Welsh Court of Appeal Lost!

25% of original Damages Claim Struck Out....the highly sensitve political ones (see December 2010 site video)

'C'est un judgment bizarre', a Breton would say! 


Immediate Thoughts on Receipt of 17th May 2011 Court of Appeal Judgment, BELOW, Refusing Application to Appeal

A. Upon reading the judgment, who wrote it? Defendant's solictors?

B. Someone was back in London by the time the trial judge, HHJSeys LLewelyn QC, read the 'first' reasons realising the visiting judge had not addressed the main issues in dispute, namely, an exeptional case of bullying needing to be consolidated with stayed 4th ,5th , 6th Actions, including  the new machine gun case, BELOW, referred to, extensively, in the Claimant's pleadings here LINK SKM

C. Who, then, wrote the 'second' reasons, as if an after thought explaining, maybe, why Cardiff court held back the decision, from the Claimant, for nine days?

D. Clearly, just using the 'struck out' list, below, as examples for the oral appeal shortly (London ), [ALL INVITED, DINNER, as usual, ON ME], is it blatently obvious either MR JUSTICE KITCHIN is also being bullied by 'HM Partnership' or was he never given the facts, on appeal, of the forty odd incidents listed in the first three Actions? With Cardiff manager's track record nothing would surprise me. 

There can only be one truth - no matter whose hands it's in...
Maurice J Kirk

1. Stolen Cheques

The thief was identified by the Claimant in Barry Post Office during 2010 Claimant's Application to HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC, in the Lower court, for Permission to Appeal. Both the court and police were informed of his whereabouts, by the Claimant but the Defendant again refused to investigate when his address was traceable from the post office. And a High Court judge now says the South Wales Police have no 'duty'!......With over a hundred incidents of this type of wicked conduct, within the seven or so Actions! Just how many does it take for a policeman to be culpable? 

Mr Kitchin knows, to amalgamate cases further risks prison for high ranking South Wales Police.

That's HM Partnership's real 'Reasons' for yet another  typical example in our British courts in 'meltdown', not to be published in newspapers. 

'Struck Out' due to 'Collateral Attack' on a conviction obtained during an incident

2.  Police Caught on Overhead Roadside Video [See it on video Gallery, 5th one back]

Despite police refusing to disclose videos of Claimant being 'beaten up' in Cardiff police cells, the original magistrates and Cardiff Crown Court were not even being allowed to see the overhead road side video because police withheld its disclosure until a year too late.

[The police cell videos were doctored, blanking out the top half of film to hide police identity]

 Now the Appeal Court judge did not view the video either!  Mr Kitchin undoubtedly argues 'police beating  up their prisoners' is 'not relevant' because the terrified Claimant stupidly should not have pleaded guilty to trivial motoring offence thereby giving the bullying police immunity Immunity against any of their conduct throuout the incident...scarry or not scarry?? 

Roadside Video [5th back on this website video gallery] catches Cardiff police 'beating up' the Claimant after being dragged out of his car. This was before he was even arrested for ‘failure to give road side breath test' having just been followed directly from the Cardiff Crown Court where he and his secretary had been all morning complaining to the then, Recorder of Cardiff, Mr Justice Roderick Evans, about nine years of excessive South Wales Police bullying and proving police documents had been forged (see next incident).

3. Alleged Breach of the Peace at Vale Glamorgan Show

Another, 'Struck out' due to collateral attack on a conviction that, this time, never happened !!!  The Claimant was never even charged (four versions of withheld BOP as Cla imant'sexhibits), jailed but never convicted. Bridgend Clerk of the Court, many months later, persuaded police, over lunch, to withdraw the alleged BOP offence, part way through a trial of other charges, quite unrelated, another time, another place, because the Claimant would obviously plead 'not guilty' and would have to go to prison due to common law!

Liar. Just as at the first hearing, in Barry, the Claimant was not told of what the female prosecutor or clerk had before them, witnessed by Claimant's secretary. It was BOP in three different forms!!!!!

The Claimant 'made it worth someone's while' to extract from Bridgend Magistrates records the original clerk's notes (exhibit) confirming scandalous conduct

4. 'Struck Out' due to 'collateral attack' in Claimant's absence from court due to in hospital after motor bike accident!

