S42 statment



Claim No. BS614159 etc

In the Cardiff County Court Maurice John Kirk BVSc (The Claimant)

_______________________

Further Provisional Grounds of Appeal

_________________________________

1. The circumstances are such that until the Cardiff court allows his access to the court building for transcript, to listen to the tape as lawyers are freely allowed to do, see all case files and exhibits not identified in judgment, including all police doctored and undoctored videos and release copy of related outstanding Particulars of Claims, stayed unfairly is his humble submission, the Claimant will remain in some difficulties.

2. The transcript has been applied for twice in the preceeding year both from the court and official transcribers whilst the Claimant was falsely incarcerated for a ‘breach of a restraining order’ that was neither breached nor served on him in the first place.

3. Attempts, since, to re-write, shred or ‘lose’ existing magistrates, Cardiff Crown Court, Geoamey and police records, surrounding still more fabricated police allegations, is so easy to prove by disclosure of those records as many of which are public property or not protected by HM Partnership’s multi facetted cozy arrangements.

4. Countless applications to identify the outstanding court stayed cases, for preparation of these grounds, indicating the continuing police harassment, false imprisonments and malicious prosecutions, remain unanswered.

5. Countless applications for release of MAPPA, Cardiff magistrates, Crown Courts, South Wales Police records and GeoAmey Custody Services records, since 1993, have been ridiculed if not completely ignored.

6. Stayed Particulars of Outstanding Claims include the fact that from the moment the then Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, Ms Barbara Wilding, signed her February 2009 ‘sworn affidavit’, ordered by this court, clandestine arrangements were immediately made to have the Claimant suffer further 24/7 surveillance, for bias in this case and to be knowingly falsely sectioned under 1983 Mental Health Act and gaoled to further delay or stop both these civil proceedings and then alternative, iniquitous ‘machine gun’ indictments.

7. Police conspiracy included the repainting of the ‘gun’ to fool the jury and the fact that ALL PARTIES KNEW the WW1 antique was clearly identified as an integral part of the British registered aircraft in her log books. Chief Constable Wilding was the very originator of the current contoversial ‘shoot to kill’ policy by the Metropolitan Police and knew, when the Claimant gained access to her own office, he had to personally ‘exchange witness statements’ on her, on or before 19th June 2009 following her lawyers having refused to do so as they were on their own lucrative agenda.

8. The Claimant’s MAPPA level 3 category 3 registration, in order that he may be shot, see 8th June 2009 MAPPA minutes, failed thus needing this Claimant to be further harassed by concocted and again at mid trial by switching prosecution exhibits, a 1st Dec 2011 ‘harasment’ conviction.

9. Three similarly concocted ‘breaches of the harassment act’, despite the inevitable sacking of the blackmailed police psychiatrist, as he had admitted information to the contrary, caused still further falsification of court, police, HMP Cardiff, Bristol, Park and Swansea and HM Probation records and not forgetting a plethora of erroneous NHS (Wales) medical records to prevent the Claimant to lawfully flying his aircraft in UK airspace.

10. Para 9 of Their Lordships 2012 Judgment made it clear they were not ‘made aware’ of the 4th May 2011 jury note’s exististance (as with Claimant in the cells) explicitly indicating their need to:

1) View the magistrates court custody unit,

2) see Geoamey Custody records as to just who was a witness to what at the time and

3) for the jury to examine the clerk of the court’s ‘contemporaneous notes’, as expressly asked for by the gaolor to record service at the time.

A purported ‘restraining order’ was to be served by himself, instead, as the court clerk was hiding in a nearby cell. The Claimant was either on crutches in the corridor or in his cell sitting reading his newspaper.

This is all supported following cross examination evidence from numerous hearings including three, if not four, jury trial’s, at least one Crown Court appeal. This was concocted in an attempt to conseal the dealy of this civil case when HMP Cardiff were told by the South Wales police to confiscate the Claimant’s passport without lawful authority.

11. Six more Particulars of Claims, covering more countless false arrests or acts of harassment against their victim, since his 2010 release from prison, are also not being allowed to be registered with the Cardiff County Court, for due process, suggesting, some may think, this apparent abuse of process guarentees immunity to prosecution not just in a civil court but also in our UK criminal courts.

Still further reasons why judgment corrections cannot be listed or completion of grounds for appeal can be done before there is is Courts, HMP prisons, HM Probation, Geoamey and police proper disclosure of evidence not subject to privilage.

1. The Claimant from the start, in 1992, insisted no litigation is to proceed against any UK authority without the guarantee of a civilian jury. This was repeatedly promised by his then Bristol solicitors on an annual basis until eventually sacked for numerous reasons.

2. The age old cartel operated within the British judicial system prevented the Claimant from independent legal representation despite just over one hundred law firms being contacted.

3. The Claimant’s solicitors had promised their client simple disclosure of police records (still in existence) was all that was needed for the mediation procedure and settlement out of court with no need for oral evidence in a protracted trial. Someone was clearly lying.

4. The Claimant was then granted a jury by His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC upon his admission to the extreme magnitude and scale of the failed police prosecutions but from selected incidents commencing 1992 to 2002, the period covered in these court proceedings.

5. Despite well over one hundred original police allegations of the Claimant being in breach of the law prosecutions only resulted in an 11% rate in successful prosecutions.

6. Ten years from the start of police harassment, in The Vale of Glamorgan, the court denied a civilian jury knowing, full well, that the purported costs had now exceeded £500,000 albeit inflated and mediation again would be refused by police private solicitors.

7. There continued a war of attrition by the relevant authorities to slowly delay and deplete the Claimant’s original documentary evidence, list of witnesses and finally, memories, to almost all fade away due to the simple passage of time.

