re
Inspector Andrew Rice and others
Thankyou for
your apparent concern regarding a 'few rotten apples' in your local police
force and suggesting you just might be now considering the content of Mr
Alexander/Ebbs October 27th Oct 2012 witness statement.
What a pity you
were not a 'fly on the wall' during Mr Alexander/Ebbs' extensive and much
unchallenged evidence.
Despite my
request for police attendance, in yesterday's court hearing, you have now
missed the opportunity of Mr Alexander/Ebbs repeating the facts of a a
serious risk of another 'police conspiracy' from within the South Wales
Police.
Your police
lawyer, Mr Williams QC, has indicated that his client, your Chief
Constable, may well accept the content of Mr Alexander's Oct 12
statement subject, I suppose, to your long overdue 'investigation'
actually needing to be started.
Mr Alexander was
minded to write a new statement, yesterday and I lodged it in the Cardiff civil
court for your 'attention'.
Apparently, Inspector
Rice and others had crossed the Severn river to England in order to meet him
and alter his evidence in a forthcoming criminal and Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons enquiry, against me, as to whether my name should have
been considered for removal from the veterinary register.
So just how much
longer do you intend to prevaricate?
Maurice
Kirk BVSc
enclosed
Recall of Inspector Andrew Rice, ex Chief Inspector Brian Jenner and ex Inspector Robert Nelson Roe adjourned
Producton, by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC's Order, of Inspector Steve Parry, Anthony Gafael, ex police officer Frank O'Brian ands numerous others yet to be sorted
The case continues on Friday 24th May
A Recent RCJ Ruling
Case Law to be argued will include:
Some prison officers accused prisoners of violence and prisoners got off at crown court.
Prisoners sued for malicious prosecution but Ministry of Justice appealed to try and strike out the claim but prisoners won:-
In a unanimous judgement, the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments (by MOJ) and upheld the decisions below. In the leading judgment, Lord Justice Pill held the following:-
“The question is whether, on the facts, it is arguable that the prosecution was procured by the prison officers and the circumstances were such that it was virtually impossible for the CPS to exercise any independent discretion or judgment.
“I have not accepted that the right to bring an action for malicious prosecution is confined to cases in which there is a single prosecution witness with exclusive knowledge of the facts….
“The complaint was made by five prison officers, responsible public officials. The events occurred in the closed world of a prison in which the respondent was detained. Their statements were consistent with each other. Complaint was made to the CPS in clear and strong terms. It can strongly be argued before a jury that it was unrealistic to expect the CPS to take a decision other than to prosecute. The responsible solicitor advised a prosecution. She did so without first considering medical evidence, which she acknowledged would in due course be necessary. The decision of the CPS was entirely predictable and the five complaining officers would have expected no other. Indeed, they would have been dismayed if a different decision had been taken.
“…The availability of other potential evidence (for example from other prisoners) does not defeat an arguable case that it was the five prison officers who, by making the statements they did, in the circumstances they did, procured this prosecution…Arguably, it was virtually, in practical terms, impossible for the CPS to exercise independent discretion in the face of such evidence. I give full weight to the need to protect those who complain to the police of alleged criminal conduct and also to the modern role of the CPS. I am, however, unable to hold that this claim that the prison officers had procured the prosecution, as that term is used in the authorities, should be struck out”.