by yet another Cardiff judge denying me both the right to have my reading glasses or legal papers in court as a Litigant in Person (LiP).

‘What really goes on in our Prisons?’

ClaimFormPt7CountyCt Min Justic

HMP Swansea then prevented my attending the follow-up hearing, to quash the original conviction following the arrest of a prison officer, for withholding my passport for the police, by stating on the telephone I had ‘refused to get on the prison van’. I have also been stopped five times, from attending, from HMP Cardiff and more than once from HMP Bristol.

Visiting Mr Justice Gilbart accepted their fairy tale despite my sister informing the court that the prison staff had already been caught on CCTV wheeling me off the van, in my wheel chair, after receiving radioed instructions that I also clearly heard despite my ailments.

‘What really goes on in our Cardiff Police Stations?’

(16 05 23 Cairns MP letter PACE breaches)

Your Cardiff County Court has accepted police documentation that originally went before Magistrates courts stating I could not be ‘identified’ despite a warrant for my arrest being in their possession from another force and my frustrated veterinary clients uttering the obvious.

I was held in Cardiff prison for three more days until being ‘identified’ by the Royal College of Veterinary College despite still being remanded there by your law court as ‘unidentified’.

A succession of police maintain I had ‘no address’ upon which to serve a motoring summons by successfully failing to disclose what the purported summons might have been for!

No consideration of evidence but IRIS records is needed for someone ultimately responsible, such as yourself, despite two deliberate omissions from the Human Rights Act 1998.

Your police have finally disclosed, after 23 years, my ordered tape copy of my interview taken under both incomplete & defective caution, only for your court to, again, confiscate it.

Machine-Gun/FTAC/MAPPA 3/3 NHS(Wales) Conspiracy

(machine gun summary)

Delay has been by a decommissioned ‘machine -gun’ having been painted a different colour by your police in an attempt to fool a jury only then needing to have it painted back to the air museum’s original colour upon my inevitable acquittal when facing 15 year’s incarceration.

This judge appears to have blocked this claim for 6 years, to prevent ‘consolidation’, despite my again seeking remedy for yet another malicious prosecution when all is needed is IRIS disclosure to inform other courts, well outside Wales, of this such apparent inherent deceit.

On your police statements alone, time and again, senior officers of the South Wales Police deny court cases even occurred despite this judge having been served authentic Barry Magistrates Court records from the heart of my veterinary practice and your constituency.


Dangerous Police Helicopter Chase 

16 05 31 Claimants ps BS 614159



An informed private pilot has just analysed the police witness statements that were before the judge written by numerous of your police officers operating the area police helicopter.

It is clear in his analysis (enclosed) the Cardiff court accepted multiple but falsified police written evidence yet clearly drafted by a ‘common author’, thus being prima facie evidence of dishonesty. Chief Constable Barbara Wilding and others swore on oath their statements were true and then promptly retired on full benefits.

The judge has dismissed all 33 of my near 100 police incidents, waiting, as ‘without merit’ and refused me even application to appeal to any higher UK court on my argument of an ‘overarching vendetta’ due to just so many ‘wins’ even in the Welsh courts.

As you are also my Member of Parliament and therefore have already received much detail of this complaint is it not time to reinstate Articles 1 and 13 within our own set of rules, for the man on the street to understand or are we doomed for the alternative, judicial autonomy and Wales with its very own independent police force?

Yours sincerely,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc


31 May Position Statement:31may16 POS STMT


“KIRK v South Wales Police                BS614159 +others

24th May 2016

Further evidence for application for more time due to Defendant’s continued Failed Disclosure of IRIS police/ court/CPS (Wales)  records;

Claimant Uncovers His IRIS 24/7 Police Surveillance Started Even Before 1993

  1. Why was HM Crown Prosecutor, Stan Sofa, arrested but police refused an investigation?
  2. Why did Inspector Andrew Rice lie on oath, before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, denying he was present with PC Killick and three other police officers with their ‘paddy wagon if not covering up his conspiracy to harass the Claimant’s next insurance company?
  3. Why did the judge switch from the identity of vehicle, in question, caught in the radar trap?
  4. Why did none of the Claimant’s six Guernsey vehicles, after six months (some two years), never cause a prosecution for no tax but regularly for no MOT?
  5. Why were almost all vehicles mysteriously then stolen and/or burnt out in broad day light?
  6. Why did the learned trial judge ‘cut and paste’ so many erroneous paragraphs from Defendant’s QC’s 23rd June 2013 closing submissions when no facts were found in evidence?
  7. Why did Special Con O’Brian come on his own, to Barry magistrates, with ‘no record’ of Claimant not having insurance when the single charge faced by the claimant was ‘no insurance’?
  8. Why was Kevin Fairman, the driver in the speed trap, not prosecuted when his name and address had been supplied as the driver?
  9. Why did Mr Fairman, on oath, state was stopped twice driving Claimant’s marked veterinary ambulance only to be asked no questions when police thought he was the Claimant?
  10. Why was Mr Fairman stopped a 3rd time in 1995 (crt bundle 41 p268), in the same vehicle, by O’Brian & HORT 1 issued but no prosecution if not again ‘fishing’ for Claimant’s ins. co.?
  11.  Why has Barry magistrate court always refused to release any court records to the Claimant following its collapse, in chaos, immediately after Stan Sofa had, unintentionally, dropped on the court floor face up, the clear photo of Kevin Fairman caught in the radar trap?

 Why did Special Police Officer Martin come to Claimant’s consulting room and demand an HORT 1 be completed on this vehicle but neither PC O’Brian, in court, nor Inspector Sydney Griffiths (see his statement A18.23 p174), all lying when stating the Barry magistrates court had no record of his court hearing, if not for their Chief Constable’s Feb 09 false affidavit?

  1. For years (see Clmnt’s 50 ‘cooked’ arch-lever exhibit files) police tried to hide O’Brian/Sofa photos for Inspector Sydney Griffiths’ carefully crafted 16th May paragraph 2000 ‘weasel words’ to also cover-up A1/8/18, 19, 20 &21 of GBH & Arsons Claimant complaints       
  2. Why was the Claimant not prosecuted for parking on double yellow lines, in this incident, despite police having taken still more clandestine photographs specifically for the hearing?
  3. An example of Specials used as ‘cannon fodder’ to do their dirty work as leave no audit trail.”


20th May “Cardiff’ Court’s MAPPA3/3 Machine-Gun Conspiracy”20MAY16 GEROTTE STMT


“Arrested for four days in Cardiff Prison whilst south Wales Police lean on guernsey police to have me extradited for failing to pay a parking fine…..Now  Cardiff civil judge hands down an unusual order:

16 05 10 Appeal order in terms

So Maurice seeks help from any lawyer in the UK:

On 16th of May 2016 Help4LiPs will be taking part in the London Legal Walk for the 4th year running with its co-founder, volunteers, and Ann John OBE, who has accepted the position of H4L spokesperson. As Lord Neuberger puts it, it is important for us to do the walk, but probably more important to raise money for the legal charities. Help4LiPs continues to build bridges and needs your help to raise funding.

H4L builds bridges between:

  • those that know the Law and those that need to know the Law;
  • “legalese” and everyday language;
  • the legal establishment and litigants in person;
  • Process and Justice.

Please click here to read more and help us help others who are forced to go to Law by clicking the donation below.”

Maurice’s initial brief:

16 05 11 brief


Chaffinch Kemble.jpg

Need pilots for Cape Town and helpers to have 2nd (3rd or 4th cub finished in time)

KIRK 22 O6 15Crunch Time for South Wales Police

The following documents have been found in order to scan and print world wide just what is going on here in South Wales today.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission have just admitted, THIS WEEK, they also no longer have copy of the 1st Dec 2011 Cardiff magistrates records (see above newspaper cutting) despite proof that the police had  already confiscated clerk of the court’s original notes, court exhibits and copy of any applications, during 4th May 2012 jury trial.

At that equally chaotic event the jury even wrote asking for them also but the learned judge, John Curran QC, refused for fear of the consequences.

Is there a strange or familiar aroma to a veterinary surgeon wafting in your direction?

Judge’s reply

120504 Jury request rwritten down by MF

have me registered in breach of harassing the now sacked Dr Tegwyn Williams, the Chief forensic Psychiatrist for Wales.

The sequence of events leading up to my arrest on 20th May 1993 and subsequent incarceration in Cardiff prison was known to the recent civil court considering damages.

The police excuse was that I was ‘unidentifiable’ and that I had just been found after leaving HRH Prince Charles’ farm with a ‘garrotte’ type instrument.

HRH Prince Charles.jpg

The truth was, unbeknown to the Cardiff magistrates, was that I was being detained for extradition to Guernsey, Channel Islands, over some unpaid parking ticket or other following the guernsey police having told their welsh colleagues, in a similar uncivilised part of the British Isles, I had the habit of coming to court dressed in Nazi uniform.

Nazi loose in Guernsey

I was sitting on a railing waiting for afternoon surgery to start down the road as clients arrived with their animals. As I walked off I was knocked to the ground by one or two police officers neither of which had explained what their interest in me may be about.

After being transferred between a police van and Panda car, to make room for my confiscated motor bike, I was then locked up in a Cardiff police cell for about six hours with no explanation other than that I had been in breach in Police and Criminal evidence Act 1984 s. 25 (old edition)!

  1. This is of some importance, in that the custody record states that he was “arrested s25 PACE”. Section 25 Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides,

“(1)      Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence which is not an arrestable offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions is satisfied.

(2)        In this section, “the relevant person” means any person whom the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect of having committed or attempted to commit the offence or of being in the course of committing or attempting it.

(3)        The general arrest conditions are

(a)        that the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable;

(b)        that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name;

(c)        that –

  • the relevant person has failed to furnish a satisfactory address for service; or
  • the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service;

(emphasis supplied).

The learned judge, in the 2013 civil damages trial of ninety nine witnesses, has reserved verifying his 257 page 26th October 2016 corrected judgment  until new evidence is submitted.

I have submitted, for example, a previous witness the police had locked up when he was due to give critical evidence and an air traffic controller, a Mr Jonathan Clayton,  who was protected by Cardiff airport armed police from receiving my witness summonses.

last Friday the police mysteriously produced my copy, in  court, of the 1993 police interview which, of course, will be found now to be also redacted like the overhead Cardiff road camera filming my being dragged out of my practice car, stationary in a queue of traffic, by a very angry PC Osbourne.

to be continued shortly…….


£10,000 Reward for Police Custody Records as Machine-Gun/Fabricated Medical Records Damages Claim is Blocked Again

It is seven years now that I have been watching, with quiet amusement, at the lengths to which the Welsh authorities are still prepared to stoop to prevent the facts ever becoming published  on cyberspace with their domestic news papers well and truly gagged.

As to how the then Chief Constable managed to get Dr Tegwyn Williams, himself not even qualified nor having even having examined his patient, to then agree to fabricate evidence to get me registered a MAPPA level 3 category 3 victim, on one clandestine meet in Barry police station, remains almost inconceivable!

Then with both this chief forensic psychiatrist for Wales and the HM Crown Prosecutor telling His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC that my ‘significant brain damage’ was so serious for my current 23 year running damages claim to continue, compounded by Barbara Wilding’s dreamed up allegations, re my ‘trading in machine -guns ‘, just will be next?

BUT that was only the start of it it would now appear.

I have just served three years imprisonment because the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) still will not hand over the original ‘harassment’ conviction court records of the blackmailed NHS (Wales)m doctor’s complaint.

16 01 06 Jenny Thomas requests

This lady now admits the Commission has disposed of the missing  magistrates court records following my applications under Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts.

It stinks, doesn’t it?

In order for me to be transferred from Cardiff prison to Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital, it was hoped indefinitely, the police had needed to further blackmail the doctor and staff at Caswell clinic to dream up new evidence as to why I was just so dangerous.

But Dr T W had the last laugh on the little bstds by writing his 19th Oct 2009 psychiatric report clearly stating Maurice was not the threat, at all, as the real danger was by the writings to him from others outside the cage. All real Enid Blyton stuff.

Yesterday I witnessed yet another Cardiff court refusing to lift the six year ‘stay’ on my machine-gun’ damages claim with immediate effect and steps to ‘strike out’ all remaining damages claims against the South Wales Police.

AND what should appear, a solicitor’s 12th April 2016 signed witness statement!

They have had the 1993 ‘garrotte instrument’ custody tape all the time withheld from HM prosecutor, no doubt, next morning in Cardiff magistrates when the police were asking to detain me in the prison until extradited to Guernsey, of all places!

I enclose a summary:

16 04 12 Fresh Ev app024

16 04 14 Claimant’s Position Statement

16 04 11 Tape found

16 04 12 SWP admit tape001

16 04 12 tape 1

16 04 12 tape

16 04 16 Cl Pos St

So if the police so mysteriously just found the 1993 ‘copy ‘ tape, my property but snatched by senior management, what else will the next judge order for disclosure?

(Almost forgot the 4th Action 7CF 07345 needed also to be quashed to hide the publicity)

16 02 05 7CF07456 4th Action Order

10 11 0 4th Action judgment

4th Action contains same police officers in other incidents such as:


£10.000 reward for police held custody records, over many years, from CCRC, HM Prison, GEOamey Custody Cervices and both Cardiff Crown and Magistrate courts.

Payment by any denomination or currency

6 April ’16: South Wales Police ‘Fresh Evidence’ to be heard in court on 15th April 2016 @ 12.30pm

Proven Criminal Conduct by Police Inspectors, Howard Davies, Andrew Rice, Steve Parry, Greaves, Nicholas Kihlberg, Collin Jones, Griffiths, Trigg, Jenner, Roe, Hill, Merrett and many others


For ‘Dolmans’ please read as ‘Chief Constable’ and for ’Chief Constable’ please read as ‘Dolmans’

LIST OF INCIDENTS in first 33 of around 100

Action 1 claim 8 XXX

  1. Dolmans, solicitors, admit that HM Crown Prosecution Service, Stan Sofa, was ‘fully aware of his position should the Claimant, in these proceedings (Action 2 claim 5), find him in time to serve a witness summons for his evidence of ‘what really goes on in our courts’.
  1. Dolmans, at the Claimant’s March 2013 damages claim, withheld the names of at least two other police officers that had rushed to Barry magistrates’ courts, on 1st June 1998, with a Sergeant Andrew Rice after the prosecutor had been arrested for deliberately withholding the correct identity of the driver of the Claimant’s practice vehicle.
  1. Andrew Rice produced a Dolman’s prepared 21st January 2009 witness statement and sworn before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC as having been true to the ‘best of his belief’.
  1. Paragraphs 6/7 of Mr Rice’s statement (see p5) state he denies any knowledge of incident when the clerk of the court, Miss J A Caress, with all the others in the building, must have heard the sirens of two police cars arriving with Mr Rice as officer in charge.

09 01 21 RICE Perjury

NB Inspector Rice was the Barry custody officer in charge of altering the earlier ‘Breach of the Peace’ arrest records, re Vale of the Glamorgan Show at Barry police station.

The Claimant had been, on the day, the  Honorary Veterinary Surgeon for the show.

All three hurriedly drafted cock-eyed versions, before HM Prosecutor and clerk of the court, were deliberately withheld from the three Justices of the Peace) while keeping Inspector Rice well out of it.

The Claimant’s secretary, for 8 years, Commanding Officer for Wales Royal Air Force Cadets, has typed at least a 100 arch-ever files and disappeared into France, in retirement and recuperation to be unable to be found, in time, to give at least a week of extra evidence in the trial, including what she witnessed in the Barry and Cardiff courts as case after collapsed as if skittle pins had been hit, right on target, by a ‘Zummerzet skittle ball’).

In the collapsed ‘dangerous driving’ allegation (Action 2 claim 12) the Claimant had instructed Diane to even follow police officers (eg WPC Rewbridge) into the public lavatories of Cardiff Crown Court to ensure no more conspiring occurred for the next waiting witness after the previous witness had given evidence and was released.

His Honour Judge Nicholas Cooke QC, who had the Claimant’s daughter in tears, whilst reminding her, sitting in the public gallery, of the 15 year mandatory prison term he father was facing if he did not now divulge his defences, over the ‘machine -gun’ conspiracy,to a pro-bono defence barrister mysteriously suddenly available.

The same judge had stopped this August 2000 ‘dangerous driving’ trial as the jury had just caught a Barry police inspector (name forgotten’ but in transcript), sitting in the well of the court,signalling to respective prosecuting police officers as they were being cross examined, Their jury note, just as in the 4th May 2012 first of three ‘breach of a restraining order’ trials, had been purloined from the court’s cellars, many years later and can be viewed on the downloads of his dedicated to SWP bullying,

  1. The explicit orders from senior police management had been to secure the HM Crown Prosecution file from Mr Sofa just as he or Inspector Hill had done, in the court room, following yet another collapsed trial (Action 1 claim 2) when snatching the CPS file from a totally bemused, Mr Mundy from Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism unit, following perjury having been committed by a Detective Constable Murphy of Cardiff airport.
  1. The then Chief Constable, Ms Barbara Wilding, by 21st January 2009, had already failed to comply to His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC court order for all disclosure available had been done. She therefore had to hand in her notice to leave it for Inspector Griffiths.
  1. Her six-week late affidavit was only signed after the Claimant had to visit Dolmans and thump his fist on their table but still avoided many of the forty odd incidents cited.
  1. Within 48 hours the Claimant’ family house was surrounded by armed police officers with their helicopter hovering overhead to arrest the Claimant for ‘trading in machine guns’.
  1. She had also concocted, ‘being in possession of prohibited ammunition’, ‘proceeds of crime’ with Dolman’s very own criminal allegation, thrown in, that of, ‘threats to do criminal damage’ carrying, in all, a mandatory minimum prison sentence exceeding fifteen years.
  1. Then the Chief Constable arranged with her chief forensic psychiatrist, Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams, by subjecting him to blackmail over another Caswell Clinic doctor and x Esq whom she had also, apparently, ‘stitched up’ and gaoled. This was to have the Claimant sectioned under the 1983 Mental Act on fabricated evidence to still further delay this case.


