Today’s Daily Telegraph article by the Archbishop of York has been far, far too long overdue in the rescuing of my country of England.
I am English first and British second and as I also have to correct officials, around the world in my WW2 Piper Cub flights to obscure parts of the globe, “I am a British Subject of England NOT a citizen of it ” and proud of it.
As my Archbishop would be the first to also say,”We are all God’s children what ever colour of skin”. I am one of the lucky white Caucasians that has had to live and sleep with Africans of all religious denominations despite often under an armed guard during the South Sudan civil war!
I was of an age, in the early 60s when a badly drafted Race Relations Act was being formulated while our head boy at Taunton School, Peter Thomas, the son of a Nigerian judge, was setting a marvelous example of a budding statesman. I have fond memories of taking him by the ankles on the corner flag of the rugger pitch in front of the school to stop a try!
I had promised Peter to fly to see him while enroute to South Africa in my cub but the wicked South Wales Police soon put paid to that by fabricating a total of five years of my life in the stench of welsh prisons all over a lying police psychiatrist, himself being blackmailed by the South Wales Police. Such is the hatred of the English within that community
My country is truly going mad when selfish students are offered £5000 to be covid vaccinated instead of being fined or gaoled. They forget, with their heads continuously in their phones. the post war Labour government’s ‘cradle to the grave’ eg NHS mentality is what has really brought my country to her knees NOT the cost of two world wars and the North Sea running short of oil.
We all know the global warming is primarily a universe phenomenon and cannot be stopped but our actions to curb it all helps our environment now so serously under threat.
THE SOUTH WALES POLICE CONTINUES CONSPIRING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Their latest bit of devil worshipping deceit, covered up by a string of back scratching corrupt welsh judges, I can name many, have now, would you believe, persuaded my English police to have me sent to Exeter Crown court on 3rd September to face more years in prison for ‘being found with a kitchen knife in my car on the M5 Motorway.
Some would think their last unlawful gaoling of me for sending suspected anthrax and/or heroin to my MPs, only to be easily acquitted, was the end of 30 years of welsh authority harassment BUT NO.
Bitter at losing well over 40 odd criminal prosecutions in South Wales now the trial surrounds the police body cam of an officious bullying copper of foreign origin so the Crown Prosecution refuse me copy of it. I thought that sort of nefarious conduct was only handed down in welsh courts. Sadly, I am wrong.
I am taking bets (contact firstname.lastname@example.org) that this case will be dropped with no proper compensation for out of pocket expenses
[I am currently at the RCJ re claiming proper costs with intention of reminding the Lordships the corrupt welsh judges never granted me a penny compensation following their 40 odd failed maliciously brought prosecutions]
In the farcical failed alleged stalking of the MP jury trial I was only granted £237 costs as opposed to well over £4000 having been paid out by me before we start to consider my legal bill and weeks in #exeter prison and police cells!
The issue of a Litigant in Person (LiP) over Legal Aid is a disgrace as Cameron’s attempts in the 2012/13 legislation was not designed to punish a victim of the welsh police it was tinkered with in an attempt to curb the multi, multi million pound fraud being enacted, daily, by bent lawyers in our so called UK law courts…..not all lawyers, I must emphasise.
For the uninitiated reader of blogs on ‘what really goes on in our law courts’ please read my draft not final victim statement, below, as an indication of the scale of criminal deceit in the South Wales Police protected by HM Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) lawyers and judges.
Before I move on to some HARD FACTS of wide spread welsh deceit and corruption in their perverse institutions take a dip into my daughter’s new book on http://www.belindakirk.com/ and where she inherited her obvious traits or risk taking and adventure
Her two grandfathers, from both side of the English Channel, had fought hard to prevent compulsory German in our schools, one in the French Resistance and the other in Special Forces based here in Taunton, Somerset, as an explosives and firearms expert for sabotage in the event of a German occupation
Machine Gun civil claim trial is listed for September ALL INVITED
ALL THIS ENGLISH POLICE INVOLVMENT STEMS FROM THE 2009 WELSH POLICE CONSPIRACY
Case number 1CF03361
In The Cardiff County Court
Maurice John Kirk
The Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary
Draft Statement 3am on 4 October 2020
- My name is Maurice John Kirk and I have been a collector of vintage, WW1 and WW2 aeroplanes since 1970 and have owned around 80 aircraft.
- The idea for a replica DH2 aircraft rebuild project came was proposed in 1997 when I was at a Haverfordwest book shop in West Wales owned by Mr Geoff Martlew and his wife, when he espied me looking at the front cover of a WWI Biggles adventure book. Mr Martlew pointed out the picture on the book cover was that of a Airco DH2 and he was ‘in the know’ for a ‘basket case’ replica of one and ideal for yet another aircraft restoration project for me in the Vale of Glamorgan.
- In 1997 I went on to buy the replica Airco DH2 which has a fascinating part in British Military history and the Battle of the Somme 1916 where at that moment British WW1 aircraft that could not shoot forwards through the propeller and were therefore considerably outperformed by German aircraft, and especially by the 1915 Fokker Eindecker monoplane which could fire forwards through the propeller.
- The Airco DH2 is hailed as an example of British ingenuity to hastily introduce a temporary solution by a “pusher” biplane aircraft with a propeller at the rear of the fuselage, allowing a gun to be mounted on the nose to fire at a target in front.
- Therefore, this biplane could not just out turn the enemy aircraft but she could return fire with the advantage of having the pilot in the line of flight and line of fire and so making a substantial difference at a vital time in the war. The short lived DH2, with its Lewis gun, was the main protection for soldiers from February 1916 onwards leading up to the Battle of the Somme on 1st July 1916.
- However Airco DH2 was precarious to fly in combat requiring a pilot with more advanced skills and was extremely light weighing around 428kgs with a construction not unlike a large camping tent, with the radial engine at the rear of the fuselage being balanced by the exact weight of a Lewis gun on the front. Without the gun of the exact weight mounted as a counter balance to give a correct centre of gravity the DH2 could not be flown safely. At modern day air shows, films, re-enactment and displays the shape of the gun is needed for authenticity.
- Mr Brian and David Woodford of Chalmington Manor, Dorset owned the biggest De Havilland aircraft collection in the world and from my visit to see the aircraft they sold me the DH2 and film prop gun which both had been used in the film ‘Gun-bus’.
