Mauricejohnkirk.files.wordpress.com

?Maurice Kirk’s Level of ‘Risk’ The origin of my apparent ‘risk’, only to the Chief Constable and therefore Barbara Wilding’s ‘Trading in machine guns’ conspiracy, is revealed in the sufficient transcript extracts below. If time allows the whole transcript wil be published worldwide as a warning to others of the south Wales Police.The ‘trigger’ that provoked the police ‘machine gun’ conspiracy2010 machine gun trial extractsp148F (2nd day 26th Jan 10) Kirk: Could you now confirm that the, that documents contain letters basically to the Chief Constable then of the Devon, of the South Wales Police, dated 26 April, and to my Member of Parliament, John Handel?(defendant confers with his sister)Mr Kirk: John Smith. Copies to other people, that’s, that’s --DC Allsop: Yes.Mr Kirk: The bulk of the material found.DC Allsop: Yes. Yes, they’re downloads from your website, obviously.Mr Kirk: But because you didn’t, because we’re going to get further relevant details from a Ms Parker, all I wished you to comment on before you leave the witness box is, would you agree there are about 43 occurrence numbers being asked about by the name at the bottom of the letter, which happens to be mine?DC Allsop: Yes, there’s a number of what would appear to be incident numbers, yes. p149 Mr Kirk: Yes, good. Evidence will be heard later that I wrote a letter to Barry PoliceStation, dated 4 October 2008. I hand delivered one as well. It finished up with me being interviewed relating to this situation here today, the, the, the charges before the Court, and I was videoed. And an acting sergeant, who was then called an acting inspector, took details relating to this allegation that I would knowingly sell a firearm contrary to Section 5(1)(a) of the 1968 Firearms Act. But each time I have asked about the progress of those 43occurrence numbers, I have been ignored. Now, can you explain whether that is routine, or is it only meted out to those that don’t fit?p150 His Honour Judge Thomas: So, Mr Kirk, so that I’m following this and so that members of the Jury are following it, you’re, what you’re saying about occurrence numbers is that you’ve made complaints to the police about various things, various crimes which have been committed against you, and you say that there’s been no follow up of them. Is that, is that what you’re saying?Mr Kirk: Just for 18 years, yeah.His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes, so that we follow what your, your point --Mr Kirk: But --His Honour Judge Thomas: Is.Mr Kirk: On a point of law, which I feel is not an embarrassment to the Jury, is my positionabout the defence statement. I, I gave documents to support that document, for example,which I believe is part of my defence. Could I ask you, in the absence of the Jury, perhaps,Page 151if I’m allowed to put that document, because it’s a Prosecution evidence document beforethe Jury, why can they not have at the beginning of this trial my defence statement and acopy of my interrogation at Port Talbot Police Station that took 16 hours or whatever it took?His Honour Judge Thomas: I, I, I don’t go want to go through the question of defencestatements. You and I have discussed this on several occasions before. If you want to dothat in front of the Jury, then that’s your prerogative. But …Mr Kirk: No.His Honour Judge Thomas: I don’t propose to go through the question of defencestatements at the moment unless you actively encourage me to do so.Mr Kirk: It, it, it’s just for clarification that, that, that if they had my statement that I servedon the police when I was arrested, at the beginning of the trial instead of the very end, itmight allow them to understand the importance of Prosecution evidence as it comes throughthe Court.[Barry magistrates, on the 23rd June 2009, gave me unconditional bail once they had read the content of my 19th June 2009 64 page BS614159 defence statement (my Plaintiff civil claim covering many of the above 43 deliberately police buried incident numbers). The pretty blonde member of the jury who ran out of the then Haha called restaurant in Cardiff, as my family and helpers walked by on 9th February 2010 on acquittal, dragged me by the arm to the others to tell me, apart from much more, that it was my 64 page ‘exchanged’ witness statement that explained to the eight of the jury present as to why such a bizarre criminal allegation had come about].p151H Mr Kirk: Yes, but the bit I’m on about is, when the music stops, who’s holding, who’s holding the baby? Is this a case of a, a weapon that has been considered by somebody is unlawful because I happen to be holding it at the time, I’m being the one that’s prosecuted,or is this an action that’s been brought maliciously against Maurice Kirk?His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, that, that may well be something the Jury will have todecide. But before …Mr Kirk: Oh, I --His Honour Judge Thomas: Perhaps --Mr Kirk: Decided on the day I was arrested, Your Honour.His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes, but you, the, the first question that remains is this, so that we can make some progress in seeing what’s happening. It, it would be nice if you wereable to tell us now whether you accept or do not accept that you were ever in possession ofthat gun.Mr Kirk: Your Honour, if you think I’m going to assist you in stopping this trial, I’m not.I want to hear the full Prosecution evidence, to have the chance to cross-examine, to get theinformation that I need, for obvious purposes, that you know more about than you areprepared to admit.Is the ‘learned judge’ warming to you?Mr Kirk: Your, Your, Your Honour, I’m not being allowed an open meeting with mydaughter and sister. They’ve made it a closed, through glass, which is making my hearingeven more difficult. But I want to know why I was freely able to speak to my sister duringthe beginning of this but then, when I last went down there, we had to speak through glass.His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, I’m afraid, I’m afraid that matter is beyond myimmediate remit, but, if it can be facilitated that you have a, a direct meeting, so be it. Butif the prison authorities consider that you have to have a screen between you, then that, I’mafraid --Mr Kirk: I was --His Honour Judge Thomas: Is their --Mr Kirk: Told --His Honour Judge Thomas: Prerogative.Mr Kirk: It was by your order, Your Honour.His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, we’ll have to revisit that if necessary. Thank you.Court Clerk: Court please riseMy witness statement has to be made purely on a failing memory and from a very extortionate and badly transcribed recording of my 2010 Cardiff Crown Court ordeal that had been denied me for over 10 years. Its first price quoted in 2010 and paid for had been ?2,500 but not released until last year’s eventual release at ?7000 odd.22nd/23rd June /July and August 2009 etc prosecution witness statements are not available to me as they were, with many other legal papers, confiscated by G4S HMP Parc on my 1st November 2019 day of ejection from the prison. There were also many in my van left outside the Cardiff Crown Court when given a vindictive 2 year prison term concerning yet another ‘restraining order’ never ‘served on me in the 1st place.Despite promises from my HM Parole officer and HMP Parc G4S staff, with subsequent official complaints to police forces, none of them have caused the recovery of anything obviously snatched by the spiteful bullying South Wales Police.During the first three days of trial the HHJ Paul Thomas QC had repeatedly refused my access to my legal papers sitting just at the bottom of the court steps down to the cells. The Judge also refused my family and friends from taking notes of HM Crown Prosecutor’s quite unusual behaviour throughout the whole of my 12 days of trial. p13 (2nd day) Mr Twomlow: May it please Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, I represent the Prosecution. The Defendant is Maurice John Kirk, who is representing himself. This case, ladies and gentlemen, is about that gun that you can see on the desk there in front of you.That is a Lewis machine gun. It’s a type of gun which was invented as long ago as 1911,very nearly 100 years ago. But this particular gun may have been constructed for training or display purposes. It appears, according to expert evidence which you will hear during the course of this case, to comprise a combination of original Lewis gun components and other components which were nonstandard for that gun. The Prosecution say that it falls into the legal category of a prohibited weapon and that the Defendant Maurice Kirk had it in his possession and that he then sold it on, both of which would be offences if it is a prohibitedweaponPage 125 of 153Mr Kirk: Could, could I make an objection to this next witness please?His Honour Judge Thomas: On what basis?Mr Kirk: Yesterday there were six police officers taking record of what was going on. This morning they’ve been reduced to three. My sister has been keeping a record. Two ladies in the gallery yesterday, I know without asking, would have been taking a record. When I asked friends of mine to make a record earlier in these proceedings, this is the thirteenth time I’ve become, I’ve had eight Judges. You must be the ninth, I think. They have been refused the right to make notes while sitting in the