28 May 2013 Further ruling on second list of witnesses
whom Mr Kirk wishes to call.
On 29 April 2013, at a
time when the Defendant were shortly to call their last witness, Mr Kirk
delivered a written list of 44 witnesses whom he wished to call. On 1st May 2013 I delivered a written
ruling identifying which witnesses he was to be permitted to call. I did so pursuant to the responsibility upon
the court to control the evidence by giving directions, and actively to case
manage the case, under CPR 32.1 and CPR 1.4.
In that written ruling it I set out the nature of the present
proceedings; the Orders which have been made previously, setting out in
particular the dates by which witness statements, or witness summaries, had
been required to be served; the background from 2008 to date in respect of
preparation of the present trial insofar as it permitted or impeded Mr Kirk’s
ability to prepare evidence and secure witness statements or summaries; and the
principles by which the court is governed in respect of the calling of
witnesses. I adopt that in full for the purpose of the present ruling and I do
not repeat it here.
Since then, Mr Kirk has
given evidence over several days and has called 13 witnesses. By a Position
Statement dated 22nd May 2013 Mr Kirk served a further written list
of some 19 named witnesses he would wish to call. I stated on 24 May that I would again give
ruling in writing. This is (i) for
clarity as to my reasons and (ii) for ease of access to a record of the ruling.
I understand that a hearing is listed for Friday 7 June 2013 to consider
permission to appeal (and/or appeal itself) against my ruling of 1 May
2013. I will in this ruling list the
witnesses individually in this ruling, as I did in the last, by number and name
in Mr Kirk’s list but preceded by a letter “B”, to avoid confusion, assuming
that the present ruling may also be the subject of application for permission
to appeal.
B1. Ex-Inspector Coliandris. This is a former
police officer. In these proceedings the
Defendant gave an undertaking to call or tender any witness in respect of whom
a witness statement had been lodged, so long as that was a presently serving
officer and thus within the control of the Defendant; but expressly did not
give that undertaking in respect of any witness who was no longer a serving
police officer. I was told that Mr
Coliandris was reluctant to attend court because of his state of health. I am
aware that he wrote to the court himself seeking to inform the court
confidentially of his state of health and his reservations, but stating that he
did not want these details to be made known to Mr Kirk. I declined to read his
representations so long as he wished the content of his communications to be
kept from one of the parties and I so informed them. In the event Mr Coliandris was not called and
the Defendant did not seek to tender his evidence, whether live or under the
Civil Evidence Act.
Mr Kirk does not
articulate the nature of the evidence which he believes Mr Coliandris could
give. On the face of his witness statement Mr Coliandris is not a direct
witness to any fact or incident in issue.
He appears to have looked into complaint by Mr Kirk, without identifying
relevant material evidence. If so, then this appears to be a witness whom Mr
Kirk wishes to call blind, in the hope of either fishing for evidence in
support of his case or simply cross-examining the witness in support of the
same exercise. I have also sought to be
alert to the possibility that a witness might be able to assist, as to the
matters in issue, if he is referred to in documents before the court; but I
have identified no such reference.
Accordingly I rule
against permission to call this witness.
B2. Ex Chief Inspector Trigg. This is in fact
a renewed application – in respect of witness 15 in the ruling of 1 May
2013. No new material is advanced. The
same considerations apply. Accordingly I
still rule against permission to call Mr Trigg.
B3. Mr
Brian Genner. This is a witness who has given evidence in relation to the
events of 6 June 1995. Mr Anthony Gafael and his girlfriend Alison Genner the
daughter of this witness were excluded that day from their flat, an incident
which led to prosecution of Mr Kirk, and in respect of which Mr Kirk complains
that police officers forced entry through a roller shutter door to Mr Kirk’s
premises. There are discrepancies
between the account in the witness statement for these proceedings of Sergeant
Roe (as he was in 1995) and others, including Mr Genner, as to when Roe was
present or what he did. In the case of
Mr Roe, Mr Kirk produced after Mr Roe’s evidence a statement of the time from
Sergeant Roe which appeared clearly inconsistent with what Mr Roe had told me.
I therefore permitted Mr Roe, exceptionally, to be recalled for further
cross-examination. The inconsistencies have been explored in cross-examination
by Mr Kirk and in questions from myself.
Mr Kirk seeks that Mr
Genner be recalled also. However the
evidence of Mr Genner has been given. The
evidence of Anthony Gafael has now been given. If there is material in the evidence
of Mr Genner (or Mr Gafael) on which Mr Kirk seeks to rely, or inconsistencies
in the evidence between witnesses on which he seeks to rely, that is available in
closing submissions and will be for me to consider as in any other case. Unlike Mr Roe, there is no earlier
inconsistent written statement of Mr Genner relied upon (which in any event, if
it had been available, ought to have been put to him), nor other proper reason
for him to be recalled.
B4. Mr Roe.
He has been recalled once (see above). It would be wholly exceptional
for a witness to be recalled for a second time. I have now heard evidence from
Mr Gafael. However Mr Kirk identifies nothing new which would justify, and I
have failed to identify anything in the evidence of Mr Gafael which would
justify, recalling Mr Roe.
B5. Ex Chief Inspector Colin Jones. Mr Kirk states that he is a “key player”. A
chief reason for Mr Kirk’s interest is that at one of Mr Kirk’s appeals in the
Crown Court a police officer attended as an observer, when he was seen to be
nodding towards a police officer PC Rewbridge during the giving of her
evidence. According to Mr Kirk, when
asked to explain himself, the police officer said he was attending on
instruction from Chief Inspector Colin Jones. Inferentially, Mr Kirk believes
that Mr Colin Jones is, or may be, one of the senior police officers whom he
passionately believes to have conspired to hound him.
As with a number of
police officers whom Mr Kirk wished to call in his list of 29 April 2013, (i)
there is no statement from the proposed witness (ii) it is wholly unlikely that
the witness will give a statement, and (iii) there is no direct evidence of
connection of the witness with the specific matters in issue in these
proceedings. I consider that the real
wish of Mr Kirk is to cross-examine the witness in the hope that something
might turn up; but that there is no discernible prospect that such an exercise
would assist the court.
B6. Inspector Andrew Rice. Mr Kirk has submitted on a great number of
occasions that Mr Rice should be recalled.
Evidence has been given by a Mr Alexander-Ebbs that he attended Aust
Service Station to give a witness statement, in respect of an assault he
alleged against Mr Kirk, at a meeting attended by a number of persons including
Mr Rice, where he was encouraged to “sex up” his account. However Mr
Alexander-Ebbs was present in person at this court on 21st February
2013 during the continued evidence of Mr Rice; gave a witness statement on that
day making the allegations against Mr Rice; and these allegations were put to
Mr Rice. Otherwise, Mr Kirk assets that Mr Rice must have been aware fo covert
surveillance of Mr Kirk; and/or he now wonders whether it was Mr Rice whom he
sought to “arrest” outside the magistrates’ court (rather than a Sergeant Hill)
when handing over a file which Mr Kirk thought might contain important real
evidence. In my respectful judgment there
is, (and there continues to be), no justification for the recall of Mr Rice.
B7. Inspector Steve Parry. This is in fact a
renewed application – in respect of witness 43 in the ruling of 1 May
2013. No new material is advanced. The
same considerations apply. Accordingly I
still rule against permission to call Mr Parry.
B8. Jonathan Clayton. I made ruling in respect of Mr Clayton on 1
May 2013. No witness statement or witness summary has been served in respect of
him. He is said to be relevant to the incident of 4 July 1999, but it is not
said that he was a direct witness to any of the events of that day. If
anything, there is less reason now for him to be called, in that Mr Kirk’s
witness Susan Jenkins has given evidence of what is required of those flying
from one airport and air traffic control zone to another; and Mr Aishe has
given evidence of the closeness of the police helicopter to Mr Kirk’s aircraft I discern no sufficient or good reason for
him to be called.
B9. Ex
Chief Constable Barbara Wilding. This is another renewed application – in
respect of witness 2 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. Mr Kirk identifies nothing new. The same
considerations apply now as did then.
Accordingly I still rule against permission to call this witness.
B10. Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brien. The position
statement itself articulates no cause for him to be called. Orally, Mr Kirk said he was an important
witness because he gave evidence which “caused the case [against Mr Kirk] to
collapse”. I did not find it easy to follow what this evidence was supposed to
be. It seemed to be that an HORT1 form was said by the police officers to have
been served upon Mr Kirk, yet no document was ever traced, nor an audit trial
provided for such a document, hence the case against Mr Kirk failed. However, to the extent that this is right, Mr
Kirk may in any event rely upon it.
This is an incident of
May 1995. in which Mr Kirk shows particular interest, in that Special Constable
Deren Martin says that she served him with an HORT1 form; and has given
evidence that she made enquiries with the police in Guernsey (in pursuit of
whether Mr Kirk’s vehicle was or was not exempt from vehicle excise licence),
being told that there was warrant for his arrest outstanding. This fuels Mr
Kirk’s suspicion and belief that he was the subject of harassment by police in
Wales because of his past travails with Guernsey police.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that Mr O’Brian is
a paradigm case of a proposed witness from whom there is no witness statement or
summary, no reason to suppose that the witness (if he can be found) will give a
statement, no indication whether he would remember whether another officer
served an HORT1 firm on Mr Kirk on a day 18 years ago, SC Deren Martin being
the officer in the case, and one whom Mr Kirk hopes to cross-examine despite
him being called as his own witness, in the hope that something might turn up.
Accordingly I decline to give permission for this witness to be called.
B11. Ex SC Ridley. Mr Kirk tells me, (if I have
succeeded in following him correctly),
that Mr Ridley was the investigating officer for the same incident as
resulted in police photographs being taken of his vehicle (as was done for SC
Deren Martin for the May 1995 incident). Similar considerations apply as with
SC O’Brien. So far as I can see, this is fishing in the dark. In default of witness statement, or the
beginnings of a witness summary, I cannot justify permission to call the
witness.
B12. Mrs
Diana Graham. Mr Kirk asks for a “foreign witness summons”. This witness lives
in France. The Claimant’s Witness Bundle includes at page 91-123 a statement,
not in proper form, by this witness with associated documents. The bulk of the statement relates to the
proceedings which followed the Vale of Glamorgan Show incident of August 1998,
(Action 3, “2”). This is one of the
claims struck out by my rulings of November 2010. Accordingly that which
relates to it is not now material.
Much of the rest
relates to how Mr Kirk was dealt with on occasions in court, by magistrates
(and occasionally by judges, including judges in the Divisional Court), some of
it clearly recording what Mr Kirk said to her and some although much less
clearly being personal observation on the part of Mrs Graham. I informed the parties that I would read this
statement and discard all that related to the Vale of Glamorgan Show. I do not envisage that Mrs Graham could
assist me significantly further by giving evidence orally and, as I have made
clear on a number of occasions, it is not permissible to call a witness in the
hope that she might add something further which is not contained either in a
witness statement or witness summary. Not least, if there were anything
material for Mrs Graham to add, the time has long passed when such material was
required to be lodged with the court. I will treat the statement as admitted in
evidence, but I will make no further order.
B13. Mr Gafael.
He has now been called, since I directed steps for bailiff service of
Notice to show Cause which secured his attendance on 24 May 2013.
B14. G. Thomas. Without agreeing the content of
the statement, the Defendant is content that the statement be read. The same applies to a Mr Kirke (as to
maintenance of tyres on vehicles of Mr Kirk), whom Mr Kirk raised orally on 23
May 2103 as a potential witness.
B15. Nigel
Thomas. This is in fact a renewed
application – in respect of witness 30 in the ruling of 1 May 2013. No statement has been produced. No new
material is advanced and the same considerations apply as before. I rule
against deferment of conclusion of the evidence in order for him to be searched
for and thus against permission to call Mr Thomas.
B17. Mrs Kirstie Kirk. In the event she has been
called.
B18. Mrs G Jones. This appears not to be pursued
by Mr Kirk.
B19. Mrs J Hanson. Mr Kirk told me that he had ‘lost her
statement’. In fact there is a letter
from her at page 168 (Claimant’s Witness Bundle) which raises complaint about disturbance
from his wayward tenants. Mr Kirk and
Barry police officer witnesses whom I have heard agree the problems with
alcoholism, and bad behaviour on the part of his tenants, in particular a Mr
Paul Stringer and a Mr Burns. Oral evidence from Mrs Hanson, not found or
available to date, is not reasonably necessary for me to deal justly with the
matters in issue.
With the exception of
one witness, there is no other witness whom Mr Kirk wishes to call. That
exception is B16, a Michael Murphy. The Defendant made clear a considerable
time ago that that it objected to reception of the evidence without the
opportunity to cross-examine the witness. No witness summons was served in
respect of this witness. Mr Kirk told me on Friday 24 May that he had expected
the witness to be present voluntarily that day. However there was, and has been
since, no communication to the court from the witness.
It is understandable
that the Defendant should object to his short statement being admitted without
the opportunity to cross-examine him. The statement is one compiled by Mr Kirk in
September 2010, with an added signature of the witness, and in manuscript the
words “content below relating to me is true to the best of belife(sic)”. It describes him as a scrap dealer previously
reported for stealing a veterinary practice car back in 1996 (presumably Mr
Kirk’s veterinary practice); and the police are said to have told the witness
on the one hand “I want you to take it back immediately to Penarth police
station, where I will later inform Kirk it has been traced” and on the other hand
one of the police is said to have jumped into the scrap dealer’s cab and himself
to have driven it to Penarth: the two clearly conflict. On the other hand the statement reads that the
police told him “We hate Kirk’s guts” and that the policeman said he would “have
the greatest of pleasure in booking Kirk when he comes to collect it and drives
it away without tax, MOT or insurance”.
The failure to appear
without explanation, to support the statement such as I have described it, is
not a prepossessing basis to ask for the court to appoint another day of hearing. If all, or even some, of Mr Kirk’s complaints
of police harassment and bad faith are upheld, on the other evidence I have
heard over some 49 days, the evidence of the scrap dealer suspected of stealing
the practice car in 1996 will be peripheral; if few, or none are upheld it will
be improbable that the evidence of Mr Murphy would tilt the balance on any of
them. The court has gone to what I
consider to be extreme lengths, in order to accommodate genuine difficulties to
Mr Kirk in preparing his case, and those which are of his own making; and has
granted great latitude to him in calling witnesses despite failure to serve
statements in the form and by the dates stipulated. Applying the overriding
objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately, I do not consider
it reasonably necessary that the court should appoint another day for hearing
of evidence in the case of this witness.
28 May 2013. His Honour
Judge Seys Llewellyn, QC
Appellants’
Skeleton Argument for Mr Justice Morgan
BS416159
(Late due to the Appellant waiting for the written
rulings of his last applications before Cardiff County Court in time to appeal
at Royal Courts of Justice and without it am unable to adequately comment on
the Respondent’s skeleton argument with errors and huge assumptions)
There are but three issues for His Lordship to consider,
1) the right for the Claimant to have the Defendant(s) give evidence in the
light of the apparent criminal intent born out both in evidence and contained within
the paragraphs of the Chief Constable’s 25th February 2009 sworn affidavit
in another attempt to avoid disclosure of relevant evidence under his/her
control since 1992 to date
2) the right for the Claimant to have senior police officers, identified
both before and during the trial, to give evidence or to be recalled, with or
without witness statements, concerning their apparent course of conduct to both
prejudice the Claimant’s health and his basic right to bring a claim for civil
damages in the first place
3) for the Claimant
or his legal representatives to only tape record evidence given on oath, under the
strict supervision of the court and/or to be supplied with an audible copy of
court proceedings as is allowed all over the world nowadays, including in England.
Witnesses
The Claimant’s right to call both a competent and compellable witness when,
by law, a witness is ‘anybody’s property’
and especially, as in this case of these first three of nine Actions for
damages against the South Wales Police, one Defendant, as the example, has been
identified as signing her own 2009 affidavit (attached) knowing or ought to
have known it to be riddled with lies and supports the Appellant’s argument
that the Defendant has carried out a course of conduct tantamount to both unusual
and extreme bullying with criminal intent.
Analysis of 25th February
2009 Barbara Wilding Affidavit:
18. para 8.23
Another traffic incident and a
Barry court case was born out in evidence making her denial there ever was one
another of her lies to bury the truth of a clear conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice. The lengths to which key players, mostly senior police
officers, have been protected in these civil proceedings, is scandalous.
19. para 8.26 as per paragraph 13
20. para 8.13
The incident when my Guernsey
registered BMW motorcycle was stolen while her covert surveillance police were
at the scene, my Barry veterinary Hospital, when the theft took place, makes
her denial the police removed the number plate, on recovery, just one more of
her lies.
2nd Action
23. para 5.1
The incident of her officers
falsifying Barry magistrates evidence by trying to ‘frame me’ for someone
else’s speeding offence was proved in
court with the subsequent arrest of the lawyer and seizure of the Crown
Prosecution Service’s file makes her denial there ever was an incident or a
court case one more of her lies.
The fact that Dolmans,
solicitors, admit CPS prosecutor, Stan Soffa, did not wish to be called as her
defence witness beggars belief and anyway, who’s counting the incidents
committed by the police?
27. to 29 para 10.1
First arrested for the theft of a car I had
already reported as stolen, they having confiscated it and deliberately not
told me where it was, just like with my Guernsey registered BMW motorcycle and
Honda van, secondly, stopped for speeding and faulty exhaust and then, ten or
so minutes later, stopped on some fabrication, to breathalyse, embarrassingly
overlooked by the previous officers.
3rd Action
32.
Her throw away comment of
‘antiquity’ being her excuse of failed disclosure is both insulting and
typically arrogant. From 1993 onwards my English solicitors, me or my
secretaries would follow up each incident with requests for either disclosure
or to preserve their records.
Adrian Oliver drafted her document being a
party to the fanciful plan to prejudice these civil proceedings by arresting me
for trading in machine guns, carrying a mandatory ten year prison term. Caswell
Clinic convened my MAPPA level 3 hearings to have me further incarcerated in
Ashworth High Security Psychiatric Prison but only using their rogue NHS
(Wales) psychiatrist promised GMC protection for whatever he said in a Welsh
court room.
These following 22nd and 23rd May13 Position Statements were
subject to appeal to the High Court but have not been adjudicated upon in time,
at the Cardiff County Court, for this 7th June 2013 Royal Courts of
Justice Hearing
That coupled with his Lordship’s Order
suggesting that this Claimant ‘may or
may not be appealing earlier rulings’ over witnesses causes the court to be
reminded that this hearing ought to be adjourned for all the reasons set out in
the Appellant’s 28th May Application (attached at the bottom)
22nd May 13 Claimant
Position Statement
1. The
Claimant asks His Honour to consider whether it is fitting that the Defendant
be asked to more formally clarify their position on some points that at first
may seem unrelated but have a common theme of legal argument around :-
a. Whether
the Claimant should be allowed to amend any of his Claims ‘out of time’.
b. Be
allowed the issue of exemplary and/or aggravated damages to be considered.
c. Will
the Defendants ever stop ‘actually harassing’ the Claimant as for example of in
recent times by police using and sending to other police forces information to
lead other police forces and other public sector departments to view the
Claimant prejudicially by leading them to believe that the Claimant is
delusional.
d. By
the Defendant disseminating information to say the Claimant is delusional
either that means what they say is untrue and the Defendant refuse to stop
harassing the Claimant and may affect the level of damages
e. Or
if what the Defendant disseminates is true then being delusional is a condition
which allows the Claimant to be eligible to amend the Claims before the court
that are ‘out of time’ by the time limitation period.
2. The
Claimant raises the issues from reading page 198 point 13.40 and related
sections of A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure by Stuart Sime, twelfth
edition (2009) that says that Judicial reasoning can be that Claims can usually
be amended but that an amendment is treated as a new claim and cannot be
brought out of time. However page 101 gives explanation on point 7.40 that a
Claim (and therefore an amendment to a Claim) can be brought ‘out of time’ if
the Claimant had a mental disability at the time the new Claim accrued.
3. As
the Defendant, in recent years, persistently disseminates information about the
Claimant, as being delusional, then that means the Claimant may apply to the
Court to amend the Claims that accrued when he was delusional.
4. If
the information, disseminated by the Defendant, is not true then that may be
relevant exemplary and aggravated damages and even amount to defamation.
5.
If the information that the Defendant
disseminates about the Claimant, being delusional, is untrue then the Claimant
asks that a statement is made as to when the Defendant will stop disseminating this
untrue defamatory information and how it will go about achieving that as well
as the Defendants withdrawing what they have sent to many other public bodies,
including the Metropolitan Police, the Guernsey police, the French police and
even government departments in the royal courts of Justice and Whitehall from
around 2002 and onwards when applications were made that the Claimant be
registered a Vexatious Litigant and
as a MAPPA level 3 victim.
6. If,
on the other hand, the information they disseminate about the Claimant is true
then that requires the Defendant to say as from what date he is delusional or
with a mental disability as the Claimant can be allowed by the Court to amend
any claim that accrued from that date when he first had a mental disability.
7. As
we are aware much by the Claimant is in writing and so if the Defendant gives
detail as to the Claimant being delusional, for just one moment, then an
independent expert can be used to trace back the detail from that moment
identified by the Defendant to where the indication of delusional in writings
first emerged.
8. A
critical detail is that the Defendant actually disseminates information to say
that the Claimant is delusional for ‘thinking he is harassed by police’.
9. The
Claimant complains to police, at least, as from 20th June 1993, when
the Claimant was in unlawful custody, up an including to today’s Position
Statement
10. Given the Defendant disseminates information
that the Claimant is delusional, for thinking he is harassed by police,
please would the Defendant clarify at what point the Claimant was first
displaying being delusional, by complaining he was harassed by police, so that
the Claimant can apply to amend his Claims that accrued on or after that date.
11. If
the Claimant was not delusional about being harassed by police, yet wrote and
complained that he was harassed by police from say, 20th June 1993,
following information given to the Defendant by the Guernsey Police, at what
point will the Defendant ensure the Claimant is no longer harassed by police,
such as the Defendant stopping disseminating false and malicious information
about the Claimant and will the Defendant comment on the obvious reluctance of
the Defendant to stop harassing the Claimant in the context of exemplary and/or
aggravated damages
A)
Witnesses outstanding in 1-3 Actions
1. Ex Inspector Colliandris (medical argument irrelevant)
2. Ex Chief Inspector Sean (Shawn) Trigg (key player)
3. Ex Brian
Jenner (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet
Surgery)
4. Ex Chief Inspector Insp Robert Nelson Roe
(Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)
5. Ex Chief Inspector
Collin Jones (key player)
6. Inspector Andrew Rice (Recall re 1st
Action 8.23 & CP Ebbs/Alexander)
7. Inspector Steve Parry (Penal order on Defendant)
8.
Jonathan Clayton Air Traffic Controller (Dangerous flying/Penal Order)
9. Ex Chief Constable Barbara Wilding
(Defendant)
10. Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brian
(Penal Order on Defendant)
11. Ex Special Constable Ridley (Penal
Order on Defendant)
12. Mrs Diana Graham (Foreign Witness
Summons)
13. A Gafael (re break-in Cardiff Vet surgery/Penal Order)
14.
G Thomas
(stolen BMW m/c/ Penal order)
15.
‘Yosser’ Nigel
Thomas (stolen BMW m/c)
16. Michael
Murphy (Defendant’s destruction of Claimant’s vehicles)
17.
Mrs K Kirk
18.
Mrs G Jones
19. Mrs J Hanson
B) Application for Jury Trials for:
a) 4th Action police bullying/
malicious pros, false imprisonments
b) 5th Action Machine gun
Case/malicious pros, false imprisonments
c) 6th Action Forensic
Psychiatrist/NHS (Wales) False Medical Records
d) 7th Action police bullying/
malicious pros, false imprisonments
e) 8th Action police bullying/
malicious pros, false imprisonments
C) Claimant’s
Fitness to Continue?
D) Previous
‘struck out’ incidents in 1-3 Actions to be re instated
E) Current Civil
Proceedings (post Woolf/ Human Rights Act)
F) HM Crown Prosecution Service continues
to ignore disclosure applications from Claimant, his solicitor or
from his barrister re:
i) Refusal to
disclose evidence to clarify NHS psychiatric records at Caswell
Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend
ii) Refusal to disclose July 2012 evidence re doctor's
statement that caused Claimant
imprisoned
iii)
Refusal to disclose depositions re above withdrawn indictment of 'harassment'
iv) Refusal to disclose depositions re one Lewis machine gun
indictment and subsequent acquittal
v) Refusal to supply Claimant with copy of
his own MG11 victim statement re above outstanding issues
vi)
Refusal to supply Claimant with date he was first deemed to have a
mental disability
G) Interim payment
for costs and damage
Maurice J Kirk
BVSc 22nd May 2013
(23rd
May 13 Position Statement mislaid and to follow)
Private Tape Recording, ‘Litigants in
Person’ to be awarded legal costs and the Crushing of Family Court Cartels
The future of our UK court administration, if not already
a night mare, is a pretty grim one right now with the lack of funding for
expertise and the extra work caused by the withdrawal of legal aid.
One’s inability to
find a truly independent lawyer these days with ever mounting unexplained costs
incurred, should you be so lucky, is why this Claimant is adding to the problem
by having to act alone.
Also, if this
Claimant’s current Cardiff court action is typical of a ‘litigant in person’
floundering around in a quagmire of both regulation and custom with fast aging
faculties barely keeping his head above water, then what is the future of our
law courts when many more are forced to do the same?
In order for ‘litigants in person’ to achieve anything
from the clear futility of it all then to further break down lucrative and
unfair cartels, as currently practiced in the UK courts, is what each must
strive to do and share any information from one’s mistakes.
This Claimant suggests we remain vigilant in what is to
be ultimately achieved, the significant reform of a grossly outdated money
driven judiciary and not to allow our own court cases to over shadow this
primary objective, the clinching of that man made concept, some call ‘justice’
for all parties.
In The High Court Royal Courts of
Justice
BS614159
Before Mr Justice Morgan
Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable of South
Wales Constabulary
Appellant’s Application to Adjourn of 7th
June 13 High Court Hearing
Further to the
14th May 2013 High Court Order of the Honourable Mr Justice Morgan
the Appellant applies for an appropriate adjournment in order to:
12.
Obtain the
official transcript as he was unable to tape record for his own use within the
case in preparation for subsequent appeal(s)
13.
obtain
clarification as to which of the outstanding witnesses, identified in his 22nd
and 23rd May 13 Position Statements to the Crown Court judge and
14.
in the light of the enclosed further statement
of A G Gafael and The Defendant’s February 2009 sworn Affidavit and
15.
concerning the proposed 28th May 13
ruling , by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, due to be handed down today and
16.
For appellant to obtain fee exemption
in order to complete his prosecution and subsequent appeal(s)
AND
17. The
Appellant asks the court to consider whether it is fitting that the Defendant
be asked to more formally clarify their position on some points that at first
may seem unrelated but have a common theme of legal argument around :-
f.
Whether the Appellant should be allowed to amend
any of his Claims ‘out of time’.
g. Be
allowed the issue of exemplary and/or aggravated damages to be considered.
h. Will
the Defendants ever stop ‘actually harassing’ the Appellant as for example of
in recent times by police using and sending to other police forces information
to lead other police forces and other public sector departments to view the
Appellant prejudicially by leading them to believe that the Appellant is
delusional.
i.
By the Defendant disseminating information to
say the Appellant is delusional either that means what they say is untrue and
the Defendant refuse to stop harassing the Appellant and may affect the level
of damages
j.
Or if what the Defendant disseminates is true
then being delusional is a condition which allows the Appellant to be eligible
to amend the Claims before the court that are ‘out of time’ by the time
limitation period.
18. The
Appellant raises the issues from reading page 198 point 13.40 and related
sections of A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure by Stuart Sime, twelfth
edition (2009) that says that Judicial reasoning can be that Claims can usually
be amended but that an amendment is treated as a new claim and cannot be
brought out of time. However page 101 gives explanation on point 7.40 that a
Claim (and therefore an amendment to a Claim) can be brought ‘out of time’ if
The Appellant had a mental disability at the time the new Claim accrued.
19. As
the Defendant, in recent years, persistently disseminates information about the
Appellant, as being delusional, then that means the Appellant may apply to the
Court to amend the Claims that accrued when he was delusional.
20. If
the information, disseminated by the Defendant, is not true then that may be
relevant exemplary and aggravated damages and even amount to defamation.
21. If
the information that the Defendant disseminates about the Appellant, being
delusional, is untrue then the Appellant asks that a statement is made as to
when the Defendant will stop disseminating this untrue defamatory information
and how it will go about achieving that as well as the Defendants withdrawing
what they have sent to many other public bodies, including the Metropolitan
Police, the Guernsey police, the French police and even government departments
in the royal courts of Justice and Whitehall from around 2002 and onwards when
applications were made that the Appellant be registered a Vexatious Litigant and as a MAPPA
level 3 victim.
22. If,
on the other hand, the information they disseminate about the Appellant is true
then that requires the Defendant to say as from what date he is delusional or
with a mental disability as the Appellant can be allowed by the Court to amend
any claim that accrued from that date when he first had a mental disability.
23. As
we are aware much by the Claimant is in writing and so if the Defendant gives
detail as to the Appellant being delusional, for just one moment, then an
independent expert can be used to trace back the detail from that moment
identified by the Defendant to where the indication of delusional in writings
first emerged.
24. A
critical detail is that the Defendant actually disseminates information to say
that the appellant is delusional for ‘thinking he is harassed by police’.
25. The
Appellant complains to police, at least, as from 20th June 1993,
when the appellant was in unlawful custody, up an including to today’s Position
Statement.
26. Given the Defendant disseminates information
that the Appellant is delusional, for thinking he is harassed by police,
please would the Defendant clarify at what point the Appellant was first
displaying being delusional, by complaining he was harassed by police, so that
the Appellant can apply to amend his Claims that accrued on or after that date.
27. If
the Appellant was not delusional about being harassed by police, yet wrote and
complained that he was harassed by police from say, 20th June 1993,
following information given to the Defendant by the Guernsey Police, at what
point will the Defendant ensure the appellant is no longer harassed by police,
such as the Defendant stopping disseminating false and malicious information
about the Appellant and will the Defendant comment on the obvious reluctance of
the Defendant to stop harassing the Appellant in the context of exemplary
and/or aggravated damages
A)
Witnesses outstanding in 1-3 Action
1. Ex Inspector Colliandris (medical argument irrelevant)
2. Ex Chief Inspector Sean (Shawn) Trigg (key player)
3. Ex Brian
Jenner (Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet
Surgery)
4. Ex Chief Inspector Insp Robert Nelson Roe
(Recall re Break in Cardiff Vet Surgery)
5. Ex Chief Inspector
Collin Jones (key player)
6. Inspector Andrew Rice (Recall re 1st
Action 8.23 & CP Ebbs/Alexander)
7. Inspector Steve Parry (Penal order on Defendant)
8.
Jonathan Clayton Air Traffic Controller (Dangerous flying/Penal Order)
9. Ex Chief Constable Barbara Wilding
(Defendant)
10. Ex Special Constable Frank O’Brian
(Penal Order on Defendant)
11. Ex Special Constable Ridley (Penal
Order on Defendant)
12. Mrs Diana Graham (Foreign Witness
Summons)
13. A Gafael (re break-in Cardiff Vet surgery/Penal Order)
14.
G Thomas
(stolen BMW m/c/ Penal order)
15.
‘Yosser’ Nigel
Thomas (stolen BMW m/c)
16. Michael
Murphy (Defendant’s destruction of Claimant’s vehicles)
19. Mrs J Hanson
B) Application for Jury Trials for:
a) 4th Action police bullying/
malicious pros, false imprisonments
b) 5th Action Machine gun
Case/malicious pros, false imprisonments
c) 6th Action Forensic
Psychiatrist/NHS (Wales) incorrect Medical Records
d) 7th Action police bullying/
malicious pros, false imprisonments
e) 8th Action police bullying/
malicious pros, false imprisonments
C) Claimant’s
Fitness to Continue?
D) Previous
‘struck out’ incidents in 1-3 Actions to be re instated
E) Current Civil
Proceedings (post Woolf/ Human Rights Act)
F) HM Crown Prosecution Service continues
to ignore disclosure applications from Claimant, his solicitor or
from his barrister re:
i) Refusal to
disclose evidence to clarify NHS psychiatric records at Caswell
Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend
ii) Refusal to disclose July 2012 evidence re doctor's
statement that caused Claimant imprisoned
iii)
Refusal to disclose depositions re above withdrawn indictment of 'harassment'
iv) Refusal to disclose depositions re one Lewis machine gun indictment
and subsequent acquittal
v) Refusal to supply Claimant with copy of
his own MG11 victim statement re above outstanding issues
vi)
Refusal to supply Claimant with date he was first deemed to have a
mental disability
G) Interim payment
for costs and damage
Maurice J Kirk
BVSc 28th
May 2013