Sample of Criminal Cases Review Commission documents held (before they were switched) by arrested Crown Prosecutor, David Gareth Evans to obtain Claimant’s harassment conviction for a restraining order never ever served but later fabricated to obtain 3 years imprisonment of the victim’d police incessant bullying (Appellant to RCJ)

NOW CCRC refuse to even release following court exhibit when South Wales Police CPS switched WANTED poster and clerk of courts notes of evidence prove it.

What does one do when the conspiracy includes a few right in the heart of the Welsh judiciary seeking autonomy.

CCRC refuse to release following South Wales Police CPS switched WANTED poster and now face a Judicial review application in the next few days.

11. Inspector Rice had also denied, on oath, knowledge of a Christopher Paul Ebbs/Alexander, identified in the court room and their meeting at Aust Ferry Services with a CAA representative and Bristol Crown prosecutor to discuss ongoing criminal proceedings destined for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons disciplinary proceedings in London.

  1. Mr Ebbs/Alexander also gave evidence, on oath, during the 2013 civil damages trial.
  1. Dolmans also withheld Fairwater Police Station custody records of Mrs J Griffiths’ account of having promised an unexpurgated 29th May 1999 transcript/copy tape, of the Guernsey police with a warrant out for his arrest, ‘being in possession of ‘garrotte’ type instruments’, ‘having stolen a BMW motor bike’, his own from right outside his Cardiff veterinary surgery and being, ‘unable to be identified’.

15 11 16 Provisional Grounds for Appeal BS 614159

  1. Senior police management have since redacted that interview transcript leaving the remainder, before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, to be interpreted quite differently.
  1. Dolmans also withhold CAA/NATS and ATC Gloucester aerodrome records of their respective investigations following two private flights of the Claimant’s British registered aircraft, G-KIRK and G-ARSW on 4th July 1999 (Action2claim2) and in Feb 1996 (Action2Claim 8.6) when allegedly smuggling pigs out of Southern Ireland and/or flying P1 without a valid licence.

96 CAA 2nd page

  1. G-KIRK occupants had a dangerous encounter following an entirely unnecessary police HQ launched police helicopter launch, full of officers as ‘observers’, to establish whether the Claimant was the pilot. A mere call to his mobile phone, a radio message over the aircraft’s sophisticated trans world communications system, to the pilot in command, should of sufficed if the four-minute drive to his airfield from the police station was impossible

99 07 04 Police Helicopter Chase

10 06 16 CAA Psch Rpt

  1. Dolmans is also in the possession of other withheld police records including detail on Inspector Nicholas Kihlberg having given false evidence at Barry magistrates that caused a charming locum prosecutor, fortunately, to have to draft, mid trial, an alternative summons.
  1. This Claimant was expected to then alter his plea to that of ‘guilty’ to one of ‘obstructing a police officer’ instead of the charge he was currently facing, ‘failing to supply a specimen of breath,’ so it could be withdrawn.
  1. Inspector Kihlberg later committed perjury before the 2002 Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons disciplinary proceedings in order to support his January 2001 South Wales Police Inspector Collins request that the Claimant’s name be removed from the veterinary register
  1. Inspector Kihlberg, on 1st December 2000, informed the Cardiff custody officer that the Claimant’s breath smelt of intoxicants but when the definitive breath test was then carried out both readings registered zero. It then took almost three weeks before the Inspector arrived, unexpectedly, at the Claimant’s veterinary hospital, to inform him that he was being reported for ‘failing to produce a specimen of breath’.
  1. This was to make it look as if he had over looked the fact at midnight, on the day of the incident, while he hid his victim’s practice vehicle for six weeks, unlocked with Immobilon and other dangerous drugs, on some private garage open forecourt. It was only by a police officer/client tipping him off that the vehicle was eventually found.

00 12 01kilberg BD cutting

99 12 01 Killberg BT.jpg

Extract from fairwater police station recording Inspector Kihlberg’s reason of arrest.

00 12 01Kilberg BT

Result of subsequent definitive breath test.

99 12 01 kilbrg BT 3.jpg

  1. Dolmans was also withholding a 27th November 1999 PC Wood’s vehicle rectification certificate (see Action 2 claim 10) re substantive hearing requiring ninety-nine witnesses. It was written out just minutes before the Claimant’s third police ‘stop’, that day, leading to a stand-up row between the two traffic officers with one hell bent on obtaining a ‘specimen of breath’ before the Claimant could drive away. The officer in charge flatly refused but it warned the Claimant they would be waiting in some lay by as he entered Barry for bed.

99 11 27 rec tkt.jpg

  1. That did not stop the irrate officer radioing on ahead for other patrolling officers to stop the Claimant on any pretext. Within minutes he was stopped yet again on the completely erroneous excuse that the Claimant’s car was seen ‘weaving’ whist over-taking another!
  1. “There was a strong smell of intoxicants”, the Claimant recalls the officer saying, years later, just like the other Kihlbergs of this world have the habit in saying.

16 02 18 Inspectors Steve Parry Twigg The two police officers ignoring witness summonsesas the first made up the idea of ‘all vets smell of intoxicants’ and the latter was the officer no one could find to ‘identify’ so he was sent to prison until he was.

Veterinary cars do not generally ‘smell of intoxicants’ and cannot not be mistaken with routine antiseptic/disinfectants used unless the police officer has some other agenda

 25. Chief Inspector Jenner and Inspector Roe

Judgment extract:

  1. It is inevitable that Mr Kirk should have deep suspicion of the motives and involvement of the police in this incident. In addition the fact of formulation by Mr Roe of the charges in relation to unlawful eviction is of profound concern, but I am unable to find in favour of the claim brought, which is for wrongful arrest.
  1. It requires overarching evaluation upon all the evidence in the case whether this is evidence of a police vendetta or conspiracy against Mr Kirk, or rather the product of Mr Roe’s individual actions alone; but on the direct evidence the latter is far more likely since the police intervention was reactive to an incident where the tenant complained to them of eviction and damage to goods.

AnnexeEvidence of Robert Roe Nelson. Re-called Monday 29 April 2013

Start 15:40:48

Judge: Just help me if you would Mr Roe. On the last occasion when you were giving evidence, of course I have the Witness Statement that you made for the purposes of these proceedings, and amongst other things you said “I advised Mr Gafael and Miss Jenner not to attempt to re-enter the premises” and in your Witness Statement, “I categorically deny that I was involved or had knowledge of any police officer gaining access to the flat”.  You were specifically asked about Mr Gafael’s statement where he said “later that afternoon following a conversation with Sergeant Roe, he and myself gained entry to the flat and I replaced (?) etc.” and you told me “I went with Mr Gafael and his girlfriend. There was a roller shutter door. We couldn’t get in as I recall. I can say for certain I would not have gained entry. I recollect going to the flat, the roller shutter door was down. I can only recollect going on the one occasion” which is where you were being specifically asked “Well, Mr Gafael says later that afternoon you went back with him, and into the flat” and of course having looked at your statement of the time, you’ve told me that, Yes you did.

Roe: Yes, I agree Sir, that I couldn’t recollect it at the time, that I’d gone back there, but after this period of time, times have merged somewhat and uh …. I didn’t recollect it at the time going back, but I have to agree that I must have returned there. I said it in my Statement and if I’ve said it in my Statement that would have matched up with my pocket book and everything else which I don’t have access to now.

Judge: Help me with this because it may be said at the end of this case, well Goodness! if there’s ever an incident even in busy Ely which you would recall it’s one which involves the daughter of a police inspector and one for that matter where a somewhat unusual charge was placed, so it may be said if you’d ever remember something, you’d remember this one.

Roe: You tend to recollect highlights not lowlights, uhh I… it’s a very unusual charge. I must admit I don’t recollect it. I can only go on my recollection at the time and I just didn’t recollect it at all but I’m not disputing that I went over to Fairw, uhh Barry Police Station and ….

Judge: You also told me, and today, about the process and once you have the file what you do with it and you said “I sent the file in and the report goes to them, it’s for my superiors, it’s they who would send to the Local Authority or the CPS”

Roe: That’s correct Sir.

Judge: And I think somebody will be saying at the end of the case, your Statement prepared by Solicitors says on a number of occasions that you would have submitted the report to the Local Authority. Now I will just read it out so you can hear the words “Whilst I have no specific recollection I would have subsequently prepared in submitting a report to the Local Authority. I’m likely to have placed a copy of the Statement of Mr Gafael and any Statement I obtained from Miss Jenner with my report to the Local Authority” and over to paragraph 18 “after submitting a report to the Local Authority I cannot recall having any further dealings with Mr Gafael, Miss Jenner or Mr Kirk about this incident”, which looks rather different.

Roe: It looks rather different. I think it’s a bit of possibly police terminology because everything is submitted through the chain of command and if whoever is in charge of that area makes the decision if it is forwarded on. I forwarded on to the Local Authority but the Superintendent may so no, we’re not doing this, or I think this should go in this direction instead. It’s his decision that carries the weight at the end of the day and all decisions of this nature and most others and it’s just the terminology “I submitted the report to the Local Authority” but it would have been through the normal chain of command.

Judge: Yes. Also we know that a charge was prepared and made in respect of the protection against conviction and you’ve already been asked the question as to [it being (?)] pretty much out of the ordinary, you told me, absolutely out of the ordinary

Roe: Oh Yes.

Judge: And, you told me that Mr Kirk was interviewed, because we’ve established it was at Barry Police Station and on the date of the interview 3rd July 1995 that that charge is put. And, when you were asked about that on the last occasion when you gave evidence before me, I think you may remember, Mr Kirk said “Did it surprise you that I was arrested for that?” and your answer was “You wouldn’t have been. As soon as it hit the custody officer he would have said that is not an arrest able offence and it’s a matter for the Local Authority”.

Roe: Yes

Judge: Whereas it did go to interview and charge, which was out of the ordinary for you. Now I have to look forward to what may be said on either side at the end of the case about this, and it may be said, it is really rather difficult to make a mistake like that, if something so out of the usual was pursued in respect of this absolutely by way of a charge. Can you tell me more?

Roe: Yeah, the charge that we were more concerned with was the allegation of criminal damage and uh well originally theft, but uh, that wasn’t to be held at all, the theft, the criminal damage was uh if uh, was the charge that was put. The other charges were ones the Local Authority must have recommended and there must have been some other because that’s a most unusual charge that he didn’t tell us. Now unfortunately the answers may have lay in the tapes of the interview of why that was there to answer the missing question of who is the owner of the property. Um, there are, it is unusual but uh, I must say I couldn’t remember it at all.

Judge: Yes and I think I’ll ask my own questions to you. You’ve been reminded very recently indeed that in your Statement to Dolmans which you checked and signed as being the correct record of your evidence, you said very clearly “I have no recollection of arresting Mr Kirk in relation to this incident it would be most unlikely. I believe that it is unlikely that Mr Kirk was arrested in relation to this incident” and of course we know that he was.

Roe: Yes

Judge: The arrangements were made to go over from your own station to Barry, that you interviewed him in connection with, what looks like PC Roche, in respect of, we’ve touched on this before, criminal damage which may have been a pretty straight forward matter and ending up with the charge which was the most unusual matter

Roe: Yes, yes

Judge: And so the question is how can you forget that?

Roe: Well how the mind works I don’t know Sir. All I can say is I can’t recollect these charges and the subsequent events from this case because basically, it’s not like an accident where you see drama enacting in a really serious way in front of you and it sticks in the mind. This was a thing which sort of ploughed its way on and uh, it uh, there was nothing untowardly dramatic about it, and it just didn’t stick in my mind after a while.

Judge: Yes?

Roe: I, I can’t give any other reason

It was of no surprise to the Claimant, during the 2013 civil hearing, that those that had lied the most had been promoted to Inspector or more and reminding him that promotion to that level of rank in the South Wales Police Service usually required membership of their area secret society that includes devil worship.

The list is to be continued on or before ‘fresh evidence’ is induced at 15th April 2016 12.30 am Cardiff Civil Justice Centre estimated three hour hearing.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc (Claimant)

Copies to RCVS/RCJ/County Court/Dolmans/IPCC

MAURICE KIRK: A WRONGFUL ARREST 05/04/16 – + archive

PC McGregor/Sgt Greaves Conspiracy

Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary 

Appellant’s Action 2 para 6 Submissions to the Court of Appeal

Extract from October 2015 Judgment

703     Action 2 paragraph 6 – 16 March 1998 Southey Street, Barry and PC Holmes.

is a claim not for malicious prosecution, but for alleged wrongful arrest. The pleaded case is that Mr Kirk was stopped by PC Holmes whilst driving in Southey Street and required to provide a breath sample; that although Mr Kirk had not been drinking, he was arrested on the ground that the breath sample was positive and taken to Barry Police Station, yet a further breath test was negative; having been arrested at 13.00 hours he was released from custody at about midnight and arrest and detention were unlawful.

The Appellant humbly submits that this incident is yet another deliberate failure to disclose police records following their covert surveillance to affect civil proceedings.

Only after oral evidence by three police officers failing to disclose evidence, required to justify their actions for both Road Traffic Act and PACE legislation, did the Appellant realise to the extent to which their conduct had been again controlled by senior police management.

Such is the proof on their documentation, alone, despite original records having been redacted or withheld, that the impaired memory of the Appellant, referred to by the learned judge’s comment (see para 710 of judgment) even after fifteen years, highlights that point.

PC Holmes was the officer in charge (I/C) in relation to an alleged ‘careless driving’ in order to obtain a breath test to get the Appellant’s motoring details.

There is no record in PC Holmes’ note book nor evidence in his section 9 statement purportedly written immediately following the Appellant’s release from one of Barry police station’s cells.

A HORT1 rectification ticket was therefore needed to be issued for the proverbial ‘broken back light’ rectification in order to stop a driver. It would appear the Respondent did not have the Appellant’s insurance company details, once more, owing to his forced changes, so often, due to police harassment. His new insurance company’s name was needed to harass its office (see D&K Insurance Brokers’ Mrs Kenyon evidence) to have his insurance cover withdrawn.

There is only a purported three-line extract (Vol 11 p 75) of PC Holmes’ note book with the remainder blanked out by Dolmans. What little there is, however, reveals that it was written by PC Holmes at 23.55 hrs before any breath test taken.

[The Appellant’s web site readers, these past sixteen years, are aware that it has Dolmans’ conduct refusing to settle once a jury trial had been guaranteed. Senior officer orders routinely overrode those of junior officers and as to what subsequent records were to be disclosed or altered. This conduct, following His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC’s November 2008 Court Order, to disclose custody records, caused the Chief Constable’s personal involvement in the fabrication of the machine-gun/ MAPPA/Dr Tegwyn Williams’ still withheld psychiatric reports (see claim 1CF03351) currently stayed by his Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC].

This stayed conspiracy, along with the others, also stayed, are of similar, unusual and with extreme facts, including regularly altered or deliberately failed disclosure of their records as has already been proven in the Caswell clinic’s NHS (Wales)/Professor Rodger Wood/ Dr Tegwyn Williams conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by delaying this trial.

This conspiracy had been orchestrated, following the November 2008, by Barbara Wilding, the then Chief constable, when, in January 2009, apart from handing in her notice, plotted to have the Appellant shot (see leaked 8th June 09 Barry police station MAPPA minutes).

The Respondent’s Feb 2009 late but erroneous sworn affidavit, signed in her own name but drafted by Dolmans, originated, as with so many before, from this Southey Street, incident.

The Appellant had requested on how Sergeant Greaves could have been both the complainant of an RTA infraction, near Cardiff airport, with no corroborative evidence, (see his hand written altered 1st August 03 S9 statement and note book) and also be custody officer processing, in Barry police station, the prisoner’s tape recordings and a significant single driving document found on their victim’s person?

What actually happened in the Barry police station that night?

That is why the Appellant sent the first HORT 1 document, issued by PC Holmes, to the Barry police station’s Superintendent Colin Jones, on 23rd August 1999, for it to be yet another warning to get his officer’s ‘off his back’ or consequential civil particulars of claim would follow.

Action 1 was already before the Cardiff civil courts and this same civil judge (see para 658 of judgment) while sitting in Crown Court, when adjudicating 1997 Action 2 para 4 Link Road Barry incident, had rebuked officer that officer in charge, PC Roche, as did His Honour Judge Burr rebuked WPC Lott (see Action 1 claim 8.5 24th March 1993 stopped by PC Jane Lott).

Both police officers had also been caught, red handed, on documentation alone, having altered their personal note books or having them altered more likely, between the two separate Barry magistrates’ cases to their two successful appeals in Cardiff Crown Court and usual never getting paid compensation even for their victim’s bus fares as he was never legally represented.

PC Holmes, officer in charge of both the road side breath test and subsequent arrest, produced no section 9 statement either, detailing the incident, despite the Appellant having asked for custody records at the time and had also written demanding as to the retention of all records of the incident as the Appellant’ 1st Action (see 8.6 ‘garrotte’ type weapon/unable to identify appellant incident) was already in the County Court and already subjected to applications for police records, under CPR and being ignored.

PC Holmes’ 28th October 2008 witness statement (Vol 11 p 66) is the only ‘conveniently’ surviving document purported to be of his own making in this incident but was prepared by Dolmans, the Chief Constable’s private lawyers.

 Apart from a vehicle rectification HORT1 he issued for the proverbial ‘broken back light’, should the alleged ‘driving without due care and attention’ not comply with both PACE and Road Traffic Act, to allow a breath test, then where is the top or retained officer’s lower copy? (see Ely’s 1st Action 8.6 ‘garrotte’ type instrument/ stolen BMW motor cycle/goaled as unidentifiable incident and 3rd Ely’s 2nd Action para 14 breath-test during veterinary consultations in Appellant’s surgery.

The Appellant’s 4th October 2008 application to Dolmans for this and forty odd other police incidents, listed as occurrence numbers requiring disclosure following each act of harassment and again, was all over another ‘missing’ personal note book but on that occasion owned by a Chief Superintendent Hawkins’ because its content had also been maliciously used, in a criminal court, when failing to fabricate yet another fire arms allegation.

No wonder the Appellant was denied police station despite records as he had personally written to their Divisional Commander, yet again, Superintendent Colin Jones, complaining of his officer’s continuing police harassment (See 23rd Aug 99 letter referred to by the learned judge).