gallery. These people in plain uniform, there’s one there who to me looks very much like a policeman. If he is, I would like his identity because I require him as a Defence witness. But more to the point, I want the numbers and names of the six that were here yesterday, not the uniformed ones, because they just do, well, the ones that were not in uniform. And the lady who comes from Dolmans and represents the Chief Constable, who has throughout this trial and yesterday, before you, in, sorry, in Newport last week, was having to give a, give information in order for this, this trial to proceed at a greater speed. I’m entitled, Your Honour, under Article 6, to have thisinformation for my defence.His Honour Judge Thomas: People in the public gallery are not allowed to take notes unless they are given permission to do so. You are not entitled to the names of the people who are in the public gallery. Can we now get on with the next witness please? Thank you.Mrs Jeune: Well, unfortunately he’s tried to, he has a lawyer who’s trying to pursue accessto medical records, which he’s been denied. They are his medical records. And he’semployed a lawyer to do that.His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes. Oh, well. The, the, the point at the moment is that youare not able to speak on his behalf, I’m afraid. (p5 2nd day)P7 (2nd day) Mrs Jeune: Yes, but he --His Honour Judge Thomas: Thank you.Mrs Jeune: Believes he’s in a web of conspiracy. This is the problem.P11(2nd day) Mr Kirk: When I first came before you, you accepted that it was a bail application laid before the Court by a Mr Francis Werren, who I hardly know. You then said that I had also put in a bail application. But I wasn’t going to be fooled. I put it in writing to you that should there be a delay during the trial due to no fault of my own because the police have deliberately not given me proper disclosure to prepare a defence, I would like to take that opportunity, which is why my sister has come over also, to arrange specialist medicalattention at my expense and asking for the custody of the Court to allow me to have medicalattention during the delays that you are already experiencing today, to no fault of my own.Only yesterday the Prosecution had produced yet another gun. They could have given methis witness statement and so on months ago. This has now caused me concern about findingthe people who went to see the aeroplane when it was for sale with me, when there wasclearly a, another gun on it, which is now being described by many as ornamentalironmongery. I have to chase, and I have the name now today, of the lorry haulage firm thatwent to collect it, who knew there was ornamental ironmongery attached to it. This is all 12years ago.This next extract of the MG 6 summary from the court transcript of Richard Thomlow indicates, alone, the level of inherent deceit and spite that was again the driving force for these criminal allegations in yet another attempt to stop the BS614159 etc civil claims due to the admitted adverse publicity it would attract (see MAPPA 8th June 2009) agent’s notes.I had never ever said to any one the replica Lewis bolted on the nose of my Farnborough Airshow flown DH2 was ‘deactivated’ as it was simply pieces of spare ironware put together by Viv Bellamy ( married Mr Fairy’s daughter) and others to make it look like one when the aircraft featured the World War 1 film called ‘Gunbus’.It was clear to Mr Cooper, the new owner, that it was not a Lewis machine gun but a good replica! One did not have to be an expert to believe it was made to look like one but this concocted hearing carried a section 5 of 1968 firearms act, carrying a mandatory 5 prison term for ‘possession’ and a further 5 years for its sale.No one but the police stated it was ‘an automatic’! It may well have been ‘modified’ to shoot one shot at a time by the police once they had unblocked the single barrel but requiring two consecutive trigger pressures like a ‘side by side’ or ‘over and under’ shot gun to discharge a 2nd round without manually reloading. To stop my civil claim, following the South Wales Police 50 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions, it was plainly obvious, by the evening of 25th June 2009 (suggested reading includes the whole 12 days of the machine gun jury trial) so Barbara wilding dealt me the Stalin ‘Gulag card’). Unlawful pressure was put on medical staff to have me sectioned to Ashworth’s high security mental health hospital. (jury returns)His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, good morning, members of the Jury. I know that I saidwe’d be starting at half past 10, and there’s been a delay. I wish I could say I was confidentthere wouldn’t be other delays on other days, but I’m afraid I can’t. Please bear with me,and we’ll try and keep them to a minimum. I see some of you shuddering with cold as youPage 13 of 15Mr Twomlow: May it please Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, I represent theProsecution. The Defendant is Maurice John Kirk, who is representing himself. This case,ladies and gentlemen, is about that gun that you can see on the desk there in front of you.That is a Lewis machine gun. It’s a type of gun which was invented as long ago as 1911,very nearly 100 years ago. But this particular gun may have been constructed for trainingor display purposes. It appears, according to expert evidence which you will hear during thecourse of this case, to comprise a combination of original Lewis gun components and othercomponents which were non standard for that gun. The Prosecution say that it falls into thelegal category of a prohibited weapon and that the Defendant Maurice Kirk had it in hispossession and that he then sold it on, both of which would be offences if it is a prohibitedweapon.The Defendant Mr Kirk is a qualified veterinary surgeon who has practised in the LlantwitMajor area of South Wales, and he’s also a qualified pilot. He has a website,, of which you will hear something during the course of this case.Now, let me put before you, ladies and gentlemen, a bundle of documents which I hope willbe of assistance to you while I explain the case and throughout the case. There are six files,including documents for you, one between two.(parties confer)Mr Twomlow: And there’s one for Your, Your Honour.His Honour Judge Thomas: Thank you. Thank you very much.(parties confer)Mr Twomlow: You’ll see an index at the very first blue page.Page 14 of 153(parties confer)Court Clerk: You were given it yesterday, another --Mr Kirk: I have --Court Clerk: Bundle.Mr Kirk: I’ve been told that I have to get permission from the Judge.His Honour Judge Thomas: Sorry, for what?Court Clerk: I think it’s …Mr Kirk: My papers are down below. Apparently for health and safety reasons, I’m notallowed to have them in the dock, but I would like to have the bundle that was given to meyesterday. I haven’t had a chance to even read it. It may be the same one that’s before theJury.His Honour Judge Thomas: Now, Mr Kirk, you were given time yesterday to read it, andyou had documents in the dock with you yesterday. I wonder if, please, dock officer, if thiscan be located. I understand there are many, many files downstairs. Is that right?Dock Officer: My understanding of it, Your Honour, was that Mr Kirk was given all hisdocuments this morning but he refused to sign any papers acknowledging receipt --His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, that, that --Dock Officer: For the --His Honour Judge Thomas: May or may, they may --Dock Officer: Trial bundles.Page 15 of 153His Honour Judge Thomas: Or may not be right, but can we please get a file like this,which is black? Thank you. In the meantime, is there a spare copy for Mr Kirk to look at?Mr Twomlow: There, there isn’t, I’m afraid. There were, there were enough done for YourHonour and ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, and because Mr Kirk had had his bundleyesterday.Mr Kirk: There’s one there. She doesn’t need it.Mr Twomlow: May I go on simply to explain the indictment?His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes, please.Mr Twomlow: Because Mr Kirk is familiar with the indictment. It appears at page 1 of thebundle, ladies and gentlemen. It’s the document which sets out in writing the charges whichare faced by Mr Kirk and which you will have to consider at the end of the evidence. Eachcount relates to his ownership and his possession of this Lewis machine gun. TheProsecution say, as I’ve told you, that it was a prohibited weapon under the Firearms Act1968 because, as the name machine gun suggests, it was, in the words you can see at the endof each of the particulars of offence:“Designed or adapted so that two or more missiles could be successivelydischarged without repeated pressure on the trigger.”In other words, you pull the trigger and it fires thereafter automatically, as you would expectof a machine gun. Let me explain briefly the Prosecution case about the gun itself, whichinvolves me telling you a little bit about the Firearms Act 1968. I should say straightaway,ladies and gentlemen, that matters of law are matters for His Honour and not for me, soanything that I tell you about the law is absolutely subject to any directions that His Honourgives you. If there’s any difference between them, His Honour is right and I’m not. But Ihope I’m going to be right.Now, you will see in your indictment