8. Twenty three years on from the Claimant’s realisation that both Guernsey and Taunton police had been quick to be in regular communication with the South Wales Police, by using his motoring documentation, the Achilles heel for any UK motorist subject to daily police harassment, the Defendant set about ‘a course of conduct’ which continues today.

9. More than forty times have the police stopped and demanded the production of the Claimant’s motoring documentation and on the past six, at least, occasions he has failed ‘to produce’, deliberately, with no indication, what so ever, of any subsequent prosecution.

10. South Wales Police agenda is and always was to harass the Claimant to affect these civil proceedings, either at the roadside or at his insurance company and even in the air.

11. Malicious prosecutions and delaying tactics, often requiring the cosy assistance by third parties, such as HMCS (1st Dec 2011 harassment altered court records) and NHS (Wales) (rogue chief police psychiatrist), are fabricated, to date, to delay and delay the Claimant.

12. This has left the Claimant quite incapable of examining the draft judgment for factual errors as requested by the learned presiding judge. In retaliation the Claimant wishes to bring to the presiding judge a few of many examples of police fabricated incidences which, of course, remain ‘stayed’ against the Claimant’s wishes.

Outstanding Examples of Police Delay Tactics included: [See Annex A]

i) 1995 Imprisonment on the pretext the Claimant could not be identified following communication with Guernsey police.(Told their prisoner attends court in Nazi uniform).

ii) 1995 retired Llantwit Major’s Sgt Booker communication with both Guernsey and Taunton police relating to a myriad of other ‘failed ignominious prosecutions’.

iii) 2003 HM Court Service seizure of all Claimant court files, since 1992, without his knowledge and sending them to Whitehall and back, over a period of many months, causing the loss of many of them. (See leaked HM Treasury Solicitor’s memos].

iv) The 2009 armed police arrest for ‘trading in machine guns and live ammunition’ conspiracy’ [See Annex B] with painting the ‘gun ‘ a different colour to try and fool the jury in June 2009 when the Claimant’s witness statement was but half finished (only 64 pages) leading to nearly eight months in custody before the inevitable acquittal.

v) 2009 fabricated 1983 Mental Health Act sectioning of the Claimant [See Annex C] and his terrifying experience incarcerated for three months in Caswell Clinic based on the information by the chief police psychiatrist, before numerous Crown Court judges, contrary to FTAC psychiatrist, his own GP, sixteen doctors in Caswell Clinic and at least five specialists on brain scans, some even before application by police was made to have this Claimant incarcerated in prison for life without trial. This was all orchestrated by the then Chief of Police, Barbara Wilding, to have her victim registered MAPPA level 3 category 3 (one of the top 5% most dangerous people in UK), for her to implement her Metropolitan Police pet policy, ‘shoot to kill’, (see MAPPA meeting leaked internal memos). This conduct was her attempt to avoid the repercussions from her false January 2009 sworn affidavit ordered, personally, to be written by the then presiding judge, in this civil case, His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC.

vi) 28th November 2011 refusal by the police to allow the Claimant to attend London court.

vii) 1st December 2011 fabricated conviction for Section 2 harassment of the rogue police psychiatrist, now sacked for it, Doctor W, following the fabrication and introduction of a fictitious allegation, on day of the substantive hearing, by the police, requisite to allow a custodial sentence already served by the Claimant. This then caused the clerk of the court, Michael Williams, to have to both falsify the court log and his contemporaneous notes, both now also withheld by CPS, police and Criminal Cases Review Commission. The subsequent 1st Dec 2009 ‘gate arrest’ by the police of the Claimant, upon his release at the Cardiff magistrates, was orchestrated to obtain i) the 28th November 2009 conviction, for ‘failure to attend’ (HMP Cardiff refused my right to attend London Court) to successfully use, time and time again, in successfully opposing bail to prepare for this civil action and ii) to prove or not the Claimant never was served a ‘restraining order’ as no such record of it is in Geoamey Custody Services records nor in those of the police identifying the full content of his property upon release from the Cardiff cells that night.

viii) 1st December 2011 harassment hearing ended in chaos with the Claimant eventually refusing to attend the apparent pantomime as he was repeatedly refused his legal papers from his prison cell. In 2015 his rectum was scoped to find significant scaring throughout following the many reams of data having to be transported back and forth from countless courts and four prisons where he was deliberately , sometimes just for a week end, to thoroughly mix up and lose papers in this case now exceeding two hundred lever arch files. Their informant was given free access to the prison to deliver his confidential files within the prison. Court had ordered he be the Claimant’s Mackenzie Friend and ‘confidante’ by Cardiff magistrates [See Annex F].

ix) 4th May 2012 1st ‘Breach of Restraining Order’ jury conviction appeal led to the police denying Their Lordships the fact that the jury had actually asked, in writing, for and were refused sight of the 1st December 2011 ‘clerk of the court’s ‘contemporaneous notes’ (Claimant never was served a restraining order to breach). The jury note, asking, was even withheld from the Claimant by the police along with the court exhibits of 1st April 2012 appeal against the harassment conviction. Police confiscated those exhibits still as they were altered between 1st Dec 2011 magistrates hearing and 3rd May 2012 first jury trial.

x) 3rd Oct 2012 2nd ‘Breach of Restraining Order’ jury trial collapsed after the incarceration of the Claimant for many months by the police knowing Dr W had lied when having the Claimant gaoled, to assist defending his own civil claim defending the Claimant’s long running and blocked civil damages claim for originally fabricating his medical records over a ‘blackmail’ over a member of female staff within Caswell Clinic. The rogue had stated the Claimant had been to his matrimonial home (Claimant had no idea where that was) when police were ‘called’ to have him ‘moved on’. Only CPS investigation, months down the line, established the whole story was a fabrication.