- The Lewis display gun was one of a batch of five that I was told originally came from the RAF and later the Imperial War Museum being decommissioned by a Mr Davies and then via Mr Viv Bellamy to me. I bought the dummy gun in good faith being told it had been deactivated under old 1968 legislation with an easy to see ‘barrel’ with no ‘rifling’, incidentally and, in fact, was a piece of pipe that was blocked near the breach end and so could not fire a single round. The replica did not have the vents at the breach end, to allow the gas from the exploding .303 rounds to escape in order to turn the circular magazine, to re-reload the next live round in rapid succession.
- I took no greater interest in the close detail of the gun as it was found lying in the corner of the hangar gathering rust and because my main interest was taken by the many aircraft and the challenge before me. Long range flights was immediately in my mind as I was well known for pushing the limits of the ability of such small very old primitive fragile aircraft and to fly great distances, eventually almost around the world.
- In February 2016 No 24 Squadron RFC (RAF Lyneham relocated to RAF Brize Norton) was the first of its aircraft to operate the DH2 with a famous Welshman, Marshall, being the first pilot to be awarded an aviator’s Victoria Cross. So my DH2 replica and its Lewis display gun spent much time kept and maintained by the RAF there. As the RAF were the experts, I continued to act with good faith that I had been sold the replica gun that Deactivation under the 1968 Act still applied to this item. The gun could not fire with a barrel being a blocked and with no internal trigger mechanism.
- The history of the film prop Lewis display gun referred to by some as a dummy gun or a mock up of a Lewis gun, was of lying on the concrete floor for years at Chalmington Manor, lying on the concrete floor for years where I assembled the DH2 in west Wales and lying on the concrete floor at a hangar at RAF Lyneham.
- In the world of display and re-enactment using military aircraft and especially film work it is common to need to fire a single shot of smoke. To appear to an onlooker as if the gun has fired. Though, with so many aircraft and a steady stream of local police prosecutions (113 criminal allegations of which 89% were quashed by HM Crown Prosecution Service or dismissed in countless magistrate and HM Crown Courts) meant I never had a spare moment while also running my recently opened veterinary hospital to attempt to see if the Lewis gun would fire smoke or star shells. I did discuss the idea with Mr Cooper, however, using it like a Vary pistol.
- The DH2 with the imitation Lewis display gun mounted on it had been through many Airworthiness tests, at my expense. The first being by ex RAF Squadron Leader Griffiths of the CAA at Withybush aerodrome at Haverford West Wales in 2000. Then at Bristol aerodrome by the area CAA inspector for the Farnborough Air show on the following day. Captain Brian Trubshaw (test pilot for Concorde 002) as a very old friend from Filton’s Bristol University Air Squadron simply ‘ordered’ I and only I fly and display the replica DH2 with replica Lewis gun. The CAA surveyor based then at Western-Super-Mare arranged that on the day before the Farnborough Air show he inspected the DH2 with Lewis gun and gave it its ‘permit to fly’. Again, this would not have happened if all parties did not believe the Lewis display gun to be legal.
- The log of the DH2 shows I sold the DH2 to a collector Mr Gerry Cooper with a small museum to display aircraft at ex RAF Wickenby aerodrome Lincolnshire by 24 June 2008. On a Sunday in August 2008 I also sold him the replica Lewis gun by his wife collecting it at Cardiff airport. Mr Cooper immediately renovated and repainted the Lewis gun and changed the colour of the magazine from black to silver and from there with the DH2 went on public displays at civilian airfields and even exhibited at a local RAF base.
Singled out for Special attention not given to others.
- However I believe the Officers, staff and associates of South Wales Police singled me out for very special attention, some may say ‘treatment’, that is not given to others and not because of so many the wins in both Barry magistrates and Cardiff Crown Court but the manner in which they were won and never, of course, with a penny of compensation or a public scolding of deceitful South Wales Police.
- It appears to me that the evidence suggests that during April 2009 to 28 May 2009 was when the decision to “manufacture evidence” to bring a prosecution for reasons they knew was not true or correct. Which even meant painting the main exhibit of the Lewis display gun back to ‘black’ to pretend it could be admissible as a court exhibit.
- It follows that the officers, staff and associates of South Wales Police could not possibly believe that what they said or did was in any way truthful or correct.
- What I particularly noticed, once my cross examination had started on 27th January 2010 in Cardiff’s HM Crown Court was that the police, at both Bridgend police HQ and Chepstow’s NABIS office, had had ample time to strip down the dummy gun before the civilian experts were allowed to examine Exhibit AJR1.
- These impartial specialists, spread 2000 miles across the UK via police car journeys for the gun to travel to, never did under strict Home Office Regulations (not less than three armed officers with one armed with an automatic weapon) and came from afar a field from Birmingham, Manchester, London, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. If that alone, was not a sinister indictment what was?
- Prosecution’s evidence-in-chief was not allowed to raise what was the obvious ‘elephant in the room’ which, of course, was that my old dummy gun was far more realistic than recently deactivated ones. These had been chopped-up, in quite brutal new legislation only to be welded back together with metal plates In a way as to deter the most determined criminal mind to successfully ‘modifying’ to fire anything at all!
- I believe they cannot justify by evidence or reasoning, can they,as to why they spent such an enormous amount of time and money giving attention to me and why only I was prosecuted when there were so very many in a like situation with alleged prohibited armament in their possession within the U K’s general aviation industry?
- In around April 2009 Barry Police and Caswell Clinic’s Dr Tegwyn Williams, as lead forensic psychiatrist for the police force, became also a part cause for Supt McKenzie Head of Serious and Organised Crime to hold a briefing on 28 May 2009 to start a major investigation and prosecution of the Claimant.
- That biased police investigation resulted in my arrest on 22 June 2009 in the street where I was charged by 24 June 2009 around the possession and sale of the Lewis display gun that by the evidence of 22 June from experienced armourers Mr Scott and Mr Cooper could not fire.
- Yet what seems obvious to me is that the level of evidence and charges regards a WW1 Lewis display or dummy gun does not merit the involvement of the top people and so many police and so much police resources?
Was the gun the reason? Or was I the reason?
- I was left wondering but not for very long, as to whether the ‘gun’ the reason or risk or was I the reason or risk? Or, even, was it both?
