Very early new draft - - lots to be added



CASE NO: 1CF03361

& D00CF279

IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

Claimant

and

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY

Defendant

This is a request in Cases 1CF03361 and D00CF279 to vary and remove all sanctions in the Order 31 May 2019 and for Directions as to how to proceed when not understanding past Court Directions and Orders. And is a response to a Cardiff County Court email 14 January 2019 to the unrepresented Claimant from HHJ Keyser QC, kindly explaining the meaning of the Order 31 May 2019 that the stay is lifted as from 9 January 2020 and the Claimant should now make this application promptly.

Introduction

.

1. The Defendant have for ten years stood by what Dr TW says in his reports as a part of the Lewis Gun prosecution 2009 as true reliable fair and accurate. Yet as a part of this Lewis Gun case Dr TW in his report to the Cardiff Crown Court 30 September 2009 point 11 says:-

“…My current preliminary position is that whilst Maurice Kirk is fit to plead, his difficulty in organising ……as a result of brain injury……..he would be unable to conduct his own defence”

2. As Dr TW says the Claimant has significant “irreversible” brain damage it follows that by what Dr TW says in 2009 may mean that the Claimant would be unable to organise a complex case at Court in 2019.

3. If the Defendant does not stand by Dr Tegwyn Williams reports as being true reliable fair and accurate then that opens up how the Defendant has maliciously and dishonestly imprisoned the Claimant from 2011 to 2019 based on prosecution papers that the Defendant knew was untrue, and in context it follows this was done as a way to obstruct the Claimant’s ability to progress his civil proceedings. Which the Claimant believes is what has happened.

4. Importantly to understand the deceit by the Defendant and prove the Defendant has done wrong by dishonesty at the Criminal Courts (and so to interfere with the Claimant’s ability to progress civil proceedings), we do not need to go into whether the Claimant was guilty of harassment of the doctor who wrote false and malicious reports.

5. We only need to look at how the Defendant when bringing a prosecution deceitfully, was portraying the doctor as ‘all good’, having done no wrong. And the Claimant as ‘all bad’. So that the sentencing and subsequent harsh treatment was grossly disproportionate for the Claimant ‘rationally’ saying the truth. And that with the annual and periodic renewal process that each Section 12 doctor can be subject to under the Mental Health Act 1983, the public and UK wide profession needs to know if a doctor has been doing wrong in order to oppose (or refuse to sign) the doctors renewal of Section 12 powers.

6. The critical evidence to grasp that Dr TW and the Defendant do at least some wrong is that the two doctors medically qualified interpret Brain scans at Dr TW’s ABMU NHS Radiology Department gave the normal all clear brain scan result on 28 August 2009. Please see as attached. But neither Dr TW or will admit these normal all clear brain scans exist and substituted the result to the Cardiff Crown Court with information that is false, means Dr TW and the Defendants have misled the Crown Court to levels which are potentially criminal from 2009 to 2019 and ongoing.

7. It is the proportionality of the sentence and harshness of the treatment there after, (caused by for example the Defendant not admitting the serious, if not criminal wrong Dr TW does) is actually how the Defendant has substantially interfered in the Claimant’s ability to progress his civil cases and the Lewis Gun case civil claim.

8. In short, the Defendant has directly and indirectly deliberately triggered so many problems for the Claimant that a normal person could not manage Court procedure and deadlines with the Defendant causing so many civil and criminal proceedings and disputes, all with intense detail and while the Claimant has a loss of liberty with legal papers confiscated and formal post to and from Courts and relevant parties blocked or withheld.

9. While experiencing loss of liberty the Claimant had a number of potentially serious health issues. But because the Defendant triggers the Claimant be dealt with harshly, attempts to access to healthcare became an embroiled dispute.

10. And physical assaults occurred on top of potentially serious physical medical problems. Yet while all this occurred the Claimant was left without adequate medical care.

11. Also from what the Defendant caused while at the Bail Hostel for a short period, the Claimant was singled out for a different set of conditions which were far stricter and harsher regime to his peers.

12. Again this led to more urgent dispute casework to detract from the Claimants ability to attend to civil proceedings.

13. The problems and number of disputes and issues are by far too many, too detailed and too hard going for the Client/lawyer relationship to cope.

14. And the cost of trying to fight back in defence using lawyers is far too expense for any lay person.

The Defendant Interfered and obstructed the main substantive civil case hearing in Cardiff in 2013

15. The Claimant takes this opportunity to point out that the Defendant improperly used one of the four criminal prosecutions over Dr TW (based on evidence they knew was untrue) to prevent the Claimant being able to organise and have essential police evidence and witnesses in the 2013 main BS614159 substantive hearing into the wrongdoing by South Wales Police.

The Claimant is not understanding what to do.

16. The unrepresented lay Claimant genuinely cannot understand Court Orders and what is required of him and that includes how he was supposed to respond in case D00CF279. The Claimant does not understand how to go about listing his Document when the Defendant’s lawyers block the Claimant reading their Documents. And another example is, whether Documents listed in the Further Particulars need to be again listed in a list of Documents?

The Defendant provokes problems from Multi Agencies as a way to obstruct the Claimant from taking part in civil proceedings

17. Regards the material time to comply with Court Orders. Multi Agencies were using all manner of false information to make decisions and cause problems for the Claimant. The Claimant’s lawyers were putting time and effort with failed attempt to urgently protect the Claimant, to only then realise that their efforts of the Claimant’s lawyers are wasted trying to get an organisation to treat the Claimant fairly, if the Defendant as police (and senior police) ‘constantly’ use their authority to impose multi agency organisations use false information and treat the Claimant harshly and unfairly.