xi) October 2013 Claimant arrest and incarceration for five months or so, on fictitious allegations from a known Cardiff criminal of its underworld, including a convicted GBH/drug dealer, Mark Davenport, only to be dropped because the whole incident had been filmed on CCTV, with no assault what so ever and confirmed by Davenport’s staff present, is highlighted by the fact Davenport, with others ‘beat up’ to cause grievous bodily harm on the Bristol’s HM Bailiff’s staff (See his sworn affidavit) to have him evicted while a dozen or so South Wale Police stood by indicating the spectacle was ‘singularly amusing’.

xii) March 2014 3rd ‘breach of the restraining order’ jury trial again experienced the police having confiscated exhibits and court records of cases of the previous trials causing neither the jury nor the Claimant getting access to them in order to further reveal the conspiracy yet again to pervert the course of justice.

xiii) 28th September 2015 the Claimant was detained by Jersey police but released following the circumstances of the arrest warrant issued by the South Wales Police in April 2015.

xiv) 29th September 2015 the French authorities confiscated his aircraft and refused even for him to obtain his legal papers, for this court case, from the cub. The arrest warrant was for minor allegations and therefore not a European arrest warrant so the Claimant was allowed to return to the UK by boat to Portsmouth.

xv) 30th September 2015 Hampshire police, on behalf of South Wales Police, the Defendants in this case, arrested and detained the Claimant for fourteen hours, without either interview or charge, for no other reason other than to prevent the Claimant’s illustrated talk at Cardiff Aero Club that same night and now set for Thursday, 8th October 2015.

xvi) The Claimant’s talks are designed to demonstrate, from first-hand experience, the things that are likely to come for those living in Wales should the forth coming judicial autonomy and ‘independent police force’ recommendations by the Welsh Assembly come to fruition.

The judgment appears deficient in relevant facts believed to have been proved by the Claimant and his witnesses, also now appearing to be called liars, which is the very reason why he, long before the end of this case indicated for his court files, handed in at the start, be listed and illustrated as exhibits along with all the acquired police videos, they being almost the only court records put before the court. The police have, again, successfully withheld damming public documents created during the course of each of the thirty odd arrests and incarcerations, illustrated in these first three of eight or so actions, leaving the next actions too dangerous to be tried.

Thus the Claimant has, without success, attempted to obtain the full transcripts of this trial and others in it in order to be able, owing to the passage of time, of which he is not to blame, a comprehensive account of police bullying of both an extreme and unusual nature triggered early on by previous police forces with their own particular agendas.

Annex A

KIRKGATE HMP Swansea

Jan 09 FTAC Home Office psychiatrist gives clean bill of health re Highgrove visit

Chief Constable fabricates sworn affidavit in civil damages claim/ hands in her resignation

April 09 Victim’s GP obtains fax for him to be examined by a psychiatrist

May 09 NHS psychiatrist exam. in Bridgend general hospital but victim refused its results

1st June 09 Independent Advisory Group police HQ meeting-victim to MAPPA registration

8th June Barry police/MAPPA/Probation/NHS meeting-register victim level 3 category 3

18th June Victim at Chief Constable’ HQ - refused ‘exchange’ re civil damages statements and instead surrounded by riot police in tin hats with stun grenades & automatic weapons

19th June 2nd attempt to ‘exchange’- refused at Constable’s Cardiff solicitors offices so

solicitors register complaint ‘threat to do criminal damage’ with its own client causing

21st June 20 odd armed police and helicopter surround victim’s home but abort mission

22nd June Arrested by armed police re ‘threaten witness statements through solicitor’s office window attached to girt brick‘& ‘trading in machine guns and ammunition’

24th June Barry magistrates barely contain laughs and grant bail-police appeal verdict

25th June Cardiff Crown Court judge remands victim for nearly 8 months

July 09 Recorder of Cardiff requests for ‘psychiatric report’ in victim’s absence

August 09 Chief police psychiatrist recommends victim sectioned without ex or in court,

Judge Llewellyn Jones QC sections to Caswell Clinic psychiatric hospital, Bridgend

Oct 09 Recorder rules their victim should be legally represented. Police fail to get victim higher sectioned-victim returned to Cardiff prison for Jan 2010 ‘machine gun’ trial

Nov 09 Crown court police fail, again, to get victim re sectioned but again block bail

1st Dec 09 Private medical report to court castigates police/Dr W conduct

2nd Dec 09 CPS attempt section to Ashworth high security mental hospital, indefinitely

as victim denied court access from cells below-court tape redacted/corrupted & purloined

Jan 10 ‘Machine gun’ acquittal - jury confirmed decision after first day of two week trial

Feb 10 Police video interview victim’s NHS Dr complaint -withheld (7 so far)-no action

Victim then arrested for attempted Caswell Clinic burglary- clinical staff again proved liars

June 10 The Recorder of Cardiff assures victim he will get medical evidence but repeatedly gaoled following police doctor’s reports and this evidence remains undisclosed.