- If the Lewis display gun was the reason or risk, then if police were to be honest and without bias or malice were reasonable to seek to prosecute people for possession or sale of this type of WW1 or WW2 display guns, then they would need to prosecute very many others that had been in possession and still have known to them some time before the South Wales Police, on 22nd June 2009 naughtily did NOT inform the Lincolnshire police where the dummy gun was known to be situated.
- Instead senior South Wales Police maliciously contacted the CAA, very old friends of mine, in order to distance themselves in order to appear completely impartial. The Lincolnshire police was avoided entirely, in a deliberate act of mischief, until the alleged prohibited weapon being seized late the next day by police from the next county, Nottinghamshire. This did not occur until Mr cooper had first unmounted the dummy gun hawked about both Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire to find an appropriately licenced gunsmith. Desperate for the South Wales Police to fabricate compellable and credible evidence to stand my cross examination style because, as unable, in never finding defence lawyers in Wales not obviously ‘under the thumb’ by their own unusually parochial insular minded authorities or as by Mr Cooper’s words at trial indicated to the jury on first day of evidence members of the jury in the pub directly after acquittal:-
- Mr Kirk: Could you repeat that please?
Mr Cooper: Certainly. Most of the, most of the replica aeroplanes in this country . are flying around with, with these, supposedly, weapons in them.
- The CAA, on receipt of the South Wales Police’s alerting them, after my 8am arrest on foot while coming back through the village, after dropping Genevieve off for school, I saw an obvious policeman hiding in the wood and another in a police ‘Q’ frantically talking into his radio microphone attached to his jacket lapel with both eyes on me which made him nearly hit stone wall surrounding the village pond.
- By my quickly being locked up in Cardiff prison, when refused bail based on their most dubious and incorrect reasons and facing a mandatory 10-year prison term, put the ‘fear of God’ in me and shear panic and pandemonium throughout our UK’s aviation industry that quickly spread all around the world. The CAA in England had to trace any UK registered aircraft with a remotely lookalike looking ‘prohibited weapon’ identified in the aircraft documentation and whether on the fuselage or wing at that moment in time or not. Specific air museums were found to be housing one or more prohibited s5 of 1968 Firearms Act (as amended).
- There is also the issue that if Police generated enough of a cloud of uncertainty that a Court would need to decide whether, for example, owning the component parts that made up the Lewis display gun was unlawful then obviously those who collected or possessed the Lewis gun both before the Claimant owned it, and after would also need to be charged. But none of the others who owned or collected the Lewis display gun that was owned by me, were even interviewed under caution.
- Mr Cooper had owned the Lewis display gun in England. The Nottinghamshire police, the first authority to lay hands on the Lewis replica weapon, interrogated both Mr and Mrs Cooper and decided ‘no action’ to be taken but the South Wales Police refused to disclose vital evidence undermining the prosecutions’ case completely.
- I felt the jury seemed to convey that if the prosecutions were brought for genuine reasons regarding the legality of the Lewis gun, then Mr Page and Mr & Mrs Cooper would have been in the dock alongside me. A comment which is an almost exact quote from eight of the remaining jury in a local public bar after my acquittal.
- Additionally English Police and relevant authorities like the CAA showed only no interest in prosecutions for ownership of the Lewis guns in England where my Lewis ‘gun’ was one of a batch of five and so there were four others of same de-activation
- It should be emphasised, that during many searches of our home the police confiscated numerous antique guns and licenced shotguns and .22 rifles all lawfully kept and to the current value of around £20,000 but never compensated for.
- No evidence, at all, of my being a firearms risk was ever provided. There were deliberately looking eccentric comments relating to a sale a year, to promote sale that worked, earlier which in context would mean by normal risk assessment that:-
- Firstly we can also note that by 22 June 2009 (two days before my being charged) Foxy’s evidence on whether the gun could fire is contradicted as untrue (were merely eccentric comments) by both Mr Scott and Mr Cooper who are clear on exactly why the Lewis display gun could not fire. Mr Scott’s and Mr Cooper’s evidence was available before the decision to charge, – if South Wales Police Officers wished to have reliable evidence that the Lewis gun could not fire?
- Secondly, that by the summer of 2009 almost a year had passed since the sale of the gun in the summer of 2008, where that amount of time passing without incident after selling the gun. And not seeking to acquire new. Would by normal risk assessment show there was no risk.
- Thirdly, a person who is a risk to others from potentially using a weapon collects weapons. Whereas this case involves the sale and disposal only.
- Fourthly, in a normal risk assessment the person is to be asked what they meant by their ‘comments’ and a risk assessor is normally doing wrong to try jump to conclusions as ridiculous as the jury trial concluded.
- As a simple example to explain away the eccentric comments, is it unreasonable or that unusual that a man holding a WW1/WW2 film prop display gun who is involved in re-enactment tries to look like Winston Churchill holding a machine gun? And then moves on to do some little light hearted TV style sketches with some joke lines so as to blur his real life with that of as if he is in a scene for a film? Simply view all my You tube videos.
- From the Paul Chambers case (who made comments of blowing up an airport that were only a joke), we have the principle that there is no belief of risk, unless statutory staff had decided to respond immediately as if comments were a risk. By immediate we mean the same moment on learning of the potential problem because for example if Police think a person is a risk with a gun that can fire, an immediate same moment response would occur.
- Experienced police and particularly Dr Tegwyn Williams would know these basic principles of risk assessment and it can be evidence of malice that they did not integrate these considerations into their decisions and evidence.
- The Cardiff Crown Court sought two Forensic Psychiatry opinions and these were written by Dr Tegwyn Williams and Dr Edwards Silva of Ashworth High Security Hospital. I believe it is telling that neither spent any time on my website comments as if all parties saw them as just eccentric comments.
- Even Dr Tegwyn Williams was so dismissive of the potential of risk he essentially says by his 19 October 2009 report that the only real risk I pose is whether I will continue to take legal actions against South Wales Police.
- It is noteworthy that the police prosecution would not take into account what Dr Williams as from 30 September 2009 formally writes to both the Crown Court and South Wales Police. Because if as Dr Williams writes, I actually have ‘significant irreversible brain damage’, (and on transcript 2 December 2009 Dr Williams through Mr Twomlow says of cancer) because the police and the prosecution if they believed their own words and investigations would have explored dropping such a frivolous muddled prosecution case in 2009 on compassionate grounds.
