Latest News

MR MAURICE KIRK 1st Claimant

DR TEGWYN WILLIAMS 1st Defendant

Ref TWH.448470.48

Upon hearing Mr M Bowen for the claimant and Counsel for the defendant

1. The hearing of the defendants application dated 16 September 2010 to strike out the claim and to consider whether a civil restraint order is appropriate be further adjourned to 15 March 2011 at 11:00 (EHT 3 hours).

2. At the next hearing there will also be considered by the court the claimants applications dated 7th January 2011 and 18 January 2011 (yet to be listed).

3. The claimant may attend the hearing via video link (he being responsible for making the necessary arrangements well before the hearing).

4. a) in the event of the claimant being unable to attend the next hearing due to his medical condition, then he must send to the court and to the defendants solicitors at least 3 working days prior to the hearing a letter from a medical practitioner setting out the position and confirming in the Doctors opinion the inability of Mr Kirk to attend via video link.

b) In the event of the claimant's surgery being outstanding due to alleged non disclosure of medical records or documents, the Doctor do also specify in his letter:

(i) the medical records or documentation outstanding,

(ii) why any relevant tests or investigation cannot be undertaken by the French medical Profession so that the surgery can proceed.

5. Costs of today be costs in the application.

-

Disproportionate legal costs Lawyers, Morgan Cole, Cardiff,  have threatened me with a £6000 bill if I do not withdraw, following my £40 Application, in a British court of law, just to make Dr Tegwyn Williams, of Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, or the NHS, to  disclose his evidence he gave to His honour Judge Bidder QC, on the 2nd December 2009. He was there, tape recorder switched off, in a so called 'Court of Record', Cardiff Crown Court.falsifying medical record....what a joke!

What was he doing there, in the first place, is the first question? I was, as prisoner in Cardiff prison not even under his 'care'!

His trying to persuade the judge, on his own, to have me sectioned, for life, without trial, under the Section 41 of 1983 Mental Health Act, to a High Security Prison, was an uphill struggle. But his masonic masters, South Wales Police, had so ordered or he could no longer be allowed to worship the devil.

Tomorrow, in Cardiff County Court, be there, these lawyers, barristers, clerks etc, ALL AT TAX PAYER'S EXPENSE,just for a petty debt action for, lost bus fares, will be there....you will enjoy...Case is at 2pm  BUT read the latest Downloads first  

Dr Tegwyn Williams, of Caswell Clinic, Bridgend refuses to clarify his opinion and conduct , over such a serious matter as possible brain tumour .

How, on 2nd December 09,  he tells the Cardiff Crown Court I have a possible brain tumour and too dangerous to be released when at the 17th December 2009 MAPPA meeting, he tells high ranking officers of the South Wales Police, the prosecutor, social services, probation and prison, all sitting around the same table, in his clinic, a completely opposing medical opinion?

This caused  the meeting to rule I was "no longer considered dangerous to the public and  my name was immediately removed from MAPPA level 3 category, [terrorist level].

BUT, to this day Dr Tegwyn Williams, South Wales NHS officials, HM Prison and MAPPA have refused to notify the patient of any of this and continue to refuse the information to the  surgeons, waiting to operate,  on either side of the English Channel.

It stinks, doesn't it?

Disproportionate Legal Costs: Breach of Human Rights

I am possibly about to go into hospital and so email without being too close on detail, save to say that at this time, that I draw the attention of the Court and Defendant's lawyers to the European Court of Human Rights having ruled that the Daily Mirror's freedom of expression was violated by the legal costs it had to pay when it lost a privacy case brought by Naomi Campbell.

Although arguments will need to be reversed and translated to other human rights, for a comparison with my claim as the Daily Mirror are journalists and was the Defendant. As we are aware, this thinking of the Court of Human Rights, to limit legal costs is in keeping with some comments in my submission in December 2010, when asking His Honour Seys Llewellyn QC for permission to appeal.

As also in my submission in December 2010, the arguments here are also more profound than how much legal costs can the Defendant or Defendant's lawyers claim in my Cardiff case.

Drawing from London barrister Mr Challenger's comments, it would seem that public policy on where the Police (or public bodies) can be sued is, in reality very much affected by the cost of employing lawyers. As lawyers may not now be able to charge as much in legal costs, that would seem another reason for public policy to be reviewed to find what incremental changes may occur from restricting lawyers costs.

 page 2

2nd December 2009

ALL PROCEEDINGS

(11.39)

JUDGE BIDDER: ... appropriately qualified psychiatrist then the fitness to plead doesn't really arise. I have one report by you reaching a conclusion; I have another report by Dr Silva reaching a different conclusion. I can't act on the basis of that issue without there being two such reports and there aren't two such reports. In the circumstances I don't think there is a great deal of purpose in you remaining in court.