Victim arrested re ‘public order‘- allegations dropped following proof witnesses lied

June10 CAA psychiatric exam clears victim of all South Wales Police allegations

July10 Leg broken by ex-police officer pushing victim down court steps- refused exam of prosecution witnesses - convicted in absence- appeal to Bristol/two year delay/un opposed

Aug11 arrest ‘attempting to shoot Lord Mayor with machine gun’-£50 fine still on appeal

Arrest in Family High Court re 7 Nigerian Haringey Council ‘snatched kids‘-no charges

Arrest re ‘criminal damage’ of police station door as imprisoned without arrest. SWP needed their victim locked-up while ‘harassment’ charges being ‘dreamed-up’

Sept11 arrest: ‘attempted Nigerian children smuggling’ (byWW2 D-Day a/c) sectioned again reliant only on SWP data-Laughed quickly out of court by Haringey magistrates.

Arrest re ‘entering prison without permission’ changed to ‘common assault’ after prison officer arrest re stolen passport on police favours to assist defending ongoing civil claim

Victim’s PNC ‘fails to attend courts‘, ‘extremely violent‘, ‘escaper’ and ‘sex offender’…

Nov11 Haringey Council Nigerian 7 kids case-convicted in absence to avoid proof of LA lawyers conspiracy or parent prison release- SWP refused victim production from prison

Dec11 ‘Harassment’ conviction & applic. To ‘vary’ restraining order, not served, refused.

Jan12 Youth Justice Criminal Evidence Act1999 concocted again to block Dr X exam

May12 1st ‘breach of a restraining order’ despite the fact no order was served!

March12 Harassment appeal CPS allow witnesses assaulted to prevent evidence given

Sept 12 Acquit ‘2nd breach’-visit to doctor’s house, to burn it down, was another Dr lie

Jan 13 Sectioned and gaoled by French police on SWP data to Pontivy hospital-victim but recognised with laughter- doctor immediately countermands for release but Police refuse.

June 13 ‘HM Prosecutor arrest’ conviction and sentence- appealed….moved to Bristol

July 13 Arrested re ‘common assault x 2/ breach of bail/drink drive/breach of bail/ witness intimidation- Cardiff prison many months, on remand, before all charges dropped.

Sept 13 HMP steal passport/ prison officer arrested

Oct13 Arrest re ‘threat to burn doctor’s house down’ (2nd police/Dr attempt)/ 3rd‘breach’)

Nov 13 HMP Cardiff psychiatrist refers victim to neurologist as no psychiatric disorder.

Prison officer arrest conviction- court refuses to exam prison CCTV or witness’s tape

March 14 Convicted 3rd breach &threatening telephone call-16 months sentence

April 14 CPS infirm trial judge, in victim/jury absence, ‘restraining order’ is ‘meaningless’

July14 Released /recalled week later for 8 months as no need evidence or a court hearing.

Police cancel hospital referral again as ‘risk of escape’ (this cancellation was during parole!

Transfer to HMP Park for w/e to block access to private funds and disrupt his legal data.

Oct 14 Parole Board hearing cancelled as police refuse to produce psychiatrist.

19th Nov14 Bristol CPS prosecutor discloses part of original withheld 1st Dec 2011 ‘harassment’ conviction court records following ‘arrest of original prosecutor’ appeal. It revealed CCRC appeared to have had acquired Cardiff magistrates court file in Feb2010 just days before ‘harassment’ Cardiff appeal and three months before victim’s nine month prison sentence for 1st ‘breach’ of restraining order’. (Victim did not know)

20th Nov14 CPS admit 1st Dec 2011 Cardiff clerk of the court will not release his contemporaneous records of evidence but fortunately all was tape recorded.

Now there remains the problem, for some, of various versions of a hand written part typed CPS drafted ‘restraining order’/custody court cell records &1st Dec11 SWP ‘gate arrest’?

They keep, over the years, appearing and then ‘disappearing’ from Cardiff magistrates file. It may, of course, have something to do with status of their previous applicant, be it public counter, CPS Bristol or level of court judge, to view such clandestine treasures.

To be continued

Annex B

Machine Gun Case – Maurice J Kirk BVSc –

This is only a brief summary……

The proof is contained in South Wales Police download docs on both old websites, , mauricejohnkirk. and victims- following their concocted June 2009 arrest by heavily armed officers for an almost eight month incarceration before an obvious acquittal. Barbara Wilding, the then Chief Constable, on foreseeing a failure in prosecution, had her victim sectioned MAPPA Level 3/Category 3 NHS (Wales) under Sect 35 of 1983 Mental Act instead using a similarly corrupt Caswell Clinic level 12 forensic psychiatrist now having fled the country.

The whole purpose for this police conspiracy, originally hatched in Bridgend headquarters due to over one hundred acquittals, was to further frustrate and delay the harassed litigant in person (LiP) as he was unable to find legal representation. Despite his visiting and or writing to 104 law firms, throughout the UK, he has still had little if no success.

Twenty three years of police harassment has caused damage and loss, his right to practice veterinary surgery, have a normal family life and has left him permanently mentally damaged.

History

1. 1977: Five decommissioned WW1 Lewis machine guns, in Cornwall, were designated for various replica period aircraft including the DH2. Several are to be found in museums around the UK.

2. 1997: MJK purchased the DH2 and ‘gun’ from a private collection, in Dorset, with its log books and other CAA paperwork identifying the ‘gun’ as an integral part of the fuselage.

3. 1998: The 1968 Fire Arms Act was amended meaning that if the ‘gun’ remained as it had first been decommissioned, it was exempt from the new regulations. These included far more mutilation to make the weapon ‘safe’. This became the critical argument in the later trial.

4. 2000: The DH2 was flown at the Farnborough Air Show by personal invitation, but on the return flight to Wales suffered an emergency due to a possible ‘bird strike’ breaking the propeller.

5. 2006: The DH2 was moved to RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire, for further repair and display.

6. 2008: The DH2 was handed out, by the RAF, to a Hampshire civilian for further repair and sold, by MJK, to another display pilot who took the aircraft to Lincolnshire for air shows.

