Exeter Crown Court was not allowed, of course, any of my defence witnesses as the Welsh prison staff had been told, by South Wales Police, to steal specific prison letters of mine, including my letters to MPs who were appropiate to help.
‘APPROPRIATE’, to help me get back from G4S Parc prison, Bridgend, my property they robbed from me my 3 years of medical records, my two wheelchairs, legal papers re “trading in machine guns” and even my clothes and shoes!
REDACTED as per court order
IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT
CASE NUMBER 1CFo3361
MAURICE JOHN KIRK
THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES POLICE
PROVISIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE RULING OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETTS DATED THE 7TH MAY 2021 DENYING THE APPELLANT HIS STATUTORY
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL AND FURTHER DENYING HIM RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS
1. These are Claims of Malicious Prosecution, False Imprisonment and Misfeasance in a
Public Office against The Respondent. On the 7th May His Honour Judge Petts denied the Claimant his statutory right to a trial by jury with regard to the mode of trying the Claimant’s claims. The Respondent, who has lost one criminal trial at Cardiff Crown Court before a previous jury pertaining to the subject of these claims, clearly does not want to repeat the experience. Put very simply, the right to a jury trial will almost certainly guarantee that the Claimant’s case succeeds.
2. Since 2011 the Claimant has been constrained to litigate in person. In 2011 he formally
pleaded that the right to trial by jury be reserved in his favour. In a formal Defence dated the 30th June 2011 Queen’s Counsel, instructed by The Respondents, formally pleaded It is admitted and averred that the Claimant has a right to request trial by jury but the Defendant will aver that given the complexity of the case, the inter–relationship with existing actions and the likely number of documents which will have to be referred to in order for the matter to be fully investigated at trial, the claims contained within the particulars of Claim should be tried by a judge sitting alone.
3. It is correct that in 2011 the Claimant had put these claims as the final act in a series of
malicious arrests and prosecutions comprising Case Number BS614159. That case was tried by a single judge, His Honour Seys-Llewellyn, Queen’s Counsel, who found in the Claimant’s favour in 3 of 22 claims. The Claimant had pleaded that the proof of an ‘animus’’ by the Defendant against The Claimant in his alleged ‘over-arching’ conspiracy (to prosecute the Claimant needlessly) lay in one last, determined “push’ to have the Claimant incarcerated indefinitely (Case 1CFo3361). As the Defendant had pleaded its
inter-relationship with existing actions was the key. Put simply, the Claimant believed the matter subject to this appeal was the sine qua non of his assertions in BS614159. His Honour Judge Seys-Llewellyn, Queen’s Counsel ordered the stay of 1CF03361 pending the trial of BS614159 or, in the proposed Appellant’s idiom, decapitated the final act of the Claimant’s pleaded escalating acts of aggression and hostility. This effectively left ‘a play without a final scene’ or ‘a thriller lacking its d’enouement.’
4. It is the proposed Appellant’s belief that the separation of the two claims deliberately
took from the court’s overview the unequivocal evidence of ‘animus’ necessary to prove the ‘over-arching’ conspiracy. It was an act of judicial sabotage.
5. The proposed Appellant’s claim in 1CF03361 was revived after he sought the assistance
of counsel. At a case management hearing on the 18th December 2020 His Honour Judge Keyser refused to grant the proposed Appellant Relief from Sanctions after he failed to file statements and documents on time due to his incarceration in prison and his having had all his case papers stolen by G4S. At a further case management hearing on the 7th May 2021 (before His Honour Judge Petts) the Learned Judge again refused to allow the proposed Appellant Relief from Sanctions by allowing him to rely on any witness statement he had served on the Defendant other than one heavily redacted statement or any document other than those disclosed by the Defendant. The proposed Appellant was then represented by counsel. It was averred that the cumulative effect of Judge Keyser’s and Judge Petts’ decisions was to allow the Defendant to seize control of the way the Claimant/Appellant could put his case, truncate his pleadings and restrict the number of documents to a mere handful. In the Claimant/Appellant’s eyes a further act of judicial sabotage has effectively handed control of his claims to the Defendant thereby judicially facilitating an act of ‘hijacking’.