PC Holmes had written nowhere of the Appellant’s failure to produce a breath test (FTPBT) as opposed to PC McGregor’s note ( p60 paragraph 8) , no doubt, to also secure promotion as is so noticeable with the likes of Inspectors, Rice and Kilberg, in their conduct in so many incidents.

An interesting point, only at the substantive trial when police officers were subjected to some sort of cross examination, fifteen years after the incident, did PC McGregor suddenly produce, previously undisclosed, a document namely, a list of 44 names he had jotted on the back of a pocket note book, no doubt, the day before he gave evidence.

If the content of PC McGregor’s note book, written after their victim had been released and/or with PC Holmes, is to be believed then on his account, if not both police officers’ accounts, they recorded a time line thus:

‘after stopping the Appellant by applying blue flashing lights and then allowing him time to first to go find the house and examine a dying dog before returning to his vehicle, to obtain the necessary materials only to return to house to euthinase his patient…..Was this before or after the breath test, for handcuffs to Barry police station, all record as within 15 minutes, then someone is a liar.

Was another Hort 1 ever issued, after release from the police station and separate to the rectification form, specific for identity of the Claimant’s insurance company?

The police refused to produce the HORT 1 top copy for trial, deliberately sent by the Appellant to their Divisional Commander for ‘safe keeping’, because, from bitter experience, the appellant has suffered under the nefarious conduct of those in a uniform when on an entirely different agenda to that which the general public would be given to believe it to be.

Interesting also is that custody sergeant, Sgt Greaves, was also at the alleged RTA infringement of ‘careless driving’ as if his personal control of both incident’s records had been an order.

The order may have been thus: ‘you will never get away with it, this time, too risky following yet another -VE definitive breath test in the station custody suite within a few minutes of a +Ve on the road side.


A summary of the arrests, following a road side breath test for whatever reason, appears to be, on police records, always -Ve on the police station’s definitive test.

Approximately, in date order, the trend indicates police arresting from ‘+VE road side breath test’ to ‘refusal at road side’ to their last dreamed up explanation, ‘alcohol mouth wash’ swigged on moment the Appellant is seeing a police car in his rear view mirror.

Since then, in 2002, with the South Wales Police having successfully had their victim struck off the veterinary register how does it justify having demanded since, on more than six occasions, the production of this Appellant’s driving documents only for him always to refuse?

South Wales Police need not have a lawful excuse to arrest and detain as it may fabricate a reason later when actually wishing to:

  1. examine the vehicle for defects,
  2. establish their victim’s latest insurance company to harass
  • be able to fabricate a ‘resisting arrest’ or ‘common assault’.


All of this has been compounded by examples in 4th 5th 6th&7th Actions

A string of similar fabricated breath test cases, to this one, dominated criminal proceedings:

  1. Action 2 para 6  Southey Street (McGregor/PC Holmes) +VE – -VE
  2. Action 2 para 8  Pontypridd Road (Sgt Lott) (+Ve -Ve)
  • Action 2 para 9  PC Kilberg (‘refused’)
  1. Action 2 para 10  PC Ely Link Road (-Ve) & why?
  2. Action 2 para 11  PC Osborne (‘refused’)
  3. Action 2 para 12 WPC Rewbridge (+Ve -Ve) (‘mouth wash’ excuse)
  • Action 3 para14 Ely (-Ve) veterinary surgery consulting room & why?
  • Action 3 para 4 PC Barber (-Ve) (mouth wash excuse)!


Yes, the appellant was stopped from being able to expedite his own duty, that of the suffering dog. The police had arrived long after he had arrived at the client’s house to examine an old patient and it was only when he was returning to his vehicle to enable him to find suitable materials to ‘put the dog down’, did the police arrive, with no blue lights flashing, allowed him to euthanize his patient before conducting a breath test.

The Appellant submits that the rectification form was only issued AFTER his release, as per regulations and outside the police station making the timings of this incident to have ended much closer to 0100hrs (see para 723).

The Appellant could only have been traced, in the first place, to a Barry back street by covert surveillance of his girlfriend, later wife’s telephone call to him when giving him the client’s address.

Withheld police records would have further confirmed no refusing of a breath test as, is the production of driving documents, it is an absolute offence but was fabricated by PC McGregor as a positive breath test but never since supported by PC Holmes.

  • The Defence asserts that PC McGregor on that date observed the Claimant driving in an erratic manner, put out a call for Mr Kirk to be stopped and that shortly before midnight, and PC Holmes on duty in Southey Street Barry observed Mr Kirk’s vehicle and stopped him. “In view of his driving, the officer asked the Claimant to take a roadside breath test”. The pleaded case for the Defence is that the test proved negative, PC Holmes told Mr Kirk he would be reported for driving without due care and attention and issued him with an HORT 1 form for failure to produce documents.
  • Mr Kirk’s pleaded case is that he was arrested at about 13.00 hours. His witness statement however states that he was stopped, accused of careless driving, late at night (A2/2.45B) and he did not appear to dissent in oral evidence from the suggestion that it was not long before 12 midnight; nor from the suggestion that outside the Cwm Ciddy public house, Court Road, Barry there had been a line of stationary vehicles built up on the Rhoose side of the road incident, a queue which he overtook. Mr Kirk agrees that there were two police officers present when he was stopped in Southey Street, one of whom he expressly identified as PC Holmes, the son of one of his clients.

Stopped from being able to expedite his own duty, that of the suffering dog. The police arrived while he was returning to his vehicle long after he had arrived at the scene. Withheld police records would have further confirmed no daft conduct ‘to refuse’, an absolute offence occurred  as this tactic was now being introduced following a string of negative breath tests or positive ones at the road side to be swiftly found to be zero on different police station’s alcoholmeter machines.

  • PC 3546 Gareth Holmes and DS 3432 Barrie McGregor (at the time a uniformed patrol officer) gave witness and oral evidence that they were the two officers who stopped Mr Kirk. Each stated that Mr Kirk was stopped because a police officer had circulated a message by police radio, to the effect that he had seen Mr Kirk driving erratically. Mr McGregor identified acting Police Sergeant Greaves as the officer who had done so (A2/2.59 and 47).

Incorrect if said in evidence

  • I received witness statement and oral evidence from Mr Kirk, Mr Greaves, Mr Holmes, and Mr McGregor.+++
  • One can reliably conclude from contemporaneous documents that it was not long before midnight when Mr Kirk passed the Cwm Ciddy Public House on his way to Southey Street. The HORT 1 form issued by PC Holmes (which was in respect of a near side front indicator light) is timed at 23.50 on 16.03.98 (A2/2.76). The pocket entry of then acting Sergeant Greaves reads “23.45 RTA Cwm Ciddy. Obs from M Kirk” (A2/2.56). The police notebook of PC Holmes reads “23.50 report Morris Kirk for due care and attention – issued HORT 1 and report for no tax” (A2/2.68). (For convenience I note also here that the notebook of PC McGregor reads “23.55 stop Maurice Kirk driving white Escort Van D816 BRF Southey Street o/s No.17. 10 failed to provide specimen of breath. Arrest convey to BPS. Reports” (A2/2.70).

No mention or production of police records of ‘no tax’, of course was due to senior officer intervention as was the case in the Civil Aviation Authority’s investigation following the dangerous flying by the police helicopter (see 2nd Action para 7). The latter is currently subject to an FOI application following its reluctance to even admit over the telephone they had given the south Wales Police yet another ‘rap on the knuckles’ as in 2nd Action para 2 ‘smuggling in from Ireland’ in an early 60s two seat Piper Cub.

No breath test was refused in Southey street and a positive sample was recorded despite no known alcohol circulating in the Appellant’s blood stream. A recurrent tactic engineered to obtain an arrest with the hope of a subsequent assault charge as had been a reliable tactic conveyed by the May 1993 Guernsey police incident in the Cardiff’s ‘garrotte type’/ stolen motor cycle incident. The Channel Island telephone call was admitted by the arresting officer, PC Thomas, unlawfully assisting the Appellant to be sent to prison for four days on the pretext he could not be identified. ‘identified!

  • Otherwise, the documents placed before the court in relation to this incident are sparse. It is not easy to disentangle the facts of this incident, for more than one reason.++++++++++
  • As to Mr Kirk, his questions in cross examination of Mr Holmes and Mr McGregor were, without intended disrespect to Mr Kirk, meandering; and he told me in his own oral evidence that “my memory is not good on this one [i.e. on this incident at Southey Street Barry]”. As to the police officers at the scene, Mr Holmes had no note of failure to produce a specimen of breath or arrest in his police notebook (and acknowledged that he did not have a full entry in his pocket book – witness statement paragraph 9 A2/2.60). It was from a police pocket book entry of PC McGregor that Mr Holmes in his witness statement noted Mr Kirk had failed to produce a specimen of breath and was arrested, “Mr Kirk was then conveyed to Barry Police Station. It is my recollection that Mr Kirk provided a negative breath test and would thereafter have been released” (A2/2.60).
  • Mr McGregor says that PC Holmes asked Mr Kirk to take a roadside breath test, Mr Kirk made a half hearted attempt at providing a breath test and failed to illuminate the lights on the intoximeter, so that he was arrested for failing to provide a breath test and taken to Barry Police Station. It is clear on the recollection of all three (Kirk, Holmes, McGregor) that Mr Kirk was arrested and taken to the police station. In oral evidence, the two police officers were at one in stating that that it was Mr McGregor who had arrested Mr Kirk. If this incident involved an HORT 1 form only, it would have sufficed to give it to Mr Kirk at the scene and leave him there. The notebook entry of Mr McGregor was fuller than that of Mr Holmes. In addition Mr McGregor produced at trial the back of his notebook, which he said was a list of arrests carried out by him during the currency of that notebook. That included “Kirk FTPBT [failed to provide breath test]” and the figure “44” as a page reference to the notebook, sequentially placed in the list of arrests. Mr Kirk was dryly ironic in questions about the list (“do you get a bonus for this?”); as was Mr McGregor in reply (“not necessarily so”). Mr Kirk did not challenge the authenticity of this document; and his own case is that he was arrested.

But arrested for a positive breath test

  • It was common ground that the police delayed their questions to or procedure of Mr Kirk because Mr Kirk was attending an emergency call.
  • In questions of Mr Greaves, the police officer at Cwm Ciddy public house, Mr Kirk accepted that he had driven past a line of stationary cars. His question was, “was there anything careless about it?”. Mr Greaves replied that his recollection was extremely vague but he would say, Yes. Mr Greaves stated that he was familiar with Mr Kirk, and had some recollection that he was aware of the vehicle which Mr Kirk was driving, but that he had no particular acquaintance with Mr Kirk or his reputation “other than [that he had been] some sort of nuisance to or obstructive of officers. That’s my recollection of what other police officers were saying”.

No evidence was given, when challenged, of the Appellant being obstructive other than the urgency for attending a dying dog in considerable pain.

  • He agreed that if careless driving were to be pursued as a charge, there would be a plethora of documents, and statements, but said that whether this was pursued would very much depend on the method of disposal on the night. I can find no record of any charge of careless driving, and Mr Kirk does not suggest that any was preferred (respective witness statements A2/2.45B – C, 45D – E and 45F).

An almost weekly occurrence, in those days, of being stopped in the hope some defect could be found on the Appellant’s vehicle or he had been drinking to excess.

  • In his cross examination of Mr Holmes, Mr Kirk was somewhat paternal, having known Mr Holmes as a child and the son of one of his clients. He did not suggest that Mr Holmes was making up or adjusting his evidence. However Mr Holmes’ recollection of this event was on his own account limited: Mr Kirk and Mr McGregor did recollect the two police officers coming into the house where Mr Kirk was putting an animal to sleep, whereas Mr Holmes did not recollect it, adding “I’m saying I didn’t go into the house”.
  • I found it of some interest that, as emerged from the evidence of PC Holmes, the various shifts at Barry police station did not greatly overlap in personnel. For him, the PC’s at Barry were to his recollection PC McGregor, PC Darren Jones, PC Charmaine Kirson, PC Neil Addis and PC Mike Ruddle. Save for Mr McGregor, in relation to Southey Street, none of these names feature in other incidents when Mr Kirk was stopped, or later charged. Equally, they do not feature in Mr Kirk’s own evidence (formal or informal), or in cross examination.

Another reason why Barry police station custody records have not been disclosed not just had a -Ve breath test and released was because PC Mike Ruddle featured in March 1996 Cardiff Crown hearing T960109 and lied about the number of burglaries the Appellant’ veterinary surgery had suffered in a comparatively short time.

The evidence of Appellant’s witness, Llantwit Major veterinary receptionist, nee Ms Jane Walker, was clear in this civil court hearing on how police would fail to attend her complaints when burgled, at least four times.

Despite loss and considerable damage done, to break in, PC Reynolds stated there were no burglaries and the particular dates four incidents, requiring Mr Fairman, the practice handy man, were recorded in police records as ‘criminal damage’- a police policy in certain parts of the UK that has been met by much media publicity when hiding the truth.

PC Rundles deliberately lied to the jury when the Claimant was facing an indictment of improper control of clinical waste. A few cat vaccine empty bottles and a couple of empty 2 ml syringes’ found with twenty other refuse bags identified to be from a number of local residents believing it to be an official refuse tip.

The fact that only the Englishman was prosecuted was unremarkable but PC Mike Ruddle, on oath, upon denying any of the break-ins to the Llantwit Major veterinary surgery seriously contributed, with Sgt Nicholas Kilberg, in having the Appellant’s name removed from the veterinary register.

This is another classic example of failed police disclosure of their records, repeated throughout these past 23 years and now in this civil trial, of the Appellant forgetting, due to the extreme passage of time even, sometimes, who was the witness standing in the witness box.

The Appellant’s needed, during this trial, to leaving well over two hundred files in his flat where he was very soon perpetually being  harassed by a Mark Davenport, believed to be in police employ as a paid police informant (see another Appellant’s stayed Particulars of Claim) in the Cardiff County Court following the grievous bodily harm on Bristol bailiff’s staff whilst having him evicted.

  • Asked by Mr Kirk what Mr Kirk’s reputation was Mr Holmes replied that if the name came up, ‘it was in the context that he was very difficult to deal with’; “I don’t know, but I’m sure there were some people who would prefer not to deal with Mr Kirk, because there’d always be a complaint (fuller citation above); it was not his view but what other officers thought of Mr Kirk, a “general view”. Mr Holmes said that he had never heard of and no-one had told him to harass Mr Kirk.
  • Mr McGregor said he had had previous encounters with Mr Kirk, but in taking his own animals to him. “This is the single dealing I had [with him], it’s fair to say that Mr Kirk had some dealings at that time with the police in Barry”.
  • Mr Kirk believes that there must have been some bugging of him, whether of his phone or his car, for them to have been able to find him at Southey Street. His recollection, albeit expressly not good, (see above), was that he arrived at the house, and was coming down the steps of it, when the police arrived. Mr McGregor said that they followed Mr Kirk to that address although he could not remember when they started following Mr Kirk’s vehicle: they “would have” followed him, and put the blue lights on, “we followed you into the house – you said there was an animal that needed to be seen urgently”. He remembered that it was a white Ford Escort Van. The HORT 1 form is marked as given at 23.50, five minutes after the 23.45 entry in acting Sergeant Greaves’ notebook. Mr Holmes told me that the HORT 1 form would indicate to him that Mr Kirk was driving, (which is not a positive recollection of seeing Mr Kirk driving).[
  • All three men were straightforward in demeanour when giving evidence in relation to this incident. Of the three, (Mr Holmes, Mr McGregor and Mr Kirk), the one who seemed to have much the greatest recall in relation to the police actions and procedure was Mr McGregor. If he is correct, then there had been a radio call to observe Mr Kirk for his driving (as spoken to by Mr Greaves, Mr McGregor, and reflected in two police notebooks), and the police car had followed Mr Kirk’s vehicle to 17 Southey Street. I was unable to discern any animus of hostility to Mr Kirk on the part of Greaves or Holmes or McGregor, and I have not succeeded in identifying material to support significant prior contact between any of them and Mr Kirk. Mr Kirk’s theme and belief is that on a number of occasions individual police officers may have simply been acting as foot soldiers on instructions of others, but, on the evidence which I have received, this is a self contained incident.
  • As  matter of detail in relation to this incident, leading counsel elicited from Mr Kirk that he used alcohol based chemicals in his work, that it would smell to people like ordinary alcohol, but the smell might linger long if spilled and that he would use it on a daily basis and carry it in his car.
  • I think it unlikely that this played any role in relation to Southey Street. Firstly, Mr Kirk comes alive when asked to recall a detail of treatment of an animal, and he told me that he did not use it that night. Secondly, there is no suggestion from Mr McGregor that it was on account of the smell of alcohol that he required a breathaliser test of Mr Kirk at the road side, as opposed to suggestion of a moving traffic offence. He related a half hearted attempt on the part of Mr Kirk at the breathaliser test, and failure to complete it. The contrary was not suggested by Mr Kirk in his questions to Mr Holmes or Mr McGregor by Mr Kirk, nor in his own oral evidence. However if there was reason to suspect a moving traffic offence (on direct observation by the police officer himself or on report from another police officer, here Mr Greaves) then it would be lawful to require a breath test. Thirdly, leading counsel explored what Mr Kirk would have been doing earlier, if it had been a Sunday, (and it is true that Mr Kirk said “most likely coming back from a surgical problem at the surgery … which gives you the answer you’re after …was I using alcohol as a veterinary surgeon …Yes) but 16 September 1998 was a Monday.
  • I accept, on the strong balance of probability, that Mr Kirk passed a stationary queue of vehicles at Cwm Ciddy approaching midnight. It is established that there was an emergency with an animal that he dealt with on his return to his surgery, and he must have been returning expressly to deal with it. He has strong affinity with and pressing concern for animals who may need his care; he has less than pressing concern for what might interfere with his own view of what is urgent. It is not surprising that he passed a suite of stationary vehicles in order to return to the animal which required his care and it is not surprising that the acting sergeant who was dealing with the incident at Cwm Ciddy considered Mr Kirk’s driving erratic and radioed to report it. I accept, on the balance of probability, the evidence of Mr McGregor that (this being about midnight, not 1300 hours). I find that it has been established on the balance of probabilities that Mr Kirk made a half hearted attempt at providing a breath test and failed to illuminate the lights on the intoximeter, and that he was arrested for failing to provide a breath test in consequence of that. This sequence of events is wholly consistent with the test being found to be negative when administered at the police station. It is inconsistent with any notion that he was arrested on this occasion as part of a policy or conspiracy of harassment.
  • The closing submissions for Mr Kirk assert that ‘Holmes was only too well aware, in the 10 years, of the Defendant using data from covert surveillance earlier in order to first ‘stop’ the Claimant’. I cannot trace this being put to this police officer and the police officer gave no such evidence. In fact, he had said that ‘routine stops were our bread and butter’. I do not yet again repeat the detail of what a Defendant has to prove, in order to justify arrest as lawful, (i) an honest suspicion that an offence has been committed and (ii) reasonable grounds to support that suspicion, and the standard required to establish it. I consider that the Defendant has shown each to the required standard.