7. 1st June 2009: South Wales Police convened a meeting to refer MJK to MAPPA 24/7 surveillance.

8. 8th June: MAPPA meeting categorised MJK as Level 3 (top 5% most dangerous) as ‘being in possession of the machine gun and ammunition’ based, the court was told, on photographs and sale adverts, all dating back to the year before and some as far back as 2001!

9. 18th June: MJK obtained entry to the offices of the Chief Constable, at Bridgend HQ, for the purposes of arresting her for falsifying her 25th Feb 09 sworn affidavit in the ongoing civil damages claim. Also the need for ‘mutual exchange’ of witness statements on a court deadline of 19th June at 4pm meant MJK took them directly to her office. Tin hatted armed police surrounded the building.

10. 19th June: Dolmans, solicitors for the police, also refused to ‘exchange’ and in turn made statement of complaint of ‘threat to commit criminal damage’ when MJK suggested they be delivered through their front window as the court order had only one hour left to run.

11. 21st June: A sizable armed police raid on MJK‘s home, with helicopter, was aborted only because, the court heard, MJK was at home and could only be arrested ‘when away from it’!

12. 22nd June: MJK arrested in his village for ‘possession of m/g, ammo and threats of damage’. The new owner was asked by CAA to deposit ‘gun’ with gun dealer where Welsh police later seized it.

13. 23rd June: Charged with ‘possession of machine gun’ and its resale (failed proceeds of crime).

14. 24th June: Barry Magistrates gave unconditional bail which was immediately appealed against.

15. 25th June: Remanded in custody by Cardiff Crown Court despite no evidence of ‘likely to abscond’, ‘reoffend’ or would ‘commit a crime’ (CPS quote “he has the ability to fly his aeroplane out of the country”). Up until the commencement of trial 10 Cardiff judges refused him bail with both CPS and judges altering their reasons, see transcripts, as each point was ‘shot down’.

16. 25th January 2010: Before and during trial MJK was, as usual, refused the relevant police disclosure A PATTERN ADOPTED EVER SINCE AUTUMN 1992, NOW IN CURRENT CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, when he was then accused by Barry police of arson of his own, police later found out, uninsured Piper Cub!

17. 9th Feb: Despite extremely restricted cross examination no defence evidence was ever needed.

18. Jury informed MJK their verdict was concluded after the very first day of evidence in a farcical two week trial and asked him why was the purchaser of the ‘gun‘ and seller thereof, both prosecution witnesses, not also with him in the dock ? Both the buyer and police had ‘modified’ her and the jury quickly realised that the police had made attempts to withhold that simple fact from them.

19. 2012 Lincolnshire aircraft engineers later stated the ‘gun’ had been painted back to black by the police to the colour on the 2007 You-Tube video (Maurice with gun) in order to fool the jury.

20. When their victim gave these statements to the police, by way of complaint, he was, instead, promptly arrested for ‘breaching a restraining order’ and gaoled ‘big time’ for a document that had never been served on him, in 2011, in the first place! (See forged magistrate’s clerk’s notes and log).

21. After the machine-gun acquittal MJK was released from prison with the trial judge refusing any costs except to an irrelevant 3rd party in order to deny their victim any civil damages claim.

22. Failed disclosure by her Chief Constable’s 25th Feb 09 fanciful affidavit and unlawful use of FTAC and MAPPA legislation, all shortly to be before the Court of Appeal is why she and police concocted both this whole gun story and had falsified the psychiatric evidence purely to obtain their victim’s imprisonment, indefinitely, in Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital without any trial.

23. DAMAGES are now sought for: malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, fraudulent sectioning and delaying the numerous other civil actions for damages, lodged before that date, citing police harassment, negligence, conspiracy, bullying but above all else, malicious prosecutions and years of false imprisonments by altering both police and court records.

The continuing nefarious conduct of South Wales Police, apparently aided by a judiciary also seeking autonomy, is to be further exposed in a series of talks by their victim across the UK and elsewhere.

------------------------------

Annex C

Forum for Stable Currencies Advocating Economic Democracy through Freedom from National Debt Convenor: Lord Sudeley FSA; Host: Lord Ahmed; Chairman: Austin Mitchell MP Sponsors: James Gibb Stuart, Ossian Publishers; Barbara A. Panvel, New Era Coalition Organiser: Sabine K McNeill, Director, 3D Metrics; Facilitator: Brad Meyer, Collaboration Ltd 02 September 2010

Analysis: Maurice Kirk – Tel. 07907937953

1. Maurice is a 65-year-old veterinary surgeon with a passion for flying, a strong sense for what is right and wrong and the courage to defend himself. He was removed from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons register in 2002. His website is popular worldwide due to the adventurous nature of the pilot and the extraordinary legal battles he has been fighting.

