More South Wales Police Bullying and Malicious Imprisonments

Cardiff County Court                                                                                                    BS614159 etc etc     South Wales

15th March 2016

Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Application to Appeal

Position Statement

  1. The claimant’s ‘Wendesbury unreasonable’ example, in his 16th Nov 2015 ‘provisional grounds’ for appeal, identifies the defendant’s unusual and extreme abuse of process throughout the last twenty-three years. The Defendant refused to negotiate settlement with the claimant’s Bristol solicitors, following his 20th May 1993 routine HRH Prince of Wales farm visit, simply because it only required his veterinary attention using routine embriotomy wire and ‘FOR ANIMAL USE ONLY’ clearly labelled medicines taken from his BMW motorcycle panniers.
  1. The claimant’s subsequent unlawful arrest, assault and imprisonment, as being ‘unidentified’, required the prisoner’s interview tape and custody log to be redacted and then destroyed in order to hide the Barry police officer’s identity and finger print evidence.
  1. Failed defendant disclosure of standard documentation and deliberate delaying tactics was only achieved by using the uncontrolled lucrative private sector rather than using the force solicitor who, incidentally, was paid to attend the 2016 final hearing.
  1. ce this claimant was denied the originally promised jury, a decade later, for any single or groups of or for all thirty-three police incidents of one hundred yet to be settled, he would be faced with substantial legal costs if he should then withdraw.
  1. Since the Chief Constable was ordered to sign, personally, her 2009 sworn affidavit, that proper disclosure of records had occurred, then the claimant would invariably be found locked up on spurious grounds only to be acquitted or all charges withdrawn.
  1. The trial judge continues to stay the multifaceted ‘machine gun’/MAPPA/Dr Tegwyn Williams/Swansea University NHS (Wales) fabricated psychiatric records/HMP Swansea parole board conspiracy, dependant on HM Crown Prosecution Service (Wales), meaning the claimant now faces invincible prejudice within the Welsh judiciary to no fault of his own.
  1. The following claim was filed in Cardiff court, today, only to be informed of it also being referred to the trial judge thereby further compounding the claimant’s overarching legal argument that the conduct of certain South Wales Police officers warrants a custodial sentence for having committed just so many criminal acts with malice aforethought.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

                                              Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police             Case number

Brief details of Claim

1.        In July 2012 the Claimant was wrongfully arrested and detained in custody on an alleged breach of 1st December 2011 Restraining Order, contrary to Prevention of Harassment Act 1997, in that the Claimant had visited Dr Tegwyn Williams home causing the police to be called and stating his intention was to burn his house down. No such incident occurred and police statements were deliberately fabricated to prejudice ongoing civil litigation against the Defendant.

2.        In July 2012 the Claimant was detained in prison with Defendant alleging a breach of 1st December 2011 Restraining Order and a breach in the civil procedural rules tantamount to a contempt of court. On or about 3rd October 2012, with the Claimant not being allowed to attend court, all counts were withdrawn.

3.        In January 2013 the Claimant was wrongly arrested in Merdrignac France and sectioned under French legislation following the Defendant having informed the gendarmerie of information emanating from Dr Tegwyn Williams and Professor Rodger Wood’s 2009 fabricated medical reports. Reports were needed to justify the then Chief Constable of South Wales Police, Barbara Wilding’s fictitious June 2009 data to obtain the Claimant’s MAPPA level 3 category 3 registration.

The Claimant had then goaled for ‘trading in machine guns’ and further sectioned to Caswell Clinic secure unit reliant on the chief forensic psychiatrist for South Wales Police, Dr Tegwyn Williams, neither being appropriately qualified nor even having examined his police victim as he was being black-mailed to do it.

The Dfendant supplied the French authorities this fabricated information to ensure the Claimant’s detention, as identified in a later released RESTRICTED MAPPA 3/3 NOMIS no A7306AT OASys Assessment Form, similarly used by the Defendant to regularly oppose the Claimant’s release on remand.

The Claimant was only released from Pontivy secure psychiatric unit once the Claimant had been identified as a previous patient requiring a total hip replacement following negligence on the part of the Guernsey police having delayed a dislocated femur to be re located by insisting he be handcuffed to his St Peter Port hospital bed.

4.        In May 2013, during the preparation and hearing of the civil damages claim BS614159, requiring many more than the 99 witnesses heard, the Defendant harassed the Claimant by repeated visits to his premises in Cowbridge Road, Cardiff, trying to make a forced entry and arrest him for an alleged fraud relating to Mark Davenport in the elicit business of stolen motorcycles.

