02 Legal Battles

I FIND IT INCREDIBLE!

Dad tells me he is not getting his faxes in, or able to send out urgent correspondance, either facts or recorded/registered post from the Caswell Clinic, Bridgend.

He can't even speak in private to witnesses, frantic to help him, before he receives a prison sentence of indeterminate length next Monday.

My understanding is that if you get vmjmurphy to act as Mayrice' lawyer, then next Monday events can be postponed. So I would put effort into getting vmjmurphy acting for you.

Thanks, Fred. The transcript of the most recent hearing makes it very plain that the Judge was trying very hard indeed to persuade Maurice to instruct lawyers to represent him. He even went so far as to grant a Representation Order (Legal Aid) without Maurice having made any such request. He also spelled out to some extent what needed to be done. The Judge also expressed a view that Maurice's refusal to instruct lawyers when it is very clearly in his best interests is suggestive of the kind of mental imbalance that is being investigated by the Caswell.  In the circumstances. if Maurice were to even now instruct lawyers to represent him I think it likely the court would accede to a request for adequate  time to prepare a proper defence  - Maurice has plainly not been in a position to carry out the necessary work himself. Along with all of us here, the last thing the Judge wants is for Maurice to be convicted because he has not adequately defended himself. But time is now becoming a real issue.  I would urge readers of this site to download and read the transcripts of the hearings that have been posted here. They are very instructive and clearly demonstrate why Maurice needs proper representation.

Maurice is denied a copy of the psychiatrists report, nor is he permitted to send a copy out of the clinic. However, he has managed to dictate parts of the report onto my telephone recorder as appended below:

AN EXTRACT FROM THE PSYCHIATRISTS REPORT ON MAURICE KIRK.

LEGAL.

“Paragraph 32. Maurice Kirk’s history is complex, convoluted and difficult to understand. The clinical picture appears to be of a man who has always had a background of minor cognitive difficulties,  (poor writing and spelling).. He developed a personality characterised by narcissism (abnormal sense of entitlement), grandiosity (believing that normal rules and regulations do not apply to him) and paranoia (believing he is the victim of persecution). He also shows evidence of poor judgement, impetuosity and a willingness to hold himself hostage by way of hunger strike in an attempt to manipulate his environment. Whilst these personality characteristics have undoubtedly overshadowed Maurice Kirk’s life, and probably had a negative effect on his social and family functioning, they appear to have been reasonably stable throughout his life. However, Maurice Kirk and the evidence both suggest that over the past two years his functioning has deteriorated and that his beliefs have become more intense and that his beliefs have become more intense and overwhelming and at times, to  no others, and purely act normal. Maurice Kirk now shows clear evidence of some degree of neuro-cognitive damage (brain damage), probably as a result of a combination of normal ageing, previous heavy alcohol misuse and deceleration injuries following plane crashes. The specific area of brain damage affects his ability to monitor and control his behaviour, decreases self awareness, judgement and decision making abilities and have compounded his paranoid beliefs to the extent that when subjected to further stress, his beliefs intensify so that for periods they have a quality of paranoid delusional disorder (mental illness characterised by fixed false beliefs unamenable to reason of a paranoid nature).

“Paragraph 33. With regard to treatment neither Maurice Kirk’s underlying personalities or brain damage will respond to medical intervention. Due to the transient nature of his clearly abnormal beliefs, as opposed to his general paranoid view of the world, it is unlikely that medication will make any significant impact, tough it is impossible to be certain. Appropriate medication has been offered to Maurice Kirk which he has refused.

“Paragraph 34. Clinically it is unclear whether Maurice Kirk’s brain damage is likely to progress. Should it be so his difficulties will become more marked and he will become more obviously disabled. Of particular concern is that this may well involve increasing impulsivity and poor judgement,  features which are already apparent.

“Paragraph 35. With regard to risk, risk is always difficult to quantify especially in highly complex cases such as this and it is almost impossible to consider Maurice Kirk’s risk in isolation from those he encourages to act on his behalf. The risk of Maurice Kirk continuing his action against South Wales police and acting in a way that he feels justified to achieve his ends is high, but whether Maurice Kirk himself would be involved in inter personal violence is less, it cannot be discounted nor is the risk that others would act violently with his encouragement. If Maurice Kirk’s condition is progressive, these risks are likely to increase over time.”