2. Maurice has been seriously harassed by South Wales Police ever since 1972, when he was supposed to have stolen the notebook from the drawer of an Inspector’s police station in Taunton. He won this case, but was supposedly owning a machine gun later, and was again found not guilty. See and

3. On one of his flights, Maurice landed near George Bush’s farm and was put into a psychiatric clinic in Austin, Texas.

4. In the UK, the series of harassments included sending him to the mental ward of Caswell Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Tondu Road, Bridgend CF31 4LN. In that process, the following reports were produced:

a. 3rd August 2009: Dr. W wrote a 1 st Interim Psychiatric Report that formed the basis of the judge’s decision to section Maurice under the Mental Health Act on August 7th, 2009. The report, produced at the request of Cardiff Crown Court, was based entirely on documents and website, without interview. See

b. Without date: A Mental Health Services‟ Consultant and Forensic Psychiatrist from the Caswell Clinic wrote a 2nd Psychiatric Report about the charge of the possession of a firearm sold or transferred a firearm. See

c. 12th August 2009: The University NHS Trust requested copies of medical records from the Austin State Hospital, but refuses access to Maurice. See

d. 30th September 2009: 3rd Psychiatric Report by Dr. W para 9: “paranoid delusional disorder”, para 10: “significant brain damage”

e. 1st September 2009: Dr. James Godfrey, Clinical Psychological Report, Penarth Ward: “I do not feel that Maurice's court cases and litigious processes were initially motivated by any form of delusional paranoia. However, it may well be the ongoing effects of these court cases have had a negative impact on his mental health. The long-term effects of stress; lack of sleep; removal of other forms of cognitive stimulation, such as his work; and association with a peer group who have extreme conspiratorial beliefs may, at certain points, cause Maurice's to be vulnerable to delusional beliefs. In my opinion, Maurice is not currently suffering from a delusional disorder. However, it is felt that continued physical and psychological stress could have some adverse effects on him in the future. If the current stressors surrounding Maurice were removed, there is every chance that his mental state would stabilise and his levels of anxiety reduce.”

f. 19th October2009: para 32 of the 4th Psychiatric Report by Dr. W[ ] contains remarks of: “clear evidence of some degree of „neuro-cognitive damage (brain damage)”

g. 1st December 2009: Dr Paul M Kemp, Consultant and Honorary Senior Lecturer in Nuclear Medicine writes upon request from Yorkshire Law Solicitors to comment on brain scan images: “I do not believe that there is any convincing evidence of abnormality...”

h. 26th May 2010: NHS University Health Board states that reports by Dr Bagshaw and Dr Sylvester did not exist and that Texas Reports have been returned.

Annex D

Forensic Analysis Maurice Kirk: Royal Charter Blocks His Right to Practice as a Veterinary Surgeon

Who’s to Blame?1983: Maurice’s Guernsey veterinary practice is sold, contents, building, the lot, to a stranger by mortgage holder, the Nat West Bank, conspiring with HM law officers and private lawyers in the same practice, acting for both partners unbeknown to Maurice. Reliant on the psychiatric ill health of his partner, the mortgagee, misguidedly signs a misleading side document, to the sale, that should Maurice become ‘aware’ of the transaction of a mere £16,000, within one year, the deal must be reversed. Upon finding out Maurice immediately performs a ‘Clamour de Haro’, ancient Normandy Law for a ‘prohibitive injunction’. In other words, all business must stop and to be immediately investigated by the island’s Royal Court with compensation to the winning party.

The Highest Court 1985: To the horror of many on the island, this law is ignored by HM Insular Authorities of this ‘dependant territory of the United Kingdom’. Maurice takes it to the Judicial Committee of HM Privy Council, ultimately responsible but his ‘petition’ is dismissed. Tax Haven Intrigue? Later, the Royal Court has to dissolve the original partnership contract, retrospectively, in order to prevent Maurice obtaining any alternative redress through the HM courts his sick partner and mate, having been forced to leave the island, almost penniless.

South Wales 1992: Maurice re settles in Barry, South Wales and modernises another practice to be one of only four veterinary hospitals in the whole of the Principality of Wales. Covert police surveillance by the local South Wales Constabulary was soon detected but he could tell no one, not even his wife, for fear it would prejudice his flourishing business with surgeries, now, in both Cardiff and Llantwit Major, in the Vale of Glamorgan. Vendetta?

2001: The police, having lost, now, over one hundred and twenty criminal allegations including prison, with only a success rate of around 10%, report him to The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons disclosing dubious confidential police records to their solicitors during an extensive inquiry including the interrogation, unbeknown to him, of many of his own clients. Abuse of Process?

2002: The RCVS Disciplinary Committee convene a court where he was denied over well twenty relevant defence witnesses similar to prosecution ones, such as investigating police officers and eye witnesses. Throughout the trial, with not one of the four college lawyers, present, including the lead QC, correcting the obviously ill ‘Legal Assessor’s decisions, he being a long retired High Court judge, turning the hearing into a farce. 1 Where is the Relevance? Petty criminal convictions, over ten years, previously considered irrelevant, meant Maurice was not struck off for ‘dishonesty’, ‘use and abuse of drugs’ or anything to do with his patients or staff but because of his apparent ‘disrespect for ‘authority’. Justice?

2004: His appeal to the HM Privy Council failed save the fact that Their Lordships ‘hoped’ his name would be restored within the year, so why not a suspension, Maurice asks? HM Partnership? The HM Information Commissioner refused to disclose the contemporaneous notes despite solicitors proved falsifying favourable statements before service on Defendant. For the last three annual re instatement applications the RCVS chairman, has refused even to convene a court, contrary to the rules: 20.3 ‘On receipt of an application to which this Rule applies, the application shall be listed for hearing within 3 months’. Rule of Law or judge’s discretion?

2005: Maurice has tramped the expensive route of ten or more High courts, to no avail, with different reasons given each time as to why he cannot be re-instated the college knowing, full well, that should he be successful and also be elected onto college Council, he would have unfettered access to withheld inquiry records of evidence. Our Highest Court?