18. When the Lewis Gun case prosecution failed and the Defendant has use and continue obvious events and false information within the Lewis Gun case to imprison the Claimant each year since the Lewis Gun case ended in 2010.

19. A simple way to get through a decade of detail is to compare the 2008/9 Lewis Gun case with the last prosecution by the Defendants knew what they saying was not true fair reasonable or proportionate.

20. The Defendant as senior police control Multi Agency working and the information on which multi agencies make decisions regards the Claimant.

a) Intensely false criminal records – including child abuse and fire arms Narcotics, ABH and FTA false convictions. So many false entries the problem is hard to deal with.

b) False and wildly exaggerated risk assessments are caused by endless untrue comments on top of a false criminal history. So many false comments they are hard to deal with. Please see attached a letter 25 July 2019 from Belinda Kirk.

c) Being wrongly regarded as very high risk causes loss of liberty and rights, and triggers he be treated harshly and unfairly. Which again leads to so very many problems and disputes they are hard to deal with and which obstructs the Claimant in his civil proceedings.

d) The Defendant triggered obstructing if not blocking access to health care leading to considerable hardship and more disputes that arise where they resist the Claimant be allowed his basic rights. Which over the last two year sentence led to so many problems and disputes they are hard to deal with.

e) Parole decisions were based on false information maliciously supplied by police to cause extra prison terms in all convictions and in both prison recalls

f) Because the Defendant (senior police) acts with such bias and hate to the Claimant the G4S subculture take it upon themselves that G4S not only can obstruct the Claimant’s legal papers and proceedings, but are free to subject the Claimant to beatings and bullying and also to get the fellow violent prisoners to do same to the Claimant. Again there were so many incidents (which are also time consuming as a part of a prison dispute system) it is all too much and too difficult to cope with.

g) Things became so wild that when the Claimant sent the usual harmless letters to his English and Welsh MPs, that the streets in the locality of the Claimant’s MPs were sealed off and the Claimant interviewed under caution. Just in case the very small residue of the Claimant’s toothpaste on the back of his letters, posed a most serious risk to the public and Members of Parliament. Again the Defendant saw to it that this ongoing episode was not a small matter so that again made it hard for the Claimant to manage all of the above and the civil proceedings.

h) The Claimant personal life has turmoil from similar outside of prison and his lawyer along with family has spent much time trying to address matters there.

i) So many intense problems were occurring that the volume of quite unnecessary work caused by the Defendant became unmanageable for the Claimant. The huge volume and intensity would undermine any lawyer client relationship and is far too expensive for a normal lay Claimant.

Claimant needs the Court to explain what is expected of him.

21. The Claimant needed and still needs the Court to explain to him what was and what now is required of him given the increased complexity.

22. Normally where a lay Claimant is unable to get legal advice, then the lawyers representing the public sector Defendant would act as Officers of the Court and explain the procedure and what to do next to the lay unrepresented Claimant. But in this case the Defendant’s lawyers act in bad faith.

23. The Claimant received an email from Cardiff County Court 14 January 2020 at 15.08pm, saying the Claimant’s email regards not being able to understand the Order 31 May 2019, was put before HHJ Keyser QC who comments:-

”……the case was stayed until 9 January 2020. The stay

is now ended. Any application for relief from sanction

must be made promptly”

24. The lay Claimant promptly makes this N244 application because the ex-parte hearing and Order of 31 May 2019 being controlled by the Defendant in the absence of the Claimant, is too far removed from the very obvious truth and facts of the Defendant’s agenda and actions in the 2009 Lewis Gun case at the Crown Court.

25. One main reason to bring an action that is a good use of Court time, is to stop problems continuing.

26. One problem is the aim of the Defendant in bringing the failed Lewis Gun prosecution of 2009 and the subsequent directly four prosecutions, was to prevent the Claimant address his Judicial Review and civil case. Where both were looming.

27. And that the Defendant continually prosecutes and imprisons the Claimant to obstruct and prevent the Claimant addressing his civil proceedings where the Defendant knows the prosecution papers and police information systems are not true.

28. The Order 31 May 2019 is too far removed from very obvious truth and facts of what the Defendant does to continue their 2008/9 agenda to obstruct the Claimants from taking and addressing civil proceedings by harming the Claimant each year since 2009, - and indefinitely.

29. So that the Claimant was imprisoned for five years due to blatant deceit by the Defendant, and particularly between 2016/17 to late 2019. - based on papers and police information systems where it is obvious the Defendant did not and cannot possibly believe are true or fair.

New evidence

30. But there is (and will be) much new evidence as to the extent that the Defendant works to harm the Claimant is actually via multi agency collusion and as explained below the deceit and malice by the Defendant and how they aim to obstruct the lay Claimant, - is getting even worse. And without the intervention of the Courts will be indefinite.

The Claimant lives in England and it is not safe for him to enter South Wales.

31. An obvious need is for the case to be transferred to England so that the Claimant can avoid entering South Wales. As the Claimant lives in England not transferring the case would put the Claimant at risk of serious harm.

Should the Claimant start a new civil action in England regards the Defendant prosecuting using information they know is not true and ask English Court for the Lewis Gun case be drawn into that new civil action?

32. From yet again being recently put in prison, it has become obvious to the Claimant that he needs to urgently bring a civil action to stop the Defendant constantly bringing or provoking prosecutions based on details that they know is not proportionate. The prosecution evidence the Defendant uses is so far from what is proportionate, it is therefore not true.