Was this a ‘routine stop’ for their ‘bread and butter’?  

Proper disclosure of both police note books, their statements at the time and custody records will disclose no ‘failure to supply a specimen of breath’ was occasioned and that a breath test was recorded as positive.

The standard South Wales Police tactic, below and with this prime example of it in all three police officers’ note books redacted or ‘missing’ together with crucial PC Holmes written, on the day, section 9 witness statement, as officer in charge, is enough for yet another incident that should have been quashed without the need of oral evidence from anyone.


Extracts from:

 Sgt Greaves 1st August 2003 2nd Statement? (p51-Trial Bundle Action 1 vol.2)

Paragraph 2.

This statement is made from my own knowledge except where I have indicated that matters are based on information that I have obtained or matters which I believe to be true. Where I have obtained or matters which I believe to be true. Where appropriate I have indicated the source of my information and/or belief.

(NB the wording compared to the other two)

 PC McGregor’s 26tt June 2009 3rd Statement? (p 46)


Paragraph 2.

This statement is made from my own knowledge except where I have indicated that matters are based on information that I have obtained or matters which I believe to be true. Where appropriate I have indicated the source of my information and/or belief.

This long before drafted statement by Dolmans was only signed by McGregor, just as with the Chief Constable’s ordered affidavit, once HMC&TS(Wales) had prior arranged that this Appellant be refused bail, on 25th June 2009, when there never ever had been the remotest chance of a conviction, even in a Cardiff court, for ‘trading in machine guns’ once having him registered a MAPPA level 3 category 3 victim without his knowledge.

All that was left to ‘snuff out’ this civil claim was for their victim’s incarceration requiring the Respondent’s chief forensic psychiatrist, Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams, to fabricate a fax to His Honour Judge Llewellyn Jones QC to section their victim under the 1983 Mental Health Act despite having never even examined his patient.

After six months of the Appellant’s refusing to divulge his defences Dr Tegwyn Williams was further blackmailed to have their victim further incarcerated into Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital but indefinitely, to avoid both the ‘machine -gun conspiracy being published.

This only required two doctor’s signatures, Crown Prosecution Service barrister, for Richard Thomlow to lie over a possible brain tumour and for Dr Williams to confirm his brain scans, whilst unsuitably qualified, that their victim had irreversible ‘significant brain damage’ arising from being a long term drinking partner of Oliver Reed Esq, having ditched his WW11 Piper CuB in the Caribbean and had flown to Australia without a map.

PC Holmes 28th October 2008 2nd or 3rd Statement? (p66)

Paragraph 2.

This statement is made from my own knowledge except where I have indicated that matters are based on information that I have obtained or matters which I believe to be true. Where appropriate I have indicated the source of my information and/or belief99 07 04 Heli Danger013 (2)

96 08 CAA first page

96 CAA 2nd page

So, where are all these police officers ’contemporaneous records if no one will have them disclosed or have they also gone the same way as did HMCS(Wales), HM Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) and South Wales Police documents, in the 4th May 2012 Cardiff Crown Court. When the jury asked His Honour Judge, John Curran QC, asked the similar only to spark off a well prepared reposte?


z 9 may 2015

Maurice writes 1 April 2016:


“Proven Inspector Andrew Rice conspiracy” 30/03/16

Action 2 paragraph 5 speed camera St Nicholas 2.10.1997.

Facts referred to in this extract of judgment are contrary to the facts in the case.

Dolmans, Solicitors, for South Wales Police, deliberately manipulated the learned judge into stating the ‘speeding’ vehicle was a Guernsey registered veterinary ambulance. This was due to a conspiracy emanating from Inspector Trigg of Barry police station causing Appellant to be gaoled in Cardiff Prison as ‘unidentifiable’

EXTRACT from corrected October 2015 judge’s draft by Dolmans, solicitors

  1. Vehicle 43083, the vehicle on this occasion, was a Honda Acti Van. This vehicle ricocheted between registered keepers by November 1989 respectively Mr Kirk, Mrs Janet Kirk, Mrs Marianne Fanshawe and Mr Kirk again, all in Guernsey (“green” bundle pp 34–36). A theme of Mr Kirk’s evidence is that vehicles were being stopped because his name appeared as the registered keeper to police search; but it is not challenged that on this occasion the vehicle in question travelled through the speed camera at 44mph in a 30mph zone.

Both Janet and Mrs Fanshawe considered taking legal advice as to suing the police by their conduct with the former not being informed, until right now, as to why none of her children were ever to be educated in Wales owing to the apparent inherent deceit regularly nurtured in both the Principality’s schools and so called law courts.

Why? The vehicle on this occasion was not liable to road fund tax as a veterinary ambulance. (In Action 1 para 8.5 both judge and police failed to raise this simple fact re PC Lott’s excuse to stop-Road traffic Act).

PC Lott and police husband, Sgt Lott and also in Barry, had been briefed on all the Appellants Guernsey vehicles, in 1993 were not liable road fund tax (four motor bikes and thee motor vehicles) and hence the reason why all were mysteriously stolen in quick succession, mainly in broad day light and burnt out or destroyed.

None of his other UK registered veterinary vehicles, of course, were touched except the one Inspector Andrew Rice stole from right outside the Appellant’s veterinary hospital while his victim was tied up again with the usual weekly drivel from those, milking the system, in some equally smelly Cardiff Crown Court.

All this sudden flurry from Barry police officers, appearing so concerned about Maurice’s welfare, was triggered to try and bury ‘Wednesbury reasonable’ legal argument in (Action 1.6) Prince Charles incident over a blood stained ‘garotte’ type instrument that was used on His majesty’s Boverton farm, Llantwit Major.

FACT: These fabricated criminal allegations again required Inspector Andrew Rice to deny incidents as ‘never occurred’. The Appellant was prosecuted for ‘speeding’ in a veterinary practice vehicle whilst not the driver already known to be the case by both police and HM Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Stan Sofa.

FACT: Inspector Rice’s version of accounts, as in paragraph 314, (see paragraph 262 Action 1 claim 8.11 3 October 1993 at St Athan stop and arrest for driving whilst disqualified) is also quite untrue as when he described this earlier motoring case’s police and court records. First the Appellant was convicted, in his absence and then, again in the Appellant’s absence, the conviction was over turned.

FACT: The Appellant was denied access to either police or court records relied upon to, first, obtain a successful prosecution and then, second, be made ‘aware’ the conviction was over turned.

Does it stink or does it not demonstrate once again the thread of deception for these civil proceedings for a motorist again to be ‘stitched up’ out of sheer spite?

FACT: Throughout most of these incidents the South Wales Police knew the Appellant was never ever going to get incriminating HM court, HM CPS or police records from any South Wales establishment.

FACT: Inspector Rice had, also in evidence, with Christopher Ebbs alias Alexander present in the room, deny identifying him or having been at the Aust ferry cafe meeting, with Mr Alexander, CAA and Bristol police (involving an Appellant assault conviction, subject to appeal, in an incident in the Plume of Feathers public house, Bristol public house to discuss that and flights to Ireland.

FACT: The driver of the van, Kevin Fairman, was called to give evidence and without warning to anyone stated he was routinely stopped by police believing him to be the Appellant when driving any of the now Appellant’ recognised vehicles.  No explanation was given or inspection of the vehicle other than police admitting they believed in was the Appellant who had been driving.

FACT: Kevin Fairman indicated he was stopped more by Barry police in the Guernsey registered Acti van, see-paragraph 684 below, assumingly because all side windows had been previously deliberately ‘blacked out’ by the Appellant and leaving only a small slit across the windscreen, for legally requirements.

FACT: Both police senior management and their lawyers, Dolmans, had been lying through their back teeth for years with their collective denials of the very existence of the Appellant’s veterinary ambulance featuring in this ‘speed trap’ fabrication.

FACT: The selection of ‘mysteriously now found’ police photos, (see- Action 1 claim 8.23 May 1995 The vet ambulance), of the Appellant’s untaxed with no MOT parked on a double yellow line, over night,  veterinary ambulance, outside his veterinary surgery, were originally taken to allow PC Matin/PC O’Brian and all other circulating police officers, should they see the Appellant and no one else driving, to have the excuse to stop him and attempt to identify their victim’s latest insurance company to harass ( see insurance agent, Mrs Kenyon/nee Charlie Brinson and  vet nurse, Mrs Walker, damming joint oral evidence including – police in back of a Barry court room caught say, “ we are going to eventually catch the little bastard always talking human rights)

At the summary hearing therefore some FACTS also not in this judgement:

  •  Inspector Rice would not call the operator of the camera at the inciden
  • but prosecuted the Appellant when knowing he was not the driver
  • Mr Soffa subsequent arrest, for ‘perverting the course of justice’, was now further supported by the incriminating clear photograph of the driver that had fluttered so gently to the ground from his CPS file.
  • had assisted in the earlier Barry magistrates hearing despite having already supplied HM Crown Prosecution Service’s Mr Stofa with two contrasting photographs name and address of the actual driver, Kevin Fairman.
  • had confiscated the CPS court file, to shred no doubt, with all parties in the court room intently looking exactly as he had done or Sergeant Hill had done following the collapsed ‘smuggling pigs flight to Ireland’ case.
  • The case was immediately abandoned for all trace of the hearing to be ‘expunged from the record’ as a lawyer said at the time in 2006 as. this is exactly what Texas’s State Psychiatric Prison’s court did to avoid the publicity.
  • The Federal Aviation’s Authority’s speedy intervention, by a ‘wrap over the knuckles’, was kept from all the American newspapers just as the CAA’s repeated complaint of these Welsh police, in Actions 2 paragraph 2 flight to Ireland 9th February 1996 and Action 2 paragraph 7 – 4 July 1999 the police helicopter.
  • along with at least five other officers he was last seen escorting away Mr Sofa, in handcuffs, with CPS file neatly tucked under his arm, to make, no doubt, the yet undisclosed but detailed MG11 statement as to ‘what the magistrate saw’.
  • Until the South Wales Police had intervened by fabricating a PNC record coupled by erroneous psychiatric information to Austin’s police and repeating themselves in 2009, over a machine gun incident, all knew that at no time had the Appellant broken any FAA legislation while landing his cub next to the President’s ranch. He was simply carrying a letter thanking GW, personally, for causing this Appellant’s life from being saved from the Caribbean sharks by Julie, the pilot and one of his Coast Guard helicopters.
  • So, again, as if it was a figment in the imagination of the Appellant this is another court process that just never happened triggered by the clerk of the court’s 10 am fax to the Appellant, signed J Caress and hoped to be buried.
  • Disappeared Stipendiary magistrate, Ms Watkins may well have been an eye witness to the other similarly collapsed hearing, see paragraph 430 Action 1 claim 8.23 May 1995 The vet ambulance but definitely in the ‘smuggled pigs’ fiasco case all to have the Appellant’s name removed from the veterinary register.
  • This incident supports the view to an overarching MAPPA type 24/7 surveillance conspiracy, along with the many yet to be heard ‘stayed’ damages actions, currently protected by HMC&TC, as in the current appeal by JR in the Royal Courts of Justice and Supreme Court, if need be, of no ‘restraining order’ having ever been served on their victim, in the 1st Dec 2001 Cardiff magistrates’ cells to then maliciously used to gaol him, for years to further prejudice his preparation for these civil proceedings.
  • As for any other witnesses, from the two crammed full vehicles, dispatched by Inspector Andrew Rice with all sirens blaring across the town, none, it appeared, could be identified
  • Despite many years of both CPR and FOI act applications none of these three collapsed hearings nor that of 1st Dec 2011‘harassment’ conviction, when CPS switched exhibits mid-trial to be confiscated by Cardiff police to prevent the Appellant access to them fin subsequent trials have disclosed no contemporaneous notes of evidence or identity of any used exhibits.
  1. Action 2 paragraph 5 speed camera St Nicholas 2.10.1997 On 2nd October 1997 a speed camera snapped a Ford Escort Van D821 LNY travelling apparently above the speed limit of 30mph. This is not disputed. The monitor on the speed camera showed 44mph to the police officer operating it. A Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent to Mr Kirk as keeper of the vehicle requiring him to identify the person driving the vehicle on this occasion.
  1. Vehicle 43083, the vehicle on this occasion, was a Honda Acti Van. This vehicle ricocheted between registered keepers by November 1989 respectively Mr Kirk, Mrs Janet Kirk, Mrs Marianne Fanshawe and Mr Kirk again, all in Guernsey (“green” bundle pp 34–36). A theme of Mr Kirk’s evidence is that vehicles were being stopped because his name appeared as the registered keeper to police search; but it is not challenged that on this occasion the vehicle in question travelled through the speed camera at 44mph in a 30mph zone.

How on earth could the Appellant have known what speed either of the vans had been doing? The police barrister would not call or cross examine on it in this civil trial as that would of liberated a whole new fragrance of corruption into the court room as yet another new ‘can of worms’ is opened.

  1. It appears to have been processed in the ordinary way by the Central Ticket Office, without fault in the process itself. It is not disputed that the Notice was sent in proper time (see notice itself dated 13.10.1997 at A2/2.20, and his letters of 21.7.1998 and 17.9.1998 at A2/2.38. A summons was issued on 27.4.1998 within the required 6 month period for excess speed and for failing to give information identifying the driver (A2/2.29, 31). Mr Kirk in fact pleaded guilty, “to save time”, but in mitigation said he was not driving and the Magistrates restored the matter to be tried at a hearing on 1st June 1998. On that occasion, the prosecution withdrew the prosecution (see A2/2.36 and 41 – 42). A letter from the CPS dated 28 September 1998 states that, following the adjournment of the case on 27 April 1998, “the case was further reviewed by a member of the Crown Prosecution Service. In view of the quality of the photographic evidence the Crown took the view that the case should not proceed against you in relation to the speeding offence” (see A2/2.42).
  1. The pleaded case is that the prosecution was instituted and continued by police officers maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, in that they knew that Mr Kirk was not the driver of this car at the time of the alleged traffic offence and there was no evidence that he had committed the offence (A2/2.1). His case is that the driver was his employee Kevin Fairman.
  1. The Defence, after further particulars of the date and occasion, served a witness statement from PC Lovell dated 3.11.2009, which simply records the date, time, vehicle registration number, and checks as to system, and that PC Lovell on that day sealed the video cassette and forwarded it to the Central Ticket Office at Treforest in the normal way. It did not identify or describe the driver. Mr Kirk declined repeated offers to call him for cross examination.