MR TWOMLOW: May I just say perhaps, having spoken to Dr Williams this morning, that I think having seen the contents of Dr Silva's report he is also of the view that Mr Kirk would be fit to plead subject to the ... it was only the case of whether he has cancer or not I think that Dr Williams was concerned about, but I didn't wish to ... 

Continuing "HM Partnership" Cardiff Conspiracy

BS61459, CF101741, 0CF03922 & 8 Others

Maurice Kirk v Dr Tegwyn Williams

20th January 2011 Hearing

Application for Adjournment and Disclosure (Request Dr Williams/Defendant make a signed statement)

1) It may help the Court to know that, I am unwell and at my home in Brittany, awaiting a
hip operation on 20 January 2011 in France.

2) Therefore this reply is worded by lay persons (non lawyers). The opinions show the
independent view of a team trying to help because of their concerns.

3) In short, there is major concern of this moment is the way the Defendant Dr Tegwyn
Williams, shows bad faith and „deliberately fails to deal‟ by trying to "hide behind
lawyers" and he will not „personally‟ comment or clarify in issues as serious as brain
cancer, brain damage and severe disorders of the mind.

4) Furthermore the Defendant‟s refusal to clarify causes the confusion that in turn delays
urgent hip operation that with problems with mediation and morphine contributes to
keeping the Claimant too unwell to attend court and proceed with this case.

5) An update is that the Defendant‟s obstructive behaviour that therefore delays hip
operations, may have caused, and may continue to cause permanent medical damage
to nerve tissue around the Claimant hip, so to permanently damage the Claimant chance
of recovery.

Adjournment

6) The Court Order of 26 November 2010 point 2 says.

"2. Any applications to adjourn the hearing by reason of medical
matter must be supported by a medical practitioner's letter or
certificate which confirms an inability to attend a Court hearing
estimated to last not more than 1 hour."

7) It seems to say that a doctor's letter is needed for adjournment. That tells me to
expect adjournment if I comply with that Order by the attached letter from Dr Leclerc,
Merdrignac, France. The Breton doctor is concerned that the surgeons have not been
supplied with Dr Tegwyn Williams' information given to the December 09 Crown Court
and to MAPPA meetings. Dr Leclerc is the source of my monthly supply of morphine
sulphate.

Merit and some reasons why the Court may (if it so wishes) find in the Claimant's
favour on all (Claim and Costs).

8) This case is over the expenses the Claimant incurred in trying to find out what opinion Dr Tegwyn Williams has being expressing regards the Claimant. The Claimant believes the reason why the Claimant was not handed over the notes and records, when attending, is because either the records never existed or the Defendant wrote final reports not unlike writing fiction. The Claimant believes the defendant has been dishonest in his report by saying that which he knew not to be true. If what the Claimant believes is true, then the claimant believes Dr Williams should reimburse expenses.

9) As a part of professional standards and conduct for Psychiatrists, careful notes and
records must exist behind the process of any assessment and the final outcome and that notes and records are to be full and copious.

10) It may help the Court to know, that in what records or reports that exist the
Defendant appears to more determine facts, than explore clinical issues regards being
assertion that the Claimant is delusional about very specific facts such as whether or not
the Claimant was harassed by Police. (In contrast to what Dr Williams says His Honour
Seys Llewellyn QC, however, has decided in a preliminary Judgment, dated 30
November 2010, that the sheer volume of incidents of alleged harassment gives merit
for the court to investigate).

11) It is therefore difficult to see how Dr Williams can claim the Claimant is delusional
about quite specific facts.

12) One easy comparison is that the Civil Aviation Authority, in 2010 deemed the
Claimant fit to fly his aeroplanes.

13) To easily support the view of mischievous manipulations there is evidence that
Professor Roger Wood re-wrote his report as being seen by reference to the ex-chief
constable when the chief constable was in office when the report originally written. Most
doctors, possibly as many as nearly twenty, seem not to agree with Dr Tegwyn Williams.
There are many other facts to prove this conduct.

14) The Claimant believes the defendant, having acted improperly regards expressing
opinion he knew to be misleading or knew not to be true, now needed to destroy or hide the notes and records behind any reports.

15) Therefore the Claimant requested the Defendant‟s employers arrange disclosure of
medical records and notes and the Claimant was invited to Caswell Clinic, Bridgend to
collect notes and records. The Claimant had paid for their release and incurred further
expense several times travelling to the Clinic.

