Maurice Kirk

Legal Battles

May 2012 - Posts

Reports on his current court case that started September 7, 2010 and previous stories. Please sign our online petition asking for Fair Trials and Compensation instead of an effective remedy before national authorities - in defence of Maurice and many other victims of financial exploitation and legal oppression. Here's the newsletter that invited people to sign. And here are the first wonderful comments by signatories.

Breaking News:

October 2011: Maurice on hunger strike in HMP Cardiff. See Political asylum granted by France - to a British citizen - for the first time since the French Revolution... For first time visitors, a one-page summary is on a complementary and introductory blog. Also, Maurice on a 12-minute video in Jersey.
  • Threat to Shoot Lord Mayor of Cardiff




    Received, at last, one more Judicial Review 'Refusal', 'on the papers', refused by last month's 'Breach of a Restraning Order' trial judge, His Honour Judge Curran, on some bl==dy nonsense over whether or not a 'Restraining Order'  was ever served on me in the cells as if there was not ample contemporaneous records about!

    Originating from, if true, this very 'Harassment' issue, £50 fine, 'shoot to kill' hearings and Section 39 abuse, under review in this very JR application! So who blocks the investigation the most senior Cardiff Crown court judge...anything to block exposure of the truth...corruption is just rife around here or is it me with some brain disorder?

    While the prosecution barrister, David Garreth Evans apolgised to the jury, for not being available as my main defence witness, he still having an early version of this now, ubiquitous 'restraining order' in his pocket. The District Judge John Charles' Magistrates court's, custody and cell cctv records are, meantime, quickly being shredded, re written or burnt, in fear the law, that Litigants in Person are not, as of right, entitled to public court records, may get itself repealed in Westminster..

    So, if the CPS has a copy in his pocket, partly hand written by John Charles, then what is prosecution exhibit 1, labelled '1st December11 Restraining Order', doing with the jury when it is date stamped 9th Dec ?

    So another version, slipped under my police door on 23rd Dec 11, is the first one I see but different also from exhibit 1. Very strange.

     Very strange, indeed, for the police did not e-mail me one, as promised, on the 19th Dec, over the phone from Llantwit police station.

    Oh, very odd......but hang on a minute that must be the one they quickly printed up following my unexpected appeal to Crown Court, in England, on the 7th Dec, no?

    But I went to the magistrates court and told they had no record at all of any restraining order.

    But, of course, John Charles, had, in his fit of peak,scribbled out a section 4 'restraining order', contrary to the Section 2 Harassment Act , currently before the court, to obtain a maximum jail term, if broken.

     Someone in HM Partnership, however, must have blocked it because the 8th Dec version, created on computor and 'certificate of conviction' has omitted the 'fear of violence' phrase on it. Stop worrying Maurice, Gareth ,you will remember, told the jury he was checking up with his local bar council that all is ok and that the apparant conspiracy, witnessed by his friends in the public gallery, of CPS and Charles hatching a diversion, was going rapidly pear shaped. Muttering over court exhibits, I remember and I never saw. I heard Gareth and judge mumble, 'switch them' and we  will have him locked away.

    Fortunately, all was tape recorded and smuggled out of court as a procautionary matter in case the cabal are setting me up, again, to be shot by South Wales Police marksmen. All this was discussed, in detail, during the IAP and MAPPA police HQ meetings in June 2009. Operation Orchid and Operation Chalice, re machine gun and snatching my younger daughter, were foiled but hey will get it right next time, I fear.

    Remember, They control the Welsh IPCC, Welsh GMC, Welsh Bar Council and their Cardiff Bay 'talking shop', Wales' big mistake for its best future .....their key members are entrenched, all in the same lodge and ready to do more damage for the devil.

    Any way, not to worry 'justice ' is in a safe pair of hands.....His Honour ordered Gareth to nip back up to his Crown Prosecution Service office, in Merthyr Tydfil and get the Restraining Order, serve it to me so we can all go home. But, over night, we all forget except for  two on the jury. They are starting to work out the judge's cunning plan only to be thwarted, following their request for sight of the custody records that service ever took place in the cells below that chaotic December magistrates court hearing when I was refused the usual right to cross examine, call witnesses, finish my evidence, have any legal papers or even have pen and paper in my cell.

    "Do not trouble your pretty heads", Judge Curran must have said, "the court record of there ever being printed a 'restraining order and served, all on that day, is irrelevant to Maurice's blatent guilt".

    " and as for the two cameras, he referred to, one in his special padded isolation cell, with £5000 'see through' door, that filmed every move of this MAPPA level 3 victim, sadly,( pause while wiping his eyes), GEOamey Custody Services appear to have 'mislaid' all the footage."

    "It is also quite irrelevant so, hurry up on your way, its late on a Friday afternoon and I am already late, a majority verdict will do and dont worry about Maurice calling for Gareth ,the doctor and another,,,,its all far too late"

    Hang on a moment, didn't this same judge insist the main witness, the doctor, give evidence for me but only through a court lawyer? Yes, of course, his  22nd February 2012 Crown Court Order, part of my defence evidence stuffed up my rectum, in order to get it into court.

    Now, as I remember it, this judge also appointed a special Cardiff Cabal lawyer, under rule 39 of the Youth and Justice Criminal Evidence Act 1999, anything to block any possiblility of evidence coming out and  that I may not have 'significant brain damage' or 'possible brain tumour' after all.

    But what is this, both doctor and appointed lawyer fail to attend court....."oh, what can be done?"  "Oh, I am all undone, I am in fear and shaking in my shoes, of the meer rumour of this last act of treachery must cause, being mis understood by Jo Public as being an unfair trial.

     Just what will it do to the name of Cardiff law courts.....oh, perish the thought

    I wonder if  Enyd Blyton could have made up  this sort of stuff ? Must look into serialising these proceedings, some time, to rival some TV soap. 

    His Honour Judge Curran has, understandably, rejected my 1st Judicial Review Application, ‘on paper', on the premise that it is ‘not clear' as to my reasoning behind my grievance, in being convicted of so serious offence, during my absence. The police, once again, are reliant on false forensic evidence supplied by Derrick Hassan of the Cardiff Crown Court and a doctor to obtain yet another prolonged incarceration without a proper trial.

    Court record will disclose that the District Judge, Bodfan Jenkins, presiding at last August Cardiff magistrates hearing, had not even been given my correspondence regarding my right, under statute law, to apply for a re opening of the case. He was also never made aware of the full circumstances on the bizarre incident, involving alleged prohibited weapons in my possession, including a ‘walking stick shot gun', being the real reason for the summary conviction and £50 fine.

     [This startlingly acknowledgement by the police, of finding a real prohibited weapon, contrary to Section 5(1)(a) of the 1968 Fire Arms Act 1966, at my home, right in the middle of my January 2009 ‘WW1 Lewis machine gun' trial, was completely hushed up and only surfaced before the very same District Judge, Mr Bodfan Jenkins, this March, in one of my many private prosecutions, due to someone's stupidity letting it slip through their own safety net].

    This one caused the destruction of my family life,  at 8am on 22nd June 2009, using twenty five coppers +, followed by my nearly eight months in jail as an innocent man, but who's counting?

