Maurice’s Claims and their Particulars

Here is what the trial starting 7 September 2010 is about:

“For countless false imprisonments, malicious prosecutions and failure to properly investigate crimes committed against the Claimant and his family in his house, surgery, law courts and in particular in the court of The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.”

First Action (1996 – 1999):

• the Defendants (South Wales Constabulary) are not entitled to detain any person in custody without lawful authority (para 6)
• statutory duties and/or common law obligations are owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff (Maurice) and they are in breach of those duties and obligations and/or have caused nuisance to the Plaintiff and/or assaulted him and/or committed trespass to his person or property and the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage (para 7)

The Particulars consist of listing events between 1992 and 1995:

• motoring incidents after which Maurice was unlawfully detained
• burglaries of his surgery, where the Defendant arrested and/or detained a person for this offence, but refused to prosecute or provide any details to the Plaintiff to enable him to prosecute or bring a private action for damages
• incidents where the Police was found guilty in the local Magistrates Court
• incidents where the Police denied facts
• incidents where charges by the Police were withdrawn
• theft of BMW motorcycle that the police recovered without advising Maurice
• incidents of assault and threats of further incidents by a Paul Stringer where the Police refused to take a statement of complaint or to arrest or detain or charge Paul Stringer
• claims of damages, exemplary damages, special damages, special damages, costs, interest – limited to £50,000.

The Second Action (June 2002) requests not only damages and interest, but also

• An order that the Defendant shall not by himself or his servants or agents haiass the
  Claimant whether by stopping him without Iegal justification whilst he drives on public
  roads or by requiring him without legal justification to provide breath samples or to
  produce documents or to attend at police stations andior by arresting and detaining him
  without leeal iustification.

The Third Action (June 2002) is about

• false imprisonment
• conspiracy
• malicious prosecution before a jury

with a value up to £50,000.

The Fourth Action (October 2007) is about

• duty of care
• abuse of process
• failed disclosure
• Human Rights Act infringements.

The “Particulars of Claim” include:

• failed ‘disclosure’ contrary to court orders
• interference by
• Crown Prosecution Service
• HM Attorney General
• Mr Justice Andrew Collins and others

either to hand down an Extended civil Restraint order or obtain a Vexatious Litigant Order, clearly to protect the Defendant, all done without the Claimant’s prior knowledge has contravened h,s rights under the European Convention ot Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The Defendants, once their investigations are concluded, have a duty to provide to the injured party relevant information concerning the results of such investigations including, in particular, the identity of any person suspected of having caused wrong to the injured party.

The statutory and/or common duties and obligations herein mentioned are owed by the Defendants to the Claimant as the person directy affected and/or wronged and they are negligent breach of those duties and obligations or have assaulted him and/or have committed trespass to his person or property and the Claimant has suffered loss and damage.

The Defendants failed in their duty to properly, if at all, investigate and/or apprehend the perpetrators of crime. The Defendants failed to prevent or limit loss for the Claimant. Any one of the 100 or so incidents cited below, taken either in conjunction with the 40 or so incidents already in current Case numbers 85614159, Cf101741 & CF20414 (eligible for jury trial) or not indicate malice and/or a failure of duty of care by the Defendant.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons filed – on the 29th May 2OO2 the conviction of ‘common assault’ rendered the Claimanl to be ‘unfit to practice veterinary surgery’ and was struck off for life. The Claimant suffered loss due to the Defendant’s conduct.

Paragraphs 28 and 29 as background give the main reasons for Maurice being struck off the register of Veterinary Surgeons: an appalling conspiracy between the Police and another vet.

Above all, Maurice applies that this action is heard by Trial by Jury.

The Fifth Action has the title:

Court will not enforce judgement of false imprisonment by police… WHY?

The attachment shows a judgment for Claimant, ordering the Secretary of State to the Home Office, the Treasury Solicitor, to pay £15,360.

Just in case the Treasury Solicitor finds that his ‘austerity budget’ has had too many cuts to compensate victims for their hardship and injustice, here’s another argument: the Government as “Compensator of Last Resort“.