His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC's 30th November 2010 Preliminary Judgment here.

This cannot be understood without

  1. The Claimant's Rebuttal to Strike Out Incidents
  2. his 'schedule' of 41 motoring incidents.
Whilst in Alderney, Channel Islands, Maurice sent this fascinating and highly original letter to Cardiff County Court in which he asks the Judge to reconsider the basis for striking out one of the actions.

Hobbling along memory lane, where Maurice is hugged by old ladies whose dogs and cats he operated on, he's also applied for asylum. According to UN regulation, a refugee is a person who has fled war or OTHER VIOLENCE in their home country. 

Having read the 40-page judgment, which needs a response within 7 days (!), one must talk about the adversarial system of law being a kind of legalised violence in itself, especially as “the one great principle of English Law is, to make business for itself…”

As I helped with the first document, I feel like writing

"Your Honour, or Dear Judge, (I know it's not done to write to judges at all...)

As a former computer programmer, my brain is highly trained in logic. This is to suggest that the logic applied in your 152 paragraphs of judgment is biased. Biased towards the Defendant as a "public authority". "Public policy"is used as an excuse for assuming that the Police can't do wrong."

I consider it utterly disgusting that "the Law" is used to split hairs between oodles of incidents that one individual has endured instead of looking at the experiences of the individual as a whole. Typically male and analytical, instead of balanced and holistic, despite the "abundant caution" supposedly exercised.   

Here are my observations - for the Court of Public Opinion (website readers instead of a jury): 

  1. good resume of Maurice's issues in para 1
  2. the Police's issues in para 2 read questionable to me: "public policy vs no cause of action to an individual", "no privately actionable duty of care", "not entitled to re-open". The rat I smell is about "the establishment never acting on individual cases" while, in my view, society consists of individuals, even if they are employed in organisations pertaining to HM Establishment
  3. the next paras show his "abundant caution" to take into account that Maurice is a litigant in person
  4. paras 4 to 13: the Yorkshire Ripper case and others are cited to defend the Police's absence of "negligence of care" or "privately actionable duty of care" as "public policy" or the "Hill principle"
  5. paras 19 to 29 are grouped under "Duty of Care: the allegations subject to application to Strike Out"
  6. in para 21 you believe that it is NOT the "duty of care" to investigate stolen cheques. I wonder why ex-policeman Albert Burgess writes that it is illegal not to investigate a crime... You feel that malicious intent should have been repeated. Oh dear, what a mistake made by the Claimant Maurice who puts together lots of incidents to prove malicious intent as the underlying attitude...
  7. para 24: what twists between the 'general' and the 'specific': an individual police officer and the Police as a whole to conclude that the stealing of cheques must be struck out. I can only call this logic "interesting" and distinctly NOT taking the full picture into account.
  8. para 26 and 27: "no privately actionable duty of care" to investigate crime. What a twist of argument, I'm sorry to say. 
  9. paras 30 to 37 cover Liability of the police as bailee of property and/or in negligence. They claim that the investigation and suppression of crime allows the Police to commit further 'damaging actions'. Nice to know. Is it "just, fair and reasonable" to expect Mr Kirk to write the best arguments in the best style whilst in pain and the side effects of morphine?
  10. "public policy" reasons apply to ALL police forces, but could it not be "organisational policy" to harass a particular targeted individual?
  11. paras 38 to 43 cover Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Legal principle itself and refer to precedent cases. The most ironic quote is "the one the one great principle of English Law is, to make business for itself…..” LOTS of victims have experienced how true that is!!! Maurice calls it the public gravy train, when the public purse is concerned as when a Police Force is involved...
  12. para 42 quotes: He claims however that bif the right arguments had been used or evidence called, it would have been decided differently.
  13. paras 44 to 52 cover Claims alleged to be an abuse of process. Application of legal principle to the acts alleged by Mr Kirk. 
  14. para 53 to 66: Claim in Action 1 – Paragraph 8.12 4th October 1993
  15. para 61: "It is also at the very foundation of this case that Mr Kirk has a burning
    sense of injustice about past wrongs. Whether that burning sense of
    injustice is based upon real or imaginary fact is of no consequence to
    us. …..
    Mr Kirk told us in evidence, and I suspect will always believe,
    that there is always some form of conspiracy against his interests. It
    was a constant theme in his questions to the police constables. He put
    to them that each constable knew all about him and that they were
    involved in some kind of vendetta or, perhaps cover up of police wrong
    doing or, maybe inefficiency."
  16. para 67 to 77: Claim in Action 2 paragraph 3.1- 12th May 1996 - crossing a white line - struck out.
  17. para 78 to 82: Claim in Action 2 paragraph 9 – 1.12.1999 – driving at Llantwit Major - struck out.
  18. para 83 to 86: Action 2 paragraph 11 – 5.4.2000 – driving in Albany Road - .
  19. para 87 to 99; para 114: ... in respect of the other road traffic offences, Mr Kirk is entitled to invite the court to consider a claim for malicious prosecution. I am dealing with whether it would be an abuse of process to pursue them, not with whether they appear to me to be strong or merely “arguable” claims.
  20. para 100 to 114: The video issue: Maurice is entitled to invite the court to consider a claim for malicious prosecution.
  21. para 115 to 131: Action 3 paragraph 2 – 19.8.1998 – Vale of Glamorgan Show.
  22. para 132 to 151: MAPPA documents
  23. para 143 states The Defendant (Police) submits that the Executive Summary itself should not be disclosed to Mr Kirk, on the basis that (i) it is not material to his proceedings and (ii) that it should not be disclosed for reasons of public interest immunity.