6. During May 2021 the proposed Appellant stood trial before a jury at Exeter Crown Court.
The then trial judge, His Honour Judge Johnson, acting Recorder of Exeter, ordered a statement to be taken from G4S about paperwork allegedly confiscated and not returned from the Claimant/Appellant’s cell. The Claimant/Proposed Appellant was acquitted by the Exeter jury. The indictment concerned stalking allegations pursuant to section 4A of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and originally included the erstwhile allegation the Claimant/Appellant had sent to an MP, a noxious substance. It is the proposed Appellant’s case that the hyperbole behind the Exeter allegation, together with the prosecutions behind the index matters subject to appeal further demonstrate the ‘animus’ is persistent and the Defendant effectively strives to silence these claims permanently by depriving the Claimant/Appellant of his ability to conduct
his own litigation. In fact the jury were sympathetic to the defence that the Claimant/Appellant was simply acting reasonably in seeking assistance from his MP about the subject matter of his various grievances against the defendant and G4S. The enclosed statement dated 9th April 2021 from Darrell Davies was thereby disclosed to the Claimant/Appellant by order of the Exeter trial judge. The Claimant/Appellant’s assertions that he was not able to give standard disclosure of his documents because he was incarcerated for 2 years now have corroborating evidence from G4S, themselves. The Claimant/Appellant will further attest he was not permitted access to his legal papers in prison, nor permitted to attend hearings via video link. By 30th May 2019 the Claimant was incarcerated again until 1st November 2019, the prison having again parted The Claimant from his legal papers. There is a nexus also in that successive parole board hearings did not view the Claimant favourably after documents created by the Defendant asserted The Claimant had convictions for offences he did not have. In prison The Claimant/Appellant had written asking for assistance from MPs ICF03361 was brought back before the court on the 30th May 2019 and so the Defendant was able to encourage the order, subject to application, that the Claimant/Appellant be debarred from relying on any document save for those already listed by the Defendant. It is the Claimant/Appellant’s case that he has been systematically and deliberately incarcerated as part of a continuing course of conduct by The Defendant who has prevented him from participating in relevant hearings, deprived him of case papers and smeared him as to the accuracy of his criminal record.
On the 12th October 2020 the proposed Appellant was only then able to assess evidence of animus within 1CF03361 after first time disclosure of Defendant case papers occurred. Ergo, the court must regard the 12th October 2020 as the only realistic ‘start point to the Claimant/Appellant effectively being able to litigate his claims. Having regard to Denton v TH White Ltd and Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers (2013) EWCA Civ 1537 the court should consider why a default occurred and whether there is good reason for it. It is The Claimant/Appellant’s position that the course of bullying he set out to demonstrate has been maintained by The Defendant throughout the conduct of this matter and accordingly he should be allowed to litigate within the parameters of his own witness statements and documents.
The Defendant’s reprehensible conduct must not be allowed to “hijack’ The Claimant/Appellant’s case. Further, the Bristol County recently dealt with claim GooTA1220, a claim against G4S pertaining to the theft by them of case papers in 1CF03361 and the genesis of the Claimant’s communications in the Exeter trial. It is averred that the Darrell Davies statement reinforces both the basis of the application for relief from sanctions in this matter in addition to providing the proof the Claimant was deprived of in the Bristol G4S claim.
AND THE PROVISIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE:
The decision of His Honour Judge Petts of the 7th May 2021 to deprive the Claimant/Proposed Appellant of Relief from Sanctions was unreasonable in the light of new evidence provided by the disclosed statement of Darrell Davies dated 9th April 2021 in the Exeter trial. The failure of the Claimant/Appellant to comply with directions was therefore neither serious nor culpable and nor did it create prejudice to the Defendant.
The Learned Judge erred in fact and law by depriving the Claimant/Proposed Appellant of his statutory right to jury trial. The Claimant/Appellant‘s application for jury trial should have been upheld. It was Wednesbury unreasonable of the Learned Judge to uphold disingenuous submissions by the Defendant that were no different to the 2011 pleadings that inter–connections with other litigation and the volume of paperwork rendered the case unsuitable for a jury. There had been material changes since 2011. The potential connection with case BS 614159 was unfortunately a redundant consideration following judicial severance. The Claimant/Appellant’s paperwork was truncated to one pitiful statement. The court should have acceded to the submissions of the Claimant‘s counsel dated the 6th May 2021 (attached, together with chronology).
I BELIEVE THE CONTENTS OF THIS, MY APPEAL ARE TRUE
28 may 2021
STATEMENT OF MAURICE JOHN KIRK DATED 28TH MAY RE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE RULING OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETTS DATED THE 7TH MAY 2021 (1CF03361) & AGAINST THE RULING OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE
DAVIES IN CASE GOOTA1220 DATED 13TH MAY 2021
1. I have applied for Relief from Sanctions in 1CF03361. I attach hereto my witness
statements in support of my applications for such relief before HHJ Keyser MK 1.
2. I was incarcerated in HMP Parc and had all my medical records stolen which were
specifically sent from Caswell Clinic by Dr. Gaynor Jones and proved the lie to a police attempt to have me certified insane and effectively ‘hobble’ my ability to litigate. This was the motive to a malicious prosecution of me in BS614159 +2 and 1CF03361. I have not had these medical records returned. I authorise barrister David Leathley to write to Dr. Gaynor Jones for further copies. This statement is my signed authority. G4S staff stole these papers from my cell.
