As predicted in such a thoroughly corrupt welsh judiciary my eleven year running civil claim against the South Wales Police machine gun bloody nonsense conspiracy, the T2009745 criminal jury laughed out of court despite the police plant amongst them they told us about in the Cardiff pub afterwards. I now appeal with the aid of a barrister who has appeared to have poked his head over the parapet!
AS PREDICTED, SOUTH WALES POLICE ARE AGAIN BLOCKING MY REVEALING VIDEOS
In the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre 1CF03361
MAURICE JOHN KIRK Claimant
THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH WALES Defendant
CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST
FOR A CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER
- The relevant practice direction is Practice Direction 3C, which provides for three kinds of civil restraint order, a limited civil restraint order, an extended civil restraint order and a general civil restraint order. A limited order may be made where a party has made 2 or more applications which are totally without merit.
An extended order may be made ‘where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit.’
A general order may be made ‘where the party against whom the order is made persists in issuing claims or making applications which are totally without merit, in circumstances where an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate.’
- The Defendant cites the order of Morgan J in BS614159, an order some 8 years old. In fact an application was subsequently lodged before Newey J by the writer and that learned judge made no such criticism. They cite the order of Tipples J dated the 3rd September 2021 and the order of HHJ Petts dated the 17th September 2021 refusing the Claimant’s application for witness summonses and specific disclosure.
The ‘without merit threshold’
- The Defendant relies on Ghassemian Hamila Sartipy (Aka Hamila Sartipy) v Tigris Industries Inc (2019)EWCA Civ 225 a case wherein the Appellants had perpetrated fraud on both the Respondents and the court and whose application was manifestly bogus. That is not the situation here.
- It is averred the Respondents have had conduct of one of the most shameful chapters in the history of South Wales Police after the Lynette White Cardiff 5 trial. It is accepted that the Claimant has become overtly suspicious of judges and lawyers, has been constrained to litigate in person because of the sheer enormity and costs implications of the task before him and has frequently used florid language in accusing judges, courts and the police of being in partnership against him. None of these factors should be held against him against the highly unusual and alarming circumstances of BS614159 and 1CF03361 which, if they had been visited on any other single human being would have undoubtedly caused a reasonable onlooker, armed with the facts, to conclude all the Claimant’s claims were both meritorious and justified.
- The Claimant was a practising vet and highly respected, even employed by South Wales Police. He was a daredevil aviator but one whom the Civil Aviation Authority saw fit to allow to fly and participate (as recently as 2016) in Vintage Air Rallies. Notwithstanding representations by The Defendant that the Claimant brought prosecutions upon himself the Defendant managed to attempt to arrest, charge or prosecute him on no less than 33 occasions and each attempt was wholly without merit (BS614159). The Claimant invited a holistic approach, even pleading that 1CF03361 was the ‘end-game’ of BS614159. He was to be disappointed. The sheer volume of material before it persuaded the court there ought to be two trials and not one. His Honour Judge Seys-Llewellyn QC faced a daunting task but invited each incident to proceed as though in isolation of all the others permitting witnesses each time to deny their knowing Maurice John Kirk so there was no ‘over-arching’ conspiracy to do him down. With the deepest of respect, that was not necessarily the realistic approach. On oath during the recent trial in 1CF03361 DC Stuart Davies accepted most police officers were certain to have heard of the famous flying vet, Maurice John Kirk. The statistical probability of 33 incidents all being pure accidents prompted Mr. Justice Jack to question the sheer volume as heposed the question what is going on?
- The Claimant does not accept the judgment in BS614159. Would any other person in his shoes? Does that make his applications to appeal without merit? Surely not. Matters progressed with 1CF03361. In that matter the Claimant’s case was that the case notes of Operation Chalice revealed South Wales Police resurrected the Claimant having a vintage aeroplane as BS614159’s trial date approached. They prosecuted his having a prohibited weapon with extreme prejudice. The timing was significant. Case notes purported to show officers conspicuously and suspiciously searching the Claimant’s legal papers in search of evidence of a gun sale 12 months in the past so as to preserve the integrity of the organisation. The Defendant denied the magistrates’ decision to grant the Claimant bail and procured his remand in custody for no less than eight months.