33. The information the Defendant knows to be untrue but still continually uses to prosecute the Claimant, has arisen out of the 2009 Lewis Gun case. A new civil action would rely on the same papers as the Lewis Gun case, plus more. The new civil action would be related the prosecution cases brought by the Defendant since 2009 to 2019 and ongoing.

34. The Claimant needs to seek legal advice as to whether to state the new claim to include any elements of Maladministration, Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Malicious Prosecution (and even nonfeasance for colluding with a medical writer who acted seemingly criminally). The Claimant understands that even if the Claimant was convicted, a civil action can still be bought in rare situations, such as here where the Defendant cannot possibly believe their own prosecution papers as proportionate and therefore the Defendant knew the prosecution papers were not true.

Malfeasance – Request to assist, include and monitor the Claimant’s pre action request of the Chief Constable in 2020. Or should this be a pre action protocol that is integrated into the Lewis Gun Case?

35. The Claimant seeks time and opportunity to take legal advice on the technicalities of these issues.

36. Possibly Malfeasance can occur if the Chief Constable does not in 2020 personally impose into police systems and procedures, new Decisions and measures by the Chief Constable that ensure the Defendant end their deceit in police information systems and by the Defendants lawyers.

37. It can be said these 2020 issues have arisen out of the 2009 Lewis Gun case.

38. A new claim around malfeasance may be a way to address the deceitful and dishonest conduct of the Defendant’s internal and external lawyers.

Directions of the Court on potential applications by the Claimant regards solicitors Adrian Oliver’s and Richard Leighton Hill’s conduct during proceedings before the Courts and Warning to Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill regards perverting the Course of Justice

39. We are all aware responsibility comes with control and that Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill have high levels of control over the Defendant, because any Police Officer no matter how senior cannot go against what the Police ‘senior’ lawyers say.

40. It is the place of Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill to adequately communicate to the Defendant the truth of the horrific wrong that Dr TW has done and also communicate to the Defendant that the false information should not be used. Please see the letter from Belinda Kirk 25 July 2019 regards the Defendant totally falsified that the Claimant is a risk to his family.

41. It follows that the wrongdoing and potentially criminal acts of bring prosecutions based on what they know is not true has occurred quite directly as a result of Adrian Oliver’s and Richard Leighton Hill’s actions and inactions for which they can be personally liable before the criminal and civil courts.

42. The Claimant request Directions from the Court for may be a date when Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill give an update to the Court on how the deceit will stop, and if that response regards police acknowledging and admitting the wrong Dr TW does, and the false risk assessments is not satisfactory could the Court give directions such as:-.

a) To allow the actions and inactions of Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill be a part of civil proceedings

b) And/or the false information and highly improper and potentially criminal actions and inactions of Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill be part of a new claim in England

c) And/or that to maintain confidence in the profession and the Courts that the Court give Directions for a hearing to sanction and potentially strike off the roll Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill and they can apply to the SRA if the wish to be reinstated.

Request Order for Disclosure and an Order to read the Defendant’s lawyers documents.

43. Please would the Court Order a date, time and duration and a neutral location such as a conference room in Bristol or Taunton (at a Court or a business room such as a hotel conference room or lawyers firm) where the Defendant’s lawyers must allow the Claimant to read documents.

44. The Defendants lawyers are asked to be able to tell the Court how they will arrange the Document being made available at a neutral venue within easy travelling distance to the Claimant’s home in Taunton.

45. Please could the Court Order in a way that would help provoke or impose the Chief Constable to decide he will stop the deceit by the Defendant?

46. As we are all aware In the UK there has been a major scandal at how police have improperly withheld Disclosure at Criminal trials and this scandal is wider spread in the national media and is clearly acknowledged by the Police College who have new procedures to try to ensure police start to disclose adequately.

47. Please can the Court Order the Disclosure that the Claimant should have had when at the Crown Court in 2009/10 while being prosecuted in the Lewis Gun case?

48. Please could the Court Order the Disclosure that the Claimant should have had in the four criminal trials from 2011 to present that have arisen out the dispute of a collusion regards false police MAPPA NHS medical report(s).

49. Dr TW colluded with the Defendant via MAPPA in the Lewis gun case. But when the Claimant makes protests at their deceit the Defendant and Dr TW prosecute the Claimant using information they know is not true. And they also do this to obstruct the Claimant taking civil proceedings regards their deceit and malice in the Lewis Gun case.

The Claimant’s 2019 lay version of Further Particulars that worries the Defendants as too close to the truth. But did the Defendant obstruct the Claimant complying with civil proceedings by imprisoning the Claimant by a prosecution using information the Defendant knew was untrue?

50. The Claimant complied with the Court Order to supply Further Particulars by a stipulated date and did so using a lawyer.

51. However in February 2019 the Claimant could not approve what the lawyer sent to the Court as the Defendant arrested the Claimant that weekend in the middle of when the Claimant meeting with his lawyer.

52. The lawyer could not meet the Claimant in custody during an arrest period. And the Lawyer did not know where the Claimant was but rather did a best effort at what the Claimant wished so as not to miss the deadline.

53. Furthermore it is very obvious that regards at least proportionality or the excessive length of the prison sentence (that meant the Claimant could not meet with his lawyer) is due to the Defendant lawyers and the Defendant being deceitful before the Courts, as to the medical report being blatantly untrue. Or if the medical reports are true to first examine that a prosecution would not be appropriate but rather NHS assessment and care would be appropriate.