    This one, with a rogue doctor, both on the purse strings of lots of charity cash, in   South Wales......but that is another story to those with the bottle

    This one personally arranged to have me struck off as a veterinary surgeon, using countless spurious convictions from a thoroughly corrupt Cardiff judicial system...but this is only the tip of the iceberg

    ***, My friends  know where you live

     This same argument or the use of Section 36 YJCEA, anything to suppress the truth, is just what

     District Judge Berg, on 2nd November 10 common assault conviction, applied when expediting it in meer nana seconds during my forced absence, due to ill health due to unnecessary analgesic medication. This appeal is now in Bristol having been transferred from Wales due to its potentially embarrassing outcome.  

     If only a litigant in person in Cardiff could just have sight of public court records, when only reserved for the legal profession, we need not shout blackmail so often.

     Exposure, of course, of what really is going on in our courts, if further public records were to be disclosed to the public, would, for example, be like what happened following the prison hospital emergency, needing seventeen prison officers to extricate me.

     Out of the prison for a day, in cuffs, I get sight of what was written on court record, my ‘Remand Warrant' indicating clearly what lay behind the judiciary's next move.

     Apart from quick sight of my custody record and remnants of my exalted status amongst the inmates of a category level C parochial prison, during my 2009 stay, as MAPPA level3, the words, ‘extremely dangerous' remained.

     Both court and custody documents, seen by myself, during the material times of all these JRs, currently before His Honour Judge Curran, Mr Justice Singh, record I have ‘mental health issues' clearly written with ‘significant brain damage' written.

    This immediately brings into doubt my level of capacity in the past three years court appearances, exceeding well over one hundred, known by the prosecution throughout. 

     This hand written note, on the Remand Warrant, no doubt, was by the clerk of the court and/or signed by the very District Judge first implementing a Section 36, without giving reason and then sitting in judgment.

     As for the so called ‘served' Restraining Order neither the original nor certified true copy we will ever see because it now helps identify the author of it and true recipient for my term of imprisonment. 

    This 2010 ‘common assault' conviction, on appeal in Bristol, will prove even more interesting, following my most recent attempts at the steps of Cardiff Crown Court to lodge my paper, as it is so devoid of ‘magistrates record', the recent letters from the court clerk effectively stating, ‘in your dreams, Maurice', no records for you.

    So why does this latest JR refusal, ‘on paper', accompany a copy of the Cardiff Crown court log of my 1st/2nd March 2012 Harassment Appeal, when for years now I have always been refused of such public record?

     If you are eligible for legal aid then, of course, your designated lawyer can see them, at tax payer's expence, for as long as he likes and even give them to you, if he so pleases. The reality of this is, of course, is quite unrealistic, if nefarious schemes are afoot as he or she is an ‘officer of the court' and therefore making it impossible to remain impartial.

     It stinks, doesn't it?

    Statute law dictates that a ‘litigant in person'(LiP) may, if he is so lucky, obtain disclosure of a clerk of the court's notes, both contemporaneous and later records, such as, in this case, written record of the allegation(s) facing the accused. The court is only obliged to release a certificate of conviction.

    These next two ladies outside the RCJ have spent much of their lives, fighting for justice, mutilated by this gross injustice of failed disclosure of court documents

     I have received no copy of whatever was first before the August Magistrate, what was charge was changed, in my absence or copy of the CPS legal argument that went on with the court without me. This had followed the duty solicitor's hurried visit to my cell, that summer's day, advising me to plead ‘not guilty' as it had been arranged for the case to be dropped if I did.

     Why was so serious a charge dropped?

    Because I had just served new statements, from a Lincolnshire airfield, of eye witnesses over the police re painted ‘machine gun', spent still more hours before with the station's inspector while copious complaint was again being taken down, re the Cardiff IPPC office refusing, since 2009, to properly investigate:


    1.       the Polices policy to having me shot

    2.        falsifying critical evidence in their disastrous ‘machine gun' case, painting of the ‘gun' twice, making it serviceable, all to fool a jury

    3.       changing the sex of ‘Foxy', their undercover agent, that had to give evidence

    4.       their continuing harassment of me, around the UK, by the use of falsified two year old psychiatric evidence  


    Today, as in the recent ‘Restraining Order' jury trial and their written notes to the judge, I am still without the public record of either of these cases!

    Court record, regarding the Lord Mayor Cardiff to be shot, are being withheld for the purpose of my being sectioned, again, under the 1983 Mental Health Act, but this time for life.

     South Wales Police almost achieved it in 2009 and with co-operation from the Tottenham police, during the ‘Nigerian Musa seven snatched children affair', in court NOW at Wood Green Crown Court, London. This time the same MAPPA police intend finding the ‘elusive second doctor', needed by statute, to sign me away, IPP, to Broadmoor.

    The purpose of my JR Application is clearly in the interest of the general public, not just for my liberty, safety and family concerns.

    The next presiding judge, I humbly submit, is required to consider the consequences should this need to go to the Court of Appeal happen and where Article 6 and its supposed safeguards will again be challenged as being needed even more in our current political climate.

     My recent interviews, with my ‘straw poll' sample taken from within the walls of Cardiff Prison, proved disturbing to say the least. Invariably, both remand and convicted prisoners do not even see the paper work identifying as why they are in prison! Yes, many neither care nor enquire; the place is a ‘holiday camp' with no real purpose, so why rock the boat?

     If I could have found another LiP, out of the hundred or so prisoners on my wing, I may have established if I was the only one, in the prison, with that special piece of paper, a ‘Remand Warrant'. It was signed by the court giving authority to allow the HM Governor to lock me up.

    Where His Honour and or the next judge will be concerned will rest on the veracity of those in ultimate control, the guards who guard the guardians, for without proper disclosure there will be yet another fine example of a travesty of justice in a Cardiff court room.

    Copy to HM Treasury solicitor, on behalf of the Respondents.



  • Maurice 'Burnt Out' and Needs Your Help!

    Please, anyone, have a quick look at the enclosed draft appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeal, London and suggest improvements as it has to be deposited there by this Friday's dead line.

    It is far too dangerous to enter Wales and deposit it at Cardiff Crown Court , as procedure dictates, because I run the risk of yet another jail term. Last time I did a Derrick Hassan who supplied falsified forensic police evidence to have me sectioned under the 1983 Mental Health Act , for Broadmoor, puched me down the court steps and broke my leg.

    Keith Vaz MP takes up interest in South Wales' IPCC conduct over falsification of forensic evidence in Cardiff Crown Courts

    Photo of my leaving Cardiff Magistrates, in hand cuffs, by narked South Wales Police, on 1st December 2011, with no knowledge of any existance of a 'restraining order but beaten up by GEOamey Custodial Services just minutes before. all caught on video the judge, Mr Curran, refused to be made shown  to the 4th May12  jury in Cardiff Crown Court.

    Cardiff Cabal are so embarassed this incident, leading to my arrest, has been tranferred to Bristol Crown Court for trial, for fear of the publicity

    Can anyone, please, cross the bridge to Cardiff and deliver it, with the court forms, on my behalf, before 4pm Friday, 1st June2012?

    I am currently in Bristol and can deliver docs to anyone who can help.....thankyou 

    But I need help to improve the document as I cannot remember much of what was said during the numerous trials that have kept me locked up since most of the last eight months

    tel 07907937953



     His Honour Judge Patrick's Section 39 Order Restricts the publication of more details ...Re Musa trial

    so be there!