CLINICAL.

“Paragraph 36. I have been asked to give my mind to the issue as to whether or not Maurice Kirk is fit to plead and stand trial. Maurice Kirk clearly understands the nature of the charge and the significance of the plea. However, due to Maurice Kirk’s mental disorder described above, specifically his brain damage and its relationship to self awareness, judgement, decision making, self regulation of behaviour and control of emotions, combined with difficulty in organising and sequencing information, his inability to filter out relevant information and his problems with attention and concentration, his overwhelming perception of himself as being a victim of persecution by the system, all of which are clearly evident in discussions with him concerning the alleged offence, he appears unable to address a specific legal and technical area of law necessary to appropriately conduct his defence.”

“Paragraph 37. Should Maurice Kirk be legally represented in court, I would consider him a fit person to stand trial as a legal representation would be able to focus on the relevant features.

“Paragraph 38. Maurice Kirk’s current clinical presentation is clearly causing major problems for the criminal justice system, though is not of a nature and degree to warrant compulsory treatment. He would, however, benefit from continued contact with mental health services to both monitor his condition and attempt to establish a relationship which would allow other treatment avenues to be explored.

“Paragraph 39. I am aware that my opinion will cause significant difficulties for the court.. I am also aware of the difficulties that the court has had gaining further psychiatric evidence which to a degree is due to Maurice Kirk’s perceived ability to intimidate and threaten those who become involved in his case. Should Maurice Kirk rerquest in patient hospital treatment. I have concerns that a medium secure unit would not be able to provide the degree of procedural security necessary to maintain the safety of its staff, because of the confidentiality of other patients and the necessary security. Should the court wish a second opinion, they may wish to consider instructing a psychiatrist from a high security hospital to assess Maurice Kirk both as to treatment and the environment in which that treatment should take place. I stress that the requirement for  conditions of specific security are purely as a result of Maurice Kirk’s communications with the encouragement of others, rather than his clinical presentation.

“Paragraph 40. Maurice Kirk can return to court for any disposal that the court sees fit.”

public domain info -

Archbold 2008 - Criminal Pleadings and

                            Evidence.

Page 1352/3 - Chapter 10-63b

Title - Expert's duty and content of report.

See 10 - 63 (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j)

10 - 63(e) [Rules 33.3 (1) & (2)]

[note: additional emphasis has been added to the original text - as below in the underlining of certain words]

                 Content of expert's report

   33.3 - (1) An expert's report must

   (a) give details of the experts qualifications,    

         relevant experience and accredation;

   (b) give details of any literature or other

         information which the expert has relied on    

         in making the report;

   (c) contain a statement setting out the substance

         of all facts given to the expert which are

         material to the opinions expressed in the

         report or upon which those opinions are

         based;

   (d) make clear which of the facts stated in the    

         report are within the experts own

         knowledge;

   (e) say who carried out any examination,

         measurement, test or experiment which the

         expert has used for the report and -

       (i)   give the qualifications, relevant experience

              and accredation of that person,

       (ii)  say whether or not the examination,

              measurement, test or experiment was

              carried out under the expert's

              supervision and,

       (iii)  summarise the findings on which the    

              expert relies

   (f) where there is a range of opinion on the

       matters dealt with in the report -

       (i)  Summarise the range of opinion and

       (ii) give reasons for his own opinion;

   (g) if the expert is not able to give his opinion

         without qualification, state the qualification;

   (h) contain a summary of the conclusions

         reached;

   (i)  Contain a statement that the expert    

        understands his duty to the court, and has

        complied and will continue to comply with that

        duty; and

   (j) Contain the same declaration of truth as a

       witness statement

   33.3 (2)

       Only sub-paragraphs (i) and (j) of Rule 33.3

       (1) apply to a summary by an expert of his

       conclusions served in advance of that expert's

       report

The Moral right of this blogger to express and impart information as these views, opinions and ideas is asserted and Cited.

Also Cited : Article 19 of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948).

The Discredited World of Psychiatry - some facts surrounding a published book and new evidence which has come from the courts.

