Professor Nicholas Read has written:-
“The conclusion that Maurice has brain damage was based on MRI evidence of a localised lack of perfusion in the right frontal lobe possibly caused by a brain tumour. This abnormality was no longer present when the scan was repeated. Brain scans are notoriously difficult to interpret and I am reminded that after trauma and during intense emotion the right frontal lobe can go off-line while victims may behave irrationally. In other words, it is likely that appearances of hypo-perfusion might come and go.”
Another observer’s point of view:
My understanding is that the factual version of events are more as follows :-
In August 2009 the Crown Court asked/Ordered that psychiatric evaluation and reports occur. The Caswell Clinic went further and specifically asked for an assessment to be done by Maurice being under what was, in the end, three one month Mental Health Act Sections to Caswell Clinic Wales’ ABM NHS in order for Maurice to be subjected to an intrusive medical procedure known as a SPEC scan requiring the use of radio isotopes intravenously.
On 28 August 2009 the Wales ABM NHS Caswell clinic transported Maurice down to the local ABM NHS Princess of Wales Hospital for a brain scan, the result of which was normal (please see attached both 28th Aug 09 reports).
09 08 28 SPECT & MRI Scans
That means ABM NHS records show, as of 28 August 2009, a brain scan result that there is no evidence to suggest Maurice has brain damage.
This was withheld from future courts where Maurice kept applying for bail concerning his being held on remand in Cardiff prison for the alleged trading in ‘machine-guns’ and being in possession of live ammunition.
Back in 2008 the Handbook of Forensic Mental Health was published. Ch 19 was on the subject of being an ‘expert witness’ and the author was Dr Tegwyn Williams from the Caswell Clinic. (Please see attached how he makes clear that expert witnesses must not go beyond their expertise when reporting to a Court).
Extract Dr TW Ch19 Handbook of Forensic MH0001 (3)
As we are aware neither psychiatrist Dr Tegwyn Williams nor psychologist Professor Roger Wood of Swansea University are medically qualified to interpret the presence or absence of brain damage from brain scans and then report their opinion to a Crown Court. That is the work of a neuro-radiologist who has training and qualifications so to do.
Maurice, however and unbeknown to the authorities, had obtained such a report from within Cardiff prison via a certain ex MP’s wife for the Vale of Glamorgan also the son of a famous veterinary surgeon. This neuro-radiologist’s report had been sent to Cardiff Crown Court before his 2nd December 2009 bail application. He, in fact, did not know at the time this following report was already before his same court and in clear rebuttal to that what Dr Tegwyn Williams had submitted prior to the hearing.
This fact made the transcript of proceedings (attached below) even more significant.
The doctor’s application, along with those of the then HM Crown Prosecutor for the ‘machine-gun’ allegations, listed to be heard on 25th January 2010, were heard ‘in chambers’ by the forced absence of Maurice and that he be further sectioned to Ashworth high security hospital for an indefinite period.
09 12 02 Crown BidderTranscript
Maurice has never been informed, to this day, of either Dr Tegwyn William’s or HM Prosecutor, Richard Thomlow’s findings from his 28th August 2009 NHS (Wales) brain scans. He has been goaled more than once, since, for arguing with Cardiff judges to order the release of that medical information used in an attempt by the South Wales Police to have their victim locked up without the need for a jury trial.
The police’s urgent need to blackmail Dr Tegwyn Williams into writing Maurice’s forensic reports and for him to appear in Cardiff Crown Court, as an expert in brain damage, was primarily to stop the imminent machine-gun trial but also, long term, the considerable the number of civil damges claims arising from over forty failed malicious criminal prosecutions brought against him whilst he was practicing veterinary science in the Vale of Glamorgan.
So, it would seem Maurice’s claims that both Dr Tegwyn Williams and Professor Wood are not medically qualified to do as they did are correct.
By Dr Williams’ own Chapter 19 in the Handbook of Forensic Mental Health 2008, if Dr Williams suspected Maurice had brain damage he should not have gone beyond his expertise and if he wanted to comment on the presence of brain damage he should have instructed a medically qualified expert to report to the Crown Court.
But in 2009 there was no evidence from a medically qualified person to say there was brain damage to report to the Crown Court in 2009 because the officials’ ABM NHS result of 28 August 2009 was normal – all clear.
Furthermore all subsequent brain scan results since the one in Texas USA, in 2008, Brittany in 2002, HMP Swansea in 2014 and Cardiff in 2017, all say the same, that of normal findings.
