High Court, on 3rd September, denied me my inalienable right to having a jury despite a request in my Particulars of Claim filed with the Cardiff court in 2011
Remember, this police conspiracy was in the drastic shadow of 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions brought by the same welsh police with my alleged ‘trading in machine guns’ jury civil trial being their desperate last ditch attempt, coup de gras, to block my 7th January 2010 listed 1BS614149 damages claim that would require at least 200 police officers as witnesses
This is my hand written statement scribbled out in Cardiff prison where I was deliberately incarcerated, until eight months later, to stop the progression of my BS614159+2 more civil claims against Barbara Wilding due to her 40 odd malicious criminal prosecutions.
My machine gun compensation claim denied a jury is in RCJ at 10am tomorrow
My machine gun hearing in Cardiff now on Monday
Come and witness for yourself the level of deceit within senior officers of the South Wales Police.
I give evidence first – a long time waiting to expose the police conspiracy that lost me my wife, almost my life, my heath, wealth and damned near my sanity!
My’ knife in public’ case jury trial tomorrow is adjourned to 17th Sept in Exeter Crown Court
all welcome to witness more blood on the court room carpet
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR PROSECUTION DISCLOSURE (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, section 8; Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 22.5)
|Case details Name of defendant: Maurice John Kirk BVSc Court: Crown Court at Exeter Case reference number: T20210178 Charge(s):|
Possession of Offensive Weapon contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
|Note: You must give a defence statement, and allow the prosecutor time to respond, before you can make an application for prosecution disclosure. How to use this form 1. Complete the Case details box above and answer the questions set out in the boxes below. If you use an electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand. If you use a paper version and need more space, you may attach extra sheets. 2. Attach to this form: (a) a copy of your defence statement, and (b) copies of any correspondence with the prosecutor about disclosure. 3. Sign and date the completed form. 4. Send a copy of the completed form and everything attached to: (a) the court, and (b) the prosecutor.|
|1) What material do you want the prosecutor to disclose The full details of the deletion of the Bodycam evidence, including all relevant documents from the Devon & Cornwall Police. In particular, full details of exactly when the Bodycam evidence was deleted and by whom, and on whose orders and authorisation? When where, why and by whom were the South Wales contacted who then released to the police in the M5 incident PNC data including its WARNING – ‘very violent when arrested? Why was Maurice Kirk denied both doctor and duty inspector, when specifically asked for, despite the police being aware he had just been released from a series of Accident & Emergency admissions following the traumatic insulting T2020177 (stalking MP acquittal) jury trial experience also fabricated by the South Wales Police to block 1CF03361 civil claim arising from ‘trading in machine guns’ acquittal conspiracy’?|
|2) Why do you think the prosecutor has that material? The CPS is under a duty to request the police to provide all available material in relation to the case, whether it supports or undermines the defence. The CPS have informed the Defendant that the Devon & Cornwall Police have notified them that they have deleted the Bodycam evidence. Therefore, the Devon & Cornwall Police will have full details of how and when the bodycam evidence was deleted and who made the decision to do so/ Under whose orders was the Bodycam evidence (VRE) was deleted, incidentally in gross breach of their own Joint Records Management policies and that of the National Information Management Governance. |
The Devon & Cornwall Police were under a duty to retain the Bodycam evidence for at least 31 days and then further, if required, for evidential purposes.
The Devon & Cornwall Police were aware that the Defendant had been charged with the alleged offence of Possession of Offensive Weapon contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and that the evidence from the Bodycam was important and relevant evidence that would be needed to disclose to the Defendant. The Dev12on & Cornwall Police, while reliant on deliberately concocted South Wales Police National Computer(PNC) data, appear to have deleted the whole P15912 bodycam evidence if the M5 incident in breach of the relevant policy codes and with the intention of perverting the course of public justice thereby.