the elements of the offence which the Prosecution hasto prove. Count 1, the statement of offence is:Page 16 of 153“Possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to section 5(1)(a) of theFirearms Act 1968.”And the particulars are that:“Maurice John Kirk between the 1st day of January 2008 and the 23rd dayof June 2009, without the authority of the Secretary of State, had in hispossession a firearm, namely a Lewis machine gun, which was so designedor adapted that two or more missiles could be successively dischargedwithout repeated pressure on the trigger.”A word about the dates. The Prosecution has to prove that at some time between those dateshe had it in his possession. It doesn’t have to prove that it was from the first date to the lastdate. Sometime between those dates, he had that item in his possession.Count 2 is selling or transferring a prohibited weapon contrary to Section 5(1)(a) of theFirearms Act, and the particulars are that between those same dates:“Without the authority of the Secretary of State, he sold or transferred afirearm, namely a Lewis machine gun, which was so designed or adaptedthat two or more missiles could be successfully discharged without[repeating pressure on] repeated pressure on the trigger.”Now, ladies and gentlemen, there’s one matter that is relevant in this case because ofsomething that Mr Kirk has said. It is possible for a gun which is a prohibited weapon tobecome legal to possess if it is deactivated, because it then is no longer a firearm. A firearmceases to be a firearm if it’s been rendered incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or othermissile. That is relevant in this case because Mr, Mr Kirk told the person to whom he soldthis gun that this weapon had been deactivated. In fact, it had not. It would still work, andit’s been tested, and I’ll tell you a little bit about that in a moment.In the course of this case you will hear expert evidence about the gun from two witnessescalled by the Prosecution. The first of those is Mr Andrew Huxtable, who is the NationalBallistics Intelligence Service armourer, based at the Scientific Support Unit at Bridgendhere in South Wales. He’s responsible for the initial intake and examination of all firearmsfor South Wales Police, Dyfed Powys Police and Gwent Police. He also previously servedfor five and a half years with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers as an armourer.You’ll also hear from Mr Philip Rydeard, who is a senior forensic scientist based at theNorthern Firearms Unit, who is specialised in the examination of firearms, ammunition andrelated items, since 1998, so for 12 years. And he has 45 years’ experience altogether, in thehandling and use of firearms.Both those gentlemen have examined this gun in the state in which it now is. It can still befired, though it can no longer still be fired in the automatic mode I’ve told you about, simplyby keeping the finger on the trigger. It will fire a single shot. It will fire not only ammunitionof its era but it will fire a modern cartridge. In Mr Huxtable’s opinion it has not beendeactivated. Mr Huxtable is of the opinion that the gun is a firearm, and it falls withinSection 5 of the Firearms Act as being a prohibited weapon because it is a firearm which is:“So designed or adapted that two or more missiles can be successivelydischarged without repeated pressure on the trigger.” The words in the count on the indictment, or both counts.Mr Rydeard, as far as he is concerned, in his opinion, the Lewis gun fulfils the requirementsof a firearm. He doesn’t consider that the weapon has been deactivated. He in fact test firedthe gun. It worked. He is, he is of the opinion that the fact that it could now only fire asingle shot at a time does not prevent it, within the legislation, from being a prohibitedweapon. It was designed to do so.You’ll also hear evidence from Richard Mabbitt, who is employed by the WorshipfulCompany of Gunmakers. He examined the gun simply to see whether it had beendeactivated, and his conclusion was that it had not been deactivated.Let me tell you now, ladies and gentlemen, a, a little about the facts of the case. Has MrKirk now received his Jury bundle? Because I’m going to refer to it.Dock Officer: It can’t be located, Sir. There’s so much documents, Sir, we just can’t findit at the moment.Page 18 of 153His Honour Judge Thomas: Right. So --Mr Twomlow: I am --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr, Mr Kirk at the moment does not have a bundle.Mr Twomlow: No.His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk, would you know where to put your hands on it in the cells?Mr Kirk: If I’m allowed back to my cell voluntarily, yes.His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, I will give you time to look for it. And clearly it’ll mean a, a brief disruption, members of the Jury, but it’s important, of course, that Mr Kirk follows the case against him in detail, as you will appreciate.Mr Kirk: Well …His Honour Judge Thomas: Now, you may grab the opportunity for a cup of tea or coffee. I'm not sure you’re going to get another one this, this morning. Thank you.(jury retires)Page 14 of 153Mr Kirk: My papers are down below. Apparently for health and safety reasons, I’m notallowed to have them in the dock, but I would like to have the bundle that was given to meyesterday. I haven’t had a chance to even read it. It may be the same one that’s before theJury.His Honour Judge Thomas: Now, Mr Kirk, you were given time yesterday to read it, andyou had documents in the dock with you yesterday. I wonder if, please, dock officer, if thiscan be located. I understand there are many, many files downstairs. Is that right?Dock Officer: My understanding of it, Your Honour, was that Mr Kirk was given all hisdocuments this morning but he refused to sign any papers acknowledging receipt --His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, that, that --Dock Officer: For the --His Honour Judge Thomas: May or may, they may --Dock Officer: Trial bundles.P16 (2nd day)“Possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to section 5(1)(a) of theFirearms Act 1968.”And the particulars are that:“Maurice John Kirk between the 1st day of January 2008 and the 23rd dayof June 2009, without the authority of the Secretary of State, had in hispossession a firearm, namely a Lewis machine gun, which was so designedor adapted that two or more missiles could be successively dischargedwithout repeated pressure on the trigger.”His Honour Judge Thomas: What’s the position now? Do we know?Mr Twomlow: Well, I understand that Mr Kirk still does not have his Jury bundle, althoughhe’s been to the cells.(defendant confers with dock officer)His Honour Judge Thomas: Right.(defendant confers with dock officer)Mr Twomlow: He’s --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk, what’s the position please? Have you got your Jury bundle?(parties confer)His Honour Judge Thomas: Can you hear?Dock Officer: No, Your Honour.Court Clerk: We’ve reported the fault, Your Honour.His Honour Judge Thomas: Can you see if you can rectify it by, by --Mr Kirk: If he just speaks up, I can hear you, but I can’t hear the Prosecution.His Honour Judge Thomas: Right.Mr Kirk: If he just speaks a little louder when he’s speaking to the Jury, let’s get on withthis please.His Honour Judge Thomas: All right. So you’re content, are you, having seen your Jurybundle, to continue now in front of the Jury?Mr Kirk: No, I haven’t seen it because they won’t let me get at my papers. They’re nowsaying, what they said this morning was false, by the way.His Honour Judge Thomas: Right, so you’ve been asked –NB Detective Chief Inspector Benson-Davies who arranged Foxy was well aware of the nonsense his undercover agent having to carry out such an absurd charade and on his name being dragged out of Foxy I nearly decided to launch a defence purely out of curiosity.p49 Mr Kirk: That I now --His Honour Judge Thomas: Have you to --Mr Kirk: Have to sign --His Honour Judge Thomas: You’ve been asked to sign for your documents, have you?Mr Kirk: Yeah, no, they are now saying that it’s a health, they were saying that it’s a healthand safety problem to have my legal papers in Court. And I said, how absurd. Now theyare saying that I have to sign pieces of paper for them to open a file, a box, I mean. Thereare about 15 boxes down there. There are about 60 files.His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes, you have to --Mr Kirk: They’re --His Honour Judge Thomas: Sign. You have --Mr Kirk: They’re all --Page 21 of 153His Honour Judge Thomas: You have to --Mr Kirk: Relevant.His Honour Judge Thomas: Sign the, the --Mr Kirk: I’m --His Honour Judge Thomas: Papers.Mr Kirk: Still scratching my head, Your Honour, about how you seem to know that the filesthat the police, the prison refused to release to me yesterday were to do with my civil case.His Honour Judge Thomas: Because you told me that, Mr Kirk. That’s why.Mr Kirk: During the proceedings yesterday?His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes. I’m not clairvoyant. The prison regulations require youto sign for possessions. If you don’t sign for the possessions, you won’t, I’m afraid, getthem. So when you sign for them, you can have them. Are you content to continue nowwith the opening without your Jury bundle?Mr Kirk: My sister is here to try and obtain private medical services for me, and