CF paragraph 684

  1. A copy of the photographic evidence from the video camera was sent to Mr Kirk: by letter of 11 November 1997 to the Central Ticket Office, he asked for a copy of it (A2/2.21); by letter dated 9 December 1997 he wrote again stating “I refer to my letter of the 11 November and your response thereto enclosing a photograph. I am able to confirm that the driver is not me but I cannot confirm his/her identity” (A2/2.23).
  1. By 21 July 1998 Mr Kirk was writing both to the police and to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors that “on receipt of the Notice of Intended Prosecution I wrote several times to the South Wales Ticket Office and my letter of the 10 March identified the driver, and his address who was well known to the Barry police as my employee”. By the time Mr Kirk was making a witness statement for the purpose of the present proceedings he was asserting that “in October 97 the police summoned me for speeding despite the fact that to the police’s knowledge I was not the driver. The camera photo clearly identified Fairman. Therefore the summons and trial were motivated by malice….. The police never even approached Fairman despite the fact that I told them in writing at the earliest opportunity that he was the driver, not me, and therein lies why I say it was harassment and malicious” (witness statement 19 May 2002 A2/2.3D); he repeated this in his 2009 statement (paragraph 647 A2/2.3B).
  1. In fact what he had written to the police was, “One of my staff has suggested the driver may have been a Mr K Fairman of 52 Tynewydd Road, Barry. Without sight of the original film I am in some difficulties.” (A2/2.28, emphasis supplied).
  1. My letter dated 21 January 1998 the police had written in reply that Mr Kirk had failed to establish the person and invited him to view the film at the Central Ticket Office which might assist in the identification process adding “I should point out that it is the responsibility of the registered keeper to supply such information” following a police request and “if you wish to view the film would you please contact this office on the above telephone number when the necessary appointment can be made” (A2/2.25).
  1. Mr Fairman was called as a witness before me. He had a worried look throughout; he had an uncertain memory. His written statement said that in 1995 he was stopped by Barry Police “at least three times” and made to produce his driving documents while driving Mr Kirk’s Guernsey registered van”, whereas orally before me he did not remember three occasions “I can only remember one occasion I was stopped”. (In fact, he was stopped three times, on 14.08.1995 in the Honda Acti van, see HORT 1 at Mr Kirk’s green Bundle 33; and on 23.08.1995 and 22.9.1995, see letter from South Wales Police 24 January 1996 Mr Kirk’s “green” bundle at 43).
  1. In my judgment the driver may well have been, and probably was, Mr Fairman. In a statement made during the currency of the hearing before me, Mr Fairman stated that in 1997 he was employed by Mr Kirk and was driving one of his vehicles through St Nicholas to cause him to receive a speeding ticket (“second statement” in Mr Kirk’s additional, “green”, bundle). In oral evidence, he told me that he had no dealings with the police, it was all dealt with by Mr Kirk; he could not remember being shown a picture of the person from the speed camera; and he did not remember the camera flashing but he remembered “the situation of it all. [Mr Kirk] must have said that I picked up a speeding ticket, it would have been the little white van I used to drive”.
  1. However it is clearly not the case that Mr Kirk “told [the police] in writing at the earliest opportunity that [Mr Fairman] was the driver’.
  1. Strictly in law, he was required to identify the driver within 28 days of service of the Notice of Intended Prosecution (which was on or about 13 October 1997). It would have been open to the police to lay an information, for summonses to be issued, by late November 1997 if Mr Kirk had not identified the driver by then.
  1. In fact, he asked for a copy of the photographic evidence by letter dated 11 November 1997 and expressly stated, having seen the photograph, to the police that as to the driver he could not confirm “his/her identity”. By 10 March 1998, five months after 2 October 1997 and over four months after expiry of the 28 day period, Mr Kirk was going no further than to say that one of his staff had suggested that the driver “may” have been a Mr K Fairman.
  1. In view of Mr Kirk’s own difficulty with the quality of the photographic evidence there is nothing inherently improbable in the CPS having taken a view, (after 27 April 1998 when Mr Kirk had pleaded guilty), that the quality of the photographic evidence was such that the case should not proceed (letter 28.9.1998 A2/2.42). The decision to offer no evidence was taken before the court hearing, and before any representations or requests by Mr Kirk at that hearing (see fax Magistrates Court to Mr Kirk “the prosecution is withdrawing the case this morning – no need to attend Court” (A2/2.36).
  1. Mr Kirk has (or has developed) furious suspicions or belief of ill motive or conspiracy in relation to this particular incident. Those centre on the fact that at the hearing the CPS representative was someone who knew Mr Kirk personally and regularly met him, but he would not produce the photograph to Mr Kirk, “he just withdrew the charge” (Mr Kirk’s statement of 2002 A2/2.3D). Remarkably, Mr Kirk physically seized Mr Stoffa the CPS representative and physically tried to wrest from him the photograph. “I therefore arrested the CPS Prosecutor, Stoffa. After a very long wait in the courtroom for the police, I handed him over by the scruff of the neck to the Police Sergeant, making it quite clear that I needed to make a statement of complaint and that they were to seize the CPS file before documents were shredded, as they had been in my previous cases when I’d made similar complaints…. The police refused to interview me concerning my complaint.” (A2/2.19 written statement of ?? 2002).
  1. Mr Kirk identifies Police Sergeant 1581 Rice as having attended (together with a body of police arriving ‘under blue flashing lights’) and as having seized the CPS file. This would in itself not be relevant to the merits of having prosecuted this matter, but during the course of this hearing a Mr Christopher Ebbs (or now Mr Alexander-Ebbs) attended Court and purported to identify Inspector Rice as a police officer present at a meeting at Aust Motorway Service Station when Mr Ebbs alleged that Mr Rice applied pressure to him to “sex up” his allegations against Mr Kirk in relation to an incident at the Plume of Feathers Public House Bristol.
  1. I deal with the evidence of Mr Alexander-Ebbs elsewhere, in more detail, but in respect of the present incident, it suffices to say that first, up to certainly 2007 Mr Kirk was anxious to emphasise to the courts that any information given by Mr Ebbs was totally false; and second, looking forward to my findings below, I found the evidence of Mr Ebbs before me bizarre and incapable of belief.

Would the RCVS now hold a similar view to their one ruled upon on 29th May 2002 when so reliant on the evidence of Christopher Ebbs, Inspectors Howard Davies, Khilberg and Andrew Rice and evidence from the likes of PC Osborne?

  1. When Mr Rice himself gave evidence before me, he denied any recollection of attending on the “Stoffa” occasion. I consider that there was more than a hint of seeking to distance himself from any and every possible suggested involvement with Mr Kirk. Whilst Mr Kirk’s memory is certainly not immune from error, as I have observed elsewhere, including occasions during the hearing before me when within minutes he misremembered what a witness had said, there is here a letter bearing the date 1 June 1998, (the very day of the Magistrates Court hearing involving Mr Stoffa), in which Mr Kirk identified “Sgt Rice number 1581”.
  1. I deal below with the allegations against PS Rice. However on logical analysis of Mr Kirk’s claim that he was maliciously prosecuted for speeding in respect of the present incident, (i) the fact of speeding by the vehicle in question is not in question; (ii) the matter was processed via the Central Ticket Office in the usual way; (iii) the photographic evidence was sent to Mr Kirk; (iv) Mr Kirk went no further towards identifying the driver (contrary to his later assertion or recollection) than I have set out above, and he did so long outside the statutory period within which he was required to identify the driver. I find it impossible fairly to discern evidence of malice or want of reasonable cause on the part of the police. Mr Kirk’s incendiary reaction to the CPS prosecutor declining to give up possession to him of the speed camera photograph speaks much to Mr Kirk’s personality and character, but the role actual or supposed of Sergeant Rice in restoring order to the courtroom or its environs adds nothing to Mr Kirk’s case overall in respect of this incident.


  1. Incorrect- both of the alleged van incidents of ‘speeding’ remain in question
  2. It was not processed in the ‘normal way’
  • no photographic evidence was ever sent to the Appellant, safe to identify anyone, especially when put alongside the still withheld clear enhanced copy of the CPS’s photo that had fluttered out of the police file to the court room floor

Despite the Appellant’s secretary’s repeated requests by both letters and telephone calls and by supplying further proof of the Appellant’s innocence, once again, ‘selective amnesia’ appears to have dominated those in Barry police station, deciding or not to prosecute, with their ‘in house gravy train’ colleagues, the area’s CPS office, just across the corridor within their police station walls

Ample opportunity had been allowed, from the Appellant’s information, supplied before the Barry magistrates hearing to withdraw the prosecution doomed to failure when fuelled by obsessed senior management with a ‘current batting average’ by now of still only a 11% win overall. This was to change once both roadside tactics were changed and HMC&TS offered to give a helping hand.

Inspector Rice’s denial of being at the incident of CPS’s Stofa arrest is again indication for the need for an outside police force to obtain proper disclosure of court records and a stark warning to others who chose to cross the bridge from England especially when the Westminster is shortly to grant Wales, like Guernsey, both their own police force and judicial autonomy!


M kirk SEPT 2013 1ba.jpgA.jpgBabove: MK outside Cardiff Civic court with his files at the beginning of his case proper against S. Wales police in March 2013, relating to 20+ years of [alleged] “harassment” by S. Wales police, during which MK was remanded + held in prison for over 4 years since 2009, the “charges” re: the convictions “dropped” after MK had done months in prison – when he would be then freed [except one case – the latest, when he was jailed in Oct. 2013, the conviction of which is still under review]. Pic updated approx. 500 days after his imprisonment date 16 October 2013 [for “harassment” of the bent dr. who made the false report stating MK had a “brain tumour” even though he didn’t, and anyway, the dr. wasn’t qualified to make such a report for the court anyway – even so, the court still accepted and acted on this false report – see more on that: SOLICITORS, GMC WILL NOT ERASE FALSE REPORT ABOUT NON-EXISTENT “BRAIN TUMOUR” . MK, it is alleged, was jailed in October 2013 as the “Final Submissions” were about to be heard at this court – something someone felt couldn’t take place…”it stinks, doesn’t it Ron?”…

Received; 24 March 2016:

Cardiff Prison now deny I was There?

Frantic to cover-up the Cardiff cabal having now re written 1st December 2011 court logs and clerk of the court’s contemporaneous notes of evidence, in District Judge John Charles fiasco of a magistrates hearing (listen to tape recording!) over Dr Tegwyn Williams’ fabricated forensic evidence and police have now snatched the original court exhibits, to stop the 3rd and now 4th jury trial seeing the forgeries , now today, my Bristol lawyers inform me the prison are saying they did not even take me to court that day!

‘We have reviewed our records and find that no movement of Mr Kirk took place on the date in question unfortunately. Could the date have been earlier or later for us to expand our search please as it was a very specific request for information. Thank you.

Kind regards

K S”

Business Hub Manager, HMP Cardiff Tel: —–

Email: [redacted]

First its Judge John Curran telling 4th May 2012 jury there were no court records of magistrates evidence ‘available’, then Lee Barker, court cell manager told the jury he had served on me 1st December 2011 ‘restraining order’, also quite untrue and only proven by my having to arrest the CPS barrister, David Gareth Evans, who, himself, had conspired with the South Wales Police to concoct a new allegation, as nothing before court carried a custodial sentence and had switched court exhibits before police confiscated them all.!

GEOamey Custodial Services had five of its men dragging me out of the cell at 17.05 hrs, and by throwing my crutches on my head as I lay on the floor tried to what I guess was the restraining order, failed to stuff in my pocket the returned restraining order as some idiot had sent it over to the prison by mistake when all had been told, in advance of evidence, I was to serve the maximum prison sentence!

SEE: 11 12 01 Restraining Order

23 March 2016:

UK Barrister Complaint BS 614159 etc

Barrister Robert Trevis knowingly lied to His Honour Judge Denyer QC, in Bristol Crown Court on 10th July 20, when he stated that my rent monies, stolen by his client, were acquired by his fanciful idea that they were the ‘proceeds of crime’ and that I had misled the court into thinking I had sufficient funds of my own to finance in order to seek remedy in a UK law court for a simple freezing-order on the villain’s bank accounts.

Meantime, the court schemed to wasted many months only to correct their deliberate error, in the first place, over the requisite court and court fee needed.

My money was stolen by his client as a police accomplice but only because Cardiff magistrates court had originally ordered him to be my McKenzie Friend, without my consent, knowing my now 24 year running damages claim against the Chief Constable had considerable merit but not without funds.
Jeffrey Matthews [see the post “Police Informant in the Camp: – ed.] was employed to tape record all UK court hearings relating to Dr Tegwyn Williams, the then South Wales Police chief forensic psychiatrist, as he had deliberately falsified my medical records with Professor Rodger Wood of Swansea University for His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC’s clandestine hearing, without their victim, on 2nd Dec 2009 in Cardiff Crown Court
A further Crown Prosecution Service barrister, known to Mr Trellis in their conspiracy, was a Mr Richard Thomlow who sought my indefinite incarceration, being the HM prosecutor for the already doomed 2010 ‘trading in machine-guns’ trial, in Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital as a MAPPA level 3 category 3 registered victim.
Barrister Thomlow had deliberately misled the court by stating my ‘significant brain damage’ was due to a brain tumour. No one, to this day, has officially told me of these medical findings as I was again banned from hearing my own court hearing for not employing a Cardiff barrister
Barrister Robert Trevis again lied in the 2015 Bristol County Court proceedings in a further hearing, this time before Mr Justice Newrey QC.
Barrister Charles Murray, also of Queens Square Chambers, knew all about the above conspiracy when he replaced Mr Trevis from acting for the thief. It did not stop him either from misleading the court when the judge asked to see as a copy of the sealed copy of my particulars of claim.
Both he and his client lied having a copy just as Matthews had lied receiving other papers proven to have been posted to his address. It needed the Claimant to physically point at it on the Defendant’s table, thought hidden, for the case to be adjourned for yet another chance to swindle the money.
Barrister Robert Trevis had known, all along, CPS barrister David Gareth Evans, in the 2009 harassment hearing fiasco, had switched police concocted court exhibits and had knowingly relied on fabricated police evidence which is why police confiscated the altered court exhibits, court log and clerk of the court’s contemporaneous notes.
Mr Trevis’ colleague, barrister Michael Smyth, also of Queens Square Chambers, Cardiff, had, of course, prosecuted me in this alleged 3rd breach of 1st Dec 2011 restraining order which is why it is currently with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Barrister Robert Trevis was also aware that the police had, immediately after the March 2014 3rd ‘breach of a restraining order’ jury trial, seized the court exhibits to have the court log and clerk of the court’s contemporaneous records altered in order for His Honour Judge Roland to quash the original ‘restraining order’ that has caused me years of unlawful imprisonment

Maurice Kirk's photo.
Maurice Kirk's photo.WILLIAMS2


“In The Cardiff County Court BS614159 etc
South Wales

14th March 2016

Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales

Claimant Fresh Evidence also includes:

1. Action 1 claim 8.6 Received today from Defence solicitors the ‘missing 3rd page’ of Grand Avenue Cardiff /garrotte stolen BMW custody record sheet with data significantly contradicting evidence of two arresting and custody officers
i) Total contradiction on manner & reason of Claimant’s arrest, contrary to PACE 1984 (not amended version) with silence of their victim proved entirely lawful

ii) The claimant was no more nearer the BMW than all the other motor cycles and

iii) delay in handcuffs significant indicating the time sheet changed to fit and

iv) who ever said BMW stolen? Record shows nearly 2.5 hrs elapsed before checking if claimant had an ignition key for the motor cycle while other charges dreamed up were as equally non sensicle

v) and no mention of immediate contact with Guernsey police to be told, ‘oh, you have the ‘flyingvet’ in your cells, he goes to court in Nazi uniform, admitted as said, on oath by arresting officer

vi) and ‘we have a warrant for his arrest’. And all 4 days detained in custody for hoped extradition back to the Channel Islands, dream on, so where is the record of that?

vii) And where is the record of the Barry officer who came over with the duty solicitor, no doubt and opened cell flap saying, ‘that is Maurice kirk’ as he then slammed the flap shut with clear relish.

The record indicates the Claimant was suspected of stealing the BMW but that is not what PC Thomas had decided, the court heard, when he had unlawfully pulled the claimant to the ground. His contemporaneous record stated the claimant had ‘run away’ when contrary evidence was heard by the police also attending.

2. Action 1 claim 8.13 28th Oct 2015 statement of truth by G Thomas /Morris (framed and locked up in Cardiff prison during civil trial to avoid his evidence) seeing foreign number plate on the crashed BMW m/c with Barry police attending to when the Claimant’s client arrived, to remove the motor bike by pick-up truck, no number plate found on it but immediately was able to trace the bike ‘s origin on serial numbers.

Incidentally, the Claimant believes is currently longer mentally reliable on some issues……but did the police lawyers receive copy of the prisoner’s statement of truth, before court order dead line for FRESH EVIDENCE and did the Claimant get confirmation from lawyers it was a another fanciful fairy tale and Thomas/Morris never did get locked up to avoid the trial?

Apologies but short term memory possibly ‘shot’ due to unusual and extreme circumstances of having chosen to live in the wrong part of Wales, get married and produce our beautiful daughter he is no long allowed to see or is he really going mad, at last?

3. No wonder the lying 20th May 93 Cardiff police with PNC printout, could not admit having his crashed motor bike after clearly identifying m/c ownership and veterinary nurse, Ms Spring, on 21st May 1993, remonstrating in court to get CPS to pull out and wash their hands of any criminal allegations eg ‘in possession of a garrotte type instrument’…indictable.

4. Oct 93 Barry police therefore could not return the stolen bike as ‘garrotte’ incident had quickly traced Claimant as lawfully bought from a Guernsey policeman so they stupidly, in the dead of night, where the thief had crashed her, removed the back number plate.

Action 1 claim 2.2 & Action 2 claim 7 Three pilots with considerable personal experience all confirm, by their March 2016 statements, that it would be quite abnormal to expect Air Traffic Control to phone ahead to any aircraft’s destination once it had left its own zone unless it was on a flight plan, possibly commercial or had filed with both aerodromes.

It was the withheld ATC officer in the Cardiff control tower, no doubt, a M Clayton, that had coded a warning message to the claimant over the radio, when the aircraft was approaching Newport of the bizarre police conduct of scrambling their expensive helicopter, with a video camera, just to film the Claimant with no valid licence in command, P1. Did they later look in his log book?

In the 1st incident Mr Paul Ebbs/Alexander had told police the Claimant had been smuggling pigs in and out of Eire that they believed causing more blatant police criminal conduct in the court room by frantically FABRICATING STATEMENTS AND BACK DATING DOCUMENTS, later, when the case under terrorism charges collapsed in chaos.

The police sergeant snatched the locally concocted CPS file, in Barry police station, from the bemused senior CPS gentleman, Mr Mundy from London head office, to try and bury yet another one of their day to day conspiracies simply to boost their pensions.

As for 1st incident, ‘clearance’ with police to go foreign denied happened, in the 90s, it was simply a telephone call that was often sufficient if the airfield knew the pilot.

The reply from Ms Jenkins, in court, was quite wrong and the fact the Claimant never heard, for immediate rebuttal, when the defending QC’s questioned it, was unfortunate and never the barrister’s fault but an example of manipulation and yet another example of why UK’s archaic judicial system needs radical reform.

5. Claimants 18th Feb2016 application for adjournment lists no end of examples of the police still withholding what would be FRESH EVIDENCE.

6. March 2016 CAA cover -up letter confirms they were ‘heavily’ implicated in police helicopter illegalities over its very dangerous chasing of the Claimant’s aircraft when the CAA would have told the idiots but won’t, of course disclose. Déjà vu and the 70s police and their similar aviation antics resulting in CAA rebuke.

Extract of 2nd March 2016 CAA reply:

‘Having considered your request in line with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, we have conducted a search within the relevant business areas and can confirm that we do not hold any of the information you have requested’.

7. Anyone can take command an aircraft in conditions requiring the safety of both a UK registered airframe or its occupants CLEARLY PRINTED IN ANO (as amended) kept, possibly, under the claimant’s pillow.

The Claimant knows, full well, this piece of legislation as he served a 6 month prison sentence term when promised a £100 fine, at most, by his then defence barrister, in a quaint Dorset cottage, HMP Dorchester, entertaining the pilot/ HMP Governer with his flying stories whilst sewing mail bags. Why? BECAUSE no one in the Bournemouth court had read the Air Navigation Order, except the claimant, either!

You just try getting a message from the court dock to a defending barrister who is on his feet getting it all wrong. Attract the usher dozing, to attract the instructed solititor, to write a note to his barrister who, by the time he gets it, the critical witness has already left the court building and on his number 7 bus home.