16) The Claimant, by acting lawfully and properly, tried to find out what are the notes and records that were used to help arrive at what hopefully would have been an honest and competent opinion. A Court Claim was filed by the Claimant when the Defendant seemed most unwilling to clarify or disclose essential information that the Claimant had paid for, and where the Claimant had incurred travelling expenses. The Defendant appeared so unhelpful and obstructive to the Claimant, to appear to be acting in bad faith.

17) It is entirely normal NHS procedure for a patient to attend to collect confidential
medical information, especially larger medical notes and record files as the post can be
too problematic and particularly insecure for such sensitive information as psychiatric
records.

18) The Claimant chose to exercise his right to attend, but also was told by NHS staff at
his GP surgery that the Defendant's employer and/or Defendant had said the records
are available for collection.

19) The Claimant believes he has obvious and compelling reason to be anxious to attend and find out information for which he is lawfully entitled to know, and paid for. The Court transcript 2 December 2009 shows that the Defendant Dr Tegwyn Williams has been saying that the Claimant has brain cancer, (and more).

20) The Defendant's professional body helps show reason for justification for the
concern that the Defendant shows bad faith and "deliberately failing to deal" by trying to
"hide behind lawyers" and will not "personally" comment or clarify in issues as serious as
brain cancer, brain damage and severe disorders of the mind.

21) To help determine reasonableness, Dr Tegwyn Williams professional body has
guidelines. The Royal College of Psychiatrists page 6 (copy attached) says

• "Give patients the information they ask for or need about their condition, its treatment or prognosis
• Give information to patients in a way they can understand
• Be readily accessible to patients and colleagues when on duty

You must not delay treatment........."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (copy attached) page 2 also says of duties of doctor registered with the GMC

• Give patients information in a way they can understand
• Be honest and trustworthy
• Avoid abusing your position as a doctor

22) The Claimant has a hip operation booked for 20 January 2011 in France. Dr Williams bad faith is made worse, because the absence of Dr Tegywn Williams to personally clarify causes operations to be cancelled, when the claimant to be most unwell, insevere pain and suffering increasing irreparable nerve damage by operations not proceeding, because of the uncertainty and confusion caused by Dr Tegwyn Williams still refusing to clarify, even when is lawyers now are starting to acknowledge the issues.

23) Regardless of the needed operation, the Claimant quite obviously urgently needs Dr
Tegwyn Williams to personally clarify what is meant by and the prognosis of brain
cancer, permanent brain damage and severe disorders of the mind, so that the Claimant can plan how to live his life.

24) Other Doctors are at a loss to make the needed specific comment, as the Defendant still has failed to provide medical records and notes that would or should occur, if Dr Williams forms an honest and competent opinion as to why he thinks these conditions are relevant to the Claimant.

25) The Claimant asks and feels astonished, questions how the UK Courts can allow
either doctors and lawyers to act as callously in full gaze of the Courts and professional
bodies, and asks for initiatives to redress the balance of power.

26) Furthermore the Defendants lawyers threaten the unwell Claimant with cost to go
into many thousands of pounds over a claim most minor in monetary terms, as a way to
intimidate the Claimant into not learning of such important information when the
Claimant has every right to know.

27) The Claimants asks the Courts support where the Claimant believes Dr Tegwyn
Williams abused his position when the Claimant attended to collect his medical records
and now tries to further abuse his position by hiding behind lawyer and their willingness
to use cost to intimidate by disproportionate use of lawyers fees.

28) The Claimant believes Dr Tegwyn Williams is therefore causing these delays, by not
simply clarifying issues himself.

29) There is also the issue of the total contempt that Dr Tegwyn Williams showed for the
Claimant and the utter unreasonableness when as a patient the Claimant tries to collect
medical records for which he has paid.

30) Given access to the requested information is entirely reasonable and lawful, (both
what was originally requested and also not as yet clarified by Dr Williams) the Claimant
raise the question whether both the Defendant and his lawyers Discriminate against the
Claimant to impose less favourable treatment, (due to alleged disorders of the mind), in
the way the Claimant is denied access to what most people have a right to expect be
provided in a way to afford them dignity.

31) The Claimant believes the Defendant and his lawyers use the power and financial
resources of the state over the Claimant to deny human rights (ECHR Article 3 and
Article 8) and access to a fair trial (ECHR Article 6). The Claimant raises whether the
Court has a duty to protect the Claimant, so that the UK members state does not breach
the human rights of the Claimant.

Disproportionate Costs

32) Obviously the Claimant believes the Defendant and his lawyers are trying to
intimidated the Claimant out of his rights by what many would view as disproportionate
legal costs. Disproportionate, because of the small nature of the original claim and all
that as required was for Dr Tegwyn Williams to personally clarify, as his professional
body expects of him.