Veterinary nurse, planted in back of court, signed a sworn affidavit after hearing police stating:

 "He drives around in his little white sports car quoting human rights...we are going to get the b'stard".

 A trivial motoring conviction should not be the excuse for a High Court judge to protect the bullies breaking UK law.

5 The Defence's Hunter Case Law argument was quite inappropriate for such an unusual, extreme and excessive bullying case with more than one hundred incidents in the six or seven Particulars of Claim. Just how many incidents of police bullying does it take to remove their devine right not to investigate but allowed to cause physical injury, time and time again?

6. Defendant's ‘Mindset' not relevant?!!!!!!  Has this High Court judge ever been confronted with such extreme acts of criminal conduct by police?. Of course not but the 'Maurices' of this world who dare question 'authority' are expendable  SEE the injury list IN 'VICTIMS UNITE' blogs..

See 26th May 2011 Machine Gun Particulars of Claim [ below] including False Psychiatric records all fabricated to obtain a false imprisonment designed to interfere with these very civil proceedings. Of course Mr Kitchin avoided the issue, that was his brief.

7. South Wales Police's, ‘Operation Orchid', at the same time, putting the fear of God into my wife when they threatened to have Social Services snatch our 10 year old daughter away has caused quite unforseen repercussions.

Etc, etc.

Mr Kitchin  clearly does not realise anarchy is only just around the corner, in Wales and possibly, elsewhere, headed by those who know just where and when to strike, if the break down of law and order in our appalling law courts, driven by avarice, is not sorted out RIGHT NOW.


Once again it is the K Team that has to draft the court papers as no lawyer has been found after a 15 months trawl through solicitors's offices. It is of no surprise to me when you consider Dr Tegwyn  Williams was given 'carte blanche' to falsify medical reports for 10, no less, Cardiff judges all knowing, full well, they were untrue but refusing bail due some higher sinister authority. Only one Welsh newspaper, The Glamorgan Gem, published a few of the appalling facts of dishonesty thoughout the Welsh judiciary in this case. If had not been for this web site, publishing day by day accounts of the trial, I would still be in jail due to that HM Partnership lot headed by Nicholarse Cooke QC, The Recorder of Cardiff.

There only remains outstanding which quick act of retribution is appropriate for the likes of Dr Tegwyn Williams as he, unlike Barbara Wilding, is not afforded the luxury of an armed guard. A Welsh court process? What a joke! That is pretty pointless considering our watching the Welsh NHS leave him loose to do it all over again on some unsuspecting individual with less luck.

Common Purpose and Law Society intend to wipe out jury trails and lay magistrates the very two facets of my machine gun  case that shone through as the back bone of what we should be proud of. When the two systems are finally snuffed out by HMCS last one switch off the lights, please.

Court of Appeal Judgment by the Honourable Mr Justice Kitchin  

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre


An appeal has no real prospect of

ln a long and careful judgment of 30
November 2010 the judge addressed the application by the defendant to strike
out the claimant's claims in respect of a number of incidents 

ln particular 

ln action CF04141, the judge struck
out an allegation in respect of the theft of cheques in that, as a matter of
law, the defendant did not owe the claimant a privately actionable duty of

In actions BS614159-MC65, CF101741 and
CF204141, the judge struck out a series of allegations as being an abuse of
process in that they amounted to collateral attacks on criminal convictions of
the defendant or on conclusive findings which have been made against him in
other proceedings. 

The claimant now seeks permission to
appeal on a number of grounds. There is nothing in any of them.

First the claimant contends that
the proceedings took place without him being able to take part. This was
plainly not the case. The judge explained in detail in paragraphs 3 and 4 of
his judgment the careful steps he took to ensure that the claimant was not in
any way disadvantaged and referred in paragraphs 3 to 6 to the extensive
submissions from the claimant which he considered.

Second, the claimant says he was
subjected to unfair pressure from the court and was unfairly disadvantaged. To
the contrary, it is apparent from the paragraphs of the judgment to which I
have referred that the judge took all reasonable steps to ensure the claimant
was not subjected to unfair pressure, nor disadvantaged.