8. Legality of private lawyers taking on the case instead of force solicitor In 1993 to this recent FOI request, for proof of its legality, appears ignored and is now with the Information Commissioner to juggle with, in his usual way. The police lawyers appear to have not reso much trouble.

9. Claimant 1st March 2016 blocked application to restore the over 6 year stayed ‘machine gun’ case. No, it is the Dr Tegwyn Williams MAPPA/ ‘shoot to kill’ MAPPA Barbara Wilding conspiracy that the court is minded to cover up.

10. Unlawfully, on 8th June 2009, in some back office in Barry police station next to their cosy ‘in-house CPS office full of the usual ‘white collar crime’ lap dogs, is what the judiciary is so well bent on covering up while autonomy and its own police force application is with the current Prime Minister.

11. Action 1 claim 8.3 Veterinary nurse email, Mr Parry, clearly stating he cannot remember what happened on the road side in 1993 because it was so long ago…..the original police objective,,,,delay, delay by using any means, lawful or otherwise:

Extract from 22nd Feb 2016 email

‘Hi Maurice,

Unfortunately, as this incident happened nearly 23 years ago my memory of events is not sufficiently reliable for me to rewrite my statement. I have attached my statement of truth as requested.

My overriding memory of the event was one of apprehension having never been involved with the police before.

Sorry I can’t be of more help but I don’t feel I can add anything that will be of assistance after this length of time.

I understand the importance of this event for you, but as a 17 year old I was caught up in an incident of which I did not realise the significance and so was perhaps was not as observant as I could have been’.

12. 18th Feb 16 claimant application

Sect 10:
1. By not allowing Actions 1CF03351, 7CF07345, 9CF02983 & 0CF03921 to proceed is unlawful

2. By HMC&S not allowing transcripts of evidence, ordered by this claimant, is unlawful

3. By not correcting the approved judgement of facts, not found in evidence, is unlawful

4. By not, under the CPR Slip Rule, correcting the 5th February 2016 order is unlawful

5. By not now ordering the defendant disclosure of now identified police records is unlawful

6. By not now ordering magistrates disclosure of records, in all three Actions, is unlawful

7. By not allowing the claimant sight of his court exhibits, eg Insp Kilberg’s conduct, is unlawful

8. By not allowing proof of independent and competent eye witness, in p7, would be unlawful

9. By not allowing CCTV forensic examination in PC Osborne assault (2nd Act par.11) is unlawful

10. By not allowing claimant right to listen to court CDs as the court and police do, is unlawful

11. By HMC&TS not returning court fee or disclosing court records, in 9CF02983, is unlawful

12. By not ordering the defendant to explain why his subpoenaed eye witness, in 1st Action para 8.13, was detained in prison during the 2013 trial, when known to be innocent, is unlawful

13. By not ordering defendant to explain its refusal to accept witness summonses is unlawful

14. By not ordering 3rd Action ‘theft of cheques’ from surgery police records, to date, is unlawful

This list is far from exhaustive

Action 3 claim 1& 2 Stolen cheques from veterinary surgery
This incident was struck out unfairly but the court has been reminded in correspondence that the police refused to interview the thief but the claimant has since apprehended him, NOT ONCE BUT TWICE and police still refused to interview him eventually conspiring with Dr Tegwyn Willams’ London solicitor to detain the claimant from 13th October 2013 to March 2015 when the Claimant arrived at Barry police station, on the way to a critical Cardiff Crown Court hearing, before Her Honour Eleri Rees, in this case, on more breach of a restraining order allegations never served in the first place.

Convicted because the Claimant was denied police disclosure of documents that, again, would of vindicated their victim’s innocence.

A host of new evidence has been found in these below first 30 odd of the 100 police incidents yet to be drafted in the time due to the scale of the work outstanding which is why this claimant has applied for 28 days more time to ‘bring the message home’ of an over aching conduct in 23 years of ‘across the board’ malfeasance to blatant criminal conduct to pervert the course of justice.

Actions 1/2/3 Incidents Headings for Quick Reference

Action 1 claim 8.3 2 January 1993 no back lights
Action 1 claim 8.5 24th March 1993 stopped by PC Jane Lott.
Action 1 claim 8.6, 20 May 1993 arrest at Grand Avenue Cardiff
Action 1 claim 8.9 22.9.1993 stop of Triumph Spitfire CKV
Action 1 claim 8.11 3 October 1993 at St Athan stop and arrest for driving whilst disqualified.
Action 1 claim 8.13 stolen motorcycle not returned
Action 1 claim 8.15 09.08.1994 stop by PC Kerslake while driving Triumph Spitfire
Action 1 claim 8.16 re-arrest 9 August 1994 for alleged damage to wing mirror.
Action 1 claim 8.17 10 August 1994 Triumph Spitfire arrest for driving whilst disqualified.
Action 1 paragraphs 8.18, 8.19, 8.20, and 8.21
Action 1 claim 8.23 May 1995 The vet ambulance
Action 1 8.26 6 June 1995: the “Gafael” incident
Action 2 paragraph 2 flight to Ireland 9th February 1996
Action 2 paragraph 3 – 12 May 1996 overtaking cyclists.
Action 2 paragraph 4 Link Road Barry 21.1.1997 stopped by PC Roch.
Action 2 paragraph 5 speed camera St Nicholas 2.10.1997.
Action 2 paragraph 6 – 16 March 1998 Southey Street, Barry and PC Holmes.
Action 2 paragraph 7 – 4 July 1999 the police helicopter
Action 2 paragraph 8 – 8 August 1999 stop at Pontypridd Road Barry.
Action 2, Paragraph 9, 1 December 1999 detention of Mr Kirk’s vehicle.
Action 2 Paragraph 10 stop of BMW on Ely link road 23 January 2000.
Action 2 Paragraph 11 stop at junction of Newport Road and Albany Road Cardiff 5 April 2000
Action 2, paragraph 12 stop of Ford Escort on A473 near M4 Pencoed Junction on 16 August 2000.
Action 2 paragraph 13 – 8 September 2000 Church Street, Llantwit Major.
Action 2 paragraph 14 campervan outside Cardiff County Court 13 December 2000
Action 3 claim 2 Stolen cheques from veterinary surgery
Action 3 4.1 Audi Estate Car stopped 13 December 2001 Merthyr Mawr Road, Bridgend
Action 3, 5.1-3 the VW Campervan around the Hayes Roundabout 21 May 2002.
Action 3, paragraph 6.1 arrest at West Gate, Cowbridge 23 May 2002.

Maurice J kirk BVSc”

Police Cover-Up Mark Davenport Crime to gaol Maurice again

South Wales Police have once again conspired to fabricate spurious criminal allegations to obtain many months in prison for their victim only for all charges to be then dropped.

By using their informant, ex gaol-bird for drug-dealing and GBH convict Mark Davenport of Cardiff’s underworld of crime, to get information about myself the Chief Constable, Peter Vaughan, turned a ‘blind eye’ over Davenport’s trading in allegedly stolen motor cycles, committing criminal damage, to simply delay his inevitable eviction by allowing his hired henchmen to beat-up the Bristol Bailiff’s men.

Could Enid Blyton have made it up?

Despite His Honour Judge Bidder QC’s early comments on all its futility HM Crown Prosecution (Wales) persisted, of course, to maintain his custody from October 2013 until March 2014 when all charges were again dropped. This not was not just to prejudice the ongoing civil claim it was to affect his preparation of outstanding charges for the March 2014 3rd jury trial on Dr Tegwyn Williams’ fabricated, as never served, restraing order on their victim, another cooked up South Wales judicial conspiracy……. More detail of all this can be read in early blogs, face book, and

Just 20 seconds before January 2013 Brittany arrest to the psychiatric hospital

13 01 25 Gendarmes arrest


A few police prosecution files back from France

13 02 12 files from France


13 02 12 SWP files from France - Copy


Mark Davenport squatting at ‘work’

Violent Drug Dealing Squatter


The policeman responsible?

peter vaughan


1997 Prevention of Harassment Act and Cardiff Cabal’s Restraining Order

“This is an interesting point you raise, Norman, on the subject of bad ‘restraining orders’ and our statute defence, allowing you to both detect and prevent further misconduct by those in positions of privilege and with immunity to prosecution.

It reminds me of a Dr Tegwyn Williams, the now sacked chief police psychiatrist for the South Wales Police, deported to the Antipodean extremities to be as far away from me as was possible, in the time, that the Cardiff cabal could manage.

This is of little comfort to either me or him, of course, until such bad law is reformed and in my particular case, until there is full disclosure of that clandestine 8th June 2009 MAPPA meeting in Barry police station.

Both the police doctor and then Chief Constable, Barbara Wilding, had hatched their notorious ‘re- painted machine-gun’ plot, to having me shot, reliant in having the full co-operation of the Cardiff law courts which have also been conspiring ever since! His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC continues to refuse, in these past six years, to allow the ‘machine -gun’ civil damages claim to come back into court as too many HM servants are also implicated.

All this started when Ms Wilding had just received HHJ Nicholas Chambers QC’ order to disclose their records of sixty odd police incidents of their harassment of me these many years.

Dr Tegwyn Williams had neither examined me nor was qualified to interpret the brain scans I had secretly arranged, from inside prison, to be put before another, for a £1,200 fee, an expert in the field. No doctor in South Wales, therefore, for my parole board release, in Aug 2015, ‘could be found’ as all were too spineless to affect their very nice thank you ‘gravy train’ set up here in The Principality, as usual, at the unsuspecting tax payers expense.

Whereas Dr Tegwyn Williams is no longer allowed to work in NHS (Wales) I struggle on to get that fabricated MAPPA 3/3 evidence he used against me but it has also been blocked by my current civil trial judge, His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC.

Also, of course, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, also now waist deep in the proverbial when trying to cover it all up, is refusing to disclose the only, most likely, true copy left of the 1st December 2011 clerk of the court’s contemporaneous notes, court log and prosecution exhibits, as so many different versions have, so far, been produced following my arrest of the original bent CPS prosecutor, David Gareth Evans. Professor Rodger Wood is next.

After my 3rd purported ‘breach of a restraining order’ trial, in 2014, the same trial judge, HHJ Rolands, would you believe, told the CPS, in my forced absence, that Dr Tegwyn Williams was no longer protected by the Cardiff cabal as my original defences, citing criminal conduct, had now been corroborated and proven to be precisely correct.

It is also a repeat, of course, of CPS barrister, Richard Thomlow, not telling me, when he told HHJ Neil Bidder QC, that I was only MAPPA 3/3 registered as one of the 5% most dangerous in the UK, because Dr Tegwyn Williams believed I had a brain tumour, requiring to treatment but my indefinite incarceration into Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital.” [ends]


MAURICE KIRK: “The Commission’s Refusal to Disclose Cardiff Court Records, requested by both Defendant and Crown Court Jury, causing 3 Years of Imprisonment” 13 March 2016:123456


MAURICE KIRK UPDATE 5 MARCH : RCJ: NEW EVIDENCE RE: CARDIFF DENIED DOCS + “Disclosure Questions Need Expanding” 28 Feb 2016

“Criminal Cases Review Commission are for RCJ Judicial Review, for failing to disclose the fabricated and then twice re written Cardiff magistrates conviction records of my alleged harassment of the now sacked from NHS and deported to New Zealand.

I am currently here at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, to file yet more proof of this unchecked widespread corruption in the Cardiff law courts.

The parole board admitted, in writing, I had to stay a further 8 months in Swansea prison because it could not find a psychiatrist to challenge Dr Williams’ report that caused the judge to section me under the 1983 Mental Health Act without having even examined me! R U next?”



UPDATE 04 March 2016:





Maurice Kirk 1 hr · from

Just watched an incredible rugby game, Wales v France in breton pub with ‘les poirots au tour de mon gout to then find the spark plug has blown out of my two horses Dyane leaving me with only one and lame at that!

BUT onto more important matters with Maurice wishing friends from around the world to assist him in some of your own juicy questions to the Chief Constable of South Wales Police before the machine-gun case goes back before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC.

Disclosure questions need expanding upon, me thinks?

In the Cardiff County Court Case number: 1CF03361 etc etc

Request for Machine-Gun Disclosure from South Wales Police

Using reference to paragraphs taken from Claimant’s stayed 12010 Statement of Claim:

1. p2. At what point in time were you first made aware that the antique decommissioned Lewis machine-gun, the prosecution exhibit, was decommissioned with several others, back in the 70s and were still fitted, on day of my incarceration, to other aircraft around this country?

2. At what point in time were you first made aware that the Claimant had purchased the machine-gun from a Dorset air museum, owned by an arms dealer ‘on the run’ from US?

3. p4. At what point in time were you first made aware that this ‘machine-gun’ was an integral part of a licenced UK registered aircraft and identified in its aircraft log book as such?

4. At what point in time were you first made aware that the Civil Aviation Authority was first contacted over this specific ‘machine-gun’ before claimant’s arrest and what was its result?

5. p6. At what point of time were you first made aware that the same ‘machine gun’ was in the possession of the Royal Air Force at Lyneham aerodrome, before Claimant’s arrest, to be attached to Claimant’s replica 1916 DH2 for her to have a new permit to fly?

6. p7. At what point in time were you first made aware of the ‘machine-gun’ being handed out to a private civilian’s possession, outside the gate of RAF premises and no longer under the control of an organisation exempt of the provisions within the Fire Arms Act 1968?

7. p8. At what point in time were you first made aware that the ‘new keeper’ of the machine gun modified the prosecution exhibit, possibly, to shoot rabbits?

8. p9. At what point in time were you first made aware that the Chief Constable’s February 2009 sworn affidavit, signed by Ms Barbara Wilding, contained erroneous information and what exactly was it? Give, give and this Claimant will withdraw this machine -gun claim.

9. p10. At what time were you first made aware of the Claimant having to visit the Defendant’s solicitor’s office, to obtained the affidavit and what parts of it are now proved to be untrue?

10. p11. At what point in time were you first made aware of the Claimant’s visit to Barry police station where he was both videoed and interviewed, following his complaints over the continuing fabrication of machine gun police evidence simply to delay civil proceedings?

11. Are you prepared to now disclose copy of that interview and copy of my subsequent written complaints after my 10th February 2010 acquittal?

12. p12. At what point in time were you first made aware of the ‘machine-gun’ being in the possession of the Claimant and his posting on You tube the video clip of himself with the ‘gun’ later used as a prosecution exhibit before the Cardiff Crown Court January 2010 jury?

13. p13. Who was present at the SWP HQ Independent Advisory Group (IAG) meeting on 1st June 2009 and what record of its conversation can be disclosed to the Claimant without need of a further court order from His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC?

14. p15. Can you confirm or deny the enclosed extract from notes taken by someone, signed E.P., having been present on 8th June 2009 at Barry police station’s MAPPA 3/3 meeting, indicate that such a discussion took place and was the Claimant warned at all?

15. Who at the IAG and MAPPA 3/3 meetings was then aware that should the Claimant have approached the Chief Constable, even for the purposes of ‘exchanging witness statements’, following the order by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, he could be shot?

16. Who painted the ‘machine-gun’ a different colour after the CAA informed Lincolnshire air museum, in 2009, to detach the antique from the replica DH2, originally flown at Farnborough Air Show by the Claimant?

17. Who then informed the then owner to drive, alone, to a registered gun smith for purported ‘safe keeping.?

18. In order to fool the jury, reliant on the You Tube clip made in 2008, who painted the ‘machine-gun’ a different colour? Where did the painting take place?

To be continued…..

Please read original docs on or and suggest some juicy questions for the deceitful SWP/ Cardiff cabal court & CPS lying slimy individuals hell bent on ruining my freedom, life, health, wealth and family happiness……..and YOU may be next.

MAURICE KIRK 23 FEB. 2016: “UK Pilot being Repeatedly bullied by South Wales Police”

“The Civil Aviation Authority BS614159 etc

Gatwick Airport


Dear Sir / Madam, 

Piper L4 Cub G-KIRK

1st South Wales Police Incident

9th Febuary 1996 Alleged Breach of Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989

I was prosecuted by the South Wales Police for an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act1989 due to my flying to Southern Ireland for a truly excellent day’s hunting, on 9th February 1996, with the County Meath foxhounds. [I hope that’s to stop the hunt and not take part in it!…ed.]

Police stated, on oath, that I had failed to report to them that I was proposing to make the flight, early on the following day, out of Cardiff control zone via a farmer’s field.

The relevant police officer lied in court causing collapse of the case and attending police sergeant to have to confiscate the Crown Prosecutor’s file, in the full face of the court with HMC&TS(Wales) assisting, as they do, by refusing to supply copy of the court exhibits because stating, ‘I had been acquitted’ with no costs.

Senior CPS officer, Mr M, specifically sent from London, was warned of the predicted outcome by my letters, copies of which are still available despite the Barry police station staff having shredded its prosecution file in their CPS office.

I request full copy of the CAA’s records of this incident and detail on how I can also obtain NATS records of this incident, eg communications surrounding the consequences following my having filed a flight-plan for my G-ARSW Piper Colt.

Both HMC&TS (Wales) and police confiscated exhibits containing the name of a Mr Christopher Paul E who had informed a DC M that I had been smuggling pigs to Eire in both my D-Day two seat Piper Cub and Piper Colt.

EXTRACT of Evidence due for Royal Courts of Justice

South Wales Police lied from onset when:

knowing a flight plan had been filed by the Appellant.

meticulous record had been kept by the pilot throughout the International flight.

‘police notes’, ‘miraculously found’ during an adjournment, were actually written overnight, part way through his evidence by DC M with the full support of Bridgend Police HQ.

Inspector R of Hill, in court for the purpose, had confiscated the CPS file immediately following collapse of yet another failed prosecution knowing its content contained still more proof of day to day ‘perversion of justice’ in South Wales courts.

2nd South Wales Police Incident

Following evidence from the South Wales Police, recently, it appears both police officers and NATS personnel, of Cardiff Airport, reported me to the CAA on or just after 4th July1999, for flying my aircraft, registration G-KIRK, neither with a valid licence nor keeping at a safe distance from a police helicopter.