All allegations were later withdrawn following the serious assault of grievous bodily harm (GBH) on the Bristol bailiff’s staff, by and/or on behalf of Mark Davenport, while twelve South Wales Police officers attended refusing to protect those lawfully evicting Davenport a convict for GBH and drug-dealing.

5.        In or around June 2013 the Claimant was again wrongfully arrested for the ‘assault’ on Mark Davenport and Nathan Kingsley, his black-market employee, despite the Defendant knowing any such incident, had it occurred (Claimant allegedly poked his finger in the chest of Mark Davenport), was on the newly installed CCTV by Mark Davenport for such an incident by dissatisfied 3rd parties in his business.

6.         The claimant was eventually released only to be restricted to stringent bail conditions in order to prevent his access to his own residence, court files and witnesses required for the ongoing civil claims against the Defendant. All counts were finally withdrawn in March 2014 with the usual failed disclosure.

7.        On 18th July 2013 the Claimant was wrongfully arrested for breaking bail conditions relating to similar fabricated Mark Davenport allegations. All allegations were finally withdrawn also in March 2014.

8.        On 19th July 2013 The Claimant was again arrested by the Defendant this time for ‘being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’ and ‘being in breach of bail conditions’ again fabricated to further prejudice the ongoing civil damages claim of police harassment while its final submissions were then in the process of being filed with the civil court.

9.         The definitive breath test at the police station was deliberately delayed for over an hour while alternative charges may be concocted. The Claimant’s reading was zero level of blood alcohol, as is the custom for the Claimant, with the wrongful arrest required to try and provoke the usual other alleged offences, such as ‘resist arrest’ and ‘common assault’, often successful due to the absence of independent witnesses.

The Defendant’s main purpose was an unimpaired search of the Claimant’s data on his computers and in his two hundred odd arch lever files to assist in defending the ongoing civil damages claims. All allegations were finally withdrawn with no further action (NFA) other than to dream up another incident.

10.     On 31st July 2013 the Claimant was again wrongfully arrested for ‘breach of bail conditions’ and ‘intimidating witnesses, Mark Davenport and Nathan Kingsley’ and remanded in custody. All charges, in March 2014, were withdrawn once maximum damage had been achieved in the current civil claims against the South Wales Police for over twenty years of ‘unusual’, ‘extreme’ and unlawful ‘bullying’.

11.     On 23rd August 2014 the Claimant was wrongfully arrested at the Cardiff Crown Court as he was obtaining further evidence that the Defendant had unlawfully confiscated the original 1st Dec 2011 court exhibits fabricated, with both Dr Tegwyn Williams and Professor Rodger Wood of Swansea University, to obtain a conviction of harassment and incarceration in Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital for an indefinite period.

This was to cover up Barbara Wilding’s fabricated 2009 MAPPA/’machine gun’ criminal conduct. These fabricated court exhibits had been introduced by HM Crown Prosecutor, David Gareth Evans, who the Claimant therefore arrested as he had been the prosecutor both in 1st Dec 2011 summary hearing and in 4th May 2012 jury trial. Both court exhibits and clerk of the court’s original contemporaneous notes were essential for disclosure essential as they had also been asked for and refused by first of three juries.

12.      In March 2013 Lord Justice Leveson et al (see official judgment) were denied even knowledge of their relevance as the Cardiff Crown Court transcript had again been deliberately or otherwise ‘redacted’ and or ‘corrupted’. It remains essential, for the 4th jury trial, for full custody and court record disclosure.

13.     On 21st Sept 2014 the Claimant was wrongfully arrested for actual bodily harm (ABH) when the Defendant had refused to attend, inside the Cardiff prison, to help apprehend a prison officer, a Mr Rogan, who had aided the Defendant in not allowing return of the Claimant’s passport following his release from custody. The Defendant further prevented the Claimant from retrieving his passport or obtaining a new one from Newport passport office to prejudice the Claimant’s ability to return to France to retrieve valuable data in the civil case far too risky to be left in Wales.

14.     On 14th October 2014 the Claimant was wrongfully arrested whilst attending Barry police station attempting to give further evidence, following temporary apprehension of the thief of his £1,500 (see 3rd Damages Action CF204141), denied by the Defendant as having ever been reported, a recurring theme.

15.     On 14th Oct 2014 the Claimant was wrongfully arrested for making a ‘threatening telephone call’ to burn down Dr Tegwyn Williams house as the Defendant knew his earlier communications with both the police and Cardiff Crown Court, withheld from the 3rd jury, indicated that there was no threat nor did he know nor wished to know the house’s location. MAPPA 24/7 covert surveillance data was withheld as was covert surveillance data withheld from the current court judge, His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC.

