The headline is a copy of the "details of claim" that Maurice submitted on 28th November 2007, as what he calls "4th action". The document spells out the reasons for "the Claimant's right to have a Trial by Jury for the three Actions 85614159 CF1A1741 & CF20414 (which cover numerous false imprisonments and malicious prosecutions).

At the time, the judge claimed that this action can only go forward once the other three are completed. Well, it seems that judges keep cutting the beast into slices, because they are afraid of a collateral attack, but the current action asks for the beast as a whole with these claims:

“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."

Below I select relevant paragraphs from the text that Maurice produced. It's really sad for me to notice that its excellent quality shows how much his experiences in prison and Caswell Clinic have affected his mind...

Page 3: "Failed 'disclosure' by both the Defendant and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, contrary to court orders, delay by HM Court Service to process current actions, 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 hIs rights under the European Convention ot Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The Defendants have a duty and power to stop and arrest any person ihat they may reasonably suspect as having committed a criminal offence. Further, the Defendanls as a police authority have a duty and obligation lo fully and diligently investigate any complaint from the general public in respect of any criminal offence."

Page 4: Further or in the alternative, lhe Defendants have a duty and obligation as bailees to use their best endeavours to prolect any prope.iy which comes into their control and in particular to protect any stolen properiy 10 ensure that it is not damaged or vulnerable to further theft.. Further or in the furlher alternative, the Defendants, once their investigations are concluded, have a duty io provide to the injured party relevant information concerning the results of such investigalions 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 directly affected and/or wronged and they are negligent breach of those duties and obligations or have assaulted him and/or have ommitted trespass to his person or property and the Clajmant has suffered loss and damage.

Particulars of Claims

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 & F20414 (eligible for jury trial) or not indicate malice and/or a failure of duty of are by the Defendant.

Here are my summarising observations:

  1. This is the "mantra": The Claimant (Maurice) suffered loss due to defendant's (Police) conduct. It is being repeated across pages 5 to 10 as well as page 15 which lists 41 crime reference numbers, which is, however, not complete. The complete list would contain 130 malicious criminal charges. 

  2. Other claims are: The Defendant's conduct was unlawful.

  3. Failed Disclosure with intent to deceive and delay.

  4. Claimant applies that this action is heard by Trial by Jury.

Cessation of harassment and the righl to practice veterinary surgery was concurrent

Compared to the many other victims I've come across, the only thing missing is bankruptcy... 

This document is, of course, highly relevant to the current action and its 40-page "judgment on preliminary issues".

Is it a matter of "packaging" the documents? I fear, it's long beyond a matter of logic as long it's up to the discretion of a single judge...

For the sake of completeness, here are the preceding three actions: first action; second action; third action