Can the Defendant (a clinician who writes how unwell the Claimant will be) Object
to or Claim Costs for an Adjournment on medical grounds?

33) The core papers mentioned by the Defendant's lawyers include in their core
correspondence reference to documents where the Defendant Dr Tegwyn Williams is
saying there is "clear evidence" of a deterioration from brain damage and/or mental
disorder, (even brain cancer) that will mean the Claimant condition will never improve
and will mean the Claimant cannot focus to deal with legal proceedings. Can either the
Defendant or his lawyer, be honest and competent, and be upholding the high standards of the profession, (or as an Officer of the Court) in asking the Court to press ahead in the absence of the Claimant on medical grounds, when they promote that the Claimant is seriously unwell?

34) The Claimant puts to the Defendant and Defendant's lawyers whether such tactics,
is conduct becoming of a doctor who instructs lawyers, or a lawyer or law firm who
should be allowed to represent any in the caring professions or the NHS.

A Challenge to Dr Tegwyn Williams to volunteer by 20 January 2011 or else a
Request For Court Order for Dr Williams to make a personal signed statement to
the Court.

35) One example of the relevance of Dr Williams voluntarily or by Court Order making a
personal signed statement is that Dr Williams can show whether or not he is obstructive
or shows bad faith, or a poor attitude towards the Claimant while the matter is before the Court, where if such occurs, the Court opportunity to, if it so wishes, determined whether it is reasonable to believe Dr Tegwyn Williams has also acted in bad faith so to causes the Claimant expense, when the Claimant attended to collect records.

a) Brain Cancer: On the Issue of the Claimant, and brain cancer, taking into account the
court transcript 2 December 2009 and for Dr Williams to also explain the prognosis of his concerns.

b) Brain damage: What records, notes and evidence exists to support Dr Williams
claims. Explain point 32 of his final 2009 report of the "Clear evidence" in the clear
evidence of brain damage and the prognosis. What exactly does Dr Tegwyn Williams
know of the evidence of physical brain damage, and if any indication and what level of
certainty of physical brain damage existing, and how does Dr Tegwyn Williams see this
as clear evidence as opposed to a potential, regards any physical condition affecting specific behaviour. How does Dr Williams judge behaviour the Claimant's behaviour compared to a leading Welsh Court Judge as below?

c) Paranoid Delusional Disorder: This issue can be a determination of facts. Did Dr
Williams have information to determine facts to decide the Claimant was delusional
about facts. Dr Williams is asked to explain notes, records, evidence facts. How and
what evidence there is that the Claimant has any such severe disorder of the mind and
particularly the prognosis taking into account that that His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn
QC says there is an unusual case with a sheer volume of incidents that require
investigation by the Court

Defendant's Lawyer's Conduct

36) The conduct of the Defendant‟s lawyer is of concern, by her repeatedly merely
asserting she gives answer, when in reality she des not. For example the Defendant's
lawyer frequently uses arguments like the Defendant is not responsible for the third
parties (organisations or people) who receive what Dr Tegwyn Williams says. When the
issue that needs to be addressed is for Dr Tegwyn Williams to clarify exactly what he
says, why and how his expressed opinion emerged or is sourced in medical records,
notes and medical evidence.

37) The Claimant's concern of whether there is bad faith by the Defendant, continues
because the Defendant's lawyers letter of 6th January 2011 not only fails to deal with
issues, but seems to the Claimant to deliberately avoid issues. Above all, whether or not
the Claimant has Brain Cancer, and if any records exist relevant to such as (but not only)
the comment in the 2 December 2009 court transcript as below, of Dr Williams saying of the Claimant's brain cancer.

The Court Transcript and Brain Cancer

38) According to Dr Tegwyn Williams' Professional body, Dr Williams should give
information to the Claimant and in a way that the Claimant can understand. That has not
been occurring ever since the Claimant was in his "care" between August and October
2009.

39) At Court on 2 December 2009, the Claimant was not present and what happens here is an odd intrusion by Dr Williams who needs to explain why he is speaking in that Court room about Mr Kirk, with Mr Kirk not there or having opportunity to rebut what he says?

40) The Claimant emphasises Dr Williams has been speaking at Court and Mr Twomlow
summarises what Dr Williams says in Dr Williams presence. Dr Williams hears the
extract below, and so stands there at Court to agree it to be true

41) The issues raised here are to ask Dr Williams to clarify what he meant by what he said to Mr Twomlow and the Court, where Dr Williams does not make small talk here but intend his professional comments about the Claimant to be taken very seriously.