54. The fact the Defendant did not start with a reassessment of the medical states of the Claimant shows they brought a prosecution not believing the medical reports that the Claimant protests (or allegedly harasses) about, were true.

55. Possibly the Court may wish to ignore and put to one side the Defendant’s lawyers panic at a lay version of the truth, until the Chief Constable responds to potential pre action communications regards “a management Decision” of the Chief Constable that there will be no further deceit by the Defendants on specific issues that will be raised?

56. However especially as the lay Claimant has not failed to comply with an Order to submit Further Particulars, as he did submit a lawyers document on time, but it can appear fair, reasonable and common sense that a lay Claimant if doing a complex case himself for the Claimant to be allowed use his way of explaining the case by his “additional” lay document.

An example where the Order 31 May 2019 is not acknowledging obvious material issues – Please compare the Doctor’s writing with the Caswell Team’s medical evidence quoted below from 2009.

57. For example we also have to consider that either the Defendant’s August to October 2009 medical report(s) of the Lewis Gun case mean that the Claimant has significant irreversible brain damage (where the rate of deterioration was said to be not known and needs to be monitored/reassessment). And is also delusional in a number of ways. And so should not be expect to cope with complying with Court Directions and Orders. Or if not given the unusual facts (for example that two Radiologists give a normal all clear result 28 August 2009) it follows for all parties should admit the Defendant’s medical report(s) as intentionally false, biased and malicious and so leading to how the Defendant has unlawfully imprisoned the lay Claimant for five years from 2011 to 2019 by the Defendant and their lawyers being deceitful at Courts and it has been the Defendant who has prevented the Claimant from addressing civil proceedings.

58. Please note some detail on the prosecution of cases since 2009. The Claimant is accused of harassing Dr TW. To keep things simple it may help for a moment to pretend and imagine the conviction is not in doubt, then if the Claimant is as Dr TW says with significant irreversible brain damage and with PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disorder), then the Claimant would not have served 5 years in prison. In the well known case of farmer Tony Martin who had PDD, when he was convicted of murder (shot at two youths escaping his property) he had a sentence of only 3 years due to PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disorder).

59. If on the other hand, if the Defendants prosecution cases were to be honest and admitted the bias, deceit, malice and dishonesty of Dr TW in writing intentionally false medical reports, then either a prosecution would not have proceeded. Or the Claimant would not have served five years in prison because the Claimant would have been recognised as saying the truth that the public and profession need to know.

60. Or Dr TW could be prosecuted for his exceptional dishonesty before the Courts and to police – on five occasions in five criminal cases between 2009 and 2019.

61. It must be emphasised that the evidence that Dr TW (and so the Defendant and their lawyers) acted and still acts potentially criminally is very much more. What is said in this document is only a sample in order to be as brief as possible.

The Lewis Gun case 2009 Caswell Clinic Team assessment of the Claimant

62. An additional dimension is that as part of the Lewis Gun case there was a team assessment by Caswell Clinic the result of which differed to what the doctor who colluded with the Defendant and there is a Caswell Clinic Team Report in 2009 and page 42 says that the Claimant is not delusion but

“…suffering from a significant degree of anxiety..”

and that

“…continued physical and psychological stress could

have an adverse effect on him in the future…”

63. Suffering from high levels of anxiety often means a person is not normally well enough to conduct complex legal proceedings at the usual pace and speed and would need to be given extra time and leniency.

64. We need to add the extra dimension and extra level of harm was caused by the Defendant’s quite sinister use of a collusion with multi agencies that the Defendant organised from 2009 to the present ‘and indefinitely’, is causing the obstruction that has prevented the Claimant from dealing with all of his civil claims.

65. As explained below the Defendant has been extending their bullying of the Claimant by a deceitful use of multi agency working that would damage anyone’s mental state, so that the Claimant cannot participate in his civil legal proceedings against the Defendant.

66. But then when the Claimant’s mental state is not the best, to exaggerate that as if the Claimant is a high or highest risk to the community.

67. The Claimant seeks new Directions that recognise how the Defendant’s trend of deceit and malice within the Lewis Gun case has been continued each year. And the Claimant asks the Court that the truth and facts in the trend of what the Defendant actually does is allowed to become evidence before the Court.

Request Chief Constable be Ordered to personally confirm that specific deceit and dishonesty regards Dr TW as the writer of the Lewis Gun medical reports will not reoccur in prosecutions, or in any Court papers or in police information systems.

68. It is becoming obvious to the Claimant that the direction of the claims against the Defendant, needs to be varied to address the main problems. There are options, whether by changes to the present claim or by a new claim which can potentially be added to the present claim. With an emphasis on identifying the deceit and dishonesty and to prevent similar deceit in prosecutions and police information systems in future.

69. As we are aware the Chief Constable as the Chief of all police officers staff and lawyers and is liable for what lawyers do. Dr TW as writer of the Lewis Gun medical reports requested the loss of liberty of the Claimant and the Defendant has continued to use these obviously false reports as if true and accurate.

70. The Claimants seeks the help of the Court, so that he can know how to make to particularise papers. The Claimant requests the Chief Constable is Ordered personally makes the Decision regards whether South Wales Police and it’s information systems, multi agency communications and it’s lawyers will permanently acknowledge that Dr TW the writer of the medical reports of 2009 “did some wrong”.

71. The Claimant can supply a detailed file to the Chief Constable explaining why Dr TW does some wrong.

72. Or given how serious this whole matter is I ask the Chief Constable personally comment on whether he will use an outside police force to investigate?