she hasmade arrangements and made an appointment. But you are hanging on to more than ?2,000of my money at this moment in time. Last time, half a million pounds was offered for bailby a Frank Werren for my release. I failed to obtain it. Now, you are now expecting me tosign a piece of paper without legal advice.His Honour Judge Thomas: Right, in that case, let’s have the Jury in, and we’ll continuewith the Jury bundle not being in front of Mr Kirk, if he’s not prepared for documentation.Thank you. Could I ask, Mr Twomlow, if you could shout rather louder than usual so thatMr Kirk can hear you?Mr Twomlow: Yeah.Page 22 of 153The issues in this case, ladies and gentlemen, are fundamentally simple ones. So far as Count1 is concerned, there are two real issues. The Prosecution must prove firstly that the Lewismachine gun was in the possession of Mr Kirk during the period set out in the indictment.Page 27 of 153You’ve seen the photographs and you’ll see the video clips. Secondly, the Prosecution mustprove that the gun was a prohibited weapon under the Firearms Act, and in order to do thatwe will rely upon the expert evidence which I have told you about. And so far as Count 2 isconcerned, the Prosecution must prove that the gun was sold by Mr Kirk and that it was aprohibited weapon.p3 (3rd day) 27th January 2010I witnessed from the dock what was picked up on the court tape recorder and state I have met the occasional wicked judge in my time in a British court but this Paul Thomas was reminiscent of the courts in the tax haven Jersey and Guernsey.His Honour Judge Thomas: I’ve received a letter from Mr Kirk’s sister requesting medical records from the Caswell Clinic. It appears that an appointment is to be arranged with an ENT surgeon, and the request is that I order records from the Caswell Clinic, where DrTegwyn Williams is a consultant psychiatrist for the purposes of that examination. It seemsto be suggested that Mr Kirk’s hearing difficulties date from a time when he was staying atthe Caswell Clinic. Now, that matter, it seems to me, does not directly affect or impinge onthe issue in this case, and thus I’m afraid I cannot order them. It may be that Mr Kirk couldobtain them by other means, but I cannot order them.Two other issues are raised in the letter. One appears to be in relation to fitness to plead.That matter was of course determined before His Honour Judge Gareth Jones before Ibecame the trial Judge. I have of course kept an eye on that situation, but it is clear to methat Mr Kirk is abundantly able to ask appropriate and searching questions of the witnessesand to follow proceedings. And I should say that the question of bail has been raised in thatletter. I was the last Judge to refuse Mr Kirk bail, of course, a week or two ago in Newport,and I have to stress that I would have done so irrespective of the contents of any report byDr Williams. Let, let me say this as well. I have got still in mind Mr Kirk’s application forwitness summonses. I haven’t forgotten about that.Mr Kirk: Yes, thank you.His Honour Judge Thomas: I’m going to wait until I see what the issues are in the case,and we’ll revisit the question of witness summonses possibly tomorrow or Friday.Mr Kirk: Well, I, I would object, with all due respect. The issues and the evidence that’scoming from Prosecution witnesses not on cross-examination but on evidence-in-chief makeit very, very serious that I, I know that I have my Defence witnesses before I choose to cross examine or not, the witnesses that have come through already and the ones that are yet tocome through. If you are going to delay me my right to know what Defence witnesses I canhave, at least will you hold the witnesses once they’ve given evidence? Because I may notbe prepared to cross-examine them until you have allowed me my Defence witnesses.His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, at the moment the way in which the Defence witnesses are asked for, there are witnesses whose relevance I cannot presently see. There arewitnesses who are unnamed, for example all the staff at RAF Lyneham. There are one ortwo people whose names are mentioned. I can’t issue witness summonses if I don’t knowagainst whom the witness summons has to be issued. If you’re asking me, for example inthe case of the former Chief Constable of, of South Wales Police, I cannot at the momentsee any relevance. So the reason that I am holding back on it is because I want to find out ifit does become relevant. If you ask me to make a decision now, I’m afraid the answer wouldhave to be, in nearly all of those instances, that I would not issue a witness summons.Page 4 of 174Mr Kirk: Well, but just as a point of record, for the date of this hearing now, I apply for awitness summons for the current police constable of South Wales, and I want one for thepast constable of South Wales Police Force, Barbara Wilding.His Honour Judge Thomas: On what basis? What are your grounds for doing so?Mr Kirk: If I was allowed to have, first, my medication, which I’ve been a, refused again,twice in three days by the, the, the custody staff, and if I could have access to my papers,this time I have been taken, I have not even been able to come into Court with pen and paper.His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk, the question was, on what basis do you require awitness summons for the present and past Chief Constables of South Wales Police? On what--Mr Kirk: I --His Honour Judge Thomas: Basis?Mr Kirk: I have the written reasons in my papers for this Court that are being unlawfullywithheld by Reliance Services.His Honour Judge Thomas: No, you’ve been told on numerous occasions that you canhave access to your papers on the basis that you sign for receipt of them. You consistently,as I understand it, refuse to do so.Mr Kirk: I left your Court last night under the understanding that I would be given bailunless it was opposed. I was then locked up --His Honour Judge Thomas: By whom? Who told you that?Mr Kirk: Well, I can only work on limited information, but what I was told by someone, itwas either the prison staff or the CPS, wash your mouth out, Maurice, that the conditions ofme being kept in custody expired on the 26th, my first wife’s birthday, which was yesterday.Now, I didn’t hear you remand me to prison yesterday, but I have a hearing problem eversince I was subjected to that barbaric gulag archipelago Caswell Clinic, run by the SouthWales Police Force. Now, could that matter be cleared?His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes. Your custody remains. Had the trial not started onMonday, on the 20, well, on the 26th, sorry, Tuesday, then I would have had to havereconsidered the matter because the custody time limit would have expired. In fact, the trialdid start, and therefore the custody time limit did not expire, and therefore you remainremanded in custody.Mr Kirk: So you are responsible for me having to be put back in the prison last night. Allmy papers are taken off me, contrary to my wishes. They are then bagged and sealed andtaped and do whatever bureaucracy has to do, for which I have no objection. They are thenpurportedly handed over to someone else. But there must come a time when somebody isresponsible for giving back my papers I require in a British Court of law --His Honour Judge Thomas: Yeah.Mr Kirk: To defend myself. Oh, I haven’t finished. My sister, my kid sister, because of allthis, attempted to get a local barrister, of whom I have great faith, to come and see me incustody, when he was available over the next few days, to give me advice on points of lawthat have arisen due to the unusual evidence by the Prosecution. My sister is here to tell youthat she was refused to arrange it because it has to go through a firm of solicitors.His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes.Mr Kirk: Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.His Honour Judge Thomas: Now, Mr Kirk.Mr Kirk: You have --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk --Mr Kirk: The power --His Honour Judge Thomas: Would you listen to me for a moment? Mr Kirk, the one thingI will not tolerate, I’m afraid, in this Court is bad language. That is probably on the cusp ofbad language. And I think we’re all robust enough, but please don’t resort to bad language.It won’t help your case. It won’t help the dignity of the Court.Mr Kirk: But being thoroughly deceitful you will tolerate in your Court, will you?His Honour Judge Thomas: Now, Mr Kirk, the question that I asked you some little timeago now was the basis upon which you require a witness summons for those two ChiefConstables.Mr Kirk: I’d told you I have the written information downstairs --His Honour Judge Thomas: Right.Mr Kirk: Sealed by the prison, and I believe not unsealed by the custodial services.His Honour Judge Thomas: Let me make it clear that you must have all the papers thatyou require to conduct your case. However, it appears that because of prison and Relianceregulations, you must sign for receipt. If you do not sign for receipt, you will not have them.If you do, as far as I’m concerned, you must have them. Let’s proceed with the case. Thankyou.Mr Kirk: Right.His Honour Judge Thomas: Can we have the Jury in please?Mr Kirk: The previous Judge said that he had the power to produce a barrister to come andsee me. And without consulting me, he did it prior to him saying it on the October transcriptthat