The court heard that senior management had ordered its helicopter, piloted by Captain M, to be scrambled to intercept my aircraft simply to identify who the pilot in command was by taking close up video of the occupants for Cardiff ATC. Just a four-minute drive from my local police station would of sufficed.

 Please confirm what communication police and NATS was made with you and supply full documentation for both the IPCC and Royal Courts of Justice.

Please note records supplied at my expense, if need be, are to contain dates and times of all communications with the South Wales Police since so many apparently dangerous incidents. and also since my Auster caved in the roof of a police car at Haverford West to cause a RAF Brawdy Hawker Hunter to give pursuit.

3rd South Wales Police Incident

Request for records re unlawful detention, at Swansea, of pilot and his Auster Type 4, G-AIJM, to dismantle her when heavily loaded with fresh Manx kippers. 

4th South Wales Police Incident

Request for records of police complaint following my Auster Type 6, G-ARGI, having caved-in the roof of a police car, at Haverford West, to cause a RAF Brawdy Hawker Hunter to scramble towards our Enniskillen’s Harrier hunt ball.

I apologise in advance should appropriate witness summonses need be applied if I consider the CAA have failed to fully disclose relevant evidence as, with respect, was the case in numerous Crown Court and RCJ hearings in the past.

Finally, I must again thank you and your predecessors for your concern over my welfare whilst airborne, at least, during these past 52 years whilst operating over one hundred various both service and private types of ‘heavier than air’ flying contraptions. 

Blue skies, 

Maurice J Kirk BVSc APO RAFVR Rtd.”

Maurice Kirk’s site is


From: Maurice Kirk

09:16 (5 hours ago)

to ————-
South Wales Police

24th February 2016

Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable

Dear Mr Vaughan,

A Sample of Witnesses Prevented from Giving Evidence

1. I require confirmation, please, that a subject of the Principality, a Mr GM alias JT of Barry, was arrested, possibly for burglary and put in custody during part of our April /June 2013 action was proceeding in the Cardiff County Court. I have been told you already had the confessing burglar in custody but did not release Mr M for many weeks. Was that also the case?.

2. I had summonses prepared for many police officers also at the time but your colleagues told me many they had no knowledge of them despite being identified in some of the 60 or so incidents. They include, for example, an Inspector T, of the 90s when I was gaoled on 21st May 1993, in Cardiff prison, for not being identifiable and an Inspector S P, more recently, also not known to your police at the time of asking in 2013.

3. The whereabouts of the prosecution files are sought for the RCJ when one or both were seized from the CPS officers after two cases collapsed in chaos in Barry magistrates court. A Sgt R and possibly another was involved? The first incident was an alleged breach of the 1989 Terrorism Act, on 9th Feb 1996 and the 2nd, leading to my arrest of a CPS man Mr S, also for for knowingly perverting the course of justice, was about a police fabricated speeding infringement on 2nd October 1997.

4.Another witness still sought, If you can help, is one withheld from me by your police, a JC, during the 2013 trial, an air traffic controller who had told me he had seen the video by your staff of a police helicopter chase after my aircraft simply to identify the pilot! Is that really true?

A four minute drive by a Panda car, from Llantwit to my airfield, would of sufficed surely not?

That police/CPS file was seized from the CPS Mr M, from London,following your police officer was found lying to the court but you have that file and CPS, as you very well know, remain immune to prosecution or investigation due to the HM before their name. so, where is the file now,, needed also for the RCJ?

this list is far from exhaustive

Yours truly,

Cardiff Bay, case BS614159 etc
24th Feb 2016

Conspiracy by HMC&TS &Police etc to Pervert the Course of Justice

Dear Sir,

Please confirm or deny having sent or ever intending to send copy of your more recent communications with the CCRC to me in respect to their unusual conduct in the matter following my incarceration due to 1st Dec 2011 Cardiff magistrates conviction of ‘harassment’ purely concocted to protect blackmailed Dr Tegwyn Williams and all his minions in South Wales who also repeatedly lied to cover up the now blown wide open police/machine gun conspiracy to have me registered MAPPA 3/3 and locked away for life?



“This follows, once again, following Media Wales having refused recent RCJ news about, “what really goes on in our Welsh law courts”

Malicious ‘Machine Gun’/MAPPA Prosecution to have me Shot is in Court after 5 Years Blocked!

Wales’s main civil court based in its capital, Cardiff, is about to hear the South Wales Police again lying, cheating and deceiving a British law court and one of its subjects of The Principality purely to have its own police force and judiciary autonomous to Westminster, Whitehall and the Royal Courts of Justice. If they get away with it they will be free to run riot even more than one of its, not so far away, dependant territories always answerable to our HM Justice Ministry and Secretary of State.

4th Action and their usual example of the bullying South Wales Police rebuttal tactics, over the past 24 years, to obtain failure to disclose their very own (custody) records

1686537 Particulars of Claim – 4th action – 7CF07345

  1. Claim 7CF07345 – request foir further information

16 02 03 Request for Further Information 7CF case

7th Action and the South Wales Police withdrawing the claimant’s right to continue holding his shot gun licence

1686545 Claim Form – 7th action – 0CF03921

6th action claim particulars

1686539 Particulars of Claim – 6th action – 1CF03361

  1. 8th/9th/10th & 11th civil damages Claims against the South Wales Police to be published later…….

Maurice Kirk’s site is

See archives for numerous M. Kirk posts going back to 2011.


MAURICE KIRK UPDATE 23/01/16 + “Officer who ‘threatened to arrest judge in court’ faces contempt trial” + “SWP ABUSE OF PROCESSetc. 17 JAN. 2016

23 Jan. 2016: “My family, today, following my unanswered 6th Jan 16 letter to CCRC, is again nagging me as to whether you intend confirming my complaint of this new evidence of still more theft of the official HMCTS records of my 1st Dec 2011 harassment conviction:

1. will go to the CCRC immediately or better
2. immediately an outside police force and
3. will you ask the CCRC to investigate the complete disappearance of the original police court exhibits used in both 1st Dec 2011 magistrates and 1st April 2012 Cardiff Crown Court hearings so urgently needed for ECHR/RCVS and His Honour Judge Seys Llewellin QC in the ongoing BS614519 cases against the South Wales Police?
Remember, my sister, J Matthews and others all heard the Crown court office admit the police had already seized some of these court records, following the arrest of the Crown Prosecutor, David Garreth Evans, which is why, no doubt, I was denied them for numerous juries and court appeals ever since.
Police protected lying DrTegwyn Mel Williams and Professor Rodger Wood of Swansea University will remain immune to even investigation yet alone prosecution while this is not done.
Lord Leveson et al, in RCJ March 2013 judgement, openly admit they had no knowledge of 4th May 2012 jury request, in writing, to see these clerk of the court’s 1st Dec 2011 notes seen being written by me and my murmurating McKenzie Friends in the public gallery
J Matthews even tape recorded the proceedings albeit for other purposes.
It all stinks, does’nt it?”


Maurice Kirk writes:

“Almost identical facts to my 1983 arrest of Guernsey magistrate who knowingly perverted the course of justice by countermanding Royal Court Order for police doctor to give evidence

Officer who ‘threatened to arrest judge in court’ faces contempt trial

15 January 2016

“A POLICE officer is facing the threat of prison next week after a lengthy legal battle over a house repossession allegedly led to extraordinary scenes in the High Court.
The officer is to go on trial for contempt of court after it is claimed he approached one of Northern Ireland’s most senior judges and threatened to arrest him.
Dressed in full uniform of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) as he attended the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast again on Thursday (January 14), Thomas Anthony Carlin declined to apologise for his actions at an earlier hearing.
He also rejected an offer of legal representation and asked to have a jury decide on his behaviour towards Lord Justice Gillen.
But another judge refused his request, instead listing the case to be heard by him on Monday (January 18).
Mr Justice Horner said: “I’m going to arrange for a trial to take place on this issue of whether or not there has been contempt in the face of the court.
“I will hear it, there will not be a jury.” He also warned the policeman that, if found guilty, he could be fined or sent to prison.
Mr Carlin’s alleged outburst came at the end of a ruling in a long-running house repossession case in the High Court on Tuesday.
The 43-year-old had been representing himself in the legal battle with Santander bank over a property in Co Antrim, which has been ongoing for more than two years in the courts.
At the end of the hearing he allegedly got up and moved towards the bench, claiming he was going to arrest Lord Justice Gillen.
Security and court staff intervened before he was led from the courtroom.
The officer was arrested on suspicion of two counts of common assault, but subsequently released without charge.
The Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland was also notified.
Mr Carlin is alleged to have interrupted proceedings without justification, refused to resume his seat, approached the presiding judge, threatened to arrest him without lawful excuse and physically interfered with a court tipstaff.
He had been given until Thursday to secure a lawyer, apologise and provide an explanation for his behaviour.
But shortly after entering the courtroom again in PSNI uniform and hat, Mr Carlin made his position clear.
He told Mr Justice Horner: “I believe for me to apologise to the court would be abandoning my defence.”
The offer of legal assistance from a law firm which deals with the Police Federation for Northern Ireland was also rejected.
Mr Carlin further claimed: “I acted in my capacity as a police officer, I believed a crime had been committed (and) it was outrageous in nature.
“I believe the tipstaff and court staff who intervened… obstructed me in the execution of my duty.”
At one stage Mr Justice Horner asked if he denied the alleged behaviour set out in writing.
“I completely dispute those facts,” the officer replied.
The judge then cautioned him: “You realise that should you be found guilty of contempt in the face of the court you will be liable for a number of penalties including imprisonment.”
Mr Carlin responded that he would comply with the findings of a jury. However, he was told to turn up on Monday for a trial to be decided by Mr Justice Horner alone.”



Maurice J Kirk BVSc 12th Jan. 2016

1. Claimant 12th January 2016 Position Statement

Defendant’s Position Statement (1)

2. Mackenzie Friend Matthews Claim Synopsis

160110 Matthews Claim Synopsis

3. CCRC 12th Jan 2016 New Evidence Judicial Review Application

160112 CCRC New Evidence BS614519 etc

4. Mackenzie Friend new evidence indicating both 4th May 2012 judge, His Honour Judge John Curran QC and Crown Prosecutor, David Gareth Evans misdirected both the jury and Lord Justice Leveson et al at the March 2013 Criminal Court of Appeal

120504 Jury request rwritten down by MF


Draft: Prepared Police Helicoptor Incident Appeal Document 29/11/15

15 11 29 Prep Police Helicopter Incident Appeal DRAFT

“SW Police Abuse of Process” regarding M. Kirk cases:

151028 Gerald Thomas 2nd witness statement

151228 SWP MJK Requests F

Approved SWP Judgment KIRK2


Lord Griffith1

Machine Gun legal argument

SWP schematic record of motoring inc

SW Police MAPPA Police Board Fabrication:


16th Jan 2016 Case no. BS619514 plus Eight More

“Dear Mr Leithley,
Maurice Kirk v The Chief Constable of South Wales
1. Please send copies of Cardiff Magistrates’ file for 1st Dec 2011, re my harassment conviction of police blackmailed doctor, Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams ,over a Dr Hillier of Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, lying about my mental state in order to falsify data before His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC on 2nd Dec 2009 when I was refused attendance to my own ‘machine gun’ pre management hearing.
2. Both also lied to have me again locked up for the 2nd alleged ‘breach of a restraining order’, in 2010, when police attended their house to stop me just in time, apparently, from burning their house down.

3. What ever became of that jerry can of Avgas and my guns they confiscated, we will never know as both were needed today.

4.The conviction had followed the required HHJ Llewellyn Jones QC 2009 order to help get get me locked away in Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital, for life, after botched attempt at Barry police station, on 8th June 2009, of MAPPA’s clandestine hearing caused its ‘minutes’ to be leaked and published on various web sites.
5. Did I send you a copy of it all about Barbara Wilding’s obsession for Wales to have a ‘shoot to kill’ policy’ for anyone putting her pension at risk?

6. All this was to avoid these civil damages claims to be heard his Thursday.

7. There are at least six versions of HMCTS (Wales) court records, by now, floating around between the latest Chief Constable, CPS Wales, CPS England, numerous Cardiff courts, MAPPA and CCRC, as the then prosecutor, a David Gareth Evans, had to be arrested, following his switching of court exhibits etc leading to prison officers, Rogan, being also arrested inside Cardiff prison re South Wales Police getting him to steal my passport.
8. The first of them, on 4th May 2012, with jury, by jury note, specifically asking for the clerk of the court’s notes, apparently, only to be lied to by HHJ John Curran, when I was not there, indicating they did not exist possibly saying this to them as just reliant on CPS man Evans again! Could Enid Blyton do better?
9. The police have now confiscated, not just Geoamey Custody Services records of CPS Evans’ ‘draft’ restraining order, being brought to my 1st Dec 211 court cell by four guards, as I was MAPPA 3/3 so very violent, on 1st Dec11 but also the court exhibits, to avoid their use before not three subsequent juries but also the 4th but now the clerk of the court’s notes recording the draft being brought down to the cells that day.
10. Police also refuse to disclose the all important custody records of that 1st Dec 2011 day, re my missing the Musa family stolen six children Haringey Council scandal court case, two days before, that had caused my immediate ‘gate arrest’, that same day, to obtain the conviction of my ‘failing to attend my criminal court hearings’ in order to further frustrate this week’s Cardiff court hearing.
11 We need people in the public gallery on Thursday, do we not, to witness first hand just what the Welsh judicial cartel are prepared to do just to obtain autonomy for the Principality meaning, in effect, its own independent police force from England?

12. How many versions can you obtain, please, for 21st Jan 2016 County Court hearing, before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC’ but the original police/CPS non ‘tampered with’ version would be preferable?

Thank you.”


UPDATE 12 Jan. 2016:

Reflecting on the South Wales Police’s persecution in order to have Maurice Kirk’s name removed from the veterinary register is the subject on 21st January 2016 in Cardiff County Court INCLUDING THIS:

DRAFT BS614519 etc
Dec 2011 CCRC Application
Ms Jenny Thomas,
Criminal Cases Review Commission,
5 St Philips Place
Birmingham B3 2PW
6th January 2016

Dear Madam,

New Evidence Re Cardiff Magistrates Refusal to Disclose Court File

1. Further to Mr Leithley’s 30th July 2015 submissions, re later applications to you, my Bristol solicitors have now caused the court, after my four years of trying, to disclose more official court records albeit counterfeit.

2. You will see that this same court record, originally sent to you in January2012 to copy, even before my harassment appeal and jury trial’s conviction of a supposed ‘breach of a restraining order’, purportedly served on me on 1st Dec 2011 in the court cells, is depleted yet again making it at least six occasions by the time it has sent to my barrister.

3. It is unfortunate your predecessor had not given me copy in 2012 or yourself in 2013 as I would have been released from prison within days.

4. The following six HMCTS officers each have obtained different records by now when purported to be the original 1st Dec 2011‘magistrates file’.

5. Cardiff court were well aware, of my 2011 Judicial Review Application from prison and that that specific record therein, eg clerk’s variations of his original ‘contemporaneous notes’/District Judge John Charles court orders, mid trial/ record of what went on in the cells/ switched and added CPS court exhibits, mid trial/ police seized court exhibits to prevent their identity in the Cardiff Crown Court March 2013 3rd ‘breach ‘ jury trial, was needed for it and yet it was tampered with to assist in a non acquittal as different cases just happened to come along.

6. HMCTS officers. so far implicated, include those of:

i) Cardiff Magistrates from September 2011
ii) Cardiff County Court from same date
iii) Cardiff’s Crown Prosecution from same if not before
iv) CCRC from January 2012 if not before
v) Cardiff Crown Court from December 2011 onwards
vi) Bristol’s Crown Prosecution Service from May 2011
vii) Especially clandestine Cardiff Crown Court hearing in 2014
viii) My Cardiff barrister from 2015
ix) And now back again to CCRC in January 2016
It stinks, does it not?

7. You will recall the ‘court file ‘came to you following my request for seizure even before the contemporaneous clerk of the court’s notes were further altered, as also happened with the official court log, as they were the only court record of what actually occurred in those ten or so shambolic court hearings.

8. Your Annex to regulations indicates you must now disclose a certified true copy of the January 2012 received court file containing clerk’s notes

9. Geoamey Custodial Services refuse to disclose anything at all!

10. South Wales Police, similarly, also refuse to disclose anything. Their relevant custody record, as I had been immediately ‘gate arrested’, whilst injured from being dragged out of the custody suite by five very angry custody staff, must have registered my complaint and identity along with whatever was or was not stuffed into my trouser pocket.

11. Three of the five guards had witnessed the hand written ‘draft’ restraining order being offered to me inside the cell, to read, before it was to be returned to court for correction and typing.

12. All five must have seen the comical spectacle of a quivering clerk of the court hiding outside the prisoners area, all behind lock and key, in an empty cell for fear, he had been told by police, CPS and now Geoamey (see court exhibit prisoner movement records) that I was a very ‘violent’, likely to try and escape and a rare MAPPA level 3 category 3 registered victim that traded in machine guns and live ammunition and tried to burn doctors’ houses down.

13. Court exhibits submitted by the CPS barrister and requested by the 4th May 2012 Jury, as I had proof these exhibits had already been seized by the South Wales Police, were last seen in a ridiculous 1st March 2012 HHJ Hughes appeal hearing BUT witnessed by my faithful Mackenzie Friends.

14. You will recall Lord Leverson et al, in March 2013 Criminal Court of Appeal judgment, indicated (paragraph 9 was it?) that there was no record of the jury having ever asked to see these records of ‘service in the cells’ and yet their jury ‘note’ explicitly requested just that.

15. Remember Cardiff Crown Court deliberately refused to disclose that ‘jury note’ to me, the Defendant, as the judge had already been shown the magistrate’s file by CPS barrister, David Gareth Evans, the original magistrates prosecutor in a pre trial management hearing.

16. Under cross examination the cell custody officer, Leigh Barker, had just told the jury he had specifically had the assurance from Mr Michael Williams, clerk of the court, while he was hiding in an empty cell, that there would be record kept of this ‘service’ where, when and by whom.