As a result, the Defendant will be entitled to mount an abuse of process argument to stay and/or dismiss the case on the grounds that the Devon & Cornwall Police have manipulated the prosecution process to prevent the Defendant being given full disclosure of the Bodycam P15912 for 2nd June 2021 that he considered would support his defence.
|3) Why might that material: (a) undermine the prosecutor’s case against you, or (b) assist your case? The CPS is under a duty to disclose all unused material in their possession, irrespective of whether it supports or undermines the Defendant’s defence.|
|4) Do you want the court to arrange a hearing of this application? YES / |
The requested evidence is extremely important regarding the Defendant’s defence and how it has now been prejudiced due to the actions of the Devon & Cornwall Police with the result that the Defendant is now denied a fair trial under schedule 1, article 6(1) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998, and the requested information hasn’t so far been disclosed to the Defendant. Destruction of this key evidence was deliberate to prevent still further criminal conduct by the South Wales P0lice being brought to the notice of an English judge in England.
The CPS is therefore in breach of its disclosure duties to the Appellant to ensure a fair trial as guaranteed under section 1 to 7A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and/or article 6(1) ECHR as incorporated under schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The violent assault on his victim, standing peacefully at the side of the M5 Motorway, causing the Defendant to scream in pain was due to the manner the hand cuffs were placed on him by police constable 16878 Svetlik.
|Signed: defendant |
|Maurice Kirk <email@example.com>||07:08 (4 minutes ago)|
Dear Mr NC Evans,
I urgently need access to the DCS evidence in the case re Avon & Somerset Police system in order to take legal advice for the imminent ‘South Wales Police machine gun’ conspiracy trial 1CF03361 commencing on the 6th September21
My acquittal in the T20200177 ‘stalking’ MP nonsense and the T2021178 ‘found with a bladed article contrary to s139 of 1955 CJ Act’ acquittal on the 17th Sept 2021 will be because respective English CPS departments abided by apparent CPR unlike the South Wa;es Police and now. the Devon & Somerset police.
As your CPS has sent me access to DCS for the knife case please send to me, urgently, the DCS evidence for the MP appeals/applications currently starting at 10am today in the Royal Courts of Justice
ps A substantial civil claim against the culprits is being currently being prepared.
If someone had simply answered just one of my four years of letters, on her behalf, neither the daft ‘MP stalking’ jury trial nor this equally absurd current ‘in possession of a knife on the M5 Motorway’ would have happened nor leave me with severe financial loss.
BUT the South Wales Police ‘machine gun’ conspiracy is far more urgent as on Monday in Cardiff’s civil so called Justice Centre starts the substantive trial needing another one hundred plus witnesses.
BUT just as before, in 40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions brought by the South Wales Police, the deliberate late disclosure, this month, reveals that the dummy machine gun, retrieved from the Nottinghamshire police having stated it was not even a firearm but a heap of scrap iron, the south wales police set about tampering with the prosecution evidence.
This photo, below, of a welsh police officer’s note book only released to me this week 12 years after my acquittal from a likely mandatory 10 prison term or life in Ashworth, reveals the welsh FSS at Chepstow also deemed the ARH1 prosecution exhibit either junk or a prohibited weapon contrary to 5 (1a) of the 1968 Firearms Act
Criminal Appeal Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Acquitted from ;stalking’ an idle and very rude MP living off immoral earnings
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST MAKING OF A RESTRAINT ORDER AND SUBSQUENT VARIATION OF RESTRAINT ORDER ORDER REF: 2020101866 A4 HT
I am writing regarding my application for leave to appeal against the making of a Restraint Order by HHJ Johnson at Exeter Crown Court on 20/05/21 in the above reference, and also my subsequent application for leave to appeal regarding subsequent variation of that Order by the same Judge at Exeter Crown Court on 01/07/21, although I do not have the reference no. for that application.
As I have applied for Representation Orders on the Notices of Appeal, I would enquire if the court has ordered the relevant transcripts regarding the making of the order and its subsequent variation on 01/07/21?
If so, I would enquire as to whether these two transcripts have as yet been supplied to the Criminal Appeal Office?
If so, I would enquire if I could be sent copies of these two transcripts under CrimPR 36.11, and if there would be any charge and if so, how much?
I look forward to hearing from you.