you handed to me at the beginning of this trial. His name is Nicholas Cooke, with an E.And he caused a number of lawyers to enter my current hotel uninvited, barristers, solicitors,you name it, because they thought that your blackmail that I have been subjected to for thelast eight months had eventually succeeded. When I gave instructions to both solicitors andbarristers who came into my hotel, none of them, none, they all refused to take actions thatI gave them, some in writing for later evidence, to preserve evidence required that is relevantto this trial. I ask you to order the barrister I name to come and give me assistance on a pointof law.His Honour Judge Thomas: I’m not able to --Mr Kirk: Well --His Honour Judge Thomas: Require --Mr Kirk: Cooke is. I ask you to ask him. It’s on the transcript that he has the power underthe Welsh, the, what do they call it? The Wales Law Society. It’s on the transcript. You’vegot a copy, Your Honour. I paid for it because the --His Honour Judge Thomas: I --Mr Kirk: Court wouldn’t --His Honour Judge Thomas: Have no --Mr Kirk: Produce it.His Honour Judge Thomas: I have no right, I have no power to order any barrister torepresent you.Mr Kirk: If we are going to pretend, after the third day of this, this, this charade, that yourun this Court based on the rule of law, your power outside that door each time you leavethis room was apparent when the Judge on 17 December, after half a million pounds hadbeen offered to the Court, no, sorry, ?400,000. My sister’s come over from Jersey to offeranother ?100,000 for bail surety. His Honour Judge Bidder arranged for the police to goaround at 4:40 in the afternoon to the house that, to the property in, in, in Tynewydd Roadfollowing my naming the property. And I have, later, witnesses coming to Court who wereinterviewed by the police to check that the property was suitable for me to move to. He thenused the only excuse for not letting me have bail. Tegwyn Williams, the Director of SouthWales Police Psychiatric Forensic Service, saying that I have a mental disorder and I willignore Court orders, therefore there is no point in giving me conditions of bail. I wouldremind you that Barry Magistrates gave me unconditional bail.His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes. Thank you, Mr Kirk. Can we have the Jury in please?(defendant confers with his sister)Mr Kirk: I’d like to have the tape played back please, up until you were talking about theCaswell Clinic. I didn’t hear it, my sister didn’t hear it and a very concerned party who’stravelled halfway across the country to come and witness this Court also couldn’t hear it.His Honour Judge Thomas: No.Mr Kirk: If there’s anything that I’ve missed, could you please repeat it. Thank you.His Honour Judge Thomas: Members, the members of the Jury are now coming in. Wewill deal with this at a later stage.(defendant confers with his sister)(jury returns)A second ‘dummy gun’ is introduced into the case!This extract of transcript indicates the conditions I was being subjected to due to the detaqil in each of the previous 50 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutionsge Thomas: To ask --Mr Kirk: No, no.His Honour Judge Thomas: Any more questions while that’s happening --Page 108Mr Kirk: No, I was just, while we’re waiting for the exhibit. In prison I was denied theright to hand out money. Downstairs, as you know, I’m not allowed pen or paper. Couldthe Court please present me with pen and paper so I can write down the evidence that’s aboutto come?His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes, you can have pen and paper.Mr Kirk: But will you give me the right to give a cheque to my wife, to my sister from thedock, in order that she can employ a lawyer? The, the, the --His Honour Judge Thomas: I’ll deal, I’ll, I’ll deal with that after we’ve finished theevidence --Mr Kirk: Well --His Honour Judge Thomas: Today.Mr Kirk: I need to know, anyway, how to cross, well, I, I, I feel offensive to suggest I’mcross-examining this gentleman, but technically I’m, I’m to cross-examine him now. But Iwish to know that I’m going to get a lawyer available once Huxtable comes back on the sameevidence.His Honour Judge Thomas: We, we’ll, we’ll deal with that --Mr Kirk: No, no, I want to know if you will let me give my sister a cheque for ?7,500 fromthe dock. You have prevented certain things happening so far in this trial. I must know if Ican give my sister, before the proceedings --His Honour Judge Thomas: Right.Mr Kirk: End today --His Honour Judge Thomas: Dock officer, is there any reason why a cheque can’t be given?Page 109 Dock Officer 1: No reason at all, I don't think.Dock Officer 2: I don't think, Your Honour. It depends where the chequebook is. Is he, ishe signing somebody else’s chequebook? Where, where’s his --His Honour Judge Thomas: Where’s the --Dock Officer 2: Chequebook?His Honour Judge Thomas: Chequebook?Mr Kirk: No, I have the cheque on my, on me at the moment.His Honour Judge Thomas: Is there a reason, therefore, why that can’t be given to hissister?Dock Officer 2: Well, I can’t see no problem at all with it, Your Honour, with that all, ifhe’s --His Honour Judge Thomas: Right.Dock Officer 2: Got it on him --His Honour Judge Thomas: In that case --Dock Officer 2: On his person.His Honour Judge Thomas: Give the, sorry?Mr Kirk: Well, that really turns everything on its head, doesn’t it? Because you are notletting me have my legal papers, because you say I have to sign a piece of paper.His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk, if you’ve got a --Page 110 Dock Officer 2: But if the chequebook’s in with his legal papers, he’s going to have to signhis legal papers --His Honour Judge Thomas: Right.Dock Officer 2: To get his chequebook.His Honour Judge Thomas: OK.Mr Kirk: They are, the chequebook, the cheque is with me.His Honour Judge Thomas: Do you have the cheque on you at the moment?Mr Kirk: Yes.His Honour Judge Thomas: In your pocket?Mr Kirk: No, it is three inches up my rectum. How else do you --His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, in that --Mr Kirk: Think I can get --His Honour Judge Thomas: In that --Dock Officer 2: Well, that being the case --Mr Kirk: Money?His Honour Judge Thomas: In that case --Dock Officer 2: No, Your Honour.His Honour Judge Thomas: Your sister probably won’t want to take it.Page 111Mr Kirk: I am in possession of a cheque. I was put in the punishment block in the, inpassing a cheque to my, my daughter, who’s a film producer, Belinda. She’s crying her eyesout because this lot were going to try to me IPP, a permanent prison sentence in Ashworth.And I --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr --Mr Kirk: Handed the cheque --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk --Mr Kirk: Over.His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk --Mr Kirk: And --His Honour Judge Thomas: Can I just ask you a simple question?Mr Kirk: It is an offence --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr --Mr Kirk: To have a --His Honour Judge Thomas: Kirk --Mr Kirk: Cheque.His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk, where is the cheque? I hope it isn’t where you saidit is.Mr Kirk: The cheque is exactly where I said it is.His Honour Judge Thomas: Where?Page 112 Mr Kirk: I’ve read the book that was written before Cassina.(Papillon)His Honour Judge Thomas: Where is your cheque?Mr Kirk: Four, two and a half inches up my personal, very personal rectum, Your Honour.It’s my property, but, under the rules of Reliance, an outside firm who seem to be runningmy Court case, you have already said that you can tell somebody there --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk --Mr Kirk: Writing --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk --Mr Kirk: A young lady --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk --Mr Kirk: Writing --His Honour Judge Thomas: The one thing I will not allow is for you to produce that chequeat this moment. We will listen to the evidence.Mr Kirk: Oh, no, I …His Honour Judge Thomas: We will listen to the evidence, and then at an appropriate timeyou can retrieve the cheque from wherever it is. And if your sister’s prepared to take it, shemay. I’m just not going to let it happen in my presence or the Jury’s presence. I can assure--Mr Kirk: So --His Honour Judge Thomas: You of that.Page 113 Mr Kirk: If I, if I choose to retrieve it in the prison …His Honour Judge Thomas: You can --Mr Kirk: You can --His Honour Judge Thomas: Retrieve it --Mr Kirk: Guarantee, you can guarantee. Eight months, we’ve been trying to get money out.Yesterday’s post, when I left you last night, was a letter five days old from the head of prisonsecurity, saying:“Further to your complaint [relating to this] we are urgently trying to assesswhether you are still MAPPA Level 3.”That’s the 5% most dangerous, nasty people roaming the countryside of Great Britain, in theeyes of the local constabulary, MAPPA, Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.The other disclosure that’s just come to me is a statement from my own wife dated Augustof last year, and she got so annoyed with the police. And on the MAPPA records, which Ihave acquired by another means, which went before the monthly MAPPA meetings here atHQ, which contains prison staff, probation staff, social workers and police.His Honour Judge Thomas: Right, Mr Kirk, sit down now --Mr Kirk: It is --His Honour Judge Thomas: Please. Mr Kirk --Mr Kirk: Extremely relevant --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr --Mr Kirk: To me --His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk --Page 114 of 167Mr Kirk: Cross-examining this witness.His Honour Judge Thomas: Sit down. We’ve now got the other gun. Let the gentlemanlook at that please. Be careful you don’t bounce the chair.Mr Kirk: Could I have a copy of it please?His Honour Judge Thomas: A copy of what? The gun?Mr Kirk: Well, I have no papers other than what my sister slips to me, don’t, what, what isit?