92 6/ + ,51
C i o11/zon,l 
c t= o Zo).1o t1a 
Case No. A20110290
IN THE CARDIFF CROWN COURT 
Appellant
BETWEEN: MAURICE KIRK 
-v-
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RCSOONdCNT 
(senior Courts Act 1981 section 28(1): Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 rule 64.6(l))' 
TO the Court Officer of Cardiff Crown Court, sitting at the Law Courts, Cathays Park' 
Cardiff, CFl0 3PG. 
on 2 March 201 2, an appeal wherein I (the undersigned) Maurice Kirk of HMP Cardiff, 
Knox Road, Cardiff, CF24 OUG was Appellant, and the Director of Public Prosecutions on 
behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, 20 Floor, Capital Tower, Greyfriars Road, Cardiff 
CFl0 3pI. was Respondent in respect of 6 convictions at the Cardiff Magistrates' Court, 
Fitzalan place. Cardiff, CFZ4 ORZ on 1 December 2011 in respect of the following 
informations laid before the said Cardiff Magistrates' Court, was heard before and 
determined by His Honour Judge Hughes sifiing with Lay Justices at the above cardiff 
crown court, the Lau,courts, cathays Park, cardifl cF|0 3PG as follows: 
INFORMATIONS 
6 charges of alleged Harassment, contrary to section 2 of the Protection frorn Harassment Act 
1997. 
APPEAL RESULT 
APPeal dismissed' 
I AM AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of the appeal on 2 lv{arch 201? against my convictions 
at the Cardiff Magistrates' Court on 1 December 201 I as being wrong in law andlor in excess 
ofjurisdiction, and I hereby apply to you to state a case for the opinion of the High Court and 
any extension of time necessary within which to do so' 
The questions of law and/or jurisdiction on which the opinion of the High Court are sought 
are: 
l. 
whether the order that that Appellant may not cross-examine prosecution witnesses was 
a lawful exercise of discretion? 
2. 
whether the order that that Appellant may not cross-examine prosecution witnesses was 
a compliant with article 6(1) and/or (3Xd) ECHR as incorporated under schedule I of the 
Human Rights Act 199g? 
3 ' 
whether the evidence of the south wales Police Intelligence officer relating to the 
viewing of print-outs of web sites allegedly created by the Appellant was lawfully 
admitted in evidence? 
4. 
Whether evidence of print-outs of 
web sites allegedly made by the Appellant were 
lawfully admitted in evidence in the 
absence of any uploading within the jurisdiction of 
England and Wales? 
Dated 30 March 2012 
MAURICE KIRI( 
Appellant