42) The Court Transcript 2 December 2009 11.39am (page two) starts as if someone
inadvertently switches on the machine, saying:

i. JUDGE BIDDER:...........: ..appropriately qualified psychiatrist then the fitness to plead doesn't really arise. I have one report by you reaching a onclusion: I have another report by Dr Silva reaching a different onclusion. I can't act on the basis of that issue without there being two such reports and there aren't two such reports. In the circumstances I don't think there is a great deal of purpose in you remaining in Court.

ii. Mr TWOMLOW (CPS): May I perhaps, having spoken to Dr Williams this morning, that I think having seen the contents of Dr Silva's report he is also of the view that Mr Kirk would be fit to plead subject to the.....it was only the case of whether he has cancer or not I think that Dr Williams was concerned about, but I didn't wish to.....

43) As previously stated the Claimant believes that the Royal College of Psychiatrist
guidelines on how to deal with this kind of situation can show how reasonable or
unreasonable Dr Tegwyn Williams has acted, relevant to this claim, and so whether or
not the Court should find in favour of Claimant. Does Dr Williams now "give patients the
information they ask for or need about their condition, its treatment or prognosis" and
"give information to patients in a way they can understand"?

Give patients information in a way they can understand?

44) How is the Claimant to understand his prognosis about brain cancer or the other
condition of the brain or mind, when Dr Williams will not clarify, or disclose about
something as serious as his formally expressed comments about brain cancer?

Difficult to find a doctor who agrees With Dr Tegwyn Williams

45) As explained in more detail latter in this document, please note most doctors
(potentially nearly twenty doctors) do not seem to agree with Dr Williams on his
generally prejudicial if not defamatory tone and psychiatric diagnosis about the Claimant being mentally ill to the point of delusional about based on specific factual issue, so to question whether Dr Williams abuses his position, in giving opinion he knows (or should know) not to be true.

Additional Difficulties, Expenses and Costs

46) The Claimant wishes the Court to know that many other important Court cases have
been delayed by the defendants not clarifying the information required regards my
application for disclosure about brain cancer. The delay is also from the delay to
operations on my hip caused by non disclosure of the same information, that has I turn
caused me to remain most unwell, immobile, in fluctuating severe pain to affect
concentration, and use of morphine for an unwise duration.

47) The Claimant alleges malicious intent behind the complications from delays and
adjournments in this claim before the Court are caused from the harm and difficulties
caused by the Defendant. This includes him to block the Claimant's operation by, what
seems to the Claimant as Dr Williams unprofessional, if not dishonest opinions in Court
and in communication with his superiors, besides the non-communication with the
Claimant.

Claimant Being Absent 20 January 2011 Confirms Wish to Appeal if becomes
relevant.

48) In matters as serious as the Defendant and his lawyers acting in bad faith over brain cancer, brain damage and disorder of the mind, the Claimant who is unable to attend on 20 January 2011 is ready to go to appeal, if necessary and asks for permission, should it become relevant.

Enclosed Both UK and Breton GP letters requesting clarification

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

18th January 2011

South Wales Police Authority
Bridgend
South Wales
 
19th Jan 2011
 
Dear Sir,
 
Complaint against South Wales Police attempting to have me shot
 
1. Further to advice from the Home Office, see enclosed, I make complaint of the threat to my life caused following the erroneous information considered  in the 8th June 2009 MAPPA meeting  in Barry Police Station when members of South Wales Police forensic hospital. Caswell clinic attended.  An internal memo, in your posession, indicationg I may be shot by police. But there was a deliberate delay of several weeks in order to obtain that opportunity before arresting a catagory MAPPA 3, terrorist level, believed to be in the possesion of one or machine guns and live ammunition..
 
2. I further complain of subsequent actions by Dr Tegyn Williams of Caswell Clinic and police, who, once I was arrested, had me sectioned under the 35 legislation of 1983 Mental Health Act, without even his  examination, on the 22nd June2009. Their intention with the changed view of the ridiculous charges, of trading in machine guns, now unlikely to obtaining a conviction switched to some other way they interfere with the now, 19 year running damges claim for malicious prosecutions and false imprisonment.caused by the same force..
 
3. I further complain, following that failing, only by luck, the police attempt, on 2nd December 2009, to obtain for me a section 41 to Broadmoor , for life, without trial reliant on known fabricated evidence..
 
4. I further complain of ther continuing harassment and fabricated arrests ,since my release, unconvicted, since 9th February 2010 and refusal to properly investigate serious acts of criminal damage on my property and an assault on myserlf deliberately avoiding interviewing the only independant witness present
 
This list is not exhaustive....
 
yours