(defendant confers with his sister)His Honour Judge Thomas: Right, do we have the dummy? Do we have the dummy gunin Court?(defendant confers with his sister)His Honour Judge Thomas: Do we have the dummy gun now in Court?Mr Twomlow: It’s here.(defendant confers with his sister)His Honour Judge Thomas: Right. Mr Rydeard, would you look, please, at the, the other summaryThe 1st prosecution witness on p36 of transcript, as early as the 2nd day of evidence, I heard say the ‘gun’, as the Crown Prosecutor was continuing to try and fool the jury, was lethal. Yes, as a ‘cosh’, maybe, but as was asked by eight of the jury, after my acquittal, why did the judge not stop the trail? I deliberately then tried to ‘swing’ the case for a guilty verdict as it would be the only way to get the south Wales Police off my back with the subsequent publicity guaranteed from successful appeal onto the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice. Each day, thereon in, prison staff who had been following the case kept warning me it would be two years before my appeal would reach the RCJ but I wanted to hear as many lies as possible from the more senior police, such as the investigating officer (in the public gallery in the early days taking notes), no doubt to alter forthcoming evidence from witnesses yet to be heard. At one point, now the mood of the jury was obvious (by the 2nd day of evidence), also witnessed by my sister (see my video interview and her statement) the same withheld evidence ‘disclosure’ is the very same now in this civil claim despite a judge having ordered it be revealed to me. If any honest judge had become aware of it he or she would have directed the jury to a not guilty verdict. His Honour Judge Thomas: Mr Kirk, you say that you did not say that your gun hadworked. Is that correct?Mr Kirk: I will give my evidence when and, when I, when, when I consider it appropriatefor a, a British Court of law. I am doing the cross-examining, and I’m not going to be cross examined by a Judge who will not let me have my aspirins for me, for, for my headache.I’m not allowed to have my documents which are down there, because they’re squabbling.They wouldn’t give me a cup of coffee, because, because they’d made mistakes in the lastfew days. You’re, you’re such, such petty people. I’m just really sick and tired of you. I’vebeen locked up for eight months, and I’ve heard evidence that is, is disgraceful, so far. Nodisrespect for this gentleman. He’s got a proper job to do. I’ve at last found somebodywho’s got a proper job to do in this case. Now, if I am saying that the list of un, un, nonsensitive scheduled documents that the police have acquired during Operation Chalice, forPage 28 of 174example they’ve been emailing the person who I say sold me the aeroplane in 1996 or ’97in Singapore. And emails have been going backwards and forwards.Now they have brought somebody with the same surname to give evidence today, emailinghim. A late statement has come from him only this Saturday, who is the person who’ssupposed to have sold it to me, the, the vintage aircraft, from his museum. I, if they areprepared to put it on a list and I’m not allowed to, to know the content of these emails, youwill not let me pay the photocopying of an email to the commanding officer of, of RAFLyneham, where the aircraft stayed for at least two years, and you are saying you aren’tgoing to look at it unless you think it’s relevant. Are you considering today, at this time,now 25 past 11 on the Wednesday 27, that, going down that list, things have not arisenyesterday in cross-examination that are now burningly obvious should be put before theJury?His Honour Judge Thomas: Right, thank you Mr Kirk. I’ve heard what you’ve had to say.Do you have any more questions for this witness?Mr Kirk: When I have seen what I heard. Dr Tegwyn Williams says that I suffer from ashort term memory disorder. It is written in his five, four, well, not all, but at least two ofhis four psychiatric reports that have been used to detain me in custody for nearly eightmonths. It is written clearly.His Honour Judge Thomas: Right, we now, I think, have a copy of that document.Mr Kirk: Causing me to look around, well, it reminded me, because I wish the lady to be aDefence witness, she shouldn’t be in Court.His Honour Judge Thomas: Do the Prosecution propose to call that witness?Mr Twomlow: I’m sorry?His Honour Judge Thomas: Do the Prosecution propose to call that witness as aProsecution witness?Mr Twomlow: It was a matter that was under consideration, depending upon what --Page 29 of 174His Honour Judge Thomas: Well --Mr Twomlow: Requirements there are.His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, in --Mr Twomlow: And so --His Honour Judge Thomas: That case, it’s probably best that she does not remain in Court.Mr Twomlow: She’s not made a witness statement, but, as matters progress, it’s a matterthat’s been under review. There’s be no reason as yet to think that she will be called as awitness.His Honour Judge Thomas: No, but I think probably --Mr Twomlow: But --His Honour Judge Thomas: For the sake of --Mr Twomlow: It, it, it, to be cautious.His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes.Mr Twomlow: Yes.His Honour Judge Thomas: For the sake of cautious, caution it’s probably best that shedoesn’t attend.Mr Kirk: Could I have the name for the record please?His Honour Judge Thomas: I think it was given yesterday. I don't remember what it was.Mr Kirk: DI Hughes. But I want it from the Prosecution please.Page 30 of 174Mr Twomlow: Suzanne Hughes. Suzanne Hughes.His Honour Judge Thomas: Suzanne Hughes, I’m told, Detective Inspector Hughes.Mr Twomlow: Yes.Mr Kirk: Could, could, could I seek guidance? Has she made a witness statement or not?His Honour Judge Thomas: I’m told not, which is usual practice for an officer in chargeof the case.Mr Kirk: I need the notes, the copious notes that she’s been taking in my Court withoutyour permission. There are two ladies over there whose Court cases I have followed indetail, and I have seen the way they’ve been treated in this building. And I have heard yousay Sir Norman Scarth was banned from my Court on 1 October. You can read it on thetranscript that you served on me at the beginning --His Honour Judge Thomas: Who is Sir --Mr Kirk: Of trial.His Honour Judge Thomas: Norman Scarth?Mr Kirk: Norman Scarth has tried to send me legal documents to the Court, books, papers.My young son in London is at the moment travelling here with books that have beendelivered and refused at the prison. His name is, well, we, we, well, you’ll find because I’masking to call evidence. And you have said, and Norman Scarth, Sir Norman was bannedfrom the Court because he was taking notes. And the lady here was taking notes, and eachtime she spoke in that Court, inaudible, inaudible. And whenever I said something aboutgulag archipelago, it was always inaudible.His Honour Judge Thomas: Right.Page 31 of 174Mr Kirk: You not only control the prison system, you control the legal trade around here.You have a, a, a ring fenced legal system here in South Wales, not Wales, South Wales. AndI’m now under the pressure of that lot downstairs. I successfully sued them in the BristolCourt. No, this Court, this Court, Cardiff Court.His Honour Judge Thomas: Right.Mr Kirk: In the past.His Honour Judge Thomas: Thank you, Mr Kirk. We need now to get on, I’m afraid, withthe case. Is that document available?(no audible response)His Honour Judge Thomas: You’ve got a copy of it. Please read it and then ask anyquestions that arise out of it, Mr Kirk.(defendant confers with his sister)Mr Kirk: Is this your entire note, officer?