Legal Battles

Welsh Assembly Elections draw Near, Edwina Hart AM, Jane Hutt AM

Subject: ATTENTION: DAVID SISSLING - WALES NHS

Dear Mr. Sissling

MAURICE KIRK

I am a Canadian writer who has been following the story of Mr. Maurice Kirk very closely, and I wondered if you would kindly confirm that:

(a)   Mr. Kirk, his Member of Parliament, and the Minister of Health wrote to you, asking for his medical files so that he could have much needed surgery, and

(b)   you have not yet provided them please?

I am working on a follow up story regarding one of the recent news reports about Maurice Kirk but, at the same time, I am writing another story on Britain today, which includes health care and policing, as well as other social issues.

Flying Vet Approaches UK Parliament in Fight against South Wales Police

Could you please tell me

(a) how long you can legally withhold Mr. Kirk's healthcare file in the UK, and what would be possible reasons for doing so?

(c)   what are the statutes of limitations in Britain and Europe, were he to sue you personally for Breach of Care Causing Harm, Failure to Act, and other gross negligence issues?

(d)   have you been mandated to withhold his file by police, or some other body and, if so, what are their reasons for that please? If not, is this an oversight, or have you been away on vacation with nobody to act in your place when you are absent? Is there a policy for staff to handle correspondence in your absence, or do they wait for your return?

(e)   Are you aware that it is also human rights issue to deny someone medical care, directly or indirectly, and that human rights activists around the world are monitoring Mr. Kirk's story?

(f)     Would you say that you will be in a position to respond to the letters sent to you by Mr. Kirk, his Member of Parliament, and the Minister of Health Edwina Hart by November 3, 2010? If not, could you explain please?

(g)   Are you aware that withholding medical treatment, either directly or indirectly, is not only Elder Abuse, but much worse?

(h)   Is this standard practice in the UK, or is it simply an oversight?

(i)     Is there a policy in the UK to prevent the elderly from expensive surgery or hospital stays, due to a drain on the healthcare system? Would this be a reason to deny Maurice Kirk's request?

(j)      Is there a shortage of doctors and healthcare providers, as there is in Canada, and would this be a reason to deny Mr. Kirk treatment?

(k)   Now that you are aware of the urgent need for Mr. Kirk's file, will you be able to deliver it please, or afford the MP, Minister of Health and Mr. Kirk the courtesy of a reply to their letters?

(l)      Would you be able to send it via express courier, or is there an NHS policy not to use couriers in your country?

(m)     Do you need to be supplied with extra copies of the letters that were sent to you? Have they been lost?

I very much look forward to hearing from you, as Canadians are puzzled as to why Mr. Kirk's files have not been sent. In Canada, his request would come under the Freedom of Information Act, and you would have only 30 days to respond to the request, so we are watching the outcome with great interest.

Thank you so much for your co-operation.

Yours sincerely,

Anonymous

Ms Kate Bloomfield,
Deputy Head of Redress and Investigations,
National Health Service
Port Talbot
South Wales

26th December 2010

NHS Withheld Falsified Medical Records of Maurice John Kirk

It is over a year now since a Dr Tegwyn Williams and a Professor Roger Wood agreed to submit apparently erroneous medical evidence to the 2nd December 09 Cardiff Crown Court hearing with HHJ Bidder QC. They recommended I be sectioned to HM Broadmoor, IPP, Imprisonment for Public Protection.

I understand the Crown Prosecutor heard Dr Williams tell the court I may have a brain tumour along with the joint diagnosed opinion, of the two named doctors, that I had 'significant brain damage'. See here for request of information by HH Judge Seys Llewellyn QC and transcript of hearing.

1. HM Court Service refuse to disclose the evidence given to the judge either by my access to tape, transcript or court log, all public documents from a court of so called record.

2. No NHS doctor or South Wales NHS department, with that information, will respond to my request for that urgent record to be disclosed.

3. The GMC also appear to ignore my complaints on the matter which is, of course, of no surprise.

4. Lawyers, Morgan Cole, employed by you, have also failed to inform me of any reasoning as to why either my GP or myself are not entitled to that information, especially in the light of both my orthopaedic surgeon and anaesthetist, for my now long overdue operation, having also asked for it.

5. Various dubiously safe but unnecessary brain scans, taken in September 09, to recommend my further incarceration in NHS Caswell Clinic Prison were referred to in the 2nd December 09 evidence as significant. These scans were recommended, by both doctors, to be repeated within six months. No mention of this has since been made to me and despite my requests, both in custody and since my acquittal in February 09 of all charges, I am being refused any follow up scan or appropriate clinical examination.