3. I could not comply with various court orders in 1CF03361 because my ability to
comprehend when the case numbered 1CF03361 required action was removed by the unlawful theft of all legal papers from my cell by G4S, together with the medical records referred to in paragraph 2. I do not think judges at Cardiff Civil Centre believed me when I said I was deprived of the ability to keep up with the case. In exasperation I had written to my MP. This then became the basis of yet another wholly unjustified criminal prosecution of me in Exeter Crown Court commencing the 10th May 2021 by The Defendant in 1CF03361. The motive was exactly the same as the motive in bringing the failed ‘machine gun’ prosecution. Yet again, I was exonerated of all charges by the jury in Exeter.
4. I believe it is The Defendant in 1CF03361 who is harassing me in order to prevent me
complying with court orders so they can have the machine gun redacted in whole or in part. That is why the shambolic MP prosecution was brought. I am now validated in these claims by res judicata in the Exeter Crown Court and the Learned Judge’s order which has obtained new, ground-breaking evidence in the form of the attached statement from Darrel Davies (MK2). This provides unequivocal evidence that my casepapers and medical notes were stolen and I am not telling untruths.
5. This is the evidence I strove to obtain in my claim against G4S for the theft of my
property (Bristol Case GooTA1220). This claim was struck out by Order of Deputy District Judge Davies dated the 13th May 2021. I had no notice of the BT telephone hearing leading to the making of that order and I was also distracted by my obligation to surrender to bail at Exeter Crown Court between the 10th May 2021 and the 20th May 2021 when I was acquitted. I therefore have fresh evidence with which to counter both the Cardiff and the Bristol actions which the judge in Exeter accepted had been kept from me by G4S theft.
6. I therefore invite the honourable courts to consider there is compelling novel
evidence in both 1CF03361 & GooTA1220 with which to facilitate an appeal against the granting of relief from sanctions and the striking out of my claim against G4S respectively.
7. The theft of these papers has had a ripple effect on many events. The police came to my house in Taunton on the 8th January 2020 to investigate an assertion of robbery after I was forcibly removed from my cell in order to facilitate the theft. I have never had this property back. I also exhibit as MK 3 my letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson concerning this outrage. His Honour Judge Johnson referred to this theft as ‘a robbery during the course of the Exeter Crown Court case.
8. Of the letters also stolen I was told that all my letters were not being sent but
effectively left to pile in the office of F prison wing. Some of the letters not sent contained my appeal against conviction pertaining to my conviction for the alleged fourth breach of the Dr T W restraining order, as sentenced by Her Honour Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clark in December 2017.
I believe the contents of this statement are true
AFTERMATH FROM EXETER CROWN COURT’s STRING of INSULTS
|FAO HM Clerk of the Court HM Crown Court Exeter|
Another Classic Example of ‘HM Partnership’ & Bad Law or
What Really Goes on in our UK Law Courts
1. Before the 27th May 2021 Exeter Crown Court hearing, at 10 am, I wish to inspect the list of my defence exhibits as, clearly, the jury was denied what I term ‘key documents’.that further revealed South Wales Police malfeasance. .
2. I wish to inspect legible copies and secure copy of all purported ‘jury notes’
I am alarmed at the fact the honourable court is not granting me proper costs (out of pocket witness and ‘Mackenzie Friend ‘expenses} just like what happened in my being refused in the similar earlier South Wales Police instigated criminal conspiracy fiasco, T20207445, my alleged ‘trading in prohibited weapons’..
4.. I was acquitted of all three charges due to inherent welsh authority’s nefarious conduct repeating itself, this time on English soil seriously damaging a loyal subject of Her Majesty The Queen.
5. The predicted ‘no defence’ evidence needed again for acquittal requires, I humbly submit, a public enquiry in the interests of the general public residing in both England and Wales.
Maurice J Kirk BVSc Tel 07708586202 email@example.comReplyForward
HM Clerk of the Court
Exeter Crown Court
28th March 2021 (2nd letter)
- Mr Robin Shellard of Queens Square Chambers, Bristol, tomorrow, will be asked to prove I ever knew or should have known about the Cardiff magistrates court 1st December 2011 ‘restraining order’ before it was allegedly ‘breached.’
- The R/O was mischievously designed to cover-up Caswell Clinic’s psychiatrist having been blackmailed by South Wales Police to fabricate his 19th Oct09 unqualified medical report of me in that I suffer PDD (paranoid delusional disorder) in the misconceived belief that I am being persecuted by South Wales Police. Dr TW stated, in a secret 2nd Dec 2009 Cardiff Crown Court that I had ‘significant’ and ‘irreversible’ brain damage and therefore registered MAPPA 3/3 and should be locked away for life, without any trial, in Ashworth’s high security psychiatric hospital.
- Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will be asked to produce documentary proof as to when, where and by whom, with five witnesses present, did I get served this purported 1st December 2011 restraining order or copy thereof?
- Mr Shellard , tomorrow, will be asked to produce a statement that prison officer Lea-Barker was present on 1st Dec 2009 after 5pm, when he tried to stuff my discharge custody papers down my left sock as I was being dragged along the floor, the length of the corridor, out of the Cardiff magistrates custody suite while denied my crutches.
- Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will also be asked to show proof that I ever knew or should have known about someone from a later Cardiff court having ‘handed me’ a ‘variation’ to that original ‘restraining order and again, when, where and by whom was it to finally supply me with a certified true copy also for HM Recorder of Exeter?
- Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will also be asked to confirm, again by documentation, that I had then been immediately ‘gate arrested’, on 1st December 2011 by the South Wales Police, within the court building but no ‘restraining order’ was then given to me or found about my person.
- Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will also be asked to confirm in the custody records, following my then overnight Tottenham police station stay before release from Haringey Corner magistrates with a £50 fine I still refuse to pay, that there was no record of any ‘restraining order’ relating to either me or the rogue NHS sacked and ‘deported ‘ to New Zealand, Caswell Clinic police psychiatrist, Dr TW, was ever found by the Met police either.
- Mr Robin Shellard, tomorrow, will be also asked to confirm his colleague, barrister Chris Smythe, had even taken the trouble, with my barrister, David Leathley Esq, to try and examine the court records from both Cardiff Crown Magistrate’s court files but were both refused access. It stinks does it not?
- Both lawyers were refused as I had already been to the building in disguise and ‘got away’ with photocopies of court record displaying they had been deliberately ‘tampered with’ once I had arrested the original HM Prosecutor, D G E, who was another eye witness to the truth with the clerk of the court hiding in adjacent magistrate cell.
- Mr Evans therefore was forced to give evidence in Bristol Crown Court that he was also a witness that I could never have been ‘served’ the 1st Dec 2011 restraining order before I had, unknowingly, breached the purported as he had typed a draft R/O and district magistrate John Charles was seen writing a hand written version, by ten of my supporters, ordered to be taken down to my cell for my approval or not? The Bristol court also heard just that.
- In my magistrate’s court cell I was presented by Mr Lea-Barker and three other guards with the former grasping rolled-up writing paper with the part of the outside page, I managed to see, displaying some half typed document with, interspersed between the lines, words in significant fountain pen blue ink, written by the presiding magistrate, there at the time, using an expression, heard by all, in effect to ‘beef it up’. Enclosed is Mr TE ‘s statement recording the event.
- Restraining orders are still unlawfully in place, 10 years later, in order to prevent my obtaining relevant disclosure and applying for my 19th October 2009 seriously damaging Dr TW unqualified psychiatric report being corrected or getting the original prosecutor to repeat his Bristol Crown Court evidence, years ago, before His Honour Judge Johnson tomorrow as it would wipe out 5 years of my false imprisonments.
- I have already served on the CPS well in excess of 60 pages of disclosure data requests, to which I am entitled, including HM Secretary of State for Wales’ letters with those to and from other MPs, copies of my MG6C, FTAC, PII, OASys, MAPPA and three welsh prisons’ prisoner letter logs.
- For the return of Dr G Jones’ Nov 2018 supplied Caswell medical data being screamed for, right now, by my Taunton GP and his Musgrove Park Hospital enterology team. My other stolen HMP Parc property, violently robbed from me in Nov 2019, including my clothes, shoes, wheel chair, was to seize my 1CF03361 ‘machine-gun’ civil claim papers, for the police, disclosing the conspiracy by senior police offers hell bent in stopping my ten or so civil claims including my BS614159 one, fixed for January 2010 trial, requiring over 200 police officers, citing well over 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions
- The welsh police had not just unblocked the ‘barrel’ and had painted the dummy Lewis machine-gun film prop a different colour, to try and fool a jury, prosecution Exhibit ARH1 was presented as a ‘working’ prohibited weapon!
- Last year, due to a Cardiff County Court administrative ‘cock-up’, there was startling new disclosure of evidence from the Nottinghamshire police and SWP officer Andrew Huxtable’s 4th January 2010 witness a statement, that it never was a prohibited weapon as the barrel , alone, revealed it to have been a scrapped 0.410 single shot garden shot gun, too big to secure a 0.303 round without rifling, the reason for the South Wales Police to concoct the criminal allegation , to keep me gaoled, that I had ‘stalked’ my own member of parliament.
Maurice J Kirk BVSc