    I hope to be in London, until Friday, while I attend:

     the Nigerian seven snatched children, by Haringey Council, a scandalous affair, at Wood Green Crown Court, while their parents remain in prison facing deportation..



    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL                                                                          






    - v -












    • 1. His Honour Judge Curran ought to have recused himself from presiding over the trial of the Appellant as he had previously stayed the Appellant's application to the Cardiff Administrative Court for Judicial Review of the Appellant's appeal at Cardiff Crown Court, Case A20110290, on 1st March 2012 and his conviction and sentance of harassment, contrary to the Section 2 of Protection from Harassment Act 1997, at Cardiff Magistrates Court, on 1st December 2011, the subject of the Restraining Order allegedly breached in this present case.


    • 2. Whilst accepting that the issues of fact in the trial were for the jury, His Honour Judge Curran made a number of rulings that erred in law similar if not identical to those by both District Judge John Charles, at Cardiff Magistrates and his Honour Judge PD Hughes QC, in its appeal, at Cardiff Crown Court.


    • 3. Subsequently, failed disclosure of evidence, by way of court and custody documents and cctv footage, all under the control of the South Wales Police, caused the Appellant, in each of these court cases, compounded the reasons for refusal of access to his own legal papers in both court and prison and be given any facilities, at all, to either interview or call his own witnesses.


    • 4. All prosecution witnesses, in the two previous above mentioned trials, were prevented from being cross examined by the Claimant while the main witness, a doctor, in the jury trial, subject to this appeal, was denied the Claimant's required examination or cross examination, contrary to His Honour Judge Curran QC's 22nd February 2012 Court Order.


    • 5. This was further compounded following, first by the failure to attend of the court instructed barrister, to cross examine the witness(es) ‘on the Appellant's behalf ', under Section 36 of Youth and Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and following His Honour Judge Hugh Davies QC's April 2012 Court Order that caused this main prosecution witness to be removed from the witness list, as irrelevant and so facilitate the Appellant's immediate release from prison.


    • 6. For the prosecution barrister, on 2nd May 2012, to then open the prosecution's case by stating, before the jury and the trial judge, that the South Wales Police had ‘just decided' not to now call the doctor to give evidence, was nothing short of a criminal offence.


    • 7. For the Appellant then not to be allowed to call this already empanelled prosecution witness, being ‘anybody's property', as his psychiatrist, expert witness and/or witness of fact and/or as his character witness, was a further abuse.


    • 8. Before His Honour Judge Hugh Davies QC the prosecution had admitted it was only by the citing of this same witness, in all these three hearings, 2009 WW1Machine Gun trial and numerously related other summary hearings, by the South Wales Police, that the Crown Prosecution Service had been able to be successful, for the South Wales Police, to oppose the Appellant's preparation of both his civil and criminal cases, against the Chief Constable, out of custody, since 8am 22nd June 2009.


    • 9. By April 2012 the Appellant had almost served the pre arranged prison sentence of nine months, in any event, when bail would have been granted, by His Honour Judge Hugh Davies QC, had the Appellant been so stupidly minded as to apply.


    • 10. There was a "real possibility" of actual and/or perceived bias, as a result of His Honour Judge Curran presiding over the Appellant's trial, when the learned Judge had already stayed the Appellant's application for permission to apply for Judicial Review of the dismissal of his appeal against conviction, on 2 March 2012, relating to the conviction in respect of which the Restraining Order, imposed by Cardiff Magistrates', which was alleged to have been now breached.


    • 11. The certificate of conviction, at last released to the Appellant by HM Court and Tribunals Service, states the 1st or 9th December 2011 dated Restraining Order was dependent upon the conviction for a breach in Section 2 of the said Act but Prosecution Exhibit 1 indicates the ‘served order' on the Appellant was that from a Section 4 Restraining Order dated 8th December 2011.


    • 12. His Honour's failure to conduct a ‘Vue de Justice' with the jury, following the custody officers in the both courts, employed by GEOamey Custody Services Ltd, confiscation of the Appellant's scale drawings of the Cardiff magistrates custody suite, where the alleged offence took place was an abuse in law.


    • 13. His Honour's failure to grant an adjournment for medical attention or even access to his medication in the cells below, following GEOamey Custody Services' vicious assaults upon the Appellant, both on 1st December 2011 and 4th April 2012, was an abuse of process.


    • 14. His Honour's failure to allow the Appellant sight of all the prosecution exhibits, eg website blog of 4th December 2011 on, on arrest, before caution and/or during the trial and sight of various jury ‘notes', passed to His Honour, following the Appellant's suggestion, in the course of the trial, was also wrong in law.


    • 15. His Honour's failure to ever allow the Appellant sight of the original or sight of a certified true copy, of the Restraining Order, allegedly served on him, was also wrong in law.


    • 16. His Honour's failure to order HM Prison, Cardiff to release the Appellant's legal papers and posted in court exhibits by his Mackenzie Friend, allow him proper access to facilities, in order to conduct is defence did nothing but to compound his difficulties and were further breaches in his rights under the Rule of Law.


    • 17. In the alternative, at the appropriate time, His Honour failed to properly consider granting bail, out of custody, in the light of these apparent extreme and unusual circumstances, unable to find local legal representation, as was indicated by His Honour Judge Hugh Davies QC, on 7th April 2012, in Cardiff Crown Court and by His Honour Judge Lambert in Bristol Crown Court, during an apparent application for bail well outside South Wales.


    • 18. The Appellant therefore had an unfair trial and/or the said trial took place in breach of article 6(1) of the ECHR as incorporated by schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.






    • 1. Mr. David Gareth Evans of counsel ought not to have prosecuted the case against the Appellant as he was a potential prosecution or defence witness relating to the drawing up and purported ‘service of a ‘Restraining Order' signed? by District Judge Charles at Cardiff Magistrates' Court on 1st December 2011.


    • 2. An approach by the Appellant's Mackenzie Friend caused the CPS barrister to produce another version of Prosecution Exhibit One, ‘Restraining Order', not date stamped by the court. Prosecution Exhibit One included the court date stamp 9th Dec 2011.


    • 3. The prosecution barrister admitted, before the jury, a ‘draught' Restraining Order did still exist and was ordered to produce it, by the following day, by His Honour Judge John Curran.


    • 4. There was discussion, quite wrongly before the jury, as to whether Mr. Evans would be called as a witness relating to the ‘drawing up' of the ‘Restraining Order and he indicated to His Honour Judge Curran that he would have to "seek advice from his professional body the Bar Council for England and Wales".


    • 5. The court heard no more so the Appellant called him as a defence witness and was refused.


    • 6. The Appellant was refused an adjournment in the light of late prosecution disclosure of relevant evidence germane to the original 1st December 2011 conviction, upon which the Restraining Order relied.


    • 7. Further evidence to support, unavailable in the time frame available, was the ‘contemporaneous note' made by the Appellant's solicitor of his client's memory of events on the 1st December 2011, on 22nd December2011, just two days before the Appellant's arrest and subsequent incarceration.