6. HM Crown Prosecution Service, Cardiff, have also received the record used in that 2nd December 09 hearing. CPS, Wales, also refuse to disclose any of the proceedings, held in my absence, it having been dependent on this collusion with your NHS in order to avoid the January 2010 scheduled trial of scandalous indictments levelled against me, each carrying a five year prison sentence.

7. Your department's conduct in this matter, for well over a one year period, clearly points to criminal conduct by just too many in positions of privilege, the very reason for this widespread cover up.

8. So I wish to know for just how much longer you and others in the South Wales NHS intend to continue covering up this incident? Will you eventually break ranks or pretend I and my many supporters have just crawled back under a large stone?

9. In other words:
a.what prevents you from disclosing and releasing the specific documents in question?
b. why have Morgan Cole not written to me as you had announced?
c. why didn't you follow up by email when you wrote you wanted to deliver documents by mail?
d. if you think those documents satisfy my doctors' requirements, include the 2nd December 09 material, you can still send them to me at my address in France where I am in political asylum due to South Wales Police persecution and threat on my life: Puits aux Papillons, St. Doha, 22230 Merdrignac, Brittany.

Looking forward to hearing from you in due course,

Copy to Alun Cairns MP, Edwina Hart AM

Published Dec 26 2010, 06:02 PM by Maurice Kirk

Comments

Meirion said:

Before any sane human being considers putting a cross against the names of Edwina Hart and Jane Hutt in May, consider the human suffering that these individuals, their fellow bureaucratic terrorists and their associates in the HM Partnership have caused to other human beings.

If you treated an animal the way they have treated humans like Maurice Kirk, Peter Bellett, Linda Lewis and many many others, you would be imprisoned.

These individuals can carry out attempts of culpable murder and be exempt of law.

Bigwhistleblower said:

Upon reviewing the Criminal & Civil cases with respect to Mr Kirk and noting above all:- his "Acquittal" in the Criminal matter - there are still several unresolved loose ends which inextricably tie the Criminal and Civil cases together.

The unresolved questions surrounding the area of non-disclosure of documents & medical records is the key point.

Many are and continue to question as to why so many people from several organisations are refusing to disclose documentary evidence AND what can be the reasoning for those failures to disclose?

Please ponder the following - very carefully ...

The issue is this:-

Did the Judge/s across both cases take a huge "Risk"? And has that "Risk" - backfired on them?

Dr Tegwyn Williams' Testimony and reports were greatly "relied upon" by The Court and across both cases Civil & Criminal.

It is asserted (by way of evidence which has come to light before, during and after the Criminal case) that The Court [See Archbold extract below] and

contrary to the law in Criminal proceedings did "take and run the risk" of using "a quack a charlatan" in the Criminal proceedings and with the forward view that Mr Kirk would be found guilty in the Criminal trial.

To explain briefly 'Psychiatrists' are used every day in "Civil" proceedings and are sickeningly still as we approach 2011 immune to being prosecuted for their lies, assertions, assumptions, half-truths etc. whereby they get away virtually with murder in the Civil courts. [Reference is made here to the book - The Gulag of the Family Courts by Jack Frost pages 172 to 176 "It works something like this"]

Back to Mr Kirk's case the Criminal trial and remembering he was "acquitted".

Could the reason that so many lesser organisations are refusing [Are they suborned?] to disclose documentary evidence be that it can be shown that The Court [See Archbold extract below "... for the judge to determine "] itself has used Dr Tegwyn Williams' testimony and reports unlawfully in that they have used a quack a charlatan in the criminal proceedings - aside of the civil proceedings.

The quack charlatan words are used in Archbold with particular emphasis upon whether someone is an expert witness.

Note also the references to "scientific basis". Science and data if flawed are a lethal combination - which do lead to many miscarriages of justice.

Below is the quote - apart from where [Think] has been inserted - to ask the reader to ponder what they have "just read" bearing in mind that they have sufficient background knowledge of Mr Kirk's Cases.

Expert evidence Archbold 2008 pgs 1354 & 1355

Qualifications 10-65

"Whether a witness is competent to give evidence as an expert is for the judge to determine [Think]:R. v. Silverlock, ante.

In R. v. Bonyhton (1984) 38 S.A.S.R. 45, King C.J., giving the principal judgment of the South Australia Supreme Court, said that there were two questions for the judge to decide. [Think]

"The first is whether the subject matter of the opinion falls within the class of subjects upon which expert testimony is permissible. This ... may be divided into two parts: (a) whether the subject matter of the opinion is such that a person without instruction [Think] or experience in the area of knowledge or human experience would be able to form a sound judgment on the matter without the assistance of witnesses possessing special knowledge or experience in the area, and (b) whether the subject matter of the opinion forms part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognized to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience, a special acquaintance with which by the witness would render his opinion of assistance to the court. The second question is whether the witness has acquired by study or experience sufficient knowledge of the subject to render his opinion of value in resolving the issues before the court.