This month’s HM Privy Council appeal, against their own Registrar refusing to do exactly what the RCVS chairman had refused, to put the application before a court of law. Rule 22.(1) Default powers of the Privy Council, allows it to intervene. (2) If the Council of the College fail to comply with a direction under the foregoing subsection with respect to any function of theirs, the Privy Council may themselves discharge that function. Avarice? Despite the petition being primarily drafted, carrying a £30,000 bill, the solicitor refused to put his name to it, the Judicial Committee informing Maurice:

“The application on appeal against the Registrar’s decision has been considered by the board and REFUSED because the application is incompetent and is an abuse of process”. Cosy Relationship? One of Their Lordships, sitting, had also refused his Judicial Reviews and handed down a RCVS requested two year Extended Civil Restraint Order. He instigated (see internal memos) for HM Treasury Solicitor to commence a seven year running Vexatious Litigant enquiry, to effectively to ban him from any court. This caused havoc for his nineteen year running damages claims against the South Wales Police with court files lost whilst back and forth between the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre and a team of Whitehall civil servants. European Conspiracy?

The European Commission on Human Rights has already informed Maurice that it will no longer entertain any further Applications from him concerning the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Maurice’s Advice: Let this be a warning to anyone, also seeking justice in our UK courts, for ‘HM Partnership’ and Royal Charters all contain invincible prejudice with built in immunity against prosecution or any form of compensation. 23rd January 2011…...

Annex E

Forensic Analysis: Maurice Kirk – – mauricejohnkirk.

1. Maurice J Kirk BVSc was a veterinary surgeon and private pilot whose public and private life has been ruined by what appears to be a vendetta of various police organisations. Having found a number of dubious pretexts for categorising him level 3 (terrorist) of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA), a leaked report revealed that he was even a target to be shot.

2. Since Arrival in Wales in 1992, harassment by South Wales Police (SWP) has escalated. It is believed because he was a “Flying Vet” in England, who visited his veterinary clients by aeroplane and thus was outside police control. Harassment followed him to the Channel Islands and Wales and consisted of numerous imprisonments without trial, stopping him in the road countless times and ignoring the investigation of crimes committed against him, such as arson, burglaries, the stealing and falsification of cheques, numerous brutal physical attacks leading to fraudulent imprisonments and eventually committing him to Caswell Psychiatric Clinic, besides categorising him as „terrorist‟, i.e. applying MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement) level 3 surveillance. Maurice won well over 100 legal allegations against SWP while he lost around 12. His civil action for damages is before Cardiff Count Court now. He is being helped by one of the 4 other victims of police harassment in South Wales.]

3. Machine Gun Case SWP prosecuted Maurice for possession of a machine gun and opposed bail, as he was considered to be dangerous. He was kept on remand for over seven months. SWP knew Maurice owned a replica WW1 vintage De-Havilland DH2 which he flew at 2000 Farnborough Air Show. Attached to it was a decommissioned WW1 machine gun which he offered for sale via his website. He won without needing even to give evidence or call witnesses. The case of malice requires immediate legal representation for compensation against SWP if only Maurice could find a lawyer.

4. Struck off Register of Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) as farfetched as it may seem, SWP succeeded in getting Maurice struck off the Register to practise veterinary surgery by using minor old convictions including the car incidents. Triggered by a SWP police officer reporting two dogs believed to have fallen over a cliff to the RCVS, two charges were formulated: A) ‘his attitude towards authority was not conducive to that expected in society of a professional man’ B) ‘refused to disclose his records of treatment for both dogs on a beach’ after their own court legal assessor refused him to do just that! Six applications, to re-instate him, have been refused, three even to go before the court.

5. Numerous Fraudulent Imprisonments The 40 odd car incidents were the occasion for keeping Maurice locked up 8 times, for varying length. One of the strategies was to harass his agent to ensure he would not get insurance for any of his vehicles in Wales. This was the tactic that did succeed in Guernsey.

6. Three months in Caswell Psychiatric Prison He was jailed to Caswell Clinic by Crown Court, under Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act, reliant only on Dr W, without even examination. He was transferred back to Cardiff Prison after the statutory limit of three months because no other doctor would support the Director of SWP Forensic Psychiatric Prison’s recommendation that he be sent to Ashworth High Security Prison, indefinitely.

7. MAPPA level 3 Surveillance (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement) while Maurice suspected this formalised surveillance, he only got confirmation recently about having been the subject of discussion at seven meetings between June and December 2009. Whilst in prison HM authorities denied any knowledge of it. Only in December did the MAPPA co-ordinator confirm he was and would be informed about his status and reports of meetings. He is currently waiting for a judgment on disclosure of those monthly meetings in his ongoing eighteen year in an ‘unusual’, extreme‟ and indefinite set of circumstances.

8. Judgement against HMP Cardiff who don’t pay up A £50,000 judgement awarded for false imprisonment, has been overturned in a bizarre manner reliant on failed disclosure by HM Court Service, HM prison and HM Treasury Solicitor

9. Civil Action against SWP for Damages needing One Hundred Witnesses Trial date was September, 2008 then January 2009 then September 2010 now September 2011. It is being commented upon on as well as on mauricejohnkirk.

10. Critical Medical Condition Maurice was scheduled for a hip replacement on June 22nd, 2010. But his medical records that could be released by five different institutions are being withheld. Hence this online petition.

11. Asking for Asylum in France Despite his medical condition and despite requesting an adjournment, Cardiff Magistrates Court issued a Warrant for Arrest which is now the reason he has been granted asylum in France. Contact: Sabine K McNeill, McKenzie Friend & Web Publisher: sabine@3d-

Annex F

Jeff Matthews Court Appointed Mackenzie Friend to the Claimant

I. The stranger tape recording in Claimant’s 1st Dec2011 ‘Harassment’ conviction hearing

II. Allowed access to Claimant, as a prisoner, while family members, repeatedly, were not

III. He’s stolen around £20,000 from Claimant, needed to fight this and police do nothing

Annex G

Outstanding Court Stayed Civil Actions against South Wales Police

This very important list of Particulars of Claims is not currently available to support this document to show the more extreme number of malicious arrests and incarcerations since 2002 to harass him.

