17th June 2017 Crown Court case number T20170239
FOI and DPA Officer
Criminal Cases Review Commission
5 St Philip’s Place
Birmingham B3 2PW
4Th Jury Trial on Breach of a Restraining Order Never Ever Served
DPP V MAURICE JOHN KIRK BVSc – APPLICATION UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 AND/OR DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
I again write to request to be supplied with copies of all documents that are retained on the Criminal Cases Review Commission file in respect of my request to review my conviction at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on 1 December 2011 before DJ John Charles, and my subsequent appeal to Cardiff Crown Court dismissed by HHJ Hughes on 1 March 2012, and my trial and conviction at Cardiff Crown Court before HHJ Curran QC on 4 May 2012.
I do not appear to have had a proper disclosure, following my 7th August 2015 application, of the documents on file concerning me with South Wales Police, Cardiff Crown Court, Cardiff Magistrates and Crown Prosecution Service (Wales).
You may be aware that copies of originals are obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as a result of the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v. Information Commissioner  EWCA Civ 388.
Regarding the parts of the documents that I appear to be the “direct focus” under the Durant ruling, I request to be supplied with complete un-redacted copies under section 7(1)(a) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Regarding the parts of those documents that I may not be the “direct focus” of, I simultaneously apply under section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I therefore apply for complete copies of all of the documents of which I am and am not the “direct focus” of, I request the complete and un-redacted copies under both the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 simultaneously.
While fully accepting that the Durant ruling permitted disclosure of “data” of which the subject is the “direct focus” of, so that material that didn’t constitute “direct focus” data could be redacted, this in my view would be inapplicable to a dual application as with the case here.
There also would appear to be nothing in either the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Durant ruling that prevents the additional none “direct focus” data in a document also being supplied simultaneously, provided that the data controller is a public body subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I make this application under section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or section 7(1)(a) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Maurice J Kirk BVSc copy to Her Honour Judge Eleri Rees, The Recorder of Cardiff.
ALL CARDIFF COURTS, POLICE, CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE & PRISON CONTINUE TO REFUSE DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT RECORDS TO WHICH I AM ENTITLED
FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:
NB: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.