    • 8. HM Cardiff prison's governors denied the Appellant proper client/solicitor/witness access, his access to his own funds for the defence or provide proper service of his letters/faxes/e-mails and telephone calls, to and from his solicitor, helpers or proposed witnesses controlled by MAPPA.


    • 9. An issue had therefore arisen in the case as to what documents were allegedly served on the Appellant relating to the Restraining Order and as to whether one had been served as handwritten by District Judge Charles as there had been evidence adduced before the jury by way of unsworn submissions by Mr. Evans and by sworn evidence from those in the public gallery, that the former had handed up a draft of the proposed Restraining Order to District Charles for approval and that District Charles had written comments on it in order stating he withed to make the Restraining Order stronger (change to a Section 4 Order, ‘fear of violence').


    • 10. There was a "real possibility" of actual and/or perceived bias as a result of Mr. Evans prosecuting the case, when he had made oral submissions to His Honour Judge Curran which were in effect the giving of evidence which was unsworn and in respect of which the Appellant was unable to challenge by way of cross-examine.


    • 11. In fact the Appellant had been absent in the cells at Cardiff Magistrates' Court when the issue of the ‘Restraining Order' had been discussed by Mr. Evans with District Judge Charles on 1st December 2011.


    • 12. In addition, the relevant exchanges between Mr. Evans as prosecutor and His Honour Judge Curran were heard in the presence of the jury when they should have been ordered to retire, causing prejudice and bias in the Appellant's case.


    The jury specifically asked for sight of the original, not copy, of both the GEOamey Custodial Services custody and clerk of the court's log and contemporaneous notes of evidence but the judge indicated, in the absence of the Appellant, that they were not relevant.   


    • 14 The Appellant therefore had an unfair trial and/or the said trial took place in breach of article 6(1) of the ECHR as incorporated by schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.



    • 1. The prosecution failed to supply to the Appellant the complete log with handwritten notes and annotations of the custody records and cctv footage, kept by GEOamey Custodial Services, that had been in charge of security in the cells at Cardiff Magistrates' Court and also the notes made by Mr. Michael Williams, the Clerk of the Court and others at Cardiff Magistrates' Court.


    • 2. Further, it emerged on 3 May 2012, during the trial that Mr. Evans was appearing in for the prosecution, he had handed up a draft of the ‘Restraining Order' to District Judge Charles on 1st December 2011 and the learned District Judge had made handwritten additions to it with suggestions for making it stronger to be one under Section 4 of the Act.


    • 3. There was an issue in the trial as to exactly which version of the ‘Restraining Order' had actually been served on the Appellant in the cells by the Security Officer Mr. Leigh Barker and so the existence of the copy of the ‘Restraining Order' with the handwritten additions made by District Judge Charles became an issue as the Appellant wished the jury to see it.


    • 4. At the conclusion of the proceedings, on 3 May 2012, His Honour Judge Curran enquired as to the whereabouts of the version of the Restraining Order with the handwritten additional made by District Judge Charles and was told by Mr. Evans that it was at the CPS Headquarters in the Appellant's case file at Merthyr Tydfil.


    • 5. Although His Honour Judge Curran directed that it be produced at the resumption of the proceedings, on 4 May 2012, only a computer print out of the amended restraining Order was produced and the jury was deprived of seeing either the original version with the handwritten additions, made by District Judge Charles or a certified true copy of the original 1st December 2011 Restraining Order made on some date between 1st and 9th December 2011.


    • 6. The Appellant had also again sought disclosure of the notes made by Mr. Michael Williams, the Clerk of the Court at Cardiff Magistrates' Court at the commencement of the proceedings, on 4 May 2012 but no order or any determination was made by His Honour Judge Curran for their production, instead, in the absence of the Appellant, informing the jury they, along with the prison and GEOmey Custodial Services records were not relevant.


    • 7. Prior to trial His Honour knew the Appellant had received correspondence from Cardiff Magistrates stating he was not entitled to any court record other than the certificate of conviction for this and some currently seven ongoing summary cases, different but all related to this current appeal.


    • 8. The Appellant therefore had an unfair trial and/or the said trial took place in breach of article 6(1) of the ECHR as incorporated by schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.




    • 1. Although the Appellant didn't make any submissions of ‘no case to answer', after the close of the prosecution's case, His Honour Judge Curran should have withdrawn the case from the jury on the grounds that the evidence as it then stood, relating to the alleged service of the Restraining Order on the Appellant in the cell number three of Cardiff Magistrates' Court, on 1st December 2011, was so unreliable that no jury properly directed could convict on that evidence.


    • 2. Conflicting evidence had been given between the Clerk of the Court, Mr. Michael Williams and the Security Officer, Mr. Leigh Barker as to whether the Appellant had been serviced in one of the cells or in the corridor of the cell area below the Magistrates, whether he had been served with one or two separate documents, if at all and when put alongside their original but conflicting police witness statements, it is the Appellant's submission, that for this case to have even reached a jury was an abuse of process fueled by vengeance.


    • 3. In addition, Mr. Barker had given evidence that he had read "Restraining Order" at the top of the document, that he had stated in evidence he had given to the Appellant but didn't give any evidence that the Appellant's name was on the document or that he had read the Appellant's name on the document in question.


    • 4. There was a serious risk of doubt regarding the alleged service of the ‘Restraining Order' on the Appellant in the cell area of Cardiff Magistrates' Court by Mr. Barker on the Appellant.



    • 5. In the premises, the Appellant's conviction is thereby rendered "unsafe" under section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.









    - v -








    49 Tynewydd Road, (for sale, 'cheap, cheap')


    CF62 8AZ


  • IPCC Demo Planned for High Grove

    An orderly visit to Highgrove is being planned re Serious Welsh problems in our judiciary, including IPCC etc!/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=465454126!n=1847002523&

    South Wales Police are currently in the lime light, following the Swansea police corruption trial and numerous other revelations so it is of no surprise the St Mellons, Cardiff base of the IPCC have put both multiple complaints from me and my family on the back burner.

    They may regret it.

    Those wishing to attend please 'look tidy', 'comb your hair', only polite banners and no megaphones.

    Bring an MP

    Thank you

    e-mail or 07907937953 for details


    FAO Inspectors Richard Holder and King,                                                                          2012/ 001471 etc

    Professional Standards, South Wales Police


    26th May 2012                                                  IPCC Complaints

    Dear Sir,

    South Wales Police ‘Shoot to Kill' Policy, MAPPA Conspiracy, False Psychiatric Reports, ‘Foxy',  Police Repainting WW1 Lewis Machine Gun, in order to Pervert the Course of Justice, Walking Stick shot gun

    In the light of my complaints, since 2009, to the IPCC and my long terms remanded in custody, with little or no activity so far identified on your part, in these investigations, I wondered if I might ask you to clarify as to just what progress, if at all, has been so far occasioned in this scandalous affair.

    I have now obtained copy from the Crown Prosecution Service (Cardiff), with a witness actually writing the colour was ‘silver' and yet this was never raised at the trial. Why not? How do you account for that or is this a matter of complaint to ‘HM Partnership' and Her Majesty's Prerogative? Just who, in the Principality, guards the guardian? I intend going to High Grove with yet another letter of complaint.

