Case ref no. include: 01306/2014,00031/2013 &01306/2014
Criminal Cases Review Commission
12th March 2016
The Commission’s Refusal to Disclose Cardiff Court Records, requested by both Defendant and Crown Court Jury causing three Years of Imprisonment
Proposed Claim for Judicial Review to:
- The Manager,
Criminal Cases Review Commission
- Court Manager,
Cardiff Crown Court,
- The Court Manager,
- Crown Prosecution Service (Wales)
- HM Governor
- Chief Constable of South Wales Police
- Dr XX of Caswell Clinic Glanrhyd Hospital
- Professor Rodger Wood of Swansea University
- The Claimant
Maurice John Kirk
10. Reference Details
01306/2014,00031/2013 &01306/2014 & this list is not exhaustive
- The Details of the matter being challenged
Failed disclosure of records contrary to Article 6 and Criminal Procedural Rules
12. The issues include:
- The Commission’s failure to disclose to the Claimant the Cardiff Magistrates and HM Crown Prosecution Service’s records that were in their possession when required by the Appellant for 1st March 2012 Crown Court appeal following his 1st Dec 2011 harassment conviction of Dr XX contrary to The Prevention of Harassment Act 1997.
- The Commission’s failure to disclose to the Claimant the Cardiff Crown Court and HM Crown Prosecution Service’s records that were in their possession before the Claimant’s 4th May 2012 Cardiff Crown Court conviction for breaching the terms of a restraining order.
- That court order was purported to have been served by GEOAmey Custody Services manager, Lee Barker and witnessed by the Clerk of the Court, Michael Williams, hiding in the nearby cell for his own protection. Only a part hand written draft document, of unknown origin, was brought into and taken out of the Claimant’s cell and witnessed by three GEOamey staff required to have been present for a MAPPA Category 3 Level 3 victim.
- No restraining order was served on the Claimant, on 1st December 2011, by either the Court clerk, Michael Williams or Lee Barker, the custody officer and tape recording of court proceedings are at gross variance to those versions of court records so far disclosed.
- The Commission’s failure to disclose to the Claimant Cardiff Magistrates, Bristol Crown Court and Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) records, following the private person’s arrest of the original 1st December 2011 HM Crown prosecutor, David Gareth Evans, for having attempted to switch the court exhibits as he had added, part way through proceedings, a further fabricated allegation for retrospective custodial sentence already served.
- The South Wales Police seized the court records and CPS Exhibits to prevent the Claimant showing them both 2012 and 2014 Cardiff Crown Court juries and conspired further, across the water, by preventing the Claimant their use at Bristol Crown Court appeal concerning the arrest of David Gareth Evans.
- The Commission’s failure to disclose these relevant copied documents, in the above hearings, when almost all of the originals have now either been clumsily altered and or redacted by the Cardiff cabal, leaves only CCRC copy, Ms Thomas, you to still have in your possession.
- The copious notes taken down, upon the Claimant’s insistence, by the original clerk of the magistrate’s court and the various draft restraining orders made by David Gareth Evans and others, since, along with the 4th May 2012 jury note, were all deliberately withheld from Lord Justice Leveson et al at the Claimant’s March 2013 Court of Appeal hearing.
- The Commission’s failure to properly respond to Claimant’s letter:
7 August 2015
FOI and DPA Officer Criminal Cases Review Commission 5 St Philip’s Place Birmingham
DPP V MAURICE JOHN KIRK BVSc – APPLICATION UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 AND/OR DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
I write to request to be supplied with copies of all documents that are retained on the Criminal Cases Review Commission file in respect of my request to review my conviction at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on 1 December 2011 before DJ John Charles, and my subsequent appeal to Cardiff Crown Court dismissed by HHJ Hughes on 1 March 2012, and my trial and conviction at Cardiff Crown Court before HHJ Curran QC on 4 May 2012.
You may be aware that copies of originals are obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as a result of the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v Information Commissioner  EWCA Civ 388, copy enclosed.
Regarding the parts of the documents that I appear to be the “direct focus” under the Durant ruling, I request to be supplied with complete un-redacted copies under section 7(1)(a) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Regarding the parts of those documents that I may not be the “direct focus” of, I simultaneously apply under section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I therefore apply for complete copies of all of the documents of which I am and am not the “direct focus” of, I request the complete and un-redacted copies under both the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 simultaneously.
While fully accepting that the Durant ruling permitted disclosure of “data” of which the subject is the “direct focus” of, so that material that didn’t constitute “direct focus” data could be redacted, this in my view would be inapplicable to a dual application as with the case here.
There also would appear to be nothing in either the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Durant ruling that prevents the additional none “direct focus” data in a document also being supplied simultaneously, provided that the data controller is a public body subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I make this application under section 8(1) of Information Act 2000 and/or section 7(1)(a) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
It all stinks, does it not?
- The Claimant will therefore seek an order from the court for full South Wales Police/Crown Prosecution, HMC&TS, HMP Cardiff and GEOAmey records, originating from the arrest of the Claimant to this present date, not protected by either professional privilege or Public Interest Immunity, to be disclosed to the Administrative Court to be referred back to the Criminal Court of Appeal.
- The Claimant will further seek a Mandatory Order and/or Injunction directing punitive damages for destroying his family life, health, wealth, state of mind and right to practice veterinary surgery and fly, as pilot in command, UK reg. aircraft.
- Tel Claimant will further seek damages under section 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a breach of article 10(1) ECHR as incorporated under schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
- The Claimant will further again seek legal representation, de bono if necessary.
7 Details of any other action that the Defendant is expected to take remains reserved
8 Details of the legal advisers, if any, dealing with this claim remains unknown
he details of any interested parties
- D. Roberts,
Senior Crown Prosecutor,
Crown Prosecution Service,
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
The Civil Aviation Authority
10 The Details of information sought
This was already been identified, repeatedly, in correspondence over the years, on visits and via legal representation essential cps and Cardiff court records are still being altered, redacted or shredded as the case progresses.
- The Details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary
This has also been identified in previous correspondence and all currently refused leaving, therefore, the required disclosure of data by those with inherent dishonesty that prevented the Claimant from having access to his British criminal and civil courts, whilst being detained in HMP Cardiff, HMP Park, HMP Swansea and HMP Bristol, on no less than seven occasions.
This is a critically related CCRC matter and also affecting the Claimant’s current civil damages claims BS614159 etc and his blocked ‘machine gun’/Falsified MAPPA registration conspiracy claim, all against the South Wales Police and blocked by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC.
Case BS614159 is entering its 24th year only because the South Wales Police has been allowed to openly conspire with others, in similar positions of privilege, to achieve their ‘end game’.
Protracted only because the original Bristol hearing had been promised a jury and so transferred to Wales for the rules to be changed and for critical memories to fade, witnesses to die, go mentally ill or simply emigrate as all has been the case over the decades.
Protracted only to have the case transferred to Wales for court files and exhibits to go AWOL, on the pretext the Claimant was a ‘vexatious litigant’, confiscated, lost or so seriously damaged the Claimant can no longer accept full competence or capacity in understanding the over two hundred arch many damaged lever files, in this his only first civil case.
Other cases are stacking up behind with the Claimant incorrectly, may be, in believing they are being now unlawfully stayed, at source, to further exacerbate his already subsequent neural deficit, witnessed in the months of evidence heard from similarly ageing ninety nine witnesses, resulting from this most unusual and extreme bullying, dating right back to the mid 70s with his aircraft in transit through The Principality, by the South Wales Police.
- The address for reply and service of court documents
- Proposed reply date
I would invite you to respond within fourteen days of receipt of this letter.
Maurice John Kirk