Third, the claimant submits the
court wrongly excluded evidence. I reject this contention. There was no
material dispute of fact in relation to any of the allegations the judge struck

Fourth, it is said the judge
failed to address key submissions. I do not accept this is so. The judge set
out the claimant's case on each issue very clearly. Indeed the judge accepted a
number of the claimant's submissions in refusing to strike out aspects of his

Fifth, the claimant contends the
judge erred in law. In my judgment the defendant has not identified any proper
ground in support of this allegation. The judge correctly identified the
principle established in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and
his application of that principle to the facts alleged by the claimant cannot
be faulted. The other claims were struck out upon the application of the well
established principle that it is not permissible for a claimant to bring a
claim which amounts to collateral attack on an earlier criminal conviction or a
conclusive finding made against him in earlier proceedings.

Finally, the claimant asserts that
the judge failed to protect the claimant against the defendant's mindset. This
provides no basis for an appeal against the specific findings of the judge.

For all these reasons the judge was
also right to refuse permission to appeal.


This is a case management order. The
judge declined to order all the cases to be consolidated. This was a perfectly
reasonable decision, particularly since the cases are already being heard

There is no need for the cases to be
transferred to the High Court. Nor has any justification been shown for having
them transferred out of Wa1es. 

An appeal has no real prospect of success.

17th May 2011


Reply to Refusal

Dear Ms Pahl,

Please Forward, in your usual reliable way

31st May 2011


Kirk v South Wales Police

Appeal at Court of Appeal  No.s CF029/2011a & CF030/2011a
( May 2011 court letter contains variations in case numbers)


FAO Clerk of the Court,

Further to the predicted refusal notice, based on politics and not facts, received on Saturday, 28th May, I apply for an oral hearing and be permitted witnesses to the facts, before the court, to attend without fear of intimidation.

I also apply that it take place not before but on the 15th June or onwards, in London, but not 28th June as it clashes with another court and an equally scandalous bit of Welsh bloody nonsense.

I also have medical appointments in both France and Londoin to entwine with dates already fixed.

If the hearing is in South Wales I run a very real risk of being falsly arrested again and finish up in Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison, as was attempted last time, following deliberate falsification of both Welsh HM CPS information and Dr Tegwyn Williams psychiatric reports.

Last time, following the Welsh filth and their usual tactics, being completely ignored or actively supported by 10 Welsh judges, Welsh HM Court Service and Welsh National Health Service, my liberty, without an appeal, now comes secondary in priority, following revenge, the latter, set for the rest of my short life, to be sufficient to educate the whole world, by exposing your evil Welsh judiciary, driven by greed.

Oh, if only I had listend to both my mother and father about the truth of South Wales, following their shock, in 1992, that I had bought a veterinary practice near Cardiff.


Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Puits aux Papillons

St Doha

22230 Merdrignac





 IN THE CARDIFF COURT                              

Maurice Kirk                                                      Claimant

Chief Constable of South Wales Police             Defendant


Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant was at all material times the chief officer of the South Wales Constabulary and the police officers hereinafter referred to were at all material times acting under the direction and control of the Defendant in the performance or purported performance of their functiion 

2.     1977: Five decommissioned WW1 Lewis machine guns were designated for various replica period aircraft by the Claimant's old friend, Mr Viv Bellamy

3.     1997: MJK purchased the DH2 replica aeroplane and ‘gun' from a prosecution witness with its log books and other Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) paperwork identifying the ‘gun' s an integral part of the fuselage and therefore exempt under the 1968 Fire rms Act.

4.     1998: The 1968 Fire Arms Act was amended meaning that if the ‘gun' remained as it had first been decommissioned, it remained exempt from the new regulations. This became the critical argument in the trial but blocked throughout the twelve days of roceedings of utter nonsense.

5.     2000: The DH2 with the same Lewis antique was flown by the Claimant at the Farnborough Air Show by invitation of another old friend of the Claimant, Captain Brian Trubshaw of 002 Concorde fame.

6.     2006: The DH2 was moved to RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire, for repair and display with the ‘gun' mounted.

7.     2007: he DH2 and ‘gun' was handed out, by the Royal Air Force, to a civilian for further repair in Hampshire also aware it was decommissioned.

8.      2008 MJK sold the aircraft and ‘gun' to another display pilot, a prosecution witness, who ‘modified' the gun for his own purposes.