- As an example of malice, at no time in the past and not now can the Defendant provide any evidence that justifies or explains why during 2009/10 it was decided that I would be subject of MAPPA 3 level 3. I believe it is essential the Defendant justifies MAPPA 3 level 3 as I believe it is impossible for them to truthfully give any genuine justification.
- I was referred to the Whitehall Critical Public Protection which is obviously impossible to justify. It is important that the level of deceit in such a ludicrous misuse of procedure and resources be fully answered.
- At the MAPPA meeting on 8 June 2009 the Social Services and NHS records (please see minutes attached) said that I only had convictions for minor offences and so the CPS also present at the Barry police station meeting, considered I was not a risk to anyone. Yet when we consider the more truthful record of what risk the Claimant poses the MAPPA Social Work minutes 8 June 2009 says:-
“It was reviewed that Mr Kirk does have a criminal history – mostly minor offences. Does not have a criminal history which indicates previous use of firearms.”
MAPPA Social work minutes 8 June 2009 Page 1 paragraph 5
- The MAPPA social work minutes records that senor Police said the reason why I was regarded as a high risk was senior police officers feared the risk of adverse publicity. And I believe in context that means senior police who attended MAPPA meetings were saying I would publicise what they do wrong.
- Which when combine what the MAPPA minutes say with what Dr Tegwyn Williams writes 19 October 2009 means that the only risk I pose at all, is that I will take legal action against police to expose the wrong they do. And then publicise widely what wrong senior Officers at South Wales Police do.
- The fact errant police officers were preoccupied with my taking legal action against South Wales Police is in the MAPPA Social Work minutes for two meetings
“Currently, he has just over a hundred civil actions pending against South Wales Police, focused on a variety of individuals.”
MAPPA Social work minutes June 2009 page 1 paragraph 3
“It was also reviewed at this meeting that the police are taking very careful advice and guidance regarding the procedure of the criminal case in light of the fact that they are also the subject of civil complaint.”
MAPPA Social Work Minutes 20 August 2009
- The police saw was “publicity” as a main risk is mentioned in two MAPPA meetings of June 2009 and 20 August 2009:-
“It was explained that the subject of the MAPPA was deemed to be Level 3 – partly because of the risk of attracting media attention,”
MAPPA Social work minutes June 2009 page 1 paragraph 3
“The risk of media attention on these occasions was also discussed – police will be the lead agency in management of that risk.”
MAPPA Social Work minutes 20 August 2009
South Wales Police told MAPPA 8 June 2009 they may shoot the unarmed Claimant
- The CPS are recorded by the MAPPA Social Work minutes June 2009 as saying
“….Even his (Claimant) approach to the Chief Constable could be seen as his right to request an interview with her, necessary for the procedure for his civil case.”
- Finally to show how desperate the senior police officers by the 8 June 2009 MAPPA meeting. The CPS said I did nothing wrong to approach the Chief Constable as I was entitled to do so as a part of my civil claim. But the senior police officer at the meeting when knowing with certainty I was unarmed (or else they would have come to take the gun away) said if I approached the Chief Constable. Meaning if I approached the Chief Constable as the CPS said as a part of asking the Chief Constable questions so that I could lawfully progress my civil claim, – that I could be shot.
- How can they justify the mindset of shooting an unarmed man trying lawfully go about his civil claim?
- Surely the risk to the public is from senior Officers of South Wales Police? I ask the Court to respond accordingly.
- Yet in June 2009 when no other person who owned this Lewis gun (or one of the batch of five or similar gun) was even interviewed under caution I was charged with:-
- On Count 1, the Defendant is charged with possessing a prohibited weapon, the particulars of the offence being that between the 1st day of January 2008 and the 23rd day of June 2009, without the, without the authority of the Secretary of State, had in his possession a firearm, namely a Lewis machine gun which was so designed or adapted that two or more missiles could be successfully discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger.
- On Count 2, the Defendant is charged with selling or transferring a prohibited weapon, the particulars of the offence being that between the 1st day of January 2008 and the 23rd day of June 2009, without the, without the authority of the Secretary of State, sold or transferred a firearm, namely a Lewis machine gun which was so designed or adapted that two or more missiles could be successfully discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger.
- However although the Firearms Law that was invoked is unusually complex, as explained by the trial Judge and the prosecution Expert Witness Mr Philip Rydeard, it was for the jury to decide regards facts and so the legality of the Lewis gun.
- In February 2010 the jury acquitted the Claimant in ways that provokes obvious questions regards whether the motives, intentions, reasoning and malice by bring a prosecution which singled out only me and in a way to cause huge harm and loss while wasting enormous police resources and public funds.
- Around 2009/10 local Police were advised by ACPO the Association of Chief Police Officers. We can easily see what prevailing values and interpretations local Police were advised to use by the December 2010 submission by the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into Firearms Laws.
2.3 ACPO recommends at this juncture that consideration be given to ensure that pre-1995 deactivated firearms are brought in line with the post-1995 standard of deactivation. ACPO does not seek to ban these items but does seeks to ensure a common standard is apparent across those deactivated firearms in circulation in order to prevent exploitation by criminally minded individuals whilst allowing those who wish to collect or re-enact with these items the right to do so.
- There was also a Home Office Consultation with police that ended in May 2009 where there was a debate over how to let those who display collect and re-enact to be free to do so, while trying to address how the criminally minded can even grind away welding and change and modify parts to make deactivated guns able to fire.
- The prosecution said at Court that I had no defence and the case relied on proving was the Lewis display gun illegal within the meaning of the Act, and that experts said there were no proof makings so that it was illegal. Which only left whether it was in my ownership as the photographs of me holding the Lewis display gun implied. But experienced police would know the truth was that the Law was not one Act and more complex. Which also meant because the Lewis display gun was far from in original condition, being a dummy “composite” gun made up of lots of different parts and had been endlessly modified with many parts removed or substituted, marks cold be ground off, and it would be obviously impossible to ever know exactly what condition the Lewis display gun was, and therefore whether legal or illegal, when in my possession over a year or so earlier.
- Certainly someone made substantial modifications to the Lewis display gun after it left Mr Cooper and Mr Scott earlier on 22 June 2009. Because Mr Rydeard said the Lewis gun he was given could fire a single shot. In reality any parts, such as the original deactivated barrel and internal moving parts were stolen soon after Viv Ballamy down at Lands End aerodrome who I visited in 1970/71 in my then current WW2 Auster 6a Tugmaster, registration G-ARGI. (actually, I landed in amongst the potatoes in the field over the airfield’s perimeter wall simply to save a landing fee.