16.     The Claimant was first wrongfully imprisoned, before the arrest, while police spent a significant time trying to first contact Dr Tegwyn Williams and then to agree to make a complaint to justify an arrest.

Unlawful police covert surveillance had emanated from Taunton and Guernsey the moment, if not before, in 1992, following his detention having been accused of deliberately setting fire to his own WW2 D-Day Piper Cub when police knew neither the garage nor his aircraft were insured.

17.     On 30th September 2015 at around 7.30 am the Defendant had the Claimant arrested at Portsmouth on entering the country following the French authorities having refused him a private flight to UK from Dinard aerodrome. The local police detained the Claimant until almost 11pm when he was released without charge or explanation.

18.     The Defendant is jointly accused of being responsible in an over-arching conspiracy with some within HMC&TS (Wales) and some within its cosy legal professions in unlawfully maintaining their lucrative ‘gravy train’ generally guaranteed to be financed by the unsuspecting tax payer.

This list is not exhaustive

19.     The Claimant is seeking punitive damages

Value

Unlimited

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

13th March 2016

 Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police & HM Prison Governor             Case No. 9CF02983

Maurice Kirk £50,000 Judgment against HM Cardiff Prison Overturned

This chronology of events illustrates why victims, representative of financial exploitation and legal oppression in the UK, have approached the EU Commission for Justice for Fundamental Rights and Citizenship: there is no effective remedy or fair trial (Article 47). Instead, the failure to disclose evidence that is detrimental to defence or prosecution victimises victims in courts. Article 1 and another deliberately absent from HRA 1998.

  1. Jan 2008: Imprisonment for refusing to pay Crown Prosecution Service costs as it was an abuse.
  2. On day of release 1st Claim for damages filed as prison had refused, each day, to accept payment in lieu of prison sentence. Crown defends claim.
  3. Jan 2009: HHJ Nicholas Chambers QC ‘stays proceedings’ to allow Claimant to change Defendant from ‘HM Home Secretary’ to the female prison governor.
  4. April: Amended Claim for damages filed against HM governor and police. Police admit receiving ‘Particulars of Claim’ and defends.
  5. 8th June: Crown places Claimant under surveillance MAPPA level 3 category 3 (meaning monthly meetings of prison and police discussing their victim’s intricate welfare).
  6. 23rd June: Claimant jailed for possessing, a year earlier, a decommissioned WW1 aero machine gun.
  7. July: Claimant files for ‘default judgment’ from his Cardiff prison cell.
  8. October: Claimant awarded £50,000 damages by HHJ Seys Llewelyn QC.
  9. 2nd December: HM Prison denies Claimant access to court as CPS and Dr Tegwyn Williams make last ditch attempt to have him sectioned to a psychiatric prison called Ashworth for an indefinite period.
  10. 17th December: Claimant removed from MAPPA level 3 register without explanation and later released from prison, denied any costs, having ‘offered no evidence’. Victim never told of his brain tumour possibility.
  11. 2010: Crown’s new governor denies ever ‘receiving’ Particulars of Claim sent by court. HMCS state it had ‘unreliable record’ of ‘good service’ on Cardiff prison in April 2009. HM continue to refuse to return court fee.
  12. Both new prison governor and HMCS refuse October 2009 Court Order to produce proof of ‘audit trail’ recorded at the same time by their MAPPA 24/7 surveillance.
  13. September: After 2009 judge’s ‘observations’, Claimant offers an alternative settlement by dividing liability, £25,000 against Crown and £25,000 against female governor.
  14. New judge refuses to uphold Order to disclose ‘audit trail’ or obtain obviously needed affidavit from April 09 governor, Ms West, who had ‘good service’. Claimant refused her piano, at prison gates, as part payment.
  15. October: Court agrees three month ‘stay in proceedings’ due to Claimant’s ill health but rules Claim was ‘never served’ and had claimant had cited wrong Defendant.
  16. 29th October: Crown requests payment for £2,200 costs but Claimant is yet to receive any Judgment awarding Crown any costs (or for it have its £360 court fee paid by English tax payers).
  17. The Claimant awaits HHJ Seys Llewelyn QC’s Judgment on MAPPA disclosure of that ‘audit trail’ within The Principality preventing his rights to ‘remedy’ in his eighteen year running damages claim due to South Wales Police’s unlawful conduct. This judge adjudicated in original criminal courts and still refuses to recuse himself.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL                          CASE NUMBER BS 614159

CIVIL DIVISION                                                                                                   

                                                MAURICE KIRK                                  Claimant    

                                                           -v-

                              SOUTH WALES CONSTABULARY                  Defendant    

———————————————————————–

 PROVISIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

  • The tribunal hearing the pleaded 33 incidents of malicious prosecution brought by

The Claimant erred in both fact and law when considering The Wednesbury Test

(see paragraph 33) ‘The Claimant would have to establish that the Custody

       Officer (reviewing officer’s) decision was ‘ Wednesbury’ unreasonable,

       See Wilding v Chief Constable of Lancashire where the test for deciding

      whether a decision that a detention was necessary under PACE was

      lawful was formulated as follows:

      ‘Whether the decision of the custody officer was unreasonable in the

       sense that no custody officer acquainted with the ordinary use of

       language and applying common sense to the competing considerations

       would reasonably have reached that decision’.