9. On or about 25th February 2009 the Defendant signed a sworn affidavit knowing it to be or ought to have known it to be, false, in that paragraphs, between14 to 21, contained erroneous information, namely, incidents, involving both the Defendant and Claimant had ppeared to never have occurred. Police court cases had occurred and the Defendant's attendance, in force, with the use of a crow bar and sledge hammer, to enter the Claimant's Cardiff veterinary surgery, had also occurred. This amounts at least to misfeasance in public office.

10. Following the 2008 Court Order by His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, for the Defendant to sign an affidavit that full disclosure of evidence, under the Defendant's control, had been disclosed to the Claimant, the latter entered the Defendants solicitor's' offices, on or about the 25th February 2009 complaining the Court Order had still not been carried out.

11. The Claimant, upon receipt of a copy of the Defendant's affidavit then entered Barry Police Station and was both videoed and interviewed at length following his complaint that the Chief Constable had knowingly signed a false affidavit to avoid disclosure of evidence relevant to the nineteen year running covert police surveillance and civil actions for damages, referred to in CF101741 + four others.

12. The sale and subsequent management change of the Claimant's South Wales veterinary practice, in May 2009, allowed the Claimant to reveal, at last, on U Tube and websites worldwide the conduct of the South Wales Police with their covert surveillance team that had operated for well over ten years. The Claimant's 64 page June 09 witness statement, summarising their unusual and extreme behavior, was now being prepared for court.      

13. On 1st June 2009 the Defendant caused the Claimant to be subjected to a Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) enquiry following a meeting, at the South Wales Police Head Quarters, Bridgend, by the Independent Advisory Group (IAG).

14. On 8th June 2009, at Barry police station MAPPA meeting, police informed the agencies, present, including staff from Caswell Clinic psychiatric prison, that the Claimant was a category level 3,  very dangerous and was to be arrested and ‘taken into custody' for being in possession of a prohibited weapon, a machine gun.

15. The police also informed the agencies that should the Claimant approach the Chief Constable then he was likely to be shot which has caused the Claimant to seek asylum in France for fear of his life

16. On 15th June 2009 the Claimant brought further civil proceedings, in the Administrative Court, London, against the Defendant and Co-Defendant, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons relating to covert police surveillance. Covert plain clothed police officers were already in attendance.

17. On 18th June 2009 the Claimant again laid the complaint, this time inside the offices of the Defendant's Bridgend South Wales Police head quarters where again there was refusal, by the Defendant, to ‘mutually exchange
witness statements' ordered by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC

18. On 19th June 2009 the Defendant again refused to exchange witness statements when the Defendant's solicitors, Dolmans, were contacted by the Claimant despite the Court Order having given the Defendant until 4pm.that day

19.  On 20thJune 2009 the Defendant's solicitors laid complaint with their client, against the Claimant, to be arrested for a ‘threat of criminal damage' which amounts to more bullying and harassment.

20. On 21st June 2009 police Operations, ‘Orchid' and ‘Chalice, caused' a sizeable force of police officers to surround the Claimant's home, in St Donats, Vale of Glamorgan, requiring an armed response unit, a police helicopter and both forensic psychiatrists  and a lay advisor for the Claimant to be in attendance. The operation was aborted once the Claimant was seen drinking tea with his family in their front garden.

21. On 22nd June 2009 24/7 police surveillance caused the Claimant to be arrested in the road outside his property and cautioning him from a written script, following legal advise, that he had been arrested for:

a.    Threat of committing criminal damage 

b.    Being in possession of a prohibited weapon 

c.    Being in possession of prohibited ammunition

22. ‘Operation Orchid' caused a second team of South Wales Police to interview the Claimant's wife at the family home, with the hope they could obtain a statement from her that the Claimant had a history of mental illness. This was in the hope of avoiding the criminal proceedings being put to strict proof. The Claimant's wife was threatened that her and Claimant's ten years old daughter was at serious risk of being taken into care, by the South Wales social services, if she did not cooperate. Blatant intimidation and harassment of the Claimant and his family.

23. The Claimant was never charged with the first arrest allegation, (a), and despite repeated court orders to reveal the evidence and statements by Dolmans, solicitors, they assisted their client by being a party to the February 2009 Chief Constable's sworn affidavit.

24. Despite repeated applications in Cardiff Crown Court, by the Claimant, for specific disclosure relating to the alleged ‘threat of criminal damage' to countless judges, HM Crown Prosecution Service, South Wales Police and Dolmans, the Defendant's solicitors, being the complainant, all refused.