- I note Mr Nigel Brown’s statement, of police HQ, emphasises that he has decades of experience with firearms and has qualified as an expert witness in firearms. Yet he does not comment at all on the condition of the Lewis display gun while under his care and control for so long and again, while it was going through a transformation from deactivated and cannot fire, to a gun that can fire.
- Additionally the Lewis display gun was black when with the Claimant. Then painted silver by Mr Cooper. Then police painted the Lewis gun back to black while police used it as a prosecution exhibit, so that it could appear unmodified and admissible. But as the media and internet has pictures of the silver paint that Mr Copper’s 2008/09 display of the Lewis gun, before date of trial, so that modifications having occurred are most obvious. BUT no one is gaoled just me. So, what other modifications internally could have occurred? Police withheld all notes of inspections.
- We know with certainty that one or more persons modified the Lewis display gun because comments by three witnesses Mr Cooper, Mr Jon Davison and Mr Scott who say that at material times the Lewis display gun barrel was blocked and so could not fire.
- Mr Cooper, who an ex RAF armourer of 15 years’ experience, also believed the Lewis gun to be deactivated after he has renovated it which in law may have been wrong to do. On transcript Tuesday 26 Mr Cooper in Cardiff Crown Court (January 2010 page 43 E) said of the condition of the Lewis display gun when received was:-
‘…that the breach was blocked. The sear mechanism, which cocks the gun, was missing. There was no feed for the gun. There was no feed slot for the weapon, so basically it was incapable of firing.’
- Jon Davison (please see his letter attached) also an aircraft mechanic and a deactivated weapons collector who was with Mr Cooper in 2008/09 at the very the time the Lewis was ready to be renovated said (please see attached letter) of the Lewis display gun:-
‘…in very poor condition with heavy corrosion it was so rough it looked like it had been dragged out the North Sea and was so badly corroded that some parts were almost gone, ….I then looked at the barrel and noted it had the usual metal rod down it and that it could not be cocked or dry fired’.
- Mr Scott who is the Registered Firearms Dealer that the Lewis display gun was passed to by Mr Cooper on 22 June 2009 says at trial 26 January 2010
Mr Twomlow: What is that item?
Mr Scott: It’s a mock up of a Lewis machine gun.
- Mr Scott goes on to say (page 108 G & H):-
Mr Kirk: What had changed?
Mr Scott: When I first examined it, on June 22 …
Mr Kirk: Yes.
Mr Scott: There was an obstruction at the chamber end of the barrel.
- The 2009/10 consultations of the Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers to change the Law was because those with a criminal mind are well known to even grind off welding that has been used to deactivate a weapon and often add parts to make a gun fire.
- What is also obvious is that the decision-making police (such Mr McKenzie and Suzanne Hughes) would have known that police would be genuinely unable to ever know what condition the Lewis display gun was in, over a year previous when in my possession and at the point of sale.
- South Wales Police as good as admit the Lewis display gun since the sale in the summer of 2008 up to the trial of 2010, had travelled through so very many people’s control. Also that the Lewis display gun is “a composite” (not an original but made up of various different parts, with important parts missing and potentially parts added). And given people are known to be able to grind off weld and numbers, add parts and substantially change the condition of guns. How would anyone know what condition the Lewis display gun was in during the summer of 2008 and before during my ownership?
- As a simple foreseeable example that with so many modifying the Lewis display gun Suzanne Hughes would have known it would not be realistic to be able to verify what condition the gun was in when I or each party had the gun Mr Scott said at trial on 26 January 2010 (page 111 G):-
Mr Scott: Could it have been the same barrel?
Mr Kirk: Yes, or was it the same barrel?
Mr Scott: I don’t know. It was a barrel, but I can’t say that it was the same barrel or not.
- The fact that Mr Cooper painted from black to silver is shown by photographs on the internet and is on transcript
Mr Twomlow: So you’ve cleaned it and painted it.
Mr Cooper: Correct.
- Regards risk, the most obvious risk was if anyone was to try to live fire that Lewis display gun it could explode and that means injure or kill whoever tried to live fire it. The obvious question as to whether the Lewis display gun was safe to fire is here 29 January 2010 (page 20 D & E)
His Honour Judge Thomas: Why didn’t you carry out a test with live ammunition please?
Mr Mabbit: It would have been dangerous to do so. And also, if the barrel hadn’t withstood the pressure, we would have essentially destroyed the exhibit.
- I believe my question to and reply from Mr Huxtable starts to show the unnatural special attention by malicious decision-making Police.
- We know that from the summer of 2008 and now by June 2009 the Lewis display gun was in England. Why therefore not leave the Lewis display gun in England in the possession of the English Nottinghamshire Police to investigate and decide?
- I asked this question of Mr Huxtable who works at South Wales Police HQ Bridgend at trial on 28 January 2010 Page 61 A, B & C
Mr Kirk: OK. It was, it was acquired by the Nottinghamshire, no, sorry, by the Civil Aviation Authority, to cause it to be left somewhere a year after the Prosecution have admitted that I may have owned it. Now, I’m trying to establish why, if he, they took, if the, if the South Wales Police wanted to control the investigation of the weapon, why wasn’t it left to the, the Nottinghamshire Police, who, what shall we say? Secured it. But they then sent it down to you. So, if it was so dangerous, as they may wish to cause the Jury to believe, who investigated it on ballistics before you examined it as to its capability?
Mr Huxtable: Well, it would have been down to the officer in the case what, what strategy they wanted to go with this weapon.
- It seems to me that Officers of South Wales Police (SWP) were so malicious that they knew they could not leave impartial Police in Nottinghamshire decide and South Wales Police spent huge effort to try to make a Lewis display gun that was too unsafe to fire as it may explode look by manipulating and manufacturing evidence as if it was unlawful for a ten year prison sentence. Why would they want to use substantial time energy and public funds to do that?
The Lewis display gun Exhibit 1 travelled to many 22 June 2009 to February 2010.
- Look what happened to the Lewis display gun that was obviously too dangerous to fire:-
- South Wales Police contact CAA to ask Mr Cooper to hand in the Lewis gun.