    I returned to Wickenby, Lincolnshire airfield, last week only to find no investigation started, no witness contacted, more eye witnesses found to the fact that the ‘gun' was bought from me as painted black all over. When seized by the police, a year later, it was now with a silver painted ammunition magazine. You refuse to return a copy of my statement or a walking stick shot gun found in the search of my home.

    In August 2009 South Wales Police, three of them, then returned to Wickenby, with it, less magazine, for further prosecution statements. Police had unblocked it to fire a live round, but admitted obtaining a statement that witnesses saw it painted silver by the new owner immediately after purchase from me.

    The ‘gun' next appeared in my January 2010 Cardiff Crown Court trial painted ‘all black,' to match the photos and videos off my 2008 website, even with its ammunition clearly visible!

    My younger daughter helped me draw out a route of some 2000 miles the gun may have travelled, during your colleagues' planned conspiracy to pervert the course of justice but there remain gaps, as the jury noticed, of just who, when and where this item went, whilst inside the boundaries of South Wales?

    The ‘gun' was returned after my acquittal, painted silver again, not even in matching paint? How?

    Inspector 317 of the Lincolnshire police expressed amazement that this enquiry is not being conducted by way of a ‘managed' IPCC investigation from head office, in Manchester, England, instead of some back street office in Cardiff and under your control, a fellow member of South Wales Police force.

    Yours urgently,

    Maurice J Kirk BVSc  



  • Is Bristol Crown Court going to Conspire with Cardiff's Cabal?

    Cardiff Crown Court staff, express an unease' to their being cross examined by the Appellant, the Crown Prosecution Service told a Bristol court today. One being an ex South Wales Police officer, a Derrick Hassan, now a court official who once supplied false forensic history to a doctor during a previous custody period reliant only on a section 36 of the 1983 Mental Health Act.

    This was the continuing saga on how the HM Court Service (Wales), over these past twenty years, are determined to block my appeals, in either civil or criminal proceedings, from ever being aired in an English court room.

    In this particular case, before Bristol Crown, was, you may think, the simple delivery of appeal documents at Cardiff Crown Court over a ‘Contempt of Court' conviction, now two years ago, my having already served its prison sentence. Procedure dictated that it was to be forwarded by Cardiff Crown Court to the Criminal Court of Appeal, in the Royal Courts of Justice, London. It was a dispute over  Cardiff's Recorder, His Honour Judge Nicholas Cooke QC and his pointless Court Order in that  it would ‘obtain' the medical evidence I so needed in order to stop severe pain by getting a long overdue total hip replacement operation.

    Well, today, the appeal against ‘common assault conviction' was adjourned, in order I find a ‘defence lawyer'. If that failed it was for HM Partnership, including the worried Cardiff Crown Court staff, to apply   for a Section 36 and so chose one of their own to be ‘cross examined' by!

    Incestuous isn't it when you think that this very same Cardiff court officer, who had originally refused to accept my Criminal Court of Appeal papers, by pushing me down the stairs, causing the re breaking of my leg, may also now be protected, again, from my long awaited cross examination should this English court also succumb to contagion or infection.

    This is a further indictment of the true state of our legal system, in Wales, with the English judge noting the alleged ‘common assault', on appeal, was committed as far back as July 2009. The conviction was obtained by trickery, in my absence, in November 2010 and was only finally completed in December 2011, by District Judge John Charles having milked its consequences to extreme, with a ‘no penalty'.

    So, how do they keep doing it?

    Easy, by ‘carte blanche' application of Section 36 of the Youth and Justice Criminal Evidence Act 1999, in order to protect their ‘Cardiff Cabal' and their ‘gravy train', anything to stop the basic right of a defendant  cross examining the prosecution witnesses to obtain the truth. 

    By August 2010 District Judge John Charles openly started this, their latest scam of denying all witnesses.

    It had been implemented, quietly, for many years on LiPs in Wales and spectacularly, of late, applied part way through the January 2010 ‘WW1 machine gun' trial, with the jury's mind made up by the end of the first day. Judge Nicholas Cooke QC, that June, during the  ‘Contempt of Court' debacle, had also denied me eye witnesses, access to my own medical records, anything to black mail me to employ one of their own.

    By Charles instructing a lawyer from Newport to cross examine, using nana seconds of court time, he obtained the criminal conviction they all wanted. Well, not quite as it sounds, maybe, as I was not even there but Ihad been excused by court order, later backed by still more specialist medical reports, from both France and England.

    The Newport lawyer did attend but cross examined no one, as was the case with the District Judge.

    Wow, they thought, what a great new way to stitch up Maurice from now on!

    We must do this more often. Four cases ‘out of the blue', on the same theme, promptly followed.

    By September 2011 Charles had applied this 2nd November 2010 summary conviction to lock me up for three months, pending still further conspiracies by South Wales Police, anything to prejudice my long outstanding civil damages claims.  

    Incidentally, this District Judge stated I had failed to attend that previous year's hearing there by compounding yet another conviction, one of failure to attend' he preferring to ignore his original reasoning for a Section 36.

    A conveniently placed ‘Harassment' conviction, on the old theme, was again under his control, carrying the statutory sentence of 18 weeks, by statute, again equal to my remand time to the day of conviction. Oh how convenient. So who was surprised in that after the barrister,  David Gareth Evans, had slipped in, at the very last moment, the needed extra ‘posted letter' incident to comply with statute to obtain a prison term in the first place!

    My throwing this 7th allegation, served on the day of trial, on the floor of the court had its desired effect. It was noted in the official court record and even The Glamorgan Gem newspaper, for the already drafted appeal.

    And abuse of Section 35 in this next case? Yes, you guessed it; Charles refused me any cross examination again but this time by employing a lawyer from Swansea not forgetting, this time, the man was only answerable to the court and NOT to the Defendant.

    He was therefore ordered to at least ‘go through the motions' of ‘cross examining'.

    He asked both irrelevant questions and avoided the obvious ones. He, in fact, challenged no prosecution evidence what so ever, clearly caught on tape, the transcript of which is being published later. This lawyer was last seen running, with his quick £1,200 attendance fee tucked in his belt, for his Swansea train knowing, full well, much more was due now he had proved his allegiance.

    Ah, no, I forget. He did come back, didn't he? Back to repeat the performance at the March 2012 Crown Court hearing, for my appeal before His Honour Judge PD Hughes QC. Again I was denied legal papers, witnesses etc.    

    2011 Christmas Eve was marked by my being jailed yet again, on the old theme, this time until mid May 2012,  for an alleged ‘Breach of a Restraining Order' never  served on me until pushed under a police cell door after my arrest. A nine month prison sentence had been arranged, this time, well in advance, with the usual release from custody to be on the predicted last day of trial.

    Continuing this Section 36 abuse, however, was to be varied and worked on with much aplomb, as this next case had a lay jury with which to contend. A most unpredictable ‘creature' in this day and age of fast changing  habits and social standards.

    Basing the prosecution's usual strategy, on the general public's apparent fear of those employed in any court building, the judge and prosecution barrister arranged, therefore, the production only of court officials and policemen to give relevant evidence to obtain a conviction.

    This jury and others, no doubt, risk the huge assumption that court clerks and custody officers, as employees from within a court building are to be trusted. Having stupidly replaced properly trained prison officers to do the job we now have too many ‘bully boys' with little training, little regard for the seriousness of their work that that seriously influence proceedings. It  may well have been the reason for the jury's majority verdict.

    That was a foregone conclusion, to me, once I was allowed no legal papers in court or facilities to interview my witnesses.

     My websites may well give world wide exposure on just how Cardiff's so called ‘great and the good' continue to conspire to pervert the course of justice but while the police or judges continue to closing them down others will follow. Soon, I warn you, we will be far too many to jail at any one time.  

    A sample of what the jury may not have known about this case (to be later expanded in links etc).

    Much needed reforms, anticipated in our judicial system, need to be considered alongside the following:

    I was again to be blocked from cross examining their key prosecution witness, by application of Section 36 YJCEA 1999 but allowed, at last, to cross examine others. So what is this evil lot up to this time?

    The surprising CPS barrister's opening speech, late removal of a key witness and frank admission he, as Her Majesty's Crown Court representative, should not be conducting the case, he being called as a defence witness, was but part of this pitiful story.

    The Section 36 ‘court appointed lawyer', to ‘cross examine', had  failed to attend despite a string of albeit clandestine but publicly recorded Crown and Cardiff Magistrate Court hearings and Orders on the matter.

    One was amongst the defence evidence gently secreted just anterior to my anterior anal sphincter, ready for disclosure, hopefully from a great height.

     HM Cardiff prison, GEOamey Custody Services and His Honour Judge John Curran QC, had  refused either my legal papers or medication being in the court.

    To a casual observer in the public gallery, for what was the usually concocted Cardiff cabal conspiracy, this now having the potential of something similar to a Whitehall Theatre farce.

    For the jury to be refused, despite asking by ‘jury notes', to see what record both court and custody services are kept, of a service of a court document, I have all seen before. So what other exhibits would the jury ‘not be allowed to examine' if I bothered to give evidence, called witnesses and obtained the cctv?

    Court cases are usually won or lost, in Cardiff, based on who has the most deceitful lawyer on their side. Successful withholding of evidence, failed ‘disclosure', is the name of the game. The veracity and mental state of presiding judge, prosecutor and or South Wales Police invariably influences the final outcome.

    To even contemplate prosecuting Cardiff's court, prison or police services, for civil damages, a jury trial, for example, has to first ‘collapse', be ‘withdrawn part heard' by the CPS' or ‘be stopped' by the presiding judge. Above all, the Defendant must never, except in rare occasion, call defence evidence if he thinks he, his family or even his long suffering friends in the public gallery, will ever get reimbursed, following acquittal, of even their bus fares. 

    CPS barrister David Gareth Evans to then go on and admit that, yes, I had been handed a piece of paper in my cell, on 1st December 2011, by their star lying witness, Geoamey Custody Services manager, Leigh Barker and yes, containing District Judge John Charles' very own ink from his fountain pen scribbled through three lines of CPS type, should of also of stopped this trial ‘dead in its tracks'.

    Approx copy of notes taken by Defendant's solicitor before jury trial

    Restraining Order - Not in Court

    CPS came into cell - handwritten an(d) print 2/3 lines.

    Refused to leave prison until given something in writing - and was then out.

    Went to Court and asked for copy of what convicted for.

    Also contacted Crown - who had file.

    Inc. "derogatory"

    The CPS barrister then went on to admit, Oh yes, that piece of scribbled on paper was initially sent down for Mr Kirk's ‘approval', to draught an order and that it had been ‘left behind' in his Merthyr Tydfil office. This was all sparked off in court by my McKenzie Friend, Mr Merion Bowen, forcing the CPS to even disclose still further yet undisclosed documents! These other drafts were uncovered in the face of the court and still the judge did not stop the trial knowing ,full well, I had written for them many weeks before.   

    If that was not enough, to stop proceedings, this issue was compounded, yet again, by the judge now actually pretending to order the disclosure of ‘District Judge John Charles' hand written note to me, a small matter I had been asking for, for months, along with the overhead cctv, capturing the lot, with both custody and court contemporaneous record that MUST GO BEFORE THE JURY.

     Even the visiting solicitor to the prison, before the jury trial took place, took contemporaneous note of all this gross irregularity and e-mailed me his typed record. His quiet ‘negotiations' with CPS have, so far, failed to materialise the sensible way forward for all involved.

    Further ‘Grounds of Appeal' papers, to the London, must go via Cardiff court within the next few days.

    But I have to personally deliver them to Cardiff Crown Court, possibly to Derrick Hassan again!

    Deja Vu?  

    (Links and court docs to be added shortly) 




  • IPCC refuse South Wales Police Investigation re Musa Children current Trial

    This week's Bristol Crown Court application, for disclosure of court and custody records, flows from my apparent application for bail, some weeks ago, from within Cardiff prison. Its purpose was to compare the perverse variation in judicial ‘ground rules' available for a prisoner in England to one, less fortunate and found to be incarcerated in Wales and especially in Cardiff


    His Honour Judge Julian Lambert has just informed me that the Cardiff Magistrates Court again insists ‘there are no records' to be released for me to prosecute my long awaited Crown Court appeal on this Friday, 25th May. The court was also reminded that the Crown Prosecution Service again remains ‘unavailable for comment'. I have made, now, well over seventy court applications in Cardiff on this and related matters of ‘failed disclosure' and yet it has only taken one such application in an English court to witness a positive response and the likelihood of the proverbial ‘fire works' when disclosure of public records is finally achieved.

     This apparent unlawful use of Section 36, applied to an incident that occurred almost two years ago, in Cardiff Crown Court and causing my admission to hospital, may be why it has been so delayed and moved out of the area for fear of publicity.

    The outcome of all my recent Cardiff Administrative Court, High Court, County Court, Crown Court and Magistrate Court hearings, since February, whilst imprisoned and unable to be appropriately legally represented, has found me facing yet another five year prison term, such as the scandalous MAPPA based indictments in the 2009 ‘WW1 machine gun' fiasco.

    All my seventeen ongoing cases, including private prosecutions stifled by successive Cardiff Crown Court judges, rely purely on whether a court and especially one consisting of a jury, be allowed sight of and understanding of ‘evidence', only in the ‘control' of either HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) or the South Wales Police.

    Any evidence that might ‘undermine' the prosecution's case is invariably not disclosed in Cardiff courts as was proven in my first twenty odd appearances this year. 

    There are inherent dangers for the unsuspecting Welshman who must be warned, should a repeat mistake be made as with the Welsh Assembly, by he or she now voting for an independent judiciary, as it will only exacerbate these already serious anomalies.

     Cardiff courts, over the past twenty years, have deliberately withheld public records from me and my helpers in their attempt to cover up, ‘what really goes on in our courts'. These issues, hopefully, will be touched upon by Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service on this Tuesday afternoon.

    Incidentally, Bristol Crown Court, last week, had me before the judge in less than 24 hours of them being aware of my application even being in the building! Oh, so different to Cardiff.

     Bristol court was told I had already been sentenced to a nine months term of imprisonment by prior arrangement of ‘HM Partnership'. Their agreed release date, for me, was to coincide, as usual, with the last day of my trial, irrespective of the verdict.

    For the purists, who know my background, I should note that someone rather spiteful, at the very last minute, disallowed consideration for my time in custody with the Metropolitan Police, just before Christmas, thereby extending my custodial period by a further five days. I had been snatched to prevent my giving evidence on behalf of the Musa parents refused bail in their continuing case, this week, of their, now, seven  snatched children by Haringey Council. The Nigerian family face division by forced adoption and deportation.

    Regina v Chiwar Musa & Gloria Musa, Wood Green Crown Court, London, Monday 21st May 2012 at 10am ...... See You There


    ‘Operation Orchid' launched a police helicopter and a significant number of armed police across South Wales when Barbara Wilding tried to have snatched, by Social Services, my own daughter, then ten years of age, on the 22nd June 2009, using ‘Operation Chalice' as their excuse.

     Following the cross examination of the first four police officers, revealing the conspiracy in that 2009 ‘machine gun' trial to get me jailed IPP and that the gun had been made ‘operational' after I had sold her, a year earlier, the ‘Cardiff cabal', consisting of judiciary, police others, have again huddled around some MAPPA table, in some dingy Welsh police office and conspired to implement a whole new meaning to be applied for Section 36 of the Youth and Justice Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

    It basically allows a court to appoint their own lawyer to conduct cross examination of their ‘sensitive' prosecution witnesses, even including the investigating police officers, despite obvious objections by this defendant.

    New witnesses, found well over a year ago, have still not been interviewed by the South Wales Police Professional Standards Department despite this gun's ‘re painting' by their own officers, to try and fool the 2009 jury, has been verified and reported to the IPCC.

     The gun's re-commissioning, contrary to Section 5(1) a of the 1968 Fire Arms Act, since I had sold her has also been verified and nothing done about it.

     Only this year, during one of my private prosecutions when trying to recover my confiscated property, police have verified ‘finding' an actual ‘prohibited weapon' and ‘prohibited ammunition', during the 2009 trial, in my home but have withheld this information until now.     

    And now, with still more new evidence, only this week, with one WW1 Lewis machine gun, bolted back on again, onto my old DH2 Farnborough Display biplane, now in Lincolnshire, the IPCC are again refusing to re-consider my original August 2009 complaint, from hospital and to order a properly conducted ‘independent' police investigation, by an external police force, well outside this corrupt riddled part of the United Kingdom, called South Wales.


    Bristol Crown, Case Progression Case e-mail
    08:22 (3 hours ago)

    to me

    Please find enclosed response from HHJ Lambert.
    Please acknowledge receipt of Mr Kirk’s e-mail and inform him that the documents will be placed on the judge’s papers ready for his application on Tuesday. Please place them on the papers. Regards
    Case Progression Officer



  • Hard Evidence per Rectum

    Is this a sample of things to come right across the Principality of Wales and then, UK?

     The ‘Cardiff Cabal' of deceitful key players has finally been promised sole control, their own judiciary, of their very own ‘gravy train' funded by YOU.

    Consider, please, the extreme lengths to which I, one of many, have again been subjected, just to obtain both court and custody contemporaneous record for an already bemused jury.

     Then consider the reason for recent hunger strike, due to the appalling lack of medical services by HMP and NHS (Wales), as original medical records, originally falsified for MAPPA and a string of Cardiff judges to get me IPP, in 2009, have still not been corrected nor clarified. How many times has my lawyer written to the authorities now? Five times?

    The need to stuff defence exhibits up orifices, just to get them into court and again be subjected to being beaten up in the Cardiff prison, by the very same bully boys, 395 Myers and 344 Graham, upon my return from court, is all part of their  20 year conspiracy.

     Masonic devil worship? Of course it all is while those in ‘authority', able to stamp it out, are, of course, in the very same club.

    All this is exactly as to what happened in the 2009 'machine gun', MAPPA and 20011‘harassment' court cases, all displaying extreme examples of criminal conduct by the very same faceless individuals from within the Welsh Authorities protected by HM. Extended terms of custody, each time, expecting their irritation will eventually go away, has been a particularly bad error on their part and something they are, shortly, to regret.

    The prison, now, will not release my legal papers needed for my appeal and JR Application to the Royal Courts of Justice.

    His Honour Judge Lambert, in Bristol Crown Court this, week, has ordered proper disclosure to show why  the 2nd Nov 2010 ‘common assault' conviction, at last on appeal, is  listed outside Wales?

    Why carrying a sentence of ‘no penalty' given 13 months after Cardiff conviction ?

    Why in my absence I was convicted of failing to attend when John Charles gave the permission?

    Can this English judge also influence a Welsh prison, I wonder?

    I will write to Bristol Crown Court and apply for an Order to amend the never seen yet original 'Restraining Order' to allow me to communicate with witnesses from the public gallery for grounds for Royal Courts of Justice. 

    When I do get promise of court records HM prison Cardiff, Geo Amy Custody Services or some Cardiff judge simply reverse their previous decisions and block their release. This time all three blocked their release after the trial had started.

    Judge Cullen QC repeatedly witheld what he knew, stifling evidence what the jury needed and even before the trial started, promised me both legal representation and production of the essential witness with his relevant NHS documents.The judge had no intention what so ever of ever upholding those previous court orders and ran Janet Kirk and other helpers a merry dance when they tried to get hard copy from the public counter. 

    Judge Cullen QC blocked my JR application, re the original Dec 11 magistrates fiasco under District Judge John Charles, until ‘after the trial is concluded'....he being the trial judge! Should he simply recused himself!

     He knew that had the JR been successful, I was refused court documents,witnesses, access to lawyer, my own legal papers or right to cross examine in both courts.  If current IPCC and NHS ‘investigations' from England had been allowed to be concluded,properly, there would not have been any trial in the first place. NHS officials or their legal representatives, crowded into each and every court room during these past seven months to monitor what are they frightenend of?

     In Cardiff Crown Court, incidentally, I never ever did get to see any certified true copy of an original document relied on by the prosecution. What utter nonsense again, the 'machine gun' case all over again.

    David Gareth Evans, barrister for the Crown Prosecution Service, meaning the representative of Her Majesty the Queen, was no better as he also was promised immunity to criminal prosecution as part of HM Partnership.

    Now, he perverted the course of justice ‘big time' knowing he is cocooned in their cosy ‘Cardiff Law'. He was  free to re draft as many versions of allegations, he liked, during  the magistrates nonsense and in full view of the K Team, created the very exhibit  that made him, of course, the vital witness to scrap the trial.

    Instead, the one of many draughts, the one I only saw, was left in the CPS Merthyr Tydfil Office, under lock and key.

     District Judge John Charles blocked my being able to cross examine anyone, at all, as far back as August 2010. He had taken a leaf from His Honour Judge Paul Thomas QC's book, during the scandalous 2010 ‘machine gun case', to prevent the uncovering of the south Wales Police's MAPPA conspiracy

    Barrister Evans told the court he had contacted the Bar Council for help when realising I was obviously calling him as my main defence witness.

     As the original fabricator of some fictitiously served up paperwork, down in the cells and by post, what was he doing now conducting the prosecution in the first place. The judge, mean time, sat very quiet knowing if I had objected a re trial would have me returned to prison for many more months whilst unconvicted.

    On the 3rd day of this circus, Geo Amy either refused to inform the judge the CPS Evans was my defence witness, now to be called,  as His Honour had already blocked all others or maybe, custody staff, Diane or Jackie did get my message to court from the cells, below?

    This continuing NHS (Wales) withholding of my medical records, with evidence recorded of 'significant brain damage' and a possible tumour,whilst at the same time,  refusing me clarification, correction or giving me treatment, is a stark warning to others that these recent criminal proceedings, in Cardiff, have now set a precedent across the UK.

    Wll jail for arguing with a traffic warden be next?


    My e-mail,, Thank you.

     New blogs re latest imprisonment and farcical trials, naming names, coming up mobile is 0790 793 7953.

    Blogs, shortly

    1. Police found a walking stick shot gun, contrary to Section 5 of the 1968 Fire Arms Act and machine gun ammunition, but never mentioned it in the '2010 machine gun court case' now. I wonder why?

     2.  Serious assault by Geo Amy and nothing is done about it....see 'gallery'.

    3. David Gareth Evans, CPS barrister, performs the  classic fraudulent manoevre, had it not been done in a Cardiff court, on a par with his predecessor, CPS barrister, Richard Tohmlow, who, in 2009, had tried to get me sectioned to Ashworth, for life.


    I now risk being  either jailed again or quietly eliminated, anything to stop my further exposing the wickedness within the South Wales Police  and Cardiff's judiciary.


  • Cardiff Law in Action: Prison Staff ignores what Judge Orders

    I've actually seen it in the Royal Courts of Justice, too: the Judge allows for contact with the prisoner, but the staff "looking after" the prisoner follow somebody else's rule. 

    Yesterday, the judge allowed the supporters to visit Maurice in the cells. But when they arrived there, they were told that he had already left which, unfortunately, was not true!...

    Go figure: innocent until proven guilty, fair trial or "Cardiff Law": make it up as you go, as long as Maurice is treated as badly as possibly possible - by virtually anybody who has the capacity to abuse their power... 

  • Now we Know it: no difference between Convicted Prisoners and Litigants in Person on Remand

    From: Hunter, Patrick [NOMS] 1 May 2012

    Dear Ms McNeill

    Thank you for your email of 17 March asking for information about prison conditions for litigants. As your request does not fall within the terms of the Freedom of Information Act it has been dealt with it as a Treat Official enquiry and as such I have responded accordingly. I have answered each of your questions below in he order they appear:

    1. With regard the position/recognition of McKenzie friends and the Prison Service, there is no individual or specific Prison Service Order (PSO) or Prison Service Instruction (PSI) which covers this particular subject but if in connection to an adjudication guidance can be found in the Prison Discipline Procedures PSI – PSI 47/2011 at paragraphs 2.10 t o 2.15 under Tarrant Principles.

    If the matter does relate to an adjudication, the guidance states that at the start of every hearing, the adjudicator must ask the prisoner whether s/he wishes to have additional assistance and, if the prisoner expresses interest, must explain about the possibilities of legal representation, legal advice, or of assistance from a friend or adviser, also known as a McKenzie friend.

    Requests for legal representation, legal advice or a McKenzie friend may also be made during the adjudication. McKenzie friends may ask for arrangements to be made before the hearing for access to various facilities in order to help the accused prepare the case. However, and as may be apparent from the above, a McKenzie friend cannot act as a legal representative in the same way as an appointed solicitor or barrister and therefore they do not attract the special privileges of things such as Rule 39 or legal visits.

    This means that in terms of visiting arrangements the format would be a matter for local discretion and in relation to documentation passed between the prisoner and their McKenzie friend these would not attract the confidential privilege attached to Rule 39 unless they had originated from a solicitor or barrister or the Courts.

    2. The decision to use the services of is at the sole discretion of individual Governors/Directors and there is no central directive from NOMS Headquarters that it should be made available across the prison estate.

    3. While it is perceived that the cost of prisoners’ calls is relatively high this must be reflected in the fact that the telephone system (PINphone system) available to prisoners is viewed as a “private network” and the cost of calls are not currently linked to public call rates. This is because the public payphone service does not require the same level of investment as the prison PINphone system which must operate safely and securely within the prison setting. Furthermore, to reduce costs under the current contract would require a large subsidy at public expense. The PINphone system is a unique service designed to ensure safe and secure access to telephones for prisoners.

    4. Postal orders are not the only way in which monies can be sent into prisoners. NOMS policy is set out in Paragraph 15.10.2 of Prison Service Instruction 26/2011, NOMS Finance Manual, this recommends that monies sent in by post should be by cheque or postal order to safeguard the sender and the recipient, but establishments cannot refuse to accept cash.

    5. Litigant in Persons who are on remand are not afforded any different provisions with regard the PINphone system as convicted prisoners. However, where there are any urgent legal or compassionate circumstances, such as imminent court proceedings or a domestic crisis, Governors/Directors have the discretion to allow such calls to take place at public expense. Before agreeing to such, it must be confirmed that this need could not be met by means of a visit or letter and that the individual had insufficient credit within their PINphone account to make the call.

    As stated these calls will be made at public expense and such calls can be made either via an official telephone or a generic PINphone account with pre-funded credit paid for by public funds. Furthermore, while the PINphone system does not accept incoming calls, arrangements can be made to allow prisoners to exceptionally receive calls on official telephones from official bodies or the Courts. However, this would again be at the Governors discretion.

    Unconvicted prisoners are statutorily entitled to send two free letters every week and the cost of postage will be paid for by the local prison (normally sent at the 2nd Class rate of postage). They are also entitled to a Special Letter on top of their statutory entitlement if in exceptional circumstances and this would include in connection with their defence. They can send as many privilege letters (ones which are paid for by the prisoner) as they wish and are allowed to send over and above their statutory entitlement of letters. The policy which covers the above guidance can be found in PSI 49/2011 Prisoner Communications Services.

    6. Prisoners who demonstrate that without IT there is a real risk of prejudice to their legal proceedings are issued with IT. The Governor/Director must be convinced that the prisoner's access to justice will genuinely be hampered without appropriate IT. The overriding purpose is not to provide equipment simply to make the manipulation of material easier or to facilitate swifter communications, but to prevent the impediment of access to legal documentation that might otherwise result if the equipment is not made available. For example, a piece of prosecution evidence might only be available in digital format or be so unwieldy in paper format as to be impractical and it might therefore disadvantage the prisoner if the necessary facilities were not provided.

    Ideally, the prisoner's solicitor would make arrangements to bring such a piece of evidence to a legal visit to enable the client to view it and then take it away again, although if the prisoner is conducting their own defence it does not follow that IT must be provided for the duration of the case - it might only be needed to view that one piece of evidence and so should be withdrawn as soon as is practicable afterwards.

    Governors/Directors must balance the prisoner's need against the serious threat that IT presents to security in prisons and where access is permitted must ensure that there are procedures and technical fixes in place to prevent misuse such as illicit access to the internet and the downloading/sharing of material that might endanger or cause distress to the public, staff and other prisoners, or otherwise undermine confidence in National Offender Management Service/Ministry of Justice.


    Patrick Hunter
    Offender Safety, Rights and Responsibilities Group
    National Offender Management Service
    Post Point 4.16,
    4th Floor, Clive House
    70 Petty France
    London SW1H 9EX
    Tele: 0300 047 5718