25.  Final proof of conspiracy needed just one last refused application, this time before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, the management judge in the ongoing civil proceedings between the Claimant and Defendant.

26. Dolmans had little choice but to again refuse to disclose the evidence of their client's criminal conduct and/or gross mismanagement during the days leading up to the Claimant's 22nd June 2009 ridiculous arrest

27.  Dolmans falsified evidence assisting in the arrest of the Claimant, their client, the then Chief Constable of South Wales Police, Ms Barbara Wilding, the latter assuring them, no doubt, of their immunity to prosecution. The overall plan was to prejudice the Claimant's position in the ongoing civil proceedings now that the ‘cover up' of an expensive ten year police covert surveillance team, on the Claimant, was starting to fall apart.

28. There was no intention of arresting the Claimant on fire arms charges. The Claimant, without full MAPPA approval or understanding, had been set up to be ‘lawfully killed' by an armed South Wales Police unit under direct orders from senior police officers.

29. Events following the early 2009 decision by these high ranking police officers, to have the Claimant eliminated, eventually became unmanageable due to the unpredictable conduct of their moving target and the effect of his postings on his website. 

30. Between 22nd and 23rd June 2009 the police filmed and removed, from his home, the Claimant's lawfully held shot guns, ammunition and court files, the latter relating to the Claimant's ongoing complaint of police bullying, harassment, malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments conducted in most un usual and extreme
manner suggesting vengeance at the tax payer's expense

31. None of the above items, guns, ammunition or court files have ever been returned to the Claimant with the police continuing to block the Claimant's right to re new his gun licences.

32. On 24th June 2009 a police officer or officers laid information against the Claimant at Barry Magistrates court alleging that that the Claimant had been ‘in possession of a prohibited weapon', one antique 1916 Lewis machine gun and had sold the ‘gun', a year earlier, both contrary to the 1968 Fire Arms Act

33. The English police refused to ‘touch the subject with a barge pole' once they became aware that the South Wales Police had persuaded the Civil Aviation Authority to telephone ahead to the new owner, in England, to dismount the Lewis antique and alone drive it across Lincolnshire and beyond to find any licenced arms dealer where it could be, later, collected by the Defendant.

34. The Welsh police then ‘hawked' the Lewis antique nearly two thousand miles around the UK, contrary to strict Home Office Regulations, during which time the Defendant had it ‘modified' at their special police laboratory in South Wales. This Claim is yet another one of misfeasance in public office.

35. Upon reading the Claimant's June 2009 64 page Defence statement, on the Defendant's real motives behind his arrest, the Barry Magistrates court, together with legal advice, allowed the Claimant immediate and unconditional bail.

36. On 25th June 2009 the police appealed the Court Order deliberately lying on the relevant facts, under consideration, to HHJ Hughes causing the Claimant to be further detained in custody in Cardiff prison.

37. Repeat of these lies by the Defendant occurred before a further nine more Cardiff Crown Court judges when opposing bail. False antecedent history together with this malicious false imprisonment is one of the major Claims of the Claimant.

38.  The Defendant, over nearly eight months, deliberately refused the Claimant standard or specific disclosure of evidence, under their control, that would have cleared the Claimant's name before the need of a trial. Defamation is another serious Claim by the Claimant.

39. In July 2009 the Defendant brought a third indictment namely, obtaining income from the ‘proceeds of crime'. A judge, much later, caused this third indictment to be withdrawn. This event contributes to the large number of proceedings that the Claimant has won against the Defendant.

40. On 3rd August 2009 Dr Tegwyn Williams, forensic psychiatrist and Director of Caswell Clinic, South Wales Police forensic Unit, at Bridgend, signed a psychiatric report recommending the Claimant be sectioned and further remanded in custody to his medium secure psychiatric unit, Caswell Clinic, under Section 35 of the 1983 Mental Health Act having not even examined his patient

41. Dr Teqwyn Williams had in his possession, before 3rd August 2009, psychiatric reports from both HM Prison Cardiff and his own Caswell Clinic doctors, that the Claimant did not need any medication or treatment relevant to the 1983 Mental Health Act.

42. On 28thAugust 2009 a series of brain scans, arranged by Dr Tegwyn Williams, indicated no relevant abnormalities in the Claimant, confirmed at the time, in writing, by at least one expert at the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, Bridgend. 