- Mr Cooper takes Lewis gun to Mr Scott (Registered Firearms Dealer),
- Notts Police collect the Lewis gun and normally it would have ended there as with Mr & Mrs Cooper no further action
- But SWP ask Notts Police for the Lewis Gun and take it to SWP HQ and the condition of the gun is transformed and even painted (from silver to black) to pretend it was admissible as evidence by being the same as when I owned it.
- From Mr Brown SWP HQ to Mr Huxtable at SWP HQ
- From Mr Brown SWP HQ to around Chepstow (Jury felt this was suspicious)
- From SWP HQ to Mr Rydeard, Manchester Forensic Science & to SWP HQ
- From SWP HQ to Mr Mabbit Birmingham Proof house and back to SWP HQ
- In August 2009 (knowing the trial was another five months away) SWP take the Lewis display gun for Mr Scott and Cooper to verify merely as the same gun so that it must have had a silver painted magazine.
- But when SWP use the Lewis display gun as the exhibit 1 at Cardiff Crown Court somebody has painted the very large gun magazine from silver back to black to make it look the same as when I owned it as a pretence that a gun modified and tampered with for 17 months since the summer of 2008 was admissible at a trial in 2010 as in the same condition as before 2008 summer.
- As an example, that decision Officers, staff and associates of SWP did not believe their own words and allegations. For each of the 12 days of trial the Lewis display gun travelled to and from Cardiff Crown Court to Cardiff Police station over the shoulder of a lone Police Office walking in the public street as if Police do not believe it was a firearm.
- After my acquittal when the Lewis display gun was returned to Mr Cooper it had been painted back painted back to silver. (in reality the Cooper’s silver painted magazine had been hidden throughout the trial as the prosecution knew repainting was far to risky as I would ask to at least, examine the item that might lead to a long prison stretch! The absolute ‘give away’ within the transcript where one prosecution witness said he found the magazine was loose, in their hurriedness, the police had not tightened up the central fixing screw to fix the barrel the top of the barrel. Another said, in court or statement that he thought that when presented to him by Cooper the barrel was ‘silver’
- All of the above may well have been avoided by simply contacting the RAF at the earliest stage. When RAF Lyneham are experts who had looked after the gun for much of the time while in my ownership, the Defendant hid what the RAF said at trial and the Defendant still hides what the RAF said. Where presumably the RAF communications may well essentially show there was never any genuine reason for any police to waste everyone ‘s time with a prosecution.
- Why was all this police time and public money wasted?
The Defendant hides RAF Lyneham’s evidence at trial and now.
- Mr Cooper was not charged and in the witness box at trial said he acted in good faith on my “layman’s word” that the Lewis display gun was deactivated. But I not only had the same defence of a “layman’s word” when I obtained the Lewis display gun as decommissioned under the old Act, but had a much stronger defence that the Lewis display gun while in my ownership was in the possession at RAF Lyneham and their armourers (because the gun was regarded as deactivated it was left on the hanger floor most of the time) and I acted in good faith by what the RAF experts say and decided regards this Lewis display gun.
- The Cardiff Crown Court requested that there were two Forensic Psychiatry opinions who write after having read the prosecution case papers. Dr Tegwyn Williams was the first. Dr Edward Silva was the second. Dr Silva writes (page 7 paragraph 3) using prosecution case documents, that on 23 June 2009 (and so before I was charged on 24 June) I had said to Police that I thought the gun was decommissioned by my presenting it to the armourers at RAF Lyneham:-
“On the 23 June Mr Kirk explained that it was his understanding
that the gun had been decommissioned when he presented it
to an armourer at RAF Lyneham”
Dr Edward Silva’s Report 25 November 2009 page 7 paragraph 3
- But as more examples of malice there has always been refusal to Disclose vital evidence of what RAF Lyneham’s response was in 2009/10 and also whether a response was gained before they charged me on 24 June 2009.
- On the 27 January 2010 the Judge at trial raises concern that the Defendant was not providing vital evidence
His Honour Judge Thomas: There are certain items that have been mentioned as being in the unused material, and I have, as I told Mr Kirk earlier, I have been looking through the unused material schedule. Reference has been made by, reference has been made to emails to armourers at RAF Lyneham. It seems to me that that is potentially material which Mr Kirk is entitled to have. Any reason why he shouldn’t have it?
Transcript 27 January 2010 Page 145 H
His Honour Judge Thomas: As an unrepresented Defendant. And I have therefore to keep my eye on the ball of disclosure. And I can’t at the moment see any reason, and I say it in open Court for Mr Kirk to hear it, I can see at the moment no reason why, for example, the email correspondence with RAF Lyneham should not be disclosed. I can certainly see no reason why the statement from Mrs Kirk should not be disclosed, particularly as there’s, under the schedule, listed under the schedule –
Transcript 27 January 2010 Page 147 B
- Yet the Defendant and their lawyers not only hid the vital evidence then, they still hide what the trial Judge called material evidence again by 2020 when they still have not provided the vital evidence.
- Why does the Defendant and their internal and external lawyers hide material evidence? Should public servants be acting like this?
My Arrest – was it necessary when a phone call from the CAA was used for others?
- Regards my arrest South Wales Police spent huge time and resources from the meetings with Barry Police and Dr Tegwyn Williams in April 2009 and continuing onto the major briefing by Supt McKenzie, as Head of Serious and Organised Crime on 28 May 2009 when we can look at one example or how Police simply used the CAA and some telephone calls in England to verify and control as needed.
Mr Twomlow: Now, were you subsequently contacted by the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to both the aircraft and the gun?
Mr Cooper: Yes.
Transcript 26 January 2010 page 45 F
- Why could SWP not simply ask the CAA to verify with me, as occurred with Mr Cooper?
- Or would using the CAA have undermined the highly orchestrated plans to misuse their power to do an astonishingly dramatic and spectacular armed raid with helicopter and many vehicles and intrusions for days to ruin my family life.
- At MAPPA meeting 8 June 2009 the Social work minutes page 2 paragraph 2 says:-
“At the meeting, it was reviewed that the police intend to take certain action which they anticipate will result in a remand into custody.”
MAPPA Social work minutes page 2 paragraph 2
- It seems SWP contradict themselves by deciding before MAPPA 8 June 2009 they would pretend there was enough risk for remand, but not enough of either a risk or firearms risk, so that they waited two weeks to the 22 June to arrest and remand.