      With regard to Action 1 Claim 8.6 Incident 20/5/1993 the tribunal had to consider

at paragraphs 140-189 whether it was ‘reasonable’ to detain a known police

veterinary surgeon for four days in custody, inter alia, for possession of established

veterinary surgical tools proximate to his own surgery under Section 25 PACE

(the general arrest provisions) when that detainee was in possession of

correspondence establishing beyond doubt he was The Claimant. In deciding

-2-

the question in favour of The Defendant the tribunal was susceptible to the

criticism of bias or that it exercised ‘Wednesbury’ unreasonableness.

2).      The tribunal erred both in fact and law at paragraph 13 by propounding the

following analysis taken from Lord Nichols in Re H (Minors) 563:

            ‘the more serious the allegation the stronger should be the evidence

            before the court concludes the allegation is established on

            the balance of probability’ The tribunal indulged in the artificial exercise

            of dealing with each pleaded incident piecemeal ignoring the fact there were

33 incidents in all. There were just too many allegations of false prosecution

which required The Defendant to have to answer the binary test propounded

in Re B (2008) EWCA 282:

            Lord Hoffman:

            ‘2 if a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (“a fact in issue”) a judge

            or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for

           finding it might have happened

            the law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and

            1… if the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it a

            value of 0 is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened.

            If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned and the fact is treated

            as having happened’

             Baroness Hale:

            ‘as to the seriousness of the allegation, there is no necessary

            connection between seriousness and probability… nor are serious

            allegations made in a vacuum..consider the famous example of the

             animal seen in Regent’s Park. If it is seen outside the zoo on a stretch

-3-

of greensward regularly used for walking dogs, then of course it is

more likely to be a dog than a lion. If it is seen in the zoo next to the

             lion’s enclosure when the door is open, then it may well be more

             likely to be a lion than a dog’. The Burden of Proof rested with The

              Claimant to prove he was detained/prosecuted. Once detained/prosecuted The

Burden passed to The Defendant to prove the detention was lawful. The

Claimant satisfied the evidential burden in 33 instances. Just like the proverbial

lion identified by Baroness Hale, it would be much more likely the animal was a

lion if the sightings of it in the zoo outside the lion’s enclosure when the door

was open numbered 33. The sheer number of cited serious instances created a

multiplier which augmented the Re B probability equation in favour of

The Claimant.

  • The Learned Judge was himself susceptible to the criticism of bias:
  • At paragraph 10 The Learned Judge, His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn

QC, states that in his closing submission the Claimant also relied

on the fact that he was MAPPA categorized in June 2009, arrested

14 days later, and detained for nearly 8 months on possession of a

Machine Gun, only to be acquitted at his jury trial in February 2010.

The Learned Judge himself stayed that action which he chose to

ignore when in fact it represented the apex of The Claimant’s

Argument.

  • He chose to ignore The Claimant’s repeated arrests on spurious

Grounds by The Defendant Constabulary during the actual hearing

itself ignoring the possibility that it provided further evidence

of the system The Claimant claimed was operating against him.

-4-

(see paragraphs 19-25).

  • By his Order dated 1st May 2013 the Learned Judge precluded The

Claimant, a litigant in person, having to represent himself in

circumstances of great adversity enumerated therein, from availing

himself of certain key witnesses.

I Believe The Contents of This Document Are True

SIGNED: Maurice John Kirk

DATE:  16th November 2015

Unqualified Dr Tegwyn Williams arranged victim’s brain scan, which turned out to be clear, for the South Wales Police to have the Claimant against them incarcerated, hopefully indefinitely, by the Doctor and CPS barrister both lying to His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC while locking their victim out of the clandestine 2009 Cardiff Crown Court room

     

14 01 23 Bautiful Brain

HMP Swansea Brian Scan

      11 06 28 Contempt Appeal & Norman MF 2                    14 04 23 Files go to Knox Road 2  

        OVer 200 arch lever files brought into Cardiff Prison in the middle of 23 year running damages claim against South Wales Police     

      

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s