Caswell Clinic Medical Records Leak REDACTED
Maurice’s HMP Swansea 2014 medical records reveal that the South Wales Police not only blocked his urgently needed endoscopy under general anaesthesia, not once but twice but also the prison’s psychiatrist, Dr Seely’s recommendation of the immediate need of a neurologist. HMP Swansea’s Dr Tegwyn Williams’ medical records recorded his opposing any follow-up examinations or his release from prison to an outside hospital despite his and CPS’s fear of a brain tumour.
A sample Cardiff Court erroneous FOI and DATA PROTECTION ACT supplied records
So how did Dr Tegwyn Williams say as a certainty in his October 2009 report and at Crown Court on 2 December 2009 that Maurice has significant irreversible brain damage?
Why does Dr Tegwyn Williams not simply correct his report to just say an update is there that there is no brain damage?
Why Does Dr Tegwyn Williams continue to allow his forensic report with incorrect information to be sent, today, to authorities far afield as to include both the Civil Aviation Authority and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons?
Why did Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams allow the South Wales Police to send his reports to FTAC in January 2009, IAG South Wales Police HQ on 1st June 2009, level 3 MAPPA (South Wales Police) Barry police station meeting on 8th June 2009, the CIA in Texas USA in August 2009, the Metropolitan Police in 2011, and both the French Breton police and Maurice’s trial judge, in his extended civil damages proceedings against them, in 2013?
Why did Dr Tegwyn Williams allow the South Wales Police to continue sending his reports to the Crown Prosecution Service for four criminal jury trials, so far and arranged in Cardiff despite Maurice’s argument of ‘a real risk of bias’?
So, why then were two trials convened in Cardiff in 2012, the 3rd in 2014 and now the 4th in 2017 and possible 5th alleged ‘breach of a restraining order’ prosecution next year if it is not a plain indictment, in itself, of a police doctor free to continue harassing his victim with the guarantee of immunity to any likelihood of receiving a civil or criminal prosecution in Wales?
1st October 2009 Cardiff Crown Court Incident
This earlier first page of a September 2009 letter from Professor Read was read out to a Cardiff Crown much to my anger but notice the official transcript of those days of proceedings makes to mention of it or the appropriate comments made to the judge by my then MacKenzie Friend, Norman Scarth Esq, before he, also, was ejected from the court by His Honour Judge Nicholas Cooke QC
| Claimant’(s) name(s) and address(es) including postcode
MAURICE JOHN KIRK BVSc |
||||||
| Defendant’(s) name and address(es) including postcode
1. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ
2. PAROLE BOARD FOR ENGLAND AND WALES 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG
3. South Wales Police (added as the 3rd Defendant once it was realised the claim rested on Dr Tegwyn Williams and CPS, the latter acting on behalf of the Chief Constable to an attempt to also snuff out any other civil claims arising from collateral damage caused by the outcome of His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC’s 2nd December & 17th December 2009 hearings having Maurice’s MAPPA level 3 category 3 registration expunged from the court records). The South Wales Police, following appropriate disclosure of their records will indicate the then Chief Constable had other ideas on how to illuminate her problem over pension rights. 1CF03361 ‘machine-gun’ conspiracy blocked, so far , for eight years needed to also quashed at source.
|
||||||
| Brief details of claim
Damages for misfeasance in a public office and/or unlawful imprisonment and/or under section 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for wrongful and/or unlawful imposition of licence conditions under section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and/or the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) Order 2005 dated on or about 4 July 2014, in breach of article 10(1) ECHR as incorporated under schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and/or the Treaty on European Union, and/or wrongful and/or unlawful revocation of licence under section 254 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on 11 July 2014, and/or subsequent unlawful detention and/or imprisonment and/or failing to make arrangements for an oral hearing before the Parole Board with all due expedition and/or failing to provide the said oral hearing eventually set for hearing on 4 February 2015 in respect of his release from custody, in breach of article 5 of the ECHR as incorporated under schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and/or under the principles set out in R. (Haney, Kaiyam and Massey v. Secretary of State for Justice; R. v. Robinson v. Governor of HMP Whatton and Secretary of State for Justice [2014] UKSC 66 until the Claimant’s final release from HMP Swansea on 28 March 2015.
Damages for HMP Cardiff’s withholding of the Claimant’s passport in order to prevent his retrieving legal papers.
Value Damages limited to £1000,000 |
||||||
| You must indicate your preferred County Court Hearing Centre for hearings here (see notes for guidance) | ||||||
| County Court at Bristol | ||||||
| Defendants’ name and address for service including postcode |
|
|||||