- I believe it follows that the decision to arrest and remand occurred by 28 May 2009, if not earlier. So to show no genuine belief of risk as they waited so long.
- And if no genuine belief of risk and they are waiting this long they obviously could have resolved all issues regards the Lewis display gun by merely by contacting the CAA and allowing Nottinghamshire Police and English Authorities deal with what was originally (I obtained DH2 and Lewis display gun from England) and the Lewis display gun was now kept in England and so far more of an English matter.
Police said no risk but I am just “a nuisance” in intelligence reports and opportunities to interview without a spectacular arrest and harming my family life.
- If we note that the 28 May 2009 was the briefing by the Head of Serious and Organised Crime. But on 30 May 2009 I attended Barry Police Station to protest about police conduct in my civil case and now find a secret South Wales Police intelligence report disclosed by MAPPA Social work Minutes shows I was there
“30.05.09 – Maurice attends Barry Police Station on two separate occasions asking to
speak to the Inspector. Has previously attended on numerous occasions requesting the
same in relation to certain matters pertaining to civil proceedings. Request refused. In a subsequent conversation with the Police Sergeant, Maurice intimated that he knew the officer’s home address, could follow him there and had done it before. Inspector
describes himself as not physically threatened but considering Maurice “a nuisance”.
Nevertheless, a number of precautionary measures put in place to ensure the Inspector’s safety.
MAPPA Social work minutes Page 11 paragraph 2
- The log of Police intelligence report on me as recorded by MAPPA Social Work minutes shows a lack of detail and entries to imply Police were not genuinely concerned about me.
- We can see that the photo with the Lewis display gun in intelligence reports on 7 April 2009 which means three months before my arrest and so yet more indication that there was no genuine belief of a firearms risk, and so no need remand for a spectacular raid on my home and to challenge the Magistrates giving me bail by Police appealing to the Crown Court seeking remand
“07.04.09 – Maurice posts details of his next exploit – to fly to Mount Everest.
There is a photograph of Maurice holding the item which relates to the current charges – machine gun in one hand, dog in the other. Similar photograph, apparently without the dog, headed “Final Solution”.
Some information about whether or not weapon is fireable, de-activated or what.”
Police Intelligence, MAPPA Social Work Minutes page 12
- But Police had very clear evidence to know that I simply say eccentric comments as the Police intelligence log of 30 April 2009 says I say I advertised my property in exchange for anything that makes me laugh. Was that to be taken literally?
“Information detailing certain items (mostly property) that Maurice has presumably offered for sale somewhere including one cottage which he “will exchange for anything that makes me laugh”
Police Intelligence, MAPPA Social Work Minutes page 12
Unnecessarily spectacular arrest, remand and prolonged house search
- By the way the jury acquitted me it follows the Defendants actions of not just an arrest, but a spectacular arrest and prolonged house search (were obviously unjustified but I believe they intended that:-
- Any normal neighbours would not want the Claimant living there in future
- Any normal wife would not want her husband living there in future regardless of innocence or guilt, because the intrusion and disruption from being falsely accused is far too great. In addition to a spectacular armed raid that would frighten neighbours, my wife and 10 year old daughter were there and amongst around twenty five officers at our family home for two days.
- How can SWP justify exaggerating risk and briefing Social Services to take my 10 year old daughter into care:-
- When SWP knew mum Kirsty was not a suspect and able to look after my daughter
- When they had decided before 8 June 2009 that they were to remand me into custody and so in their plans I would not ever be at the home anyway
- It seems to me they intended to put pressure on my wife that as actually occurred she would need to use lawyers to protect her right to custody of our daughter. Because it was intended as a malicious act to break up the family and cause the wife distress and so to chose, as would any normal wife, to not allow the husband to return.
- Each time a potential of bail arose, the Defendant were giving false assertion of risk, to seek Social Services be ready to take my daughter into care. That must have been assertions they knew to be false as the Defendant could not then or now substantiate, their assertions of risk that they knew were false.
- Dr Edward Silva (who is using prosecution case papers) in his report November 2009 says page 8 second paragraph:-
“…His second wife is a vet. She considers that he has been persecuted by the police and has herself complained that the police, when searching their home, following her husband’s most recent arrest, behaved improperly in not giving details of items removed (which included firearms legally held and which were returned) and that the police encouraged her to say that she had separated from her husband, so that he could be denied bail…”
Dr Edward Silva’s report 25 November 2009 page 8 paragraph 2
- Dr Edward Silva also concludes that same second paragraph by saying:-
“It appears his adult children support him and at least some of them regards his difficulties as being the result of persecution”
Dr Edward Silva’s report 25 November 2009 page 8 paragraph 2
- But as stated both Dr Tegwyn Willaims (Clinical Director of Forensic Psychiatry, South Wales) and Dr Edward Silva (Ashworth High Security) and the Caswell Clinic Forensic Psychiatry team when later having access to police files essentially could not see grounds to see me as a risk as errant elements of South Wales Police imply other than I may take legal action against South Wales Police and they risk getting much bad publicity.
- I was well known to the Courts, so that Barry Magistrates knew me as their local 24/7 working veterinary surgeon, and that my claims that South Wales Police were highly vexatious to me were that credible that I was granted unconditional bail with little hesitation. I believe because it was obvious that the claims of SWP were viewed as not credible.
- But appealed to Crown Court without justification then and with acquittal was obviously unjustified and it was proved there was no substance to the concerns that were asserted. The motive to make assertions that the jury did not support, was malice.
False psychiatric history (unfinished)
- Malice can also be seen in the way I get all clear results from Texas USA, FTAC, Dr Meters, Dr Cradock, and yet they are desperate to portray otherwise because mental health can be on times be used as an indicator of risk.
Strategy change to maliciously seek other reason to cause my loss of liberty (Dr TW)
- It seems to me that decision making police and the leading personalities behind MAPPA who singled me out for special attention realised by later July 2009 that even with paint the gun from silver to black to pretend it was admissible as evidence that they would probably still lose at trial and that they would therefore need to change their strategy to find some other way to cause me a major loss of liberty.
- Although I was acquitted in this Lewis display gun case in February 2010 the big trend of malice and deceit has continued by using the dispute around the medical reports to prosecute me four times for “saying the truth” about issues that occurred during and as a part of the 2009/10 Lewis display gun case.