(no audible response)Mr Kirk: It’s, under the laws of best evidence, Your Honour, if he has an original document.. P31 (3rd day)His Honour Judge Thomas: Photocopy.Mr Kirk: Paragraph 1,001, 39th Edition. I dread to think what edition you are on now, butI learnt that when I was accused of stealing a chief constable’s notebook in 1977.The writer of this witness statement will continue to no further than the 2nd day of evidence as sufficient for an honest person to see, for example Foxy and Davidson were only going through the motions to satisfy senior South Wales Police officers that, as the ‘musical chairs’ or ‘pass the parcel’ had not even finished with me but the Cardiff court had received higher instructions for a guilty verdict at all costs.My penultimate premature conclusion of my statement, as life is far too short to waste further time on the remaining 9 or 10 days of recorded scandalous quite unchecked criminal behaviour for my final data, is a schematic chart of the ‘gun perambulations’ audit trial drawn only with the help of the appallingly inaccurate and unlawfully redacted official court transcript. This in conjunction paragraphs of explanation not obvi0us to some in the transcript.Incidentally refer to publication in The Sun newspapers more concerned in a ?7000 cheque secreted 4 inches up the Defendant’s rectum for his sister to pay for legal representation. The national printed nothing of the serious matter of day to day ie blanket incestuous deceit by the Welsh authorities led by the prosecutor Richard Thomlow, then promoted to being a judge, on behalf of his client, The Chief Constable of South Wales Police.South Wales Police was aware, since at least August 2008, of my dummy machine gun website comments when photographs of the replica gun were published as far back as 2000. The ‘trading in machines’ T20097445 transcripts and in 8th June 2009 NHS MAPPA notes (enclosed).Was I ever a firearms risk, indeed, am I a risk at all other than publishing on websites the continuing nefarious behaviour of Welsh authorities?The following transcript reveals the police had known about the August 2008 website ‘gun’ for sale for a very long time and had not even bothered to contact me on the matter. It was only when new damming evidence was leaked on my now police blocked website, , exposing the extreme level of South Wales Police’s unchecked behaviour did, by sunset on 23rd June 2009, the CAA had identified numerous ‘guns’ on museum aircraft in my ‘gun’s category (ie exempt to certification from a Proof House as confirmed by Home Office May 2009 notification to all Chief Constables). Far more to the point the CAA’s intervention on the 23rd June, by urgently telephoning all known owners of UK historic or replica historic aircraft with ‘guns’, found over 20 prohibited weapons with no less than three, for example at Biggleswade Old Warden aerodrome, one at London’s Imperial War Museum and others in the RAF Museum at Hendon and Duxford. BUT NO ONE WAS PROSECUTED.p 137 (2nd day)Mr Kirk: My reason for wanting to know who put you up to it, and I didn’t realise my luckthat you’ve now got myself another witness. But because you know that she tookinstructions from whom, I would now like to write down the name of those people.DC Allsop: Sorry, the, the instructions --Mr Kirk: And could the --DC Allsop: Come from the --Mr Kirk: Prosecution, please could the Prosecution barrister not signal to the policeman inthe witness box by shaking heads, etc?His Honour Judge Thomas: Right. Let’s try and get a little bit of order into this. Who was he person who directly asked you to look at the website? Do you recall that person’s name?DC Allsop: I believe it was my, my sergeant, and that would have been DS Foster.His Honour Judge Thomas: And what were your instructions?DC Allsop: To look at the site of Mr Kirk for any evidence of a machine gun and to liaisewith the, the Aviation Authority in relation to a certain aeroplane.His Honour Judge Thomas: Yes, thank you.Mr Kirk: Liaise with the Aviation, the Civil Aviation Authority. Stand to attention,Maurice. Comb your hair. What was the content of you needing to liaise about?DC Allsop: I spoke to them in relation to how aeroplanes are registered. They directed meto a public website I could, I could enter, which I then did.Mr Kirk: Was there any reference to Section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act?DC Allsop: No.Page 139 of 153Mr Kirk: And you said this was on the, was this on the 23rd?DC Allsop: Yes.Mr Kirk: What time of day?DC Allsop: It would have been during the normal working hours between 8:00 and 4:00.Exactly what time, I couldn’t tell you, Mr Kirk.His Honour Judge Thomas: Well, your --Mr Kirk: Yes, you --His Honour Judge Thomas: Statements says --Mr Kirk: I --His Honour Judge Thomas: 13:00 hours.DC Allsop: Well, there. 13:00 hours then.Mr Kirk: 13:00.DC Allsop: That’s when I accessed the websites.Mr Kirk: If I had access to the information gathered that day from Lincolnshire, by 4o’clock in the afternoon a Mr Cooper was travelling with a piece of ironware in his vehiclewhen he received a phone call saying that the police officers was most, were, were likely tomeet him fat a Level 5 firearms shop run by a Mr, Mr Scott. Were you a party to any ofthat?DC Allsop: No, I wasn’t.Mr Kirk: So, why do, you records of the registration information and ownership alleged atthe CAA only go back to what date?I am confident that I was not seen by any police as “an immediate firearms risk” in all of 2008 and all of the years before that since 1962 when I first obtained a firearms permit because police did not take any relevant urgent action that they would have if I was “an immediate firearms risk”. ??Similarly I believe the evidence is clear that I was not seen as “an immediate firearms risk” in 2009 in the lead up to my 22nd June 2009 arrest. Even 30th May 2009 ‘Foxy’ (undercover agent) subsequent actions even reported back to SW Police that I had sold the ‘gun’ in a context that I could be expected to have sold it as the gun had been advertised for sale since June 2008.Following 1st June 2009 Independent Advisory Group’s meeting, about myself, at Bridgend’s South Wales Police HQ and subsequent 8th June 2009 MAPPA meeting in Barry police station their conclusion, other than the south wales Police, indicated no element of my ‘risk’ either to the general public or to myself. On the contrary, as the contemporaneous notes record (see attached), both HM Crown Prosecution Service and Caswell psychiatric staff, also present at the multi-agency public protection meeting, expressed no alarm about my history to warrant any further action.Senior police officers present with Dolmans, solicitors, however, said I was shortly to be detained in custody for what I have never been able to ascertain. However, the police succeeded in having me registered MAPPA level 3 category 3 (top 5% most dangerous) in the hope I may be shot and if not in custody for a significant time. The time, so far, is five years imprisonment. This time was served in horrendous bullying conditions for the repeated confiscation of my legal papers and personalty arising from over 50 failed malicious criminal prosecutions obtained with no legal representation.On 18th June 2009, following no co-operation by Adrian Oliver of Dolmans, acting for the chief constable in my civil damages claim BS614159, for ‘witnesses statements exchange’ by 4pm 19th June 2009, I attended her office with the files. I then left, when refused exchange with still no indication I was a ‘risk’ to anyone except for Barbara Wilding, herself, who had introduced into the UK police forces her ‘shoot to kill’ policy. My car was thoroughly searched before I was allowed to leave a nearby car park outside the police station. (see photos).On 19th June Dolmans, over the telephone, again refused to ‘witness exchange’ statements either at its offices or at Cardiff’s county court before the 4pm deadline.On 21st June Operations ‘Chalice’ and ‘Tulip’ were launched using armed police and helicopter for my illumination from the welsh courts and to ‘snatch’ our 10 year old daughter, Genevieve, on the pretext I was even ‘dangerous’ to my own children!On 22nd June 2009, on the day of my arrest, the Nottinghamshire police recovered the prosecution’s Exhibit AJR1 (a dummy machine gun) by the CAA having first advised all known aircraft owners in the UK, with any apparent firearms in their possession, to take them to a licenced gunsmith to be inspected. My dummy Lewis WW1 machine gun was taken off the replica 1916 DH2 aircraft by the new owner, Mr Cooper and taken to Mr M Scott a licenced gunsmith. [His 22nd June and 14th August 2009 witness statements are not available as they were, as with all my legal papers, confiscated by G4S HMP Parc on my 1st November 2019 day of release]. [During the first three days of trial the judge had repeatedly refused my legal papers sitting at the bottom of the courts steps to the cells and refused my family from talking notes of the court unusual behaviour throughout the whole 12 days of trial]. Mr Scott’s evidence included p108 H Mr Kirk: What had changed?Mr Scott: When I first examined it, on June 22 …Mr Kirk: Yes.Mr Scott: There was an obstruction at the chamber end of the barrel. “what had changed?”This confirmed the ‘gun ‘had been tampered with to indicate that it could ‘fire’. p98H Mr Twomlow: What is that item?Mr Scott: It’s a mock up of a Lewis machine gun.Mr Twomlow: Right. Now, he gave it to you. We needn’t discuss any discussion he had with you about that.Mr Scott: Correct. P 98G of transcript (27th Jan 10) records he handed the replica to a single police officer, PC Rigley of the Nottinghamshire police force to go to South Wales SSU in Chepstow. No information on what then occurred in the SSU when asked for it being deliberately withheld from me as, no doubt, it had made a similar conclusion on the dummy gun as had Mr Smith, PC Rigley (requiring no armed police escort) and Mr Cooper. On 14th August 2009 after the replica had been hawked almost 2000 miles around the UK by single or only two police officers the South wales Police re represented it to Mr Smith just to establish if it was the same ‘gun’ as presented to him by Mr Cooper on the morning on 22nd June 2009.Mr Smith continued to point out that this exhibit had not been ‘decommissioned’ as it had never been a weapon in the first place. Nor did it require any proof marks on manufacture or proof marks identifying it had been certified as ‘decommissioned’ ie unable to fire yet alone be in class