73. A starting point would be for the Chief Constable to admit that regards prosecutions since 2010 to present, that the Claimant acts with genuine grievance as explained below

Example of a just some of the criminal case against Dr TW and police who colluded with him that the Chief Constable and Defendant need to act on.

74. The Claimant was Sectioned in August 2009 by Dr TW who colluded with the Defendant via MAPPA and potential could be true that the Lewis Gun case would have lost momentum and a prosecution not occurred with Dr TW.

Does the Claimant have Significant Irreversible Brain Damage? Or is the Defendant and Dr TW dishonest to even a criminal level of deceit?

75. Please see as attached that by 28 August 2009 two Radiologist Dr Aisling Butler and then a second opinion check by Dr Gareth Tudor who are the experts employed by Dr TW’s NHS for being qualified and experienced to interpret Brain Scans said that the result was normal which is an all clear result.

76. Please see an update 30 September 2009 that Dr TW writes for the Crown Court to request loss of liberty by Section for another month where Dr TW says to apply for a Mental Health Act Section that

“Assessment

The Assessment of Maurice Kirk has concentrated on several areas, mainly the presence or absence of any mental illness and the presence or absence of any traumatic brain injury”

77. But if we examine Dr TW report of 29 September 2009 which is used as evidence at the Crown Court, Dr TW has totally left out and hidden from the Crown Court that the two Radiologist 28 August 2009 have given a normal all clear result and Dr TW deceitfully states:-

“Maurice Kirk has been referred for detailed brain scans”.

29 September 2009 in point 7

“….suffers with dysfunction of the ventral prefrontal cortex

of the brain….further neuropsychological testing is required

to confirm the severity of such damage.”

29 September 2009 in point 8

“Maurice Kirk has evidence of significant brain damage …..”

29 September 2009 in point 10

78. When in truth the fact is Maurice kirk has already been given a normal all clear result.

79. But the deceit of Dr TW goes on to the final report by Dr TW of 19 October 2009. Please see the extract attached.

80. Dr TW was the Clinical Director responsible for training and controlling that doctors at Caswell Clinic did not go beyond their expertise.

81. Dr TW as merely a psychiatrist was not medically qualified to interpret brain scans and report his finding to the Crown Court. And he does not use anyone who is medically qualified doctor who is trained and experienced in the interpretations of brain scans

82. But when the brain scan result is normal all clear by 28 August 2009 Dr TW knew he was being dishonest when he wrote formally to the Cardiff Crown Court as a part of proceedings to say there was brain damage while there was no evidence to say that, and if Dr TW was wishing to say there was brain damage Dr TW knew he would have to use a doctor who was medically qualified by trained and experienced in the interpretation of brain scans to provide written evidence.

Claims of Delusions and PDD Paranoid Delusional Disorder are obviously intentionally deceitful assertions that are not based on evidence.

83. Firstly it is not for a doctor when either writing for NHS records or giving evidence to a Court to determine undecided or unsubstantiated facts especially those facts that are yet, and soon, to be determined by decisions of the Courts. .

84. If a person is often subject to disproportionate attention and prosecutions by police, that is seemingly unfair, Parliament has decide that people should sue the Chief Constable as a means to explore issues and gain accountability.

85. But for Dr TW to say the Claimant is delusional if he says he is persecuted by police, Dr TW would have to be a decision maker determining the facts of the Claimant case, as that the case was totally without merit.

86. And Dr TW made and published that Decision about the Claimant’s case while the Court is about to hear that civil case. And while the Defendant has not managed to do that.

87. Dr TW in 2009 implies the Claimant is mentally ill for being concerned as to whether the NHS would covertly put psychiatric medication in his food as if Dr TW says the NHS could never do that so the Claimant must be mentally ill.

88. When Dr TW would have known as Clinical Director that the Nursing and Midwifery Council in 2005 and Royal College of Psychiatry in 2008 gave guidelines on when to covertly put psychiatric medication in patients food.

89. Dr TW tries to discredit the Claimant by saying the Claimant is paranoid or delusional regards occasionally using the word Freemasonry. But the Claimant does not focus on Freemasonary and the oblique references the Claimant may make to Freemasonary would be no different to the National Assembly of Wales and for example one of it’s past leaders Rhodri Morgan who sought a ban on appointing Freemasons in some key positions. As the Claimant does not focus on Freemasonary any more than others, Dr TW knew there was no evidence of delusional behaviour and was being deliberately dishonest.

90. Essentially every key assertion by Dr TW that the Claimant was delusional can be shown as that Dr TW knew he was being deceitful.

91. There is even a letter by Dr Rose Marnell 3 March 2014 (copy attached) saying there is no evidence of the conditions that Dr TW asserts the Claimant has.

92. Many other doctors also, confirm a picture that is consistent with Dr TW being malicious and deliberately dishonest and totally deceitful. Please see the CAA Medical report 16 June 2010 as attached

.

New Witnesses

93. As one example not all in the multi agency staff colluded but rather could not prevent what the Defendant did. Those multi agency staff from 2009 to present need to become witnesses. As well as multi agency staff who are hostile to the Claimant.

94. Also the Claimant is now out of prison is taking statements from numerous people and more witness statements will be taken. The Claimants needs opportunity and Direction on how to includes those statements.

95. The Claimant has found a letter 1 June 2010 where the Defendant refuses to investigate wrongdoing by police in the Lewis gun case based on witness statements not disclosed to the Claimant.

New Evidence and Transcript of trial 2009/10

96. While in prison the Claimant received a copy of the transcript of the Leis Gun trial at Cardiff Crown Court and that transcript obviously needs to be used in the Lewis Gun civil case trial.