Many professionals who make a living in the world of psychiatry - have recently been totally and utterly "discredited". Why do the mainstream press and media remain silent about it all? Are they not damned by their own silence? What happened to the Publish and be damned ethos?  

Psychiatrists; many of them especially those who suffer from their own form of Narcissism; who like being used in court to "get convictions" are nothing, nor no better than - "Quacks" & "Snake Oil Salesmen".

Rest in Peace - Sally Clark put there by the spinelessness of so many within her own profession.

Quacksperts are b(r)ought into the courts to give the impression and perception / deception of things being factual when they are but only risible and contemptible opinions. This art form of duplicity and deceit originated in Soviet Socialist Communist Russia and has been despicably honed and used to 'abuse' around the world.

Reference is made here to The "Published" book.

and in particular to page 290.

The book was published in 2003

             ISBN - 0593 04696X  

The Author was Dr Raj Persaud

Title of Book - "From the Edge of the Couch"

This 2009 Review of the book is in light of evidence that has had a light shone on upon it since 2003.

Persaud listed some 100+ other persons in his book as if to endear himself and those he attributed - as being so great in their field. They do all love to backslap and promote one another in their Cognitive Dissonance cocoon. [See The Times, Timesonline, D Finkelstein, - 'Justice can't be done in secret. And here's why' July 9th 2008]  

It is a sad matter of fact - that so many Psychiatrists 'allow themselves' to propagate such fictions and lies - and to be the tool / fools - who get innocents incarcerated unlawfully. They utter just enough and then the process seamlessly moves from fiction to fact.

The significance of page 290 is explained shortly. However some points need to be layed out first in respect of the page.

From the publication of the book from 2003 onwards - Dr Persaud - 'gloried in his fame'. [The words egotist and Narcissism - spring to mind] He became a regular 'celebrity expert' on television - particularly the BBC.

However during the years 2003 to 2008 - the issue of 'expert' witness - namely Sir Professor Roy Meadows and 'his testimony' (and beliefs) given in court about 'Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy' [MSbP] was also widely discussed throughout the world.

Finally in 2008 - Meadows and his theories of MSbP were Publicly Discredited along with  the other 'TV expert' Dr Southall.  This included in the courts where Meadows' testimony led to the imprisonment of several women - one of whom was Sally Clark.

So when by chance page 290 of Persaud's book was read in 2009 - some follow on events were logically realised as to why it was in 2008 that Persaud was being sidelined and quietly taken out of the glare of his 'celebrity expert status' particularly on the BBC.

At page 290 of his book Persaud had gloried in his own 'expert status' - whilst attaching himself to; and quoting of Meadows' theories on MSbP.

Quoted below are the particular paragraphs of page 290 - which, when read with the above; adequately point to the 'fictions' propagated as if they were fact by so many in the created field of psychiatry - which is greatly intermingled with the world of the law.

This review is specifically - pointed at quacks who go into court - with no knowledge whatsoever of the legal process save to utter their piece and bag their fee.

Please note below that Persaud uses the words "it is a serious form of child abuse,..."

Persaud therefore propagates MSbP as a 'Fact' !

There are 2 comments below within the quote - surrounded by double squared brackets [[ ....]]

Page 290 - paragraps 2 & 3:-

" Munchausen syndrome by proxy was recognised

  by Dr Roy Meadows in 1977. It is a serious form

  of child abuse, often overlooked for several    

  weeks, months or years. Numerous patients have

  been described with a wide variety of symptoms,

  including apnea, seizure disorders, intractable

  vomiting and /or diarrhoea, gastrointestinal

  bleeding, septicaemia, hypoglycaemia and

  cystic fibrosis.

                    [[The author endears himself to

                              medical terminology]]

 In all of the cases so far reported the mother of a

 female caretaker was described as pleasant, co-

 operative, and appreciative and supportive of

 good medical care. They were also intelligent and

 medically knowledgeable.

                      [[The author endears himself

                        further to the medical world]]

 The recognition of Munchausen syndrome by

 proxy is a milestone in child protection, and the

 increasing number of these tragic case reports is

 testimony to Dr Meadow's astute observations.

 Some had suggested that 'Meadow's syndrome'

 be used not only as a tribute to Dr Meadows's

 work but also in recognition of the fact that Baron

 von Munchausen never harmed a child."

                          [End of Quote]