of an automatic weapon set out in the indictment.Eight of the jury, by the end of that 2nd day of evidence being given, told all of us gathered in the public house immediately after my acquittal, that it was clear there was a police plant amongst them and that “Maurice was stitched up”. Witnesses included members of my family, and helpers that had not been thrown out of the proceedings it developed from sublime, ridiculous to ideal material for a Whitehall Brian Rix farce! Crime ref no 3rd December AS-2019-0174 with the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, June 2019 crime ref incident re serious injury caused by G4S and 8th January 2020 four hour complaint to the South wales Police concerning the brutal manner in which I was ejected from the prison, again for hospital as achieved nothing, not even the return of my stolen property including my new wheel chair.To further delay my civil claims in for now substantial compensation, “It’s a mock-up of a Lewis machine gun” p98GMr Cooper, a retired RAF armourer, had bought it knowing that the dummy gun had been legally sold to his wife at Cardiff’s airport back in August 2008 and brought it after its display history, when in my possession, including the 2000 Farnborough Air Show and RAF Lyneham, in 20…… in 24 Squadron’s air display celebrations.??S Wales Police knew their prosecution witness, Mr Cooper, was an ex RAF armourer and had, with his wife, already been interviewed under caution by the Nottinghamshire police and cleared of all South Wales Police allegations as he had confirmed that when the ‘gun’ was sold to him it was blocked and could not ‘fire’.Both Nottinghamshire and South Wales Police knew Mr M Scott, gunsmith, who had received the gun on 23 June 2009, had also said the ‘gun’ was blocked and could not ‘fire’.So where is the risk? I am haunted by thoughts of what was the motive for the extreme and unusual attention by huge police resources? Was the gun a risk in June 2009 when not in my ownership or was I the risk with police vendetta because I was suing police to expose their decades of malice and misuse of public funds provoking loss of my wife, almost my life, my health, wealth and almost my sanity?By the CPS website the correct procedure was for the police to send any gun to the relevant Forensic Science Lab which at the time was at Chepstow which seems to have occurred but no report, of course, by Chepstow’s is disclose. I believe the Forensic Science service treated the gun as if it was not a working firearm or needing any security. I believe when S Wales Police contacted the RAF Lyneham, who had held the gun for around two years when it was in my ownership, the RAF would have also made comment to S W Police that the gun simply does not merit attention by the authorities.But S Wales Police would not use the Chepstow Forensic Science Service and the RAF or ex RAF Armourer Mr Cooper and Mr Scott, who both said the gun could not fire.Instead the police frantically wasted huge resources, time, money and manpower taking staff away from murder cases in maliciously trying to lock me away. If S Wales Police had genuinely wanted to know and understand then as I was attending the south Wales Police HQ, on the 18th June, they could have asked me. I keep wondering and am haunted by why the Police at Barry, also, simply not ask me at their station in Barry where I also had visited? I keep thinking police could have asked me to attend any Police station, just a four minute drive into Llantwit Major, to discuss my regular complaints against police and then ask me about the Lewis Gun? There would have been absolutely no need for Foxy? There would have been no need for all these senior Police form serious and organised crime and no police taken away from their murder cases. Simply local Police at Barry could have invited me down to chat or even have just telephoned me to settle the rumour. But instead there is more misuse of public funds in a vendetta by the courts and other departments in the welsh judiciary.??? While the RAF’s response which was probably that the gun did not merits attention by the authorities was ignored and Mr Cooper and Mr Scott’s evidence that the gun was blocked ignored in desperation more police resources, time and money was misused and wasted by the Lewis travelling from Chepstow…..The Home Office and Law Commission says different to what the South Wales Police firearms witnesses say, but I am also haunted by thoughts that if what the police firearms witnesses are to be relied on would that not have meant both those who sold or bought the gun should also have been prosecuted?p57C 3rd Day DC Parker: ‘I went to a briefing that was run by Detective Superintendent Stuart McKenzie’This 5th undisclosed police officer, now identified as a senior officer needing to be witness subpoenaed for my civil claims also, is an example of police conduct I have suffered under for decades, so far, by not having managed to stop it.My recent two years in prison was orchestrated long before two years ago.Once sentenced in December 2015 for a ‘breach of a restraining order’, never even ‘served’ on me, I was then recalled to prison from parole on 11th July 2016 just 6 days later on fabricated police evidence that has never been disclosed to me despite my pleadings to all and sundry. Nor did HM Parole and Prison Service even disclose the identity of their purported witnesses? Court applications, as usual, proved futile.I was, I believe, therefore denied a parole hearing in each successive prison term, such is the level of depravity.In December 2017 again, in order to delay my civil claims still further, I received a further vindictive 2 year prison term for ‘breach of the restraining order’ over police induced false Caswell Clinic, seriously damaging medical reports.I was terrified on ‘sentencing’ the next judge to HHJ Paul Thomas QC, this time HHJ Tracy Lloyd Clarke simply reiterating Thomas’s blatant nonsense saying, (transcript p12 C) she also did not have ‘the power’ to obtain my Caswell Clinic medical records, root cause so ruthlessly covered up. To eliminate my one year standard prison remission privilege from her 2 year prison she stated I had failed to attend presentencing parole interview which was quite untrue. I had travelled back from France purely for that appointment.As for the court ordered pre-sentencing psychiatric appointment all knew that the doctor could not be contacted to re arrange an earlier or later appointment.Withheld False Criminal Convictions Fabricated to Block BailOn my imminent prison release, decided by the police in December 2018, there were some, until then unknown, criminal convictions of mine disclosed to me by my HM parole officer, inadvertently, that had been fabricated as far back as, at least, June 2009, with one, ABH, in 2011, in order to obtain remands in custody when knowing I would be acquitted if I had been allowed , as not legally represented, to be free to investigate the preposterous criminal charges and gather the defence evidence. A sample of malicious abuse arising from these false convictions occurred in June 2009, before Judge Hughes in Cardiff Crown Court, when refusing me bail when the HM Prosecutor (see transcript) had said my 64 page defence statement was irrelevant so there was no need for the learned judge to read it despite the Barry magistrates having just granted me ‘unconditional bail’ the day before! His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC’s October 2008 court order, for the Chief Constable to ‘disclose’ evidence she had gathered within her 43+ numbered police incidents, citing me each time as their ‘victim’, caused me to believe, at that moment, “At last, sanity has eventually prevailed with a cessation of these years of police bullying”. I was proved very wrong. It took my 2018 parole officer almost a year to get the convictions, listed below, to be removed from my forensic history just in time for my dramatic and successful October 2019 parole board hearing attended by an attentive retired magistrate, my sister, under the new regulations. However, despite the new HM Home Office regulations, to this day, I am refused the chairman’s promised tape recording and transcript of the disturbing cross examination by both HM Parole Board and myself of parole officer and police’s representative both recommending I was far too much a risk to be released from incarceration.Neither Parole Board nor I could establish what the element of ‘risk’ was relied on as, obviously, there was none and had never been until that fateful day of 4th October 2008 in Cardiff’s Civil Justice Centre.Both parole officer and prison staff, when asked as to why I was a ‘risk’ so great that I must stay in prison, they all opposed my release but were unable or were not prepared to tell HM Parole Board why? Despite, again, repeatedly being promised copy of hearing the prison has also refused release of my own legal files left behind in the cell during my most violent eviction as a warning to other prisoners. My wheel chair, from the year before, has also never been returned. The fabricated criminal convictions so far disclosed on the 4th December 2018 include:Child AbuseNarcoticsFirearms offensesABHThis statement is to be continuedeg 2nd week of idiotic trading in ‘machine-guns’ trial/fabricated medical evidence etc ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download