The South Wales Police has now incorporated both court and prison staff to stop this Claimant from exposing what is , apparently, day to day quite unchecked conduct by a few within the South Wales Police with the influence to get away with it.

To indicate, to the reader, the significance and gravity of these outstanding claims, the court, the police and even a private lawyer have failed to supply. The Claimant is not allowed in the court building and his letters of requests and phone calls have been proved futile.

The Court stayed these outstanding five actions, contrary to the Claimant’s wishes. There are even six more yet to come after that as their seriousness, implicating NHS (Wales) fabricating medical records, Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) withholding exhibits and destroying evidence and HM Prisons Cardiff, Park and Swansea misfeasance is all unduly controlled by this same regional police force.

HM Court Service (Wales)’s continuing conduct, alone, altering the court log and contemporaneous notes (1st Dec 11 harassment conviction), withholding court exhibits from both three juries and Claimant, in an attempt to cover up this fact no restraining order, to breach, ever was served on their victim, that day in the cells, causes the Claimant to say, yet again, these twenty three years of hell should have been tried in the High Court once the magnitude of widespread nefarious conduct became only too apparent to those so called responsible in the relevant regulating authorities within both The Principality and United Kingdom.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.3 – 2nd January 1993

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

1. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

2. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.5 – 24th March 1993 – stopped by PC Jane Lott

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

3. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

4. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.6 – 20th May 1993 at Grand Avenue Cardiff

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

5. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

6. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.7 – 23rd June 1993 stop of Ford Escort J78 TDW

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

7. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

8. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.9 – 22nd September 1993 stop of Triumph Spitfire CKV 629K

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

9. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

10. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.11 – 3rd October 1993 at St Athans stop and arrest for driving whilst disqualified

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

11. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

12. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.13 – stolen motorcycle not returned

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

13. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

14. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.14 – 15th December 1993 stop “in Cardiff”

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

15. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

16. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.15 – 09th August 1994 stop by PC Kerslake while driving Triumph Spitfire

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

17. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

18. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.16 – re-arrest 19th August 1994 for alleged damage to wing mirror

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

19. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

20. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.17 – 10th August 1994 Triumph Spitfire arrest for driving whilst disqualified

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

21. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

22. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.23 – May 1995 The vet ambulance

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

23. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

24. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 paragraphs 8.18, 8.19, 8.20 and 8.21

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

25. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

26. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 – paragraphs 8.18: 21st July 1995

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

27. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

28. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 – paragraphs 8.19: 23rd July 1995

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

29. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

30. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 – paragraphs 8.20: 24th July 1995

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

31. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

32. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 – paragraphs 8.21: 6th and 7th August 1995

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

33. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

34. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 1 CLAIM 8.26 – 6th June 1995: the “Gafael” incident

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

35. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

36. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 2 – 9th February 1996 flight to Ireland

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

37. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

38. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 3 – 12th May 1996 overtaking cyclists

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

39. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

40. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 4 – 21st January 1997 stopped by PC Roch

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

41. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

42. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 5 – 2nd October 1997 speed camera St Nicholas

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

43. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

44. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 6 – 16th March 1998 Southey Street, Barry and PC Holms

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

45. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

46. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 7 – 4th July 1999 the police helicopter

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

47. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

48. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 8 – 8th August 1999 stop at Pontypridd Road Barry

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

49. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

50. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 9 – 1st December 1999 detention of Mr. Kirk’s vehicle

ACTION 2 paragraph 10 – 23rd January 2000 stop of BMW on Ely Road

ACTION 2 paragraph 11 – 5th April 2000 stop at junction of Newport Road and Albany Road Cardiff

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

51. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

52. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 12 – 16th August 2000 stop of Ford Excort on A473 near M4 Pencoed Junction

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

53. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

54. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 14 – 13th December 2000 campervan outside Cardiff County Court

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

55. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

56. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 13 – 8th September 2000 Church Street, Llantwit Major

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

57. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

58. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 2 paragraph 14.3 – 20th December 2000 Breath Test required at Cowbridge Road West Surgery

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

59. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

60. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

HARASSMENT AND/OR MISFEASANCE

ACTION 3.41 – 13th December 2001 Audi Estate Car stopped Merthyr Mawr Road, Bridgend

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

61. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

62. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 3.51-3 – 21st May 2001 the VW Campervan around the Hayes Roundabout

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

63. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

64. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

ACTION 3, paragraph 6.1 – 23rd May 2002 arrest at West Gate, Cowbridge

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

65. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

66. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

CONSPIRACY

(Grounds raise issues of fact and/or points of law)

67. The learned Judge erred in fact and/or law in

68. In the premises, the findings and judgment of the learned Judge is “Wednesbury” unreasonable and/or unlawful and/or irrational and/or perverse and against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial and are such that no reasonable Judge propertly directing himself on both the facts and law applicable could reasonably arrive at such findings and judgment.

REASONS WHY PERMISSION TO APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED UNDER CPR PART 52.3(6)(A)(B)

1. In the premises the issues raise matters of constitutional and/or general public importance that satisfy both or one of the 2 tests for granting permission to appeal under CPR Part 52.3(6)(a)(b) relating to whether the proposed appeals “would have a real prospect of success” and/or “other compelling reason”, although either and/or the application of both tests are sufficient for the court to grant permission to appeal.

This document is far from exhaustive

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

17th November 2015

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download