97. Similarly the Claimant needs to know whether the Law Commission Consultation Document 2015 and the Home Office Consultation that ended May 2009, and Police College advice etc need to be listed as a Document for the trial?

Defendant’s influence means endless failed Disclosure. The Claimant now requests Court Orders for Disclosure.

98. Caswell Clinic

99. HMP Parc

100. Parole’s Oasysis Assessment

101. Police eligible data where there have been applications since 2009 with MAPPA, MG6D and PII protected evidence having been applied for many times under Subject Access Requests.

Request for an Order regards withheld evidence by Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun were interviewed under caution but were not prosecuted

102. The Claimant requests an Order for Disclosure regards the evidence the Defendant withheld during the Lewis Gun case in 2009/10 regards Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun from the Claimant

103.

Request Disclosure of Interview Tapes and similar.

104. South Wales Police were in close contact liaising with Police in Nottingham. That caused Mr & Mrs Cooper who purchased the Lewis Gun from the Claimant to be interviewed under caution and there are tapes and records on why Mr & Ms Cooper were not prosecuted. When in contrast the Claimant was prosecuted. South Wales Police had access to and knowledge of all of what the English Police did but had deliberately hidden this important evidence of why not to prosecute from the prosecution process, and the accused Claimant and the trial at Cardiff Crown Court.

105. The Claimant seeks Order(s) for Disclosure from ‘all’ parties.

Request Disclosure of withheld statements from 2009

106. On 1 June 2012 Detective Inspector Holden of South Wales Police refused to progress the complaint into the Lewis Gun case when obviously there are issues that honest police would need to look at in order to maintain professional standards. But D.I. Holder inadvertently says of statements and evidence obtained by the Defendant in 2009 that were not disclosed to the Claimant in 2009.

107. For example as a part of the deceit the defendant uses statements from people who are not expert in the relevant issues of firearms law, relevant to why the Lewis gun was legal.

108. SWP deliberately and deceitful used quasi-experts to mislead where quasi experts are people or staff who are not experts but rather work in a speciality and can share a useful expertise on what they do,

109. But the quasi expert is not experienced enough to be an expert who can comment with expertise on the wider full picture such as being an expert on contradictions and complications of fire arms law such as is found in the 2015 Law Commission report and the Home Office Consultation that ended May 2009on fire arms law regards fire arms like the lewis Guns and others.

110. As the Home Office Consults Police forces in a consultation ending May 2009, Police knew with a certainty earlier in 2009 of the Lacuna in the Law and that the Lewis Gun was within the law.

111. Disclosure can help show how the Defendant deceitfully and maliciously manipulated the evidence by not asking for comment from experts on the Law to explain how the Lewis gun was legal because of it was supplied by the MOD/RAF and there was a lacuna in the Law.

112. Disclosure can also show that the Defendant avoids issues like the debate and consultations say how any Police have a duty to assess if a gun supplied by the MOD/RAF (which can easily be modified to fire) is used by genuine enthusiasts or not.. But SWP police knew that the Claimant had sold a Lewis Gun he received essentially via the MOD/RAF to enthusiasts and a museum, and so no reason whatsoever to believe the gun was re-commissioned to use as a criminal weapon.

New Evidence - Legal Advice needed on new evidence is emerging and the transcripts of the 2009 trial became available to people in 2019 who are starting to respond with information and potentially statements.

113. If the Defendant had been honest in prosecution documents 2011 to 2019, and if the Defendant had not colluded with Dr TW as writer of the false 2009 medical reports, the Claimant would not have been in prison in 2019

114. Now the Claimant is out of prison and not restricted in travel by licence conditions the Lewis Gun case transcripts from 2010 have become available to people the Claimant is learning more.

115. The Claimant needs time to put all this new evidence together and request the Directions of the Court so that the truth can be evidence at trial.

Directions on additional Further and Better Particulars to include how the Defendant manipulated and used multi agencies to harm the Claimant

116. In proving a case at Court and addressing accountability, establishing a trend is important to show it is not just a one off problem.

117. To avoid issuing new proceedings with a messy duplication of much of the Lewis Gun civil trial the Claimant needs Legal advice on how to add the actions how the Defendant has manipulated multi agencies in 2009 onwards to the present moment and 2020, which of means also including Dr TW as the writer of the medical reports, and the Defendant’s lawyers conduct

118. It must be emphasised that the evidence that Dr TW (and so the Defendant and their lawyers) acts potentially criminally is very much more. What is said in this document is only a sample in order to be as brief as possible.

119. As can be seen by all this events and the have been too much for a lay Claimant to cope with such complex civil proceedings and he request the Court set new Directions so that he can manage and include all the new issues and evidence.

A Bundle has arrived from Defendant for use 24 January 2020

120. The Defendant has emailed a large bundle on late Monday 21 January 2020 and the next few pages is a reply to that Bundle

Reply to Adrian Oliver’s email bundle of Monday 20 January 2020 and seek the protection of the Court regards the esoteric tricks and dirty tricks that corporate lawyers use on a lay unrepresented Claimant

121. Regards the Defendant’s bundle of January 2020. It is the Defendant who has caused much confusion and the endless delay as a strategy to prevent the Claimant bringing his cases before the civil courts.

122. Which includes endlessly arresting and imprisoning the Claimant. While the Defendant also colludes with Dr TW and multi agencies. – and all while using information the Defendant ‘knows is not true’.

123. The Courts have obligation to provide a level playing field and fairness and particularly so where a lay Claimant has such an arduous and unfair task as here.

