7th June 13 Royal Courts of Justice Hearing Right to Tape Record and Call Defendant as Witness

Maurice — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:26:00 GMT

AN E-MAIL WITH NO RESPONSE

FAO Mr Justice Morgan

6^th June 2013 12.02pm

FAO Hearings Cardiff County Court                       BS614159

22nd & 23rd May2013 Claimant Position Statements Ruling

Further to my visit to the court to collect the 'by Tuesday' ruling, promised at the last day of the hearing, l have telephoned today about the Claimant being able to refer to it in RCJ on 7th June 13 as the alternative, possibly, to Barbara Wilding being the subject of the proceedings as past Chief Constable.

Her 'oh so dodgy' 25th Feb 2009 sworn affidavit was written with malice aforethought and proved in court following 99 witnesses's evidence.

There is no need for the Defendant's legal team
to attend as the tape recording issue is not for them.

If the outstanding ruling is substituted for Mr Justice Morgan to consider then compromise as to which witnesses should still be allowed to give evidence could be settled between parties NOW

Without that ruling causes me to remain in some difficulties for tomorrow's RCJ application

Please forward to RCJ as I still cannot find the RCJ ref number or e-mail.

Thankyou

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 1^st 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 22^nd 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 21^st 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 25^th 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 25^th 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.

2^nd 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.

3^rd 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 22^nd and 23^rd 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 7^th 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 28^th May Application (attached at the bottom)

22^nd 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 20^th 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, 20^th 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 1^st 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)     4^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

b)    5^th Action Machine gun Case/malicious pros, false imprisonments

c)     6^th Action Forensic Psychiatrist/NHS (Wales) False Medical Records

           d)     7^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

     e)     8^th 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                                                                  22^nd May 2013

(23^rd 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 7^th June 13 High Court Hearing

Further to the 14^th 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 22^nd and 23^rd 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 28^th 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 20^th 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, 20^th 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 1^st 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)     4^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

b)    5^th Action Machine gun Case/malicious pros, false imprisonments

c)     6^th Action Forensic Psychiatrist/NHS (Wales) incorrect Medical Records

     d)     7^th Action police bullying/ malicious pros, false imprisonments

     e)     8^th 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                                                                28^th May 2013

PILOT MAGAZINE....previous pages at bottom of previous blogs

Pilot Mag April 2002 MJK Profile_0001 (4).pdf

Search results matching tags 'South Wales Police cover-up' and 'Cardiff'

7th June 13 Royal Courts of Justice Hearing Right to Tape Record and Call Defendant as Witness