- Matters took a more sinister turn. On the 8th June 2009 at Barry Police Station (the hub of all activity in BS614159) a Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) set in motion a categorisation of the Claimant that was wholly unjustified. As someone who was MAPPA 3 he was now a danger to himself and others. A psychiatric report by a tame expert could have resulted in the Claimant being incarcerated in a mental institution for life. That tame expert’s report was contradicted over the years that followed by no less than five other psychiatric reports. What would the proverbial ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ make of all this?
- Inevitably the Claimant was acquitted. This case was brought by the Claimant who invited the court to consider the following matters:
- Mr. Rydeard (Forensic Expert) accepted he had in his many years witnessed only a handful of collectors such as The Claimant prosecuted in this way. Why was he?
- Former Detective Superintendent McKenzie accepted he instigated MAPPA so why did the court find he ‘mis-spoke’? Why was this admission ignored?
- If the ‘machine gun’ had been a real automatic why were Home Office ACPO Guidelines against prosecution in the public interest not adhered to? Why did the court not allow the Claimant to rely on these as part of his case when they had both been pleaded and served in October 2020 by him?
- Section 58 Firearms Act 1968 provided a statutory defence to the Claimant. There was no way of showing the Claimant as opposed to others modernised the exhibit. Three witnesses attested to the fact that the gun had been tampered with.
- The Defendant could provide no explanation as to why the gun appeared to go to Chepstow Forensic Science Services. Did the Police make the gun capable of firing? A crucial witness did not attend trial suspiciously yet his evidence was accepted by the court even though the Claimant challenged his evidence.
- Firearms expert Mr. Rydeard said ‘once a machine gun always a machine gun’. The exhibit could not be ‘down-graded’ by subsequent modification. When confronted by the Birmingham Proof House certification the exhibit was a ‘single shot gun’ both Mr. Rydeard and the court leapt on the explanation Litts the Sportsman had a capacity to modify the gun when there was evidence this certainly was not the case.
- It is true the Claimant further feels aggrieved that his request for trial by jury was formally pleaded by him as long ago as 2011 and yet he was denied. He argued the Defendant be estopped from denying him his statutory right by dint of their pleaded response in their 2011 Defence. The Particulars of Claim were amended and a fresh Defence permitted. It was disingenuous to say that request was ten years old.
- Of course any litigant in the Claimant’s position would seek to obtain redress. If these claims and applications were without merit then why were they allowed to go to trial by senior judges exercising their court management powers? Why was the machine gun case kept alive for in excess of ten years? Why was the Defendant afforded the luxury of Leading Counsel at great public expense if all one was fronted with were the ramblings of an idiot?
- Most disturbing of all, why was the Defendant’s continued conduct in having the Claimant incarcerated in recent years (again without merit MP Exeter Crown Court prosecution) permitted to prevail so that the Claimant was denied Relief from Sanctions when he was incarcerated and documentary evidence served on the court showed they had stolen all his case papers whilst in prison?
- The Claimant renewed Leave to Appeal The Honourable Mrs Justice Stacey’s refusal to grant Relief from Sanctions and to allow the Claimant trial by jury. Great play is made of the observations of Tipples J on the 3rd September. With the deepest of respect if, as claimed by the Learned Judge, the Claimant had failed to request an oral hearing why any hearing before Tipples J at all? Why did the Defendant file a document entitled Respondent’s skeleton Argument for Oral Permission Hearing 3rd September 2021? The Claimant will aver matters were not assisted by the fact his legal representative could neither hear not understand Tipples J because of technical difficulties.
- In conclusion, if any ECRO is granted the court merely compounds the Claimant’s overall position that he was deprived of the right to call evidence, deprived a fair trial and all the indicia of bias he is told are but phantoms of his mind are, regrettably, fact.
David Jonathan Leathley
29th September 2021