124. The Defendant and their lawyers are most powerful and deceitful in preventing the Claimant in bringing his civil cases.

125. Whereas police in any country and in the UK will always have problems with corruption what we have here may well be one of the biggest UK police corruption cases ever documented and pleaded before the UK Courts.

126. Yet it can be obvious for us to see that Adrian Oliver’s intention is that the Defendant should never answer the allegations of corruption that are particularised before the Court.

127. For example we can see Adrian Oliver has dated 2017 his Disclosure as two years earlier than the Further and better Particulars of 2019 and so the Defence is not replying to the allegations that are Particularised.

128. When we compare the Claimant’s two Further and Better Particulars Documents of 2019 with Adrian Oliver’s bundle of January 2020 we can see that the Defendant’s strategy is to provide a massive volume of Defence papers and issues in a way to be one of the biggest volume of Defence information, - but that never ever answers the allegations that are now before the Court and Pleaded.

129. Obviously it is the duty of the Court to allow a fair trail of such a serious matter but it would be wrong to waste the Court’s time with a biggest trial as is proposed by Adrian Oliver that we know in advance will never ever deal with the issues as pleaded.

Decision Making Senior Officers - Supt Stuart McKenzie and DCI Suzanne Hughes

130. For example the structure of the Defendant’s defence avoids that we need to focus on the “Decision Making Senior Officers” and whether those ‘knew they were doing wrong’ and not the huge mass more junior Officers who may have been blindly carrying out orders.

131. Some of the “Decision Making” officers were Superintendent Stuart McKenzie then Head of Serious and Organised Crime and Suzanne Hughes (Detective Inspector then but recently Detective Chief Inspector at Central BCU).

132. Yet at present papers and evidence regards these two most key Officers Stuart McKenzie and Suzanne Hughes is omitted from the case.

133. New Directions are needed to ensure these two Officers are included, because their actions are material to the case.

Reply to Defendant’s Bundle – Claimant does not understand how to get evidence into the case and seeks Court Order to assist.

134. Vast amounts of evidence that support the Claimants claims are withheld from the Defendant’s document list.

135. For example the Lewis Gun was one of six in a batch supplied by the MOD/RAF to the public. There is all manner of evidence where in 2009 the English police liaised with South Wales Police but the English police did not charge or prosecute the other people who had the other five guns or those who received the Lewis Gun from the Claimant. That evidence which shows why the Owners of six Lewis Guns in England were not charged or prosecuted by English Police (and the new owner of the Claimant’s Lewis Gun was not charged or prosecuted by South Wales Police) is obviously important to show South Wales Police knew they were doing wrong.

136. How does the Claimant get this evidence as above Disclosed and into the trial?

137. The Claimant seeks Directions and to be told how can the Claimant get as evidence into the case that Mrs and Mrs Cooper and the pilot and various others handled or even worked on and altered the Lewis gun either on the day of purchase or later.

138. Clearly the Police knew with a certainty early on that a prosecution case could not possibly prove what condition the Lewis Gun was while in the possession of the Claimant.

139. Yet South Wales Police in 2009/10 decide to do as Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill do at present, to be dishonest as to the truth and use a mass irrelevant or untrue information to mislead the Court

140. Please can the Court explain and give Directions on how such evidence is brought before the trial?

141. The CAA were also heavily involved as a part of the prosecution case and they found a number of guns like the Lewis gun but some of larger calibre. Yet no prosecutions (or any charges) occurred. The Claimant seeks disclosure of their evidence.

142. Additionally with the Claimant out of the prison and not under licence conditions, he has recently been able to visit people to investigate the areas that the Defendants omit from their Document List. The Claimant has collected more witness statements with potentially more on the way.

143. Please could the Court give Directions as to how we can include new evidence in the case?

Barbara Wilding

144. The Judge who was responsible for these original proceedings had Order Chief Constable Barbara Wilding personally sign papers As stated the Claimant believes that the Lewis Gun case was brought to obstruct and prevent the original civil cases and attempt to prevent the Chief Constable Barbra Wilding being held to account in this way. .

145. Which meant the Defendant knew that after papers were signed by Barbara Wilding, the Claimant could bring her before the Courts and expose the wrong doing that has occurred for years. Including the failure of the Chief Constable regards proper and adequate control of her Officers’ conduct.

The senior HQ Decision Making Officers who arranged this mischievous use of all these huge resources.

146. What is missing is how senior officers who act on behalf of the Chief Constable instructed and facilitated the Head of Serious and Organised Crime to waste and misuse this enormous amount of police resources in acting corruptly, when they knew what they were doing was wrong. .

147. An honest Head of Serious and Organised Crime who deals with the big murder cases and organised crime is not going to want to take precious resources away from dealing with horrific and real crimes. To deal with what is at worst an eccentric petty criminal selling an old Lewis Gun to a museum.

148. As with the Home Office Consultation and Law Commission 2015 Consultation Document, it is Police procedure to have subject leads of someone at South Wales Police who would have been involved in the Home Office Consultation.

149. There was an earlier 2009 Home Office fire arms Consultation on the lacuna in the fare arms Law, to mean the Home Office and Police recognised guns like the Lewis Gun supplied to the public by the MOD were legal but could easily be made to fire. ended May 2009. Therefore it was absolutely certain the Defendant knew that the Lewis Gun was legal.

150. Also as it is known these Lewis Guns supplied to the public can easily be made to fire, there is guidance on when police should try to interfere with people who have access to a faire arm such as the Lewis Gun. The test to be used by Police is whether the gun is with genuine “enthusiasts” or real criminals. As the Defendant knew the Lewis Gun was not illegal and the Claimant had sold the gun to well known credible enthusiast at a recognised the aircraft museum there was “no excuse” to use these huge police resources in a prosecution.