- A Cardiff Crown Court Judge asked for a psychiatric opinion and MAPPA meeting facilitator Dr Tegwyn Williams who had been meeting Barry Police station since at least as early as April 2009 used that opportunity to apply for a one-month Section 35 for assessment as from 7 August 2009 by a report and hearing 3 August 2009 (at which I was not allowed to be present)
- The opportunity to see clear malice in a collusion between Dr Williams and errant elements of SWP we can be seen by comparing what Dr Williams writes in 2009 and then the ten years afterwards show neither SWP or Dr Williams believe what he wrote is true in how all this goes on for over a decade .
- In the Lewis display gun case of 2009/10 an overview of what internal NHS reports Dr Williams wrote or caused are :-
- Dr T Williams wrote report 3 August 2009 seeking a Section 35 for a month’s Assessment.
- Dr T Williams requested Radiology brain scans where the normal all clear result by as concluded by 2 NHS experts was dated 28 August 2009
- An interim report that was undated that is seemingly for September 2009 requesting another Section 35 for one month.
“…….consistent with, but not diagnostic of a paranoid illness…”
This September report hides the normal all clear brain scan but supports me as for example having eccentric behaviour, but I do not actually have a paranoid disorder
- A Report 30 Sept 2009 requesting a third Section 35 for a month where he now says. Here we have
“Maurice Kirk presents with symptoms entirely consistent with a mental illness namely paranoid delusional disorder (fixed false beliefs unameanable to reason).”
Point 9 of Report by Dr T Williams 30 September 2009
“Maurice Kirk has evidence of significant brain damage to an area of his brain specifically related to self-awareness, judgement, decision making, self-regulation of behaviour and control of emotions.”
Point 10 of Report by Dr T Williams 30 September 2009
- A final Report 19 October 2009 endlessly emphasising significant irreversible brain damage and Paranoid Delusional Disorder and the only real risk is may sue SWP but not well enough for proceedings without a lawyer and does not how the significant irreversible brain damage may progress.
- But there are important facts by the omission that neither Dr Williams or the entire Caswell Clinic team having read the case angst me, do not even wish to waste time assessing whether there is any risk relating to eccentric comments while holding the Lewis gun in the photograph that Police use in the prosecution shows……….(unfinished)
- Dr TW Attended Cardiff Crown Court 2 December where Mr Twomlow for the CPS say recorded on transcript that Dr TW was saying he was concerned Mr Kirk has cancer (presumably brain cancer) and need to be Sectioned by the Court to Ashworth High Security Hospital indefinitely.
- However Dr Williams report of 3 August 2009 proposed assessment is outlined as:-
“11. Without the opportunity to interview Mr Maurice Kirk this assessment is of course limited. To enable the Court to be accurately informed as to Mr Maurice Kirk’s mental state, the presence or absence of any mental disorder, and the risk he may pose to the community, a period of in-patient hospital treatment is required which would include:-
a. Twenty-four hour nursing observations.
b. Serial assessments of his mental state by interview, if possible, by observation if Maurice Kirk refuses to co-operate
c. Collateral history form family and friends
d. Neuro-psychiatric assessment including appropriate imaging”
- That meant as a main part of that assessment meant that by 28 August 2009 two expert Radiological opinions from Dr Tegwyn Williams employers ABMU NHS
Request: DR T WILLIAMS
MRI Brain 28.08.09
REPORT: Standard imaging through the brain was undertaken. There is some artefact from patient motion. There are a few tiny foci of high signal within the deep white matter of both cerebral hemispheres which are non specific but may represent small ischemic foci. There is no evidence of an intracranial mass lesion.
AB/SD Reported and Checked by: DR AISLING BUTLER
SPECT Brain Scan 28.8.09
There is a diffuse reduction in cerebral perfusion, slightly more prominent on the left but the SPECT scan findings are nonspecific.
GT/EFH Reported and Checked by: DR GARETH (DR) TUDOR
- Which is essentially a totally normal outcome and so all clear brain scan result.
Clear/Certain wrongdoing by DR TW not complete
- There are two main comments to Cardiff Crown Court that DR TW says of significant irreversible brain damage and PDD Paranoid Delusional disorder and we can see reason why that Dr TW did not believe these comments were not true.
- Dr Williams knew he was not medically qualified as an expert in neuroradiology to interpret the presence or absence of brain damage from brain scans to report his finding to the Cardiff Crown Court.
- Dr Tegwyn Williams also does not use anyone who is a medically qualified expert.
- Dr Tegwyn Williams must have known he was doing wrong because in 2007/8 he wrote Chapter 19 “The expert witness: professional practice and pitfalls” in the Handbook of Forensic Mental Health (Pub: WiIlan 2008) explaining not to go beyond one’s expertise and to use other experts if issues are outside of one’s expertise. Therefore Dr Williams not only acted improperly, but potentially even criminally in knowingly and so seemingly intentionally misleading the Crown Court, CPS and Police on important issues.
- This continued malice and deceit from the 2009 MAPPA has meant four jail terms for conviction and three breaches of the Order to not say the truth, when all of those convictions were achieved by police prosecution papers that were deceitful and misleading before the courts.
- Where police are deceitful is that in the four prosecutions as from 2011 for my objecting to Dr Williams dishonesty and malice, that police portray me as 100% unreasonable as if Dr Tegwyn Williams did no wrong. If we for simplicity ignore to what extent my protests may have been ill judged to amount to harassment. What is then absolute
- ly certain is that police covered up Dr Williams wrongdoing, and caused me to spend five unnecessary years in prison, compared to what would have occur if police had admit to the court that I protest with genuine grievances that Dr Tegwyn Williams has misled the Crown Court in 2009 and seemingly done serious criminal wrong and caused me harm. And of course Dr Williams and police have misled the Courts during all four prosecutions.
- There is also the question why the police and prosecution did not use Dr Tegwyn Williams diagnosis of my having PDD (Paranoid Delusional Disorder) as the prosecution did in the case as with farmer Tony Martin who shot two young intruders as they fled his home. In the Tony Martin case PDD was an integral a part of the case and was the reason why he only received a reduced sentence of three years. Yet essentially the police who prosecute me in 2009 to present seek only that I spend years in prison without they having justification for doing so. They knowingly use false information. LOTS and LOTS MORE COMING!