17. I now enclose extract of a contemporaneous note taken by a refused defence witness, one of many, who watched with amazement as the judge ‘directed’ the jury that such record of a draft or final court order having been served on a prisoner was never written down if conducted in a prisoner’s cell by the then manager in charge.

18. The jury retired for a long time before accepting the judge’s directions and delivered a 10 to 2 verdict.

19. Panic had set in by then, before so many able and concerned witnesses in the public gallery, to cause the district judge to cut short the police prearranged prison term by a few days meaning I was immediately given release but had refused to go for four hours without a written account as to the verdict conducted in my absence.

20. One junior Geoamey officer attempted to stuff papers in my pocket, not Barker for he had left, off duty, at 2.40pm as recorded in his diary.

21. Neither police nor Geoamey will disclose evidence of ‘service’ as I had been severely assaulted at 5pm in the cells, yet again, causing Barker to have to state on oath that it was he who had served the final restraining order at around 1pm when it was impossible to have even been typed as ’service’ was due to take place, as usual, in the prison on release date.

22. I now enclose extract of a contemporaneous note taken by a refused defence witness, one of many, who watched with amazement as the judge ‘directed’ the jury that such record of a draft or final court order having been served on a prisoner was never written down if conducted in a prisoner’s cell by the then manager in charge.

23. The jury retired for a long time before accepting the judge’s directions and delivered a 10 to 2 verdict but the court were never going to tell me.

24. My attempt to produce court exhibits and documentary proof of their conspiracy from my rectum, as I was not allowed my pen or papers in cells or court, soon scuppered my chances of being told of the jury requests, which of my witnesses had attended and not, substance of the inevitable CPS applications when their cases fall apart as in both the machine gun and fabricated psychiatric ones using Dr Tegwyn Williams.

25. I will identify which Mackenzie Friend wrote these notes to support my now privately obtained magistrates and Crown court tape recordings to show there has been an abuse of process and clear perversion of justice.

26. I enclose a summary of a remarkably similar conducted Cardiff court hearing, to protect the police informant on 1st December 2011, a Mr Jeff Matthews, as he has been allowed to steel around £20,000 of my money as full but not yet final payment.

27. You will note South Wales Police refuse to intervene and Cardiff court, this very week, have again been nobbled to protect Matthews’ barrister, Trevis, from lying to a Judge Denyer QC and Mr Justice Newrey QC in Bristol’s High Court, by this over arching HM Partnership fanaticism you all so desperately hang onto to preserve your ‘white collar’ tax payer’s funded ‘gravy train’.

28. This twenty odd years of Cardiff’s cabal conduct has cost me, so far, my health, wealth, over three years in prison and a marked deterioration of my ‘state of mind’ and not assisted, I must say, by your insistence that I only communicate with the CCRC via a lawyer.

29. I have now trawled London, Bristol, Taunton, Birmingham and even Cardiff for legal representation since I first communicated with you with little success.

30. This real lack of independence in our UK’s legal profession, when the paid players are forced to contend with being HM officers for automatic guarantee to immunity to prosecution if they were not, must be changed with radical reform.

31. Having to put up with our quite outdated and sometimes corrupt judicial system is one thing but if you are well paid for it, unlike a litigant in person not even allowed his costs when he wins, then it is another.

32. Could you possibly assist me in this travesty or do I again go public on more sensitive material gathered in these past 23 years of persecution in Wales with it about to being granted not just with its very own police force but also its own judiciary answerable to precisely no one.

Yours sincerely,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc
Contact via or Telephone 24/7 on 07708586202



Claimant’s 2nd January 2016 Position Statement


South Wales Police breach Article 3 of the European Court of Human Rights

What is torture?

Torture occurs when someone acting in an official capacity (for example a police officer or soldier) deliberately causes serious pain or suffering (physical or mental) to another person. This might be to punish someone, or to intimidate or obtain information from them.

24th August 2010 MAPPA Executive Summary (enclosed)

The 25th July 2011 ‘Judge’s ‘Note’ (enclosed), is factually incorrect.

The Note

1. Paragraph 6 identifies the content of part of ‘leaked minutes’, now in possession of the lower court as served by the Appellant, indicating the Chief Constable deliberately delayed the arrest of her victim, for two weeks, in hope he may be shot

2. Paragraph 7 identifies those present, on 8th June 09, at the MAPPA registration meeting in Barry police station, consisting only of senior police officers and their chief psychiatrist, Dr Tegwyn Williams with his psychiatric nurse, Ms Elizabeth Paul, to take notes.

3. The clandestine manner was contrary to regulations with the co-ordinator, Mr Nigel Rees, having to deny relevant regulations exist.

4. Police nefarious conduct is highlighted by the evidence within the enclosed twelve pages of correspondence once the Appellant first became aware, in autumn 2009, he was a MAPPA registered victim of some sort or other.

See enclosed:

5. Paragraph 8 content confirms that the 8th June Barry police minutes, apparently relied upon for Appellant’s MAPPA registration, was as equally erroneous as the Executive Summary, while also redacting any sensitive record, explaining why Dolmans so fiercely resisted its disclosure (see transcript) before the nurse’s leaking a little part of the truth.

6. Paragraph 9 is misleading in that the Appellant was a MAPPA subject before 8th June 09.

7. Paragraph 10 again is misleading. His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, in November 2008, had no proper cooperation from Dolmans as to who was to sign the affidavit as the solicitors knew, as has now been proved, fabrication of evidence in the original criminal hearings was normally excepted there never is any intervention by those so adjudicating proceedings.

8. BUT their fabricated police evidence, in this civil court, was reliant on the police:

i) preventing the Appellant from having witness summonses served
ii) withholding the identity of police officers and other eye witnesses for service
iii) ignoring numerous Appellant applications surrounding the numbered identity numbers of some forty odd police incidents involving the Appellant
iv) having free access to copy, alter or confiscate court records, as was done in twenty four of the thirty three incidents, currently under appeal, now repeated in the stayed Judicial Review Application over 1st Dec 2011 Cardiff magistrates fiasco. The Appellant neither received a lawful harassment conviction nor did he receive in his court cell, that day, the now defunct ‘restraining order, quashed by a Cardiff court following the sacking of Dr Tegwyn Willams who now has to work abroad.

9. MAPPA ‘minutes’, recording the Appellant ‘attempted to enter police HQ’ and was unsuccessful’ and ‘has taken to Bridgend police station’ could not be further from the truth.

10. These are deliberate lies as, on that 18th June 2009, the Appellant had gained access to the Chief Constable’s inner sanctum, to exchange witness statements with him following a direct order from his Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC.

11. Exactly as was needed to be done, back in the 70s at Taunton police station, to again prove conspiracy from the highest level, did the Appellant obtain entry to the Chief Superintendant’s office to foil the original ‘dreamed up’ fire arms conspiracy that has, ever since, ‘triggered’ harassment anywhere he then chose to work as a veterinary surgeon across the British Isles.

12. The South Wales Police MAPPA ‘minutes’, of course, failed to record that the Appellant was already walking out before being surrounded by tin-hatted, flack jacketed police officers while sporting both stun grenades and their own model of machine gun.

13. Not once did the Appellant get asked as to the whereabouts of his own machine gun, as they searched his motor vehicle (see website photographs and police CCTV) as Senior management had known, all along, she had already been sold almost a year earlier and examined on day of sale, by an armourer no less, as still being decommissioned with an issued proof house certificate.

14. Only the jury, in that scandalously evil January 2010 Cardiff court room, were not made aware of it as even the majority in the audience, in the public gallery, already knew as did the CPS barrister, Mr Richard Thomlow, unless, perish the thought, the police had lied to him as well?

15. This deliberate police inference, to obstruct the Appellant from getting his evidence before both his civil and criminal courts had the full backing of Dolmans, the Chief constable’s solicitors, as they were all ’officers of the HM court’ and therefore immune to prosecution.

16. It was precisely why the Appellant’s private investigator, employed to serve witness summonses on behalf of the Claimant, indicated a ‘search and service’ bill was likely to be in excess of £10,000 just to find the nearly two hundred police and private civilian addresses across the UK. It would require his having to laboriously follow them home from work or after having collected their children at schools to achieve lawful service.

17. This retrospectively written document, ‘the executive summary’, was hurriedly prepared by senior police officers following the Appellant’s successful application before this trial judge. Its fabrication was to further influence civil proceedings by using extremely erroneous ‘facts’ deliberately concocted in order to pervert the course of justice.

18. Paragraph 11.1. The Appellant knew where some could be found as they were clients

19. Paragraph 11.2. Of course the gun had ‘live ammunition’. All but one cartridge was still in the gun’s magazine when lying on the court room table and, no doubt, they were the very same ones seen on the You Tube piece of film played to the jury off the Appellant’s website, as, would you believe, prosecution evidence.

20. Again, police continually refused to disclose what they did with the missing one and the ammunition deliberately left out, by the Appellant, as a paper weight, following the first of many aborted visits to the Appellant’s airfield to snatch his then ten year old daughter to be put into the dreaded ‘Council care ‘ for, no doubt, a random adoption.

21. The police, for some weird reason, chose to try and fool the jury by using that same You Tube footage had already caused them to repaint their own exhibit a different colour.

22. But who cares what the South Wales Police regularly get up to when the locals all seem to be so looking forward to their very own police force and autonomous judiciary free from the constraints of either Whitehall or Strasbourg?

23. Wherein the ‘facts’ that are directly related to the registered ‘victim’, in the MAPPA Summary’, precious little is true from any of its twelve or so pages other than, perhaps, the correct spelling of ‘Maurice Kirk’.

6. Police criminal conduct had originally been planned at Bridgend HQ immediately following the successful Appellant’s 2008 application forcing the Chief Constable to sign her own sworn affidavit of truth.

7. Having now signed that there had been ‘full disclosure’ of the facts, to which the Appellant was entitled, she has now an inveterate liar which explains her need for immediate Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) intervention fortunately very soon stopped by direct Home Office intervention.

8. So she switched to nebulous MAPPA in order to use her blackmailed chief forensic psychiatrist, Dr Tegwyn Williams, to have her victim shot or locked up for life, anything to block this civil case.

9. To further torture their victim and so affect his performance as the Claimant, having also failed in having him shot, Barbara Wilding had her victim incarcerated in Cardiff prison by using this fabricated information throughout this ‘executive summary’.

10. Without a remotest hope of any fire arms conviction being successful, from either the W11 Lewis machine gun or June 2009 $10,000 worth of confiscated and never returned legally held weapons, Barbara Wilding had him sectioned under the 1983 Mental Health Act s. 35 for her , Caswell Clinic prison, Bridgend, South Wales.

11. On 2nd December 2009, with further use of the erroneous content of this ‘executive summary’ but this time ensuring it was in a ‘closed court’ before His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC, unbeknown to the then Claimant, the Chief Constable had tried yet again to torture her victim by applying, on still withheld Tegwyn Williams’ oral medical evidence, that he be further incarcerated but this time, indefinitely, in Ashworth high security Psychiatric Hospital.

12. Police doctor, without appropriate qualifications or evidence, had stated, Maurice Kirk had ‘significant irreversible brain damage’ with Mr Thomlow chipping in to say the doctor had said it as it was believed to be caused from a brain tumour.

13. At January 2013’s 0CF03922 Cardiff County Court ‘strike out’ application, for the Appellant’s damages claim against NHS (Wales) with both Dr Tegwyn Williams and Swansea University’s Professor Rodger Wood’s having falsified police medical records, to further pervert the course of justice, His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC refused it being struck out as the police psychiatrist had not even been qualified to diagnose from specialist brain scans. There, also, already existed, orchestrated by Dr Williams on behalf of the Chief Constable, Applicant brain scans taken about two weeks earlier proving to be non specific

14. To this day the Appellant has never been told about this or had subsequent follow up investigations by NHS (Wales) a seriously implanted party in this conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

15. This attempt failed miserably, to have the Appellant locked away for life without trial, only because the Appellant’s old friends, past Vale of Glamorgan MP, Walter Sweeney and his lovely consultant radiologist, Nuala, together had obtained an expert opinion before His Honour Judge Bidder QC, proving both CPS and police also as flagrant liars.

16. With her victim released back in Cardiff prison, in December 2009 and with no less than seventeen doctors and forensic psychiatrists, now, having opposed the findings of Dr Tegwyn Williams she was forced to remove the Appellant from the MAPPA register entirely but making quite sure the Appellant, meaning the media, knew nothing about these unusual and exceptional changes of events as it had been the fear of the media and certain of his followers that caused the registration in the first place (see September 09 and 19th October 2009 Psychiatric reports by Dr Williams).

17. The Appellant was difficult to be illuminated now he was in prison on 17th December 2009 no longer in the elite top 5% MAPPA most dangerous in the UK so anything had to be done to avoid both the imminent civil trial and ‘machine gun’ hearings being so ‘risky’ to her pension due to her in just a few days time.

18. ‘Risky’ as it involved just too many police officers expected to survive their lying, for her and their pensions, under cross examination in not just one but both Cardiff County and Crown Courts.

Using the erroneous executive summary, yet again, she therefore did the following:

i) Had her staff ‘repaint’ the gun in an attempt to fool the jury

ii) used both seller and buyer of ‘the gun’ as prosecution witnesses

iii) planted a police informant on the jury

iv) switched ‘Foxy’, her undercover agent, to a male person in witness box when, originally, a WPC had telephoned both him and then, wife

v) instructed her own agent in court, now His Honour Judge Richard Thomlow, NOT TO DISCLOSE the aircraft log book to the jury as it distinctly recorded this decommissioned relic was registered as an integral part of the British registered aeroplane

vi) successfully opposed release on bail using fabricated PNC data

vii) introduced, in the dying minutes another ‘prohibited weapon’ dressed up, this time, as a 30 mm US machine gun!
viii) jury trial judge, His Honour Paul Thomas QC, refused this Appellant examination of either ‘guns’, their paper work or the a/c log books, with Tomlow denying any certification record even existed not realising his victim, from his dock, could see the a/c books had half slipped out from where they had been hidden on the police solicitor’s bench right behind him.

This 1918 DH2 replica, used at Farnborough Air Show as a display aircraft, had caused the Appellant to be well versed in Civil Aviation Authority legislation and had particularly sharpened up finger nails on his left hand to expose the police evilness right before the jury.

Whereas this above list, in the February 2010 criminal trial acquittal, is far from exhaustive the few examples, below, from the ninety nine witnesses heard in the deliberately denied jury civil trial, during its twenty three year duration, barely scratches the surface of all the evidence now available to an outside police force required by this Appellant to force disclosure.

By using same executive summary ‘evidence’, to pervert the civil trial, she did the following:

i) blocked Appellant from serving summons on key witnesses
ii) had his witnesses threatened or gaoled so not to be available to give evidence
iii) kept having her victim gaoled on fabricated allegations, in France, three times around London, Cardiff, Portsmouth and Cosham, before and especially after the ‘machine gun’ /Dr Tegwyn Williams fiasco, with no intention ever of obtaining a conviction but just delay for memories to fade
iv) in opposing her victim bail, these past 23 years, by failed disclosure and false PNC
v) confiscation of Crown Court exhibits (1st May 12, 4th May 12, 3rd Oct 12 etc
vi) alteration and/or shredding of HMCTS court records (1st Dec 2011, 4th May 12 etc
vii) succeed in causing serious memory and hearing loss of Appellant by her forced Caswell Clinic’s horrific experience not knowing whether drugged every night.

to be continued

Posted by Maurice Kirk on Sunday, January 3, 2016


In amongst my 200 hundred broken arch lever files, today, against the South Wales Police, I found a NHS (Wales) solicitor’s letter containing my particulars of claim, stayed by the current trial judge and originally for next 21st January 2016 hearing, to argue as to whether it is allowed to go ahead or not, bearing in mind a number of ‘white collar workers ‘ in south Wales are facing prison sentences should I finally obtain court and medical records.

No doubt a local masonic nobbly knees cabal, in association with HM Partnership, had already ruled on this delicate matter long before our recent trial, of 23 years standing, had even started.


above: Extract from CPS MG% doc for jury and judge stupidly identifying the real ‘foxy as opposed to the man in court wh o gave evidence on her behalf owing to a ‘logistics problem that could not be remedied without quashing police evidence


No incident ever recorded of violence on staff recorded and stupidly lifted and wrongly interrpted from DR Tegwyn williams last paras of 19th Oct 09 fairy tale




alse NHS Wales medical reports remain affecting my employment search, returned to veterinary register and renewal of my commercial licence all wanted for my flight in the cub to Cape town





One tiny atom of the massive iceberg that is Maurice’s 20+ years of [alleged] harassment / persecution by S. Wales police is partly described in these 2 pdf docs [which also are relavent to the 2nd post below, entitled: MAURICE KIRK: “A sample of South Wales Police’s 23 years of conduct” 2 Dec. 2015 Posted on

Pdf files:

930520 police interview tape extract

930520 custody records

– one could assume there are many many more events similar to those described in these files that Maurice has had to put up with over the years – which, mostly, it has to be said – are ignored wholesale by those put in positions of “judging” us in our “courts” when he has managed to get the injustices into a “court” room. Suffice to say MK has served at least 4 years in custody since 2008 due to matters beyond his control, often being held on remand in prison for months on end before all charges against him are dropped – with no compensation in any form given to him for these lost and lengthy periods of time in his life. doc 17dec15

KIRK SWPOLICE 17DECBARRY VET last pic received

[There are a total of 13 pages – 247 posts, beginning in 2011, on this site relating to MK and what he has endured – some are shown below].

And so it goes…

Maurice Kirk’s site is

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

7.jpga [above: May, 2015, after his release from HMP, after serving 17 months approx. imprisonment – a term that saw numerous irregularities far from the norm when serving a custodial sentence, including the denial of a serious and urgent medical operation on his stomach [a colostomy or very similar], which was a scandal in itself…MK finding himself bedridden, and eventually in a wheelchair for approx. 6 months because of the untreated medical problem. Letters to the P.M., the Ministry of Justice, the Sec. of State, the Home Secretary and many more proved futile, and MK was refused the medical operation for over a year.]

Maurice Kirk has been put in prison roughly 6 times since 2008, the time totalling over 4 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.




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.

UPDATE 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: