Legal Battles

Breaking News ‘Breached’ Restraining Order never ever was served on their victim in the first place!--------- Their Lordships’ March 1013 judgment has been located to reveal, in paragraph 9, they were never aware of a ‘jury note’, as with the victim, specifically asking Judge Paul Thomas QC, on 4th May 2012, for 1st December 2011 Cardiff clerk of the court’s court file re ‘harassment of a doctor’ conviction.--------- . His Honour, apparently, in the police victim’s forced absence for urgent medical attention, was informed by the HM Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) there were no court records available relevant to the jury’s wishing to see proof after the gaoler had specifically admitted, but only on cross examination, Geoamy had no record either of any ‘service’ in the cells by them. So just who did then?---------. It has only just been established, via Bristol solicitors and the Criminal Cases Review Commission, when the latter seized the court file in February 2012, that there was no record at all in either the clerk’s contemporaneous notes or court log either.--------. Police records of their victim’s ‘gate arrest’, immediately after his 1st Dec 2011 release, show no evidence either of a ‘restraining order’ was ever served. Their blackmailed police psychiatrist, made to fabricate psychiatric reports to scupper their victim’s long running damages claims of police bullying, harassment, malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments, was soon sacked from NHS (Wales). Their victim has served six prison terms so far, over this, totalling well over three years of his life. . . The Manager Crown Court Cardiff 5th Oct 2015 Dear Sir, DPP V MAURICE JOHN KIRK BVSc – APPLICATION UNDER PART 5.7(2)(A)(B) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2014 I write to request to be supplied with copies of all documents that are retained on the court file in respect of my 1st Dec 2011 harassment conviction, on appeal and heard at your court on 1st March 2012, under Part 5.7(2)(a)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 and any other relevant rule of law. I refer you to the case of R (Guardian New & Media Ltd.) v. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (2012) EWCA Civ 420; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 618 dealing with the right to obtain copies of documents used in court cases, along with Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 and Practice Direction. You will note that there is a presumption in favour of such disclosure in the interests of “open justice” as was voiced by subsequent judges, seized with the matter, in both your building and one in England. I therefore look forward to receiving the court’s decision in relation to my requests under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 at your earliest kind convenience. Yours faithfully Maurice John Kirk BVSc