Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, tonight, blocked my application for an MP allocation re G4S South Wales Police  ‘machine gun’ robbery

In the light of the Speaker of the House’s refusal, today, to allocate an appropriate MP to ask obvious questions over the vicious robbery, two years ago today by G4S Park prison to steal my legal files, re South Wales Police’ chief constable’s ‘machine gun conspiracy, my current intention is to represent Taunton Deane as ‘what really is going on’ in our law courts and community that needs radical reform?.

IS IT TRUE THAT WE HAVE A GENERAL ELECTION SOONER THAN LATER?

.Maurice seeks help from Mr Speaker from HM House of Commons

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL                                                REF. NO.

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

THE QUEEN

– v –

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

_____________________________________________________________

AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE
MAKING OF A RESTRAINING ORDER

_____________________________________________________________

DRAFT REDACTED VERSION

(These grounds have been prepared with the assistance of lay McKenzie advisers assisting Mr. Kirk with Mr. Kirk’s permission, who was unrepresented at the trial and conducted his own defence.)

APPEAL AGAINST THE MAKING OF A RESTRAINING ORDER UNDER SECTION 5A(5)(A),(B) OF THE PROTECTION OF HARASSMENT ACT 1997

1. The Appellant was acquitted of 1 count of Harassment by Stalking, contrary to section 2A(a),(b) of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 before HHJ Johnson and a jury at the Crown Court at Exeter on 20^th May 2021.

• At the conclusion of the trial, HHJ Johnson imposed a Restraining Order for a limited time against the Appellant under section 5A(1) of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 on the same date in respect of an MP.

• The Appellant now seeks leave to appeal against the making of that Restraining Order as though it had been made on his conviction as part of his sentence under section 5A(1),(5)(a),(b) of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

LACK OF PROPER REASONS JUSTIFYING THE MAKING OF THE RESTRAINT ORDER

• It is contended that although the learned Judge applied the correct civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities in making the Restraining Order against him, the learned Judge failed to give sufficient reasons for the making of the Order, in view of the fact that the Appellant had been acquitted of the charge against him by the jury.

• In particular, the learned Judge failed to identify the acts or any specific acts in relating to the Appellant’s conduct that in his view would have justified the Restraining Order being made against the Appellant.

ARTICLE 10(1) ECH, HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

• The learned Judge erred in law and/or in principle in directing that the Appellant may not publish anything concerning an MP, thereby interfering with the Appellant’s “right to freedom of expression” under article 10(1) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998.

• Further, the learned Judge failed to take into account or consider the Appellant’s “Convention Rights” and in particular his “right to freedom of expression” under article 10(1) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998 when making the Restraining Order against him.

• The prohibition against the Appellant from publishing anything about an MP restrains the Appellant from commenting on the competence and reliability of an MP, when such matters as to her conduct in not responding to the Appellant’s requests to her and her constituency officer for help is a matter of public interest and importance regarding the democratic system and accountability of elected MPs to their electorates.

• In the premises, the making of the Restraining Order against the Appellant was disproportionate and was not “prescribed by law, or “necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” for the purposes of article 10(2) ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998.

MEDICAL REASONS AND GROUNDS

1. During the Exeter hearing before the learned Judge, the Appellant experienced medical problems that he had not experienced before and medical evidence will be sent to the court regarding this.

1. The outcome of the Atrial Fibrillation caused the Appellant confusion and with the loss of the Appellant’s hearing aids at the hearing, the Appellant was deprived of a clear understanding of the relevance of a Restraining Order being required following an obviously predicted acquittal. (The CPS had conceded the Appellant sent only two letters to an MP, which is not correct and were a year apart!).

1. During the morning of 10^th May 2021, the Appellant had to go to the accident and emergency Department of Exeter Hospital by ambulance from the court, and the learned Judge was informed regarding this, so that the proceedings did not resume until the afternoon session.

1. The Appellant’s condition caused memory loss with the lack of oxygen to his brain for proper concentration so that he was unable to comprehend the circumstances of the order being sought.

Dated 28^th Oct 2021

Signed

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

Appellant in Person