151. Furthermore Police know they are using quasi experts who merely work with fire arms and are only qualified to say for example that the weapon could fire but are not expert on explaining the Home Office and Law Commission Consultation issues about the Lacuna in the Law.

152. The Defendant “made the Decision” to use quasi experts who only work with fire arms to mislead the Court as a part of a malicious prosecution, instead of using evidence from the senior staff or Officers at South Wales Police who liaise with Home Office regards the lacuna in fire arms law.

153. Does the Court have the power to make any Order that would mean Disclosure of evidence or statements from the staff and Officers at South Wales Police in 2008/09 and since who liaised with the Government and Home Office regards the lacuna in fire arms Law?

154. Another stage of a risk assessment ion how should police respond to ambiguous comments by an eccentric man while holding a legally deactivated fire arm that can easily be made to fire, is whether the person is acquiring weapons.

155. But as the Defendant maliciously prosecuted the Claimant for selling the Lewis Gun to a credible enthusiast and museum there was no evidence of risk whatsoever for the Defendants to use such as massive amount of resources. The Defendant must have known selling was not acquiring and what they did was not honest.

156. We need an Order to gain evidence from the senior police who made decisions to facilitated the misuse of huge resources from Supt McKenzies department when there was no evidence of issues that required such huge specialist resources. All which suggests malice and the defendant knew that they did what they did was dishonest and untrue.

In reply to the January 2020 Defendant’s bundle Direction on a new claim as a part of the Lewis Gun case in Wales? Or England?

157. We can see that the Defence bundle 2020 includes the reports by Dr TW which supports that the Defendant and Adrian Oliver and Richard Leighton Hill are aware of those documents since 2017 and before and therefore how falsely claiming these documents are credible means acting improperly, if not criminally by the Defendant.

158. Regards time limits the mischief, malice and deceit regards the Defendant interfering in these Lewis Gun civil proceedings by colluding with Dr TW were last at Crown Court resulting in the 2017 resulting in a prison sentence until late 2019. It is very obvious that if Richard Leighton Hill, Adrian Oliver and the Defendants had been honest about Dr TW wrongdoing the Claimant would not have been in prison as much in 2017 to 2019. Or from 20011 to 2019.

159. We therefore need Directions on how to integrate these matters either by extending the Lewis Gun case in Wales. Or by new claim in England when as the cases overlap so much it will be reasonable to seek to move the Lewis Gun case to England.

Reply to Defendants Bundle January 2020 – Request Disclosure regards evidence hidden at 2009/10 prosecution and trial

160. The Claimant requests an Order for Disclosure of the considerable amounts of data, information and evidence that was hidden by the Defendant during the Lewis Gun prosecution in 2009/10.

Reply to Defendant’s Bundle January 2020

161. Without legal advice the Claimant does not know how to include that the Claimant had a collection guns with licence mostly worth in total possibly around £20,000 held by the Defendant during the Lewis gun case but the Defendant never returned these or gave explanation.

Conclusion of Claimant’s reply to Defendant’s January 2020 bundle

162. The Defendant as a tactic try to provide a mass of irrelevant witnesses where that avoids the decision making police officers and real issues, as if the Defendant’s lawyers are trying to hide a needle in a haystack.

163. But if we look at what evidence really matters it can save the time of the Court.

164. New and careful Directions are needed so that the truth becomes evidence before the Court during the trial.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this application are true.

Maurice John Kirk BVSc

Date 21 January 2020

CASE NO:1CF03361

& D00CF279

IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

Claimant

and

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY

Defendant

List of Documents in Support of the N244 Application 21 January 2020

| | | |

|DATE |NAME |RELEVANCE |

|28 Aug 2009 |NHS Radiology Brain Scan results. |Two doctors at ABMU NHS confirm a normal all clear result. |

|30 Sept 2009 |Dr TW reports to the Cardiff Crown |Dr TW hides the above from the Court and makes up there is |

| |Court |brain damage. |

|19 Oct 2009 |Extract of Dr TW final Opinion to |Dr TW says such as significant irreversible brain damage and |

| |Cardiff Crown Court |P34 he is unsure how the brain damage will progress and it may |

| | |worsen. . |

|2 Dec 2009 |One page Extract of Cardiff Crown |Dr TW is so dishonest saying false things he even told the |

| |Court Transcript |Prosecutor that the Claimant has cancer |

|16 June 2010 |CAA Medical says Claimant is fit to |Obviously Claimant Maurice Kirk does not appear mentally ill or|

| |fly |brain damaged as Dr TW says. |

|28 Nov 2013 |University Hospital of Wales (UHW) |Radiology at UHW gives a normal all clear brain scan |

| |Cardiff | |

|14 March 2014 |Dr Rose Marnell Clinical Director at |Says no evidence of any brain damage or PDD/delusion. |

| |HMP Cardiff | |

|25 July 2019 |Belinda Kirk (Oxford educated |Says Defendant falsely says Claimant is a risk to her and her |

| |daughter of Claimant) |family when Belinda Kirk says that is not true. . |

|19 10 15 |Celia Jeune (sister of Claimant ex |Defendant dishonestly says Claimant landed on USA Presidents |

| |Magistrate |Lawn and make many other ludicrous false claims in Police |

| | |information systems. |

|20 January |Jon Davidson |Says of potentially Police used a different gun or gun was |

| | |altered. |

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download