An investigation of the methods used [Think] by the witness in arriving at his opinion [Think] may be pertinent, in certain circumstances, to the answers to both the above questions. If the witness has made use of new or unfamiliar techniques or technology, the court may require to be satisfied [Think] that such techniques have a sufficient scientific basis [Think] to render results arrived at by that means part of a field of knowledge which is a proper subject of expert evidence ... . [Think] Where the witness possesses the relevant formal qualifications to express an opinion on the subject, an investigation on the voir dire of his methods will rarely be permissable on the issue of his qualifications. There may be greater scope for such examination where the alleged qualifications depend upon experience or informal studies ... .

Generally speaking, once the qualifications are established, the methodology will be relevant to the weight of the evidence and not to the competence of the witness to express an opinion .... If the qualifications of a witness to give expert evidence are in issue, [Think] it may be neccessary to hear evidence on the voir dire in order to make a finding as to those qualifications. If there is an issue as to whether the subject matter upon which the opinion is sought is a proper subject of expert evidence, any disputed facts [Think] relevant to the determination of that issue should be resolved by the reception of evidence on the voir dire (at pp.46-48).

In R. v. Hodges [2003] 2 Cr.App.R 15, CA, it was held that a drugs squad police officer giving evidence in relation to the street value of drugs, etc., met the Bonython test of admissibility. As to drugs, see also R. v. Ibrihima [2005] Crim.L.R. 887, CA (defence should have been allowed to call evidence from deputy director of national drug advice charity as to levels of consumption that occurred in practice). These cases are considered in more detail at 26-77, post.

If the prosecution are permitted to call a witness of tenouos qualifications, [Think] the burden of proof might shift imperceptibly, and a burden be cast on the defendant to rebut a case which should never have been before the jury at all; a defendant could not fairly be asked to meet evidence of opinion given by a quack, a charlatan or an enthusiastic amateur ..................." [End quote]

Think, think, think .........

Did you read those words above - QUACK CHARLATAN?

Re: Kirk's Criminal trial ...

Did the Judge/s take a huge "RISK" - in the hope that the Prosecutor would somehow get a guilty verdict?

Where does the liability for that huge "RISK" lay?

Is the intransigence or subordination of so many lower authority Professionals quite simply explained away as due to the history of the courts' use by Judges of the likes of Dr Tegwyn Williams and so many other acolytes [Sir Prof R Meadows, Raj Persaud etc.] - such that the Judge/s in the matter have brought themselves and by their own implicit hand [The RISK they took] into total and utter disrepute with the very laws they proclaim to be administering?

The above are "questions" which hopefully the reader can ponder and answer for themselves.

Maurice Kirk said:

'Risk' and 'Non-disclosure of documents & medical records is the key point'....Whistleblower notes.

Ten Cardiff Criminal Court judges relied on false medical evidence arranged at the 8th June 2009 MAPPA meeting, in Barry police station, of all places, leading to both Dr Tegyn Williams and Professor Roger Wood pleading I be sent to HM Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison for an indeterminate period as I had 'significant brain damage', possible brain tumour and was, therefore, too dangerous to be out on the street!

South Wales Police only just failed, in 2nd December 2009 clandestine Crown Court hearing of Williams, with tape recorder switched off, meaning the pending MACHINE GUN TRIAL, with mandatory ten year prison sentance, was their last hope of blocking my eighteen year running civil action for countless failed malicious prosecutions, harassment and false imprisonments.

'HM' and its inbuilt immunity to investigation and prosecution of your public servants, is the heart of the problem, here in the UK, which is why 'LAWFUL REBELLION' is only just around the corner......

About Maurice Kirk

Maurice was born 12th March1945, a war baby, in Taunton, Somerset, West of England, within a final family of four brothers and one sister while mother and father were working 24/7 to run a country veterinary practice. Country pursuits very much dominated his spare time from most sports with his passion still for hunting , shooting and fishing! Maurice is currently trying to fly to South Africa in his WW2 Piper Cub,registration G-KURK. His other D-Day Cub, G-KERK, is destined, on skis, for a rather taller mountain after his promise to Sir Edmond, six years ago. Meanwhile, the task of obtaining justice in the UK courts, in order to practice veterinary surgery, is proving to be somewhat elusive.Authority has quite another agenda.

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndication