It has now become apparent, in 2017, that my neurologist’s report on my ‘significant brain damage’, to warrant my incarceration for life, did in fact NOT go to the Cardiff Crown Court but was deliberately withheld from me knowing, also, either by the presiding judge or HM court’s  staff having been ordered to ‘shred it’ by that evil cabal of theirs that control things in the cess-pit.

This new evidence may assist the current presiding judge…….

The Secretary to                                 4th Restraining Order Jury Trial                    T20170239
Her Honour Judge Tracy Lloyd Williams
Crown Court
South Wales
22th November 2017

Dear Sir/Madam,

  Cardiff Crown Court Criminal Conduct  

7.20 am and I am arriving at Portsmouth UK as I believed the court needed to be notified in advance but, in any event, as a South Wales Police MAPPA victim both my lap top and mobile phone were routinely ‘bugged’ during my last unlawful arrest and detention in February 2017.

Last night the internet was again bad on the vessel preventing me from informing the court, earlier, of my return to London to instruct a lawyer to have you lot again reported to both HM Government and HM Ministry of Justice.

This appeared on a email, meantime which is familiar but I had forgotten its extraordinary relevant detail today.

Her Honour may recall the below redacted name was my witness in the recent trial when I was convicted for breaching a ‘restraining order’,  never served on me in the first place, for a conviction of harassment that was clearly unlawful as it has now been proved, overwhelmingly, by new evidence that has come forward, for a defence in the 1997 Prevention of Harassment Act, verified, I understand, by police further investigations following mine and those facts below requiring the facts to be put on oath at the next hearing in your court on 14^th December 2017.

This must have been at  about the time when police had me registered MAPPA level 3 category 3, most the 5% most dangerous in the UK , so I was, not just in prison unconvicted but prevented from cross-examining the prosecution witnesses in the 1st December 2011 harassment allegations  fabricated by the then chief constable, Barbara Wilding, in order to obtain my long imprisonment to affect my private criminal and civil prosecutions against her.

 SOUTH WALES POLICE WITHHELD WITNESS STATEMENT FOR YEARS

Initial Statement by YYYYYY YYYYYYY .

Court Appointed lawyer does not have the evidence that is essential for the cross examination of Dr xxx.

1. Time is needed to organise evidence in support of the defendant Mr M J Kirk that is essential for court appointed lawyer to use in the cross examination of Dr xxx to expose Dr xx unusual dishonesty and malice.
2. On 1 May 2012, the day before trial, the Crown Court told me they had they had asked Apex Chambers to provide Counsel as the Court appointed lawyer, but no decisions had been taken on who would act. I need to provide very complex papers and there is now no time.
3. I believe to proceed without my evidence that is needed to cross examine Dr xx would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
4. I ask that proceedings switch to focus on a re-trial of the original conviction of December 2011 & 1& 2 March 2012 because my evidence has been hidden from the Courts for their fair deliberations – despite my writing to the Crown Prosecution Service and attending both Magistrates Court and the appeal at the Crown Court. I was prevented from giving evidence on both occasions by improper ‘goings on’.
5. The matter is so complex and lengthy I merely give the direction of my evidence at this time, and ask for time to submit more.

The direction of my evidence.

6. I can confirm that Mr Kirk telephoned me on his release in December 2011 and when I pointedly asked him to detail the latest bail conditions or restraining order that he was under, that he was unaware of any restraining order.
7. As in my attached letter to Mr M Curry Head of Unit at Cardiff CPS and a much fuller letter to Keith Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions I can explain why Mr Kirks actions are reasonable and lawful and that not only should Mr Kirk not be convicted, but that Mr Kirk should not even be prosecuted.
8. I wish to explain why I believe Dr xx and parties are dishonest and malicious.

Dr xxx’s breach of a High Court Order restraining Dr xxx from obstructing my care and harassing me – and how Dr xxx misleads the Crown Court on 1 March 2012

9. Please see where in the transcript of 1 March 2012 Dr xxx tries to imply he has no one else objecting to his actions, when I have had take Dr TW to the High Court over his endless dishonesty and now seemingly a breach of his undertaking to the High Court. Dr xxx and parties have interfered in Cardiff NHS very much to try to stop me complaining to the General Medical Council about him.
10. I have had disclosure of Caswell Clinic papers to confirm that a multi agency committee has been meeting based around Caswell clinic to prevent anyone lawfully complaining to the General Medical Council about Dr xxx. Before Mr Kirk’s alleged harassment charges took place, the committee detail how they aim to get those who complain about Dr xxx imprisoned for many years. My and Mr Kirk’s initials are on the heading of the emails that organise the agenda of these meetings. (I have no criminal convictions/cautions by 55 years and am a well qualified professional man.)
11. The Caswell clinic multi agency committee seems to have unreasonable influence and control over the Courts, CPS and Mr Kirk’s custody at Prison, to seemingly pervert justice.
12. I am presently organising the complaints to the GMC for both Mr Kirk and myself. The GMC have confirmed that the GMC legal team have approved a larger than usual investigation will occur regards my complaint. I now start to explain the GMC about what Dr xxx does wrong regards Mr Kirk:-
13. a) Maliciously denying Mr Kirk access to Caswell Clinic when the staff team of the Caswell had decided in writing that they wanted to build a therapeutic relationship with Mr Kirk. Yet when Mr Kirk would approach Caswell for staff to have opportunity to draw him in, Dr xxx maliciously and dishonesty called the police etc.
14. b) I believe that Dr xxx did this because Dr T W cannot discuss the close detail of clinical reports on Mr Kirk because the reports are seemingly malicious and unusually dishonest. Dr xxx calls police and falsely alleges harassment to try to cover up exceptional wrongdoing of in bad faith trying to deny Mr Kirk’s liberty indefinitely.
15. c) That Dr xxx refuses to receive questions and information to clarify or correct his reports. Dr xxx refused to make a statement to explain himself in civil proceedings, to imply guilt.

Mr Justice Beatson saw an extract of what I believe Dr xxx ‘made up’ about Mr Kirk.

13. The evidence I wish Dr xxx to be cross examined on is seemingly reliable of genuine concern. When I shared what I knew with Mr Justice Beatson on 19 January 2012 sitting at Cardiff Administrative Court he said in Judgement:-

“Some of the allegations that the Claimant (myself) makes about CPS policy, if supported by evidence, would be very serious. Today he has given me a swatch of papers about Mr Maurice Kirk, a litigant who is well-known in these courts. Mr xxxxxx relies on what he says is evidence that it was said that Mr Kirk was mentally unfit and had brain damage, which a summary of Mr Kirk’s record based on a surgery home visit report shows was not true.”

14. I wish explain why Mr Kirk has not yet had a fair trial to explore what Mr Justice Beatson describes as “very serious” and “a ….report shows was not true”. Yet both the Crown Prosecutor and the Court appointed lawyer withheld my evidence from the appeal at Cardiff Crown Court. There are also more complex reasons why my evidence was withheld from the Court(s). I believe the Courts need to now switch to a re-trial and for the “first time” to explore how Dr xxx and parties do wrong to Mr Kirk.
15. As for example is in the attached one page extract of recent papers lodged at the High Court 18 April 2012, I am asking the High Court to refer the abuse of power (such as in Mr Kirk’s case) and where there is no Remedy for that abuse, to the Supreme Court.

YYYYYYYYY 1 May 2012
Tel 029/ 20 ………

The power of cyber space at last as cracks open up the wide spread corruption in Cardiff’s courts accepted by too many  locals, as they never knew but not us, victims of their intense greed and grasping for power over the apparent sheeple around them