43. In September 2009, after it was clear the Claimant was not going to employ a lawyer, with sworn allegiance to the South Wales courts, Dr Tegwyn Williams recommended that the Claimant be now transferred to Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison (IPP), Imprisonment for Public Protection with a term of imprisonment, without trail, of an inordinate length stating, without appropriate qualifications, the Claimant had ‘significant brain damage' and ‘possible cancer', neither of which had much chance of recovery.

44. Whilst this Claim could be conceived against Dr Tegwyn Williams alone, it is concluded here as a major act of harassment by the Defendant who had commissioned Dr Williams via FTAC and MAPPA.

45. The Claimant, following much needed legal advice retains the right of including Dr Tegwyn Williams as a Co-Defendant in these civil proceedings for damages.  

46. On or about the 24th October 2009 the Claimant was further remanded in custody in Cardiff Prison reliant on a further Dr Tegwyn Williams psychiatric report the Defendant knew or ought to have known was false as the National Health Service doctor was not even qualified to sign such a court document as true, to the best of his belief.

47. On the 2nd December 2009 the prosecution had convened a hearing, not tape recorded and in the absence of the Claimant, left locked up under the court, to discuss, at length, with the proposed trial judge and Dr Tegwyn Williams, the possibilities of avoiding the trial by way of a Section 41 or similar, of the 1983 Mental Health Act, that could have the Claimant locked away, without trial, for life.

48. But the Defendant had failed to obtain the second signatory from any appropriately qualified forensic psychiatrist, required by law, in either England or Wales, but not for the want of trying.

49. On the 2nd December 2009 The Defendant failed to inform the proposed trial judge, HHJ Bidder QC, that the Claimant had caused not less than twelve psychiatric reports from a same number of psychiatrists that the Claimant was not requiring the need for either psychiatric assessment or treatment.

50. HM Court Service (Wales), as is their habit, failed to disclose to HHJ Bidder QC or the Claimant of the Claimant's privately obtained expert medical report, from outside Wales, having been served on Cardiff Crown Court the day before by an English solicitor and past MP for the Vale of Glamorgan.

51. The report seriously contradicted both those of Dr Tegwyn Williams' and the findings of Professor Roger Wood, the latter also unqualified to state an opinion that might affect permanent custody of the Claimant 

52. On 7tt December 2009 the Claimant, using other lawyers, again from well outside South Wales, caused the MAPPA  coordinator, based at the Defendant's HQ, to indicate, in writing, ‘ The right arm did not know what the left arm of the law was doing'

53. On 17th December 2009 the Defendant headed a hurriedly convened MAPPA meeting in the Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, due to yet another Claimant bail Application before HHJ Bidder QC scheduled that day in Newport Crown Court.

54.  The Claimant's name for some reason, currently subject to HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC's outstanding Order for disclosure, was removed from the MAPPA register without any explanation to the Claimant causing further hardship and distress to the Claimant, in prison, still trying to establish his exact MAPPA status and why, just a before trial carrying a possible mandatory ten year prison sentence.

55. The Claimant has to this day never established why and later, why not, he was on the MAPPA register with the Defendant repeatedly refusing to disclose, contrary to law.

56. Defense evidence or ‘summing up' was never needed due the prosecution's fairy tale, a view held by at least nine members of the jury, stating to the Claimant, immediately after the trial, that their decision was already concluded by eleven of the jury after the first day of evidence and cross examination

57. On 9th February 2010, at Cardiff Crown Court, the Claimant was found ‘not guilty' on the two remaining indictments and was released from custody with no conditions.

58. The jury also made the Claimant aware, immediately after the hearing, that they questioned why both the original seller to the Claimant, of the Lewis antique and the current owner, buying from the Claimant, were not also in the dock or behind bars.

59. The Claimant's complaints to the relevant police authorities, to investigate the conduct within South Wales Police, before and after his arrest and nearly eight months in custody, have been swept under the proverbial carpet in a perfunctory manner to which the Claimant is accustomed since first settling in South Wales.

60. The arrest and detention and prosecution of the Claimant were unlawful as the most appalling act of malice.

61. There were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant was probably guilty of the offence for which he was arrested.

