Legal Battles

Reading the case with interest. I'd like to come along to watch the proceedings. Where exactly is it being held? Cardiff Crown Court? Court Room No.??

Message to all fans from Maurice via sister Celia.

Maurice is furious that  H.H.J.Thomas would not allow his sons access to talk to him in the custody suite below the court today (Monday). His elder son had given up a day of his time as M.D. of his company in another city to visit his Dad and his younger son had travelled down from his London university to be with his Dad today but both were denied the opporunity to communicate with their Dad. They were not even allowed to talk to him after the court proceedings within the Courtroom. This is a person on remand and as such should have access to his family to maintain  the relationships.

Reliance Security continue to fail to provide medicine for Maurice's headache which he suffered all morning whilst waiting to go to court. Some of the Prison Staff also show barbaric tendencies as routine behaviour. Prison Officer 344, pulled Maurice off the phone at 0745 this morning and threw him into his cell causing him to fall and aggrevate the arthritis pain he already suffers and adding to the bruises he collected last week from similar abuse. Who will stop this disgusting behaviour on a 64year-old unconvicted person?

Can you please give this publicity?

Many thanks

Celia

Ithink I've read everything on this site. I think I can sum it up like this:

The coppers are full of *** and trying to avoid civil litigation. The Lewis gun is as dangerous as a piece of waterpipe put in a vice and a round fired down it using a hammer and a center punch.

The taunts on Maurices site are as inflammatory as if he made them astride a cannon in a public park.

The "threat" to chuck documents through the window of Dolmans is nothing.

That all is is a result of brain injury due to a plane crash is speculative garbage and there is no "this".

Do you want to know what is going to happen? I'll tell you.

If Maurices physical health can be maintained he will win.

‘Police briefed to look for a machine gun not ammunition during their search of the premises. They videoed the room after the search, why not before? So far all police have denied knowledge of Stuart Davis who interrogated Kirsty under a different occurrence number to that used by the search team. He questioned her on matters concerning Maurice’s mental state and asked about intimate marital circumstances – he falsified a statement of the information which therefore Kirsty refused to sign. He and a female police officer were shown the other aircraft in the hanger that had previously had a machine gun.

The Prosecution is also not calling Colin Warn as a prosecution witness. He is a witness to the videoing of Maurice’s office where ammunition was deliberately left on top of the papers pertaining to the court of appeal . These items do not appear on the video because anything relating to sensitive ‘issues’ were removed before evidence was committed to tape.’

Monday was largely taken up with the witness, Mr David Woodford who is the brother of Brian Woodford who sold Maurice the plane in 1997. Mr Woodford is a farmer and was a sleeping partner of Wessex Aviation. He admitted to the court that he knew nothing about aeroplanes and that the plane in question was never assembled whilst on the premises of Charlington Manor (1991 -97) whilst in possession of his brother. He told the court that the reason his brother could not give evidence was because he had a dispute with the American Customs and therefore feared arrest if he returned to the country. Mr B Woodford’s main residence was in Singapore because he is a tax exile thus he had little contact with his collection of planes, automobiles etc. This was largely left to an employed engineer. Mrs B Woodford was unable to give evidence as she is currently in prison in California.  Mr D Woodford had called his brother about the ornamental hardware and was told that this was a dummy gun and had been removed and it was under the stairs. Mr D Woodford then located a dummy gun which was not a Lewis replica under the stairs and gave it to the police. This is now an exhibit in the court. He told the court he had no recollection of it or any other dummy gun.

On Tuesday Morning

‘The prison withheld Maurice’s papers. When he returned to the prison on Monday night they refused to hand them over. That morning Prison Officer 134 took away Maurice’s pen when he was searched and promised him that it would be returned before he got onto the reliance truck. Reception staff also said that he would be given a pen by reliance at the court. Reliance, as is their custom, refused him a pen in the cell. For the first three days of the trial reliance refused him 15 boxes of legal papers because he refused to sign a piece of paper. The judge refused to intervene. On Friday and yesterday he signed their document on the clear understanding he would be provided with a photocopy. On Tuesday 2nd February he refused to sign for the fifteen to twenty boxes of legal papers.’

CAA, RAF and the prison are all now frantically communicating with each other not to be implicated in the case. Prison manager responsible for MAPPA supervision has put in writing to him that he is expediting documents for the court as to when and why and by whom Maurice was classified as MAPPA level 3 (a terrorist).’

Tuesday had a number of police officers interviewed. The first of which had to be told a number of times by the judge that his stock answers of ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I won’t answer that question as I don’t think it is relevant’  were inadequate and to answer the question. It became clear from this man’s testimony that a surveillance operation had been in place on the Sunday as well as the day of the arrest and for an unspecified reason it was aborted. A later testimony of a police man saw him state that Mr Cooper was unhappy when asked to identify what is now exhibit 1 in the case as the replica Lewis Gun that  was sold to him by Maurice.

Mr Geoffrey Martlew also gave his testimony to the court. He testified that he had been the engineer in charge of the collection at Charlington Manor for about five years and was responsible for buying the DH2 from the Imperial War Museum in Duxford in 1991 on behalf of Mr Brian Woodford.  He confirmed that the ornamental ironware on the front of the plane when he purchased it at auction was a Lewis replica and that the other gun that Mr David Woodford had handed over to the police had nothing to do with the DH2 but was a fake gun which was attached to a jeep as part of an exhibit in the Manor’s museum. He confirmed that Viv Bellemy had manufactured a large number of fake planes and therefore replica guns in the late 70s. He stated to the court that the DH2 would be unable to fly without the ornamental ironware due to its weight and position being essential. Although he said that exhibit 1 looked very much like the gun that he had bought as part of the DH2 in 1991 he could not confirm it was the same one having not seen it in ten years. He also confirmed that the gun had been part of the plane and was necessary to make the plane safe during the CAA inspection of the plane prior to its role in the Farnborough airshow of 2000.

Maurice Kirk telephoned me at 16.10 hrs 03 FEB 10. He wanted to know what went on in court today.

He said that he had had no news from Frank Werren who was representing Maurice in court in his absence. Frank told me that the judge had given him permission to visit Maurice in the prison but Frank had been refused entry into the prison.

The judge has received my 2 faxes of complaint about Maurice’s treatment and the errors in the court over evidence, see elshere on the website for the latest postings.

Now back to Maurice’s message: After the evidence given by Geoffrey Martlew of Prestige Air, Haverford West, in court yesterday, Maurice is seriously considering a libel/slander action against him. He suggested that Maurice, a pilot in command of aircraft having flown over 80 varieties of aircraft in his life, has a haphazard attitude towards regulations requiring the keeping if records such as entries in flying log book and the filing of flight plans. Maurice considers this outburst to have been quite outrageous and wholly unfounded.

Just read about your case in "UKColumn" - I salute your resilience for making the stand that we should all make. 99.9% people lack the guts to stand up against "the authorities" like you have done. You are in my thoughts brave soul.

Tim

In a Criminal Case - The bar of the "Standard of Proof" is 'supposed to be' set at its highest.  

The 'Burden of Proof' again in a Criminal case; lies with the prosecution and is far higher than the 'reasonable' test used in the Civil Courts -

assuming of course that the Civil Court is a lawfully constituted one.

If one keeps their concentration on the "specific 2

charges" in Kirks Criminal Case and does not get 'distracted' by the 'flak' and 'smokescreening' of utterly irrelevant other matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with the 2 charges ...

One could easily say; as it appears from the ongoing theatric(k)s that the prosecutions case is already shot to bits. (Pardon the puns)

The veracity of the various prosecution witnesses "testimony" to date, already clearly but more importantly FACTUALLY and LOGICALLY, have thrown up more than enough doubts (The highest bar) about the 'holes' in the case from its outset.

People need to constantly remind themselves - is what the prosecution are talking about and drawing from witnesses, 'actually' and 'absolutely' relevant to the 2 charges?

Or, is the prosecution attempting to 'leapfrog' over and bury the clear and explicit contradictions, faux pas and gaffs in its case?

It appears as if the prosecutions case by virtue of what has already come out is riddled with holes and shot to pieces.

The prosecution have stated that they are pursuing the case against Kirk in 'The Public Interest' - good; because the public - day by day are seriously becoming very interested in what seems to be a complete farce.

And as for the Press & Media - they need to properly decide as to who's side they really are on, and if they are not totally craven to the rule of flaw?

And as for any intervention by the Attorney General or The DPP Kier Starmer - that such a farce continues - does it not show them to be stooge

placepersons - scared to come out of their ivory towers?

How much taxpayers money is going to be trousered by the 'fee earners' in this case?

How much has it cost the taxpayers to date - when such vast sums of money would have been better spent chasing 'real criminals' and using the sparce prison spaces to house real criminals?

Justice and the Truth - have become two very different things in this 21st Century Socialist Communist infested Gulag.

It has been commented in the past that the South Wales Police have spent over a million pounds so far but whether that is just on this case or just on genarally harassing Maurice I am not sure. However considering the number of high profile officers in the court room or building as well as all the surveillance and man hours spent attempting to build a case with the ornamental ironware being transported up and down the country it is not inconcievable

i happened to wander into court today(thurs) and watched in awe as maurice fought his corner! can i just say he is a star!!!! he deserves justice!!!!!!!!go maurice!!!!!!!

It is strange is it not that there are now 2 guns on the run?

Mr Woodford tells us that the De Havilland DH2 aeroplane had with it a replica Lewis Machine Gun, which was a dummy and only for show purposes not capable of firing anything.

Let us say that the gun in court described variously as a Lewis Machine Gun, a composite gun made up of parts of a Lewis gun and other parts from other weapons including the barrel. This is not a Lewis Gun. One witness told the court the gun had no bolt, but he managed somehow to fire a .303 blank and a .410  shotgun cartridge from the same gun – without the bolt?? How was this possible when (1) the gun is chambered for .303, and (2) the missing bolt contains the firing pin, the ejectors and the locating recess for the but end of the cartridge. Perhaps Sir Isaac Newton got it wrong, his theory that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so if the bolt was missing what stopped either cartridge from being propelled in the opposite direction to the direction of fire? No. No. we have definitely got egg on our face!

Gun number 2 came from where? Mr Kirk had already sold the aeroplane and the “gun” to Mr.Cooper. Which of the 2 guns was sold to Mr. Cooper? Was it the replica or the composite?

The prosecution must now be in a dilemma. From where did the police get the gun that is displayed in court? Did they get it from Mr cooper? In which case Mr Kirk was not in possession of the gun.

What happened to the gun, whichever gun it was, between the time when Mr Kirk sold it to Mr Cooper and when it came into the police hands? A year or so has elapsed since Mr Kirk allegedly had a composite or replica gun in his possession. The evidence trail is cold and therefore the evidence is irrelevant and the charge fails on this count.

In any event, neither gun is a Lewis Machine Gun, which are the words on the charge sheet, so the prosecution fails on that count.

Nowhere in the evidence to date has any witness come forward to say that they specifically found a Lewis Machine gun in the possession of Mr Kirk, so the charge fails on that count. HE WAS ARRESTED ON A FALSE CHARGE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT IN POSSESSION (AT THE TIME OF ARREST) OF A LEWIS MACHINE GUN.

The police and the court ought to be fined for wasting their own time and Mr Kirk ought to be released immediately – THERE WILL BE REPERCUSSIONS!! The Mad Hatter said so! Now where did that March Hare go?

"In the Court of Public Opinion"

Ladies and Gentlemen in the Jury of greater public opinion

It's shearing .... oops! I mean Summing up Time ....

Charge 1

As a result of the shenanigans in this matter it has come into the "LIGHT" and out of the Darkness that it cannot ever be established for 'fact' that Mr Kirk had in "his possession" at any material time a deactivated and working gun.

The fact of the aforementioned has come out in evidence in that it "had not" been established until some time AFTER the sale of the item in question.

On that basis charge 1 of the prosecution's case must fall.

Charge 2

As a consequence of the failure to absolutely prove charge 1 'beyond doubt', and that the second charge was strictly dependent upon charge 1 being proved to the highest standard of proof - the second charge must therefore naturally fall away.

It has come to the attention of the court that perjury has been committed in this matter and as a result of that, no criminal investigations will be carried out by policemen who police themselves.

The Prisoner must be released, the public gallery will be cleared and the rest of the SWP must be disbanded.

By Order of the Court of Public Opinion.

must fly.

It appears that Mr. Cooper, the current owner of the ornamental ironware at the front of the DH-2 aeroplane, exhibit 1,

was in the process of adapting it to take smoke flares for display purposes. He had spray painted it SILVER. That is not the colour of the Exhibit 1! What have the Police been doing with it for the last 6 months? It was travelled up and down the country visiting Proof houses, forensic experts in Manchester, the current owner but also the Police's own Firearms Centre in Chepstow. No evidence has been heard from the prosecution on this point, why? The neutral gunsmith in Nottingham was asked specifically NOT TO INSPECT the 'gun' on receipt from Mr. Cooper, why? It looks as if the South Wales Police had plans for that exhibit and did not want an innocent gunsmith who had access before them to note anything about it.

Reference: "Entrapment"

Archbold 2008 Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice - Has The Prosecution got a copy of the red bound book or is he blindly ignoring it?

Chapter 16 paragraph 68a   > 16-68a

Quote

"Entrapment and agents provocateurs

The right to a fair trial will be violated where police officers have stepped beyond an "essentially passive" investigation of a suspect's criminal activities and  have "exercised an influence such as to incite the commission of the offence" : teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 28 E.H.R.R. 101, ECtHR. See also Ludi v. Switzerland, ante; and eurofinacom v. France [2005] Crim.L.R. 134, ECtHR. As to the application of this principal to domestic law, see R v. Loosley; Att.-Gen's Reference (No.2 of 2000) [2002] 1 Cr.App.R 29, HL (ante 4-63). As to the approach in the Commonwealth, see Mack v. R., 44 C.C.C 3(d) 513; Ridgeway v. R. (1995) 184 C.L.R. 19; and R. v. Pethig (1977) 1 N.Z.L.R. 448

As to entrapment and public interest immunity, see Edwards and Lewis v. U.K. (2005) 40 E.H.R.R. 24, ante, 12-80a"

Further reading and part quote of 16-68

Anonymity of witnesses

if the defence are deprived of the information necessary to challenge a witness's credibility, then this will amount to an insurmountable obstacle to a fair trial. Ignorance as to the identity of a witness may deprive the defence of the particulars which would enable it to demonstrate that he is prejudiced, hostile or unreliable ..............

........ As to the position of undercover police officers, see van Mechelen v. Netherlands, .....

Further reference is made here to - the bringing of "NEW CHARGES" at 1-270 Part quote:-

" .... secondly , the bringing of a new charge will be an abuse of process if the court is satisfied that (per Lord Hope) it has been brought solely for the purpose of substituting a new custody time limit, which issue can best be tested by requiring the prosecutor to demonstrate why, on the facts of the case , the bringing of the new charge is necessary, or that (per Lord Slynn) the way in which and the time at which the new charge is added or substituted , indicates that it is not done for the genuine purpose of introducing a new charge on a revised assessment of the case , but is done primarily to keep the accused in custody: R. (Wardle) v. Crown Court at Leeds [2002] 1 A.C. 754, HL ........ "

That case being about manslaughter etc.

Mr Cooper, Mr Andrew Huxtable and Mr Richard Mabbitt - seem to have been brought in as witnesses to utter 'words' which only 'imply' something - their testimony was not FACT based but hypothetical e.g. "Could" - that ambiguous word again. Nice try Mr Stoopsolow.

"Bandits at ... 24/7"

hi

can anyone tell me whether this court case is over yet? i believed the summing up was on the friday and jury were to make their decison? i am desperate to know if justice was served and that mr kirk has been released with all charges dropped!

thanks in advance

Poohbearkate the case continues. Today we heard a long and not entirely accurate summing up from the Judge and tomorrow the Jury will be expected to return a verdict.

Hopefully tomorrow we will know the outcome and whatever happens I am positive the news will be made public so just keep checking the site and google news searching for Maurice Kirk.

The investigating Police Officer, Susan Hughes admitted being in court when Dr Tegwin Williams handed the judge a psychiatric report and the results of a brain scan that caused the prosecutor Mr Tumlow, the same one that is in this trial to remind the judge, his honour Judge Bidder QC that Dr Tegwin Williams only accpeted Maurice was fit to plead as long as he was legally represented. This was because Mr Tumlow believed having examined Dr Silvers report and spoken at length to Dr Williams , director of South Wales Forensic Psyciatric Service that there was evidence of  brain damage and possible brain tumour.

Yesterday Maurice produced the transcript of that converstion.

Past MP for the Vale of Glamorgan, Walter Sweeny, Solcitor has been trying to obtain the above medical records to establish its authenticity and what immediate intervention is required.

The Judge has now summed up the case. Maurice was not able to give an adequate defence after a number of witnesses he requested were refused as 'irrelevent'. Maurcie commented on his very poor state of health and that now it has been two weeks since he has recieved his medication. Maurice told the court he was not fit to address the jury. The Judge ignored this.

The Judge, despite Maurice reminding him, failed to mention the law surronding display aircraft with replica machine guns and/or ornamental iron ware prior to the 1988 act. This makes them exempt of proof house intervention and the prohibition of modification since 1989 if not reliant on Section 13 of the 1968 firearms act whereby  it is signaling equipment policed by strict regulation as per the law. ie. it stays with the aircraft.

Marice was given the Coopers police interview tapes on Thursday and the judge arranged for a tape recorder to be sent to the prison in order that they could be heared. This was refused by the prison. When Maurice told the judge this he was told to get a friend to send in a tape recorder.

'These judges live on another planet.

A couple of calls to the Crown Court offices at Cardiff were made this afternoon.

Two seperate people at the Court have stated that Maurice Kirk was found:

                 "NOT GUILTY"

Thank God

God bless all of you who have demonstrated your belief in and support of Divine Love, Principle and Truth

I am pleased to say that Maurice John Kirk was indeed found

NOT GUILTY

Thank you to everyone who has supported him and continue to follow his plight

Congratulations!!!

When's the party?

Pingback from  Wishing for Fair Trials: in Guernsey (1983), Cardiff (2009) and UK-wide (2010) - Latest News