62. The decisions to arrest and detain the Claimant were such as no reasonable police officer would have reached.

63. The Claimant was detained for longer than was reasonably necessary and in breach of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

64. Further, the actions of police officers set out above constitute harassment within meaning of section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and misfeasance in public office.

65.  By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Claimant has suffered loss, damage, distress, anxiety, damage to his reputation and was deprived of his liberty. He has been subjected to bullying, malicious prosecution and harassment, false imprisonment and contrary to the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Withheld NHS Medical Records

66. On or about 10th February 2010 the Defendant arrested and detained in custody the Claimant for entering Caswell Clinic, when invited by the staff to collect his full medical records, promised by Dr Tegwyn Williams following the Claimant's applications under the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts. Also promises to his GP's secretary, in the presence of the Claimant, by the manager, stated they could be collected from the Caswell Clinic porter's lodge. His multi agency collusion has caused serious aggravation to the Claimant's health

67. The full medical records were not disclosed and currently remain with the South Wales National Health Service, also now refusing to hand them over.

68. The Claimant was charged with numerous allegations and jailed. Severe bail conditions were set before all charges were later dropped with the Defendant refusing to properly investigate the Claimant's complaint into the apparent falsified medical records written by both Dr Tegwyn Williams of Caswell Clinic and Professor Roger Wood of Swansea University

69. The Defendant's actions were both malicious and bullying and/or yet a further example of misfeasance in public office the Claimant has suffered under, by the Defendant,  since 1992

HM Court Service (Wales). 

70.  In July 2010 ex South Wales Police officer, a Derrick Hassan, violently assaulted the Claimant, dependant at the time on a pair of crutches and on daily morphine sulphate and other analgesic medication. Hassan pushed the Claimant part way down a flight of stairs in Cardiff Crown Court causing the Claimant to attend casualty and treatment for a damaged ankle and increased his hip pain in a much overdue total hip replacement required, caused by the failure ofthe Defendant to investigate the Claimant's complaint, relating to falsified medical evidence. The Vale Hospital, Vale of Glamorgan, had to take this into consideration, without clarification being available, to cancel elected surgery.

71. Despite being given the name and address of an independent witness, not part of HM Court Service (Wales), the Defendant refused to have him interviewed thereby acting irresponsibly and with without due care. The conduct was malicious.

Racially Aggravated Public Order allegations

72. 69 On or about the 2nd August 2010 the Claimant was arrested and jailed by the Defendant purely for monetary gain by a third party. The Crown Prosecution Service offered ‘no evidence' and the Claimant was found ‘not guilty' in his absence of all parties

73. Again, the Defendant refused to investigate thousands of pounds of damage caused, caught in the act by the Claimant, by these same complainants of the dismissed Public Order offences.

74. This malicious prosecution is a further act of both misfeasance in public office and harassment

Stolen Cheques incident currently under appeal at The Court of Appeal

75. On or around November 2010 the Claimant identified the thief of his stolen surgery cheques, some nine years earlier, the subject currently on appeal from Action CF101+ three others, before the Court of Appeal (Wales). The thief was giving his identity details to a named clerk in Barry Post Office. The Defendant, due to ill health and on crutches was unable to apprehend the thief.

76.  Previously, the Defendant in the defenses of the earlier Action admitted to the Claimant that the Defendant had not been able to trace the thief despite being, known to the Defendant, given film footage of his cashing falsified Claimant's cheques and given his home address in Barry.

77. The Claimant informed the Defendant of the above new information but the Defendant refused to properly investigate or even speak to the clerk at the Barry Post Office or the Claimant on the new evidence.

78. In summary, the Claimant has suffered from the malicious intent of the Defendant's misfeasance in public office as well as the unprofessional behaviour of the Defendant's solicitors and of the Defendant's forensic psychiatrist. The Defendant's bullying and harassment resulted in false imprisonment, severe damage to reputation, completely unnecessary legal proceedings and thus a claim to damages, exemplary damages, special a criminal investigation and costs.

79.  Unless restrained by the Court, police officers will continue to harass the Claimant. 

80.  The Claimant retains his right for trial by jury and for a lawyer to read and amend this Claim

Maurice J Kirk BVSc
Puits aux Papillons
St Doha
22 230 Merdrignac

26th May 2011 

Copy to Cardiff Court of Appeal
             Cardiff County Court
             His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC
             The French Immigration Authorities