23 year old Police Custody Tape ‘found’

Arrested for four days in Cardiff Prison, as unidentifiable, whilst South Wales Police lean on guernsey police to have me extradited for failing to pay a parking fine or something similar…..

So, why did the police chose to release this one and not the other 20 odd?

Now  Cardiff civil judge hands down an unusual May 2016 order or is it that unusual, these days, with a London Mayor’s shiria law just around the corner to take its place?

16 05 10 Appeal order in terms

So Maurice seeks help from any lawyer in the UK:

On 16th of May 2016 Help4LiPs will be taking part in the London Legal Walk for the 4th year running with its co-founder, volunteers, and Ann John OBE, who has accepted the position of H4L spokesperson. As Lord Neuberger puts it, it is important for us to do the walk, but probably more important to raise money for the legal charities. Help4LiPs continues to build bridges and needs your help to raise funding.

H4L builds bridges between:

  • those that know the Law and those that need to know the Law;
  • “legalese” and everyday language;
  • the legal establishment and litigants in person;
  • Process and Justice.

Please click on the picture below to read more and help us help others who are forced to go to Law by clicking the donation below.

Maurice’s initial brief for help:

16 05 11 brief

2nd brief

His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC’s 6th May 2016 Judgment

  1. Priority need for legal representation as it is clearly a politically designed ‘hatchet job’ to cover up the current track record of both Welsh police and parts of its incestuous judiciary when both seeking autonomy at the expense of both their unsuspecting indigenous population and bemused English tax payer?
  1. The facts do not remotely relate to the evidence that was allowed in court.
  1. The law abuse by police, re failed disclosure, ridicules the ‘rule of law’ and a clear cover-up to protect those privileged in this parocial welsh judicial system.
  1. Who, then, has read my incessant police harassment history and not said is obvious there is still a campaign to ‘snuff me out’ from well over 20 years ago?
  1. Still no ‘machine-gun’ retribution allowed in the civil courts even after 6 years!!!
  1. Still no medical record correction despite yet another week- end, not in London, France or Texas, this time but in Ireland of more detention, havoc and misery as if I am a ‘mad man on the loose’. All, again, dependent upon fabricated South Wales Police MAPPA level 3 category 3 records (see websites).
  1. Still blocked in getting to court against the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) due to an apparent cover-up over the proven Welsh Authority’s fairy tale ‘Restraining Order’ breaches conspiracy, to delay this 23 year running civil claim, by my further incarceration in a prison to assist the Chief Constable.
  1. And yet Dr Tegwyn Williams /Professor Wood’s unqualified medical reports were laughed out of court by His Honour Judge Bidder QC, in Dec 09, when he ordered I stand trial, as a litigant in person, to face the mandatory 15year prison sentence, intended, despite being told, by CPS, of my having a brain tumour!

Does this really not require a JR before Court of Appeal, ECHR and public debate?

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Tel 07708586202




Extract of just what the the Welsh Assembly, seeking judicial autonomy, regularly  condone from their police force and you might be next when they want to lock you away, indefinitely, without the need for a futile trial




Chaffinch Kemble.jpg

Need pilots for Cape Town and helpers to have 2nd (3rd or 4th cub finished in time)


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Does the United Kingdom have the rule of law?

Maurice has been asking this question for DECADES…

Philosophical Politics

The Magna Carta from 1215 is an early English ... The Magna Carta from 1215 is an early English form of encoded social and legal rules. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

‘Wherever law ends, tyranny begins’. –John Locke

The question seems odd, almost quixotic. In a country that prides itself on Magna Carta with a long history of common law, it seems a question that need not be asked. this seems an odd question. The common understanding is that the United States of America, which prides itself on the rule of law, inherited its faith in the rule of law from the United Kingdom (UK). Although both countries may appear to approach it differently, the question would not be raised. America was founded in the belief that the rule of law backed by judicial review, where a written constitution would be the highest law, would be the highest authority. As Harry Jaffa explained, the social contract, America’s founding, where individuals left the…

View original post 3,578 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Crunch Time for South Wales Police or HM Partnership to the Rescue

peter vaughan

After 23 years South Wales Police have ‘suddenly found my custody tape recording when accused of having been caught having a ‘garrotte’ type instruments on Prince Charles’ farm……bloody liars.

Courts, police, NHS (Wales) and many of their like minded petty politicians  have conspired all these years to cover up how they manged to have me locked up in Cardiff prison on the pretext I could not be ‘identified’.

If it had not been for the quick thinking of my ex MP, Walter Sweeney, I would still have been locked-up in Ashworth high secuturity psychiatric hospital.

AND Who on earth is expected to believe all  these lies ?

16 04 11 Tape found 16 04 19

BS Tape Order

Cardiff County Court                                                                                                            BS614169 etc

South Wales

30th April 2016

Dear Sir/Madam,

Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary

Purported Disclosure of 20th May 1993 Police Interview Tape

Pursuant to 15th April 2016 Court Order

  1. The claimant proposes his property, one copy or ‘working copy’ of his 20th May 1993 interview tape, made whilst in custody, be returned to him forthwith.
  1. It is of surprise to neither the claimant’s family nor his followers for this pathetic ‘one off’ gesture, twenty-three years later, of a purported ‘disclosure’ from so many still unlawfully withheld custody tapes, videos and other such relevant records hiding eye witnesses.
  1. Not just 10 years of Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons enquiry, affecting HM Privy Council Judicial Committee’s conclusions, is to be considered but it has also affected over sixty odd claimant filed Judicial Review applications at the Royal Courts of so called Justice in London.
  1. The court should now photograph the held ‘cassette’, have it DNA tested and finger printed, it is humbly suggested and full results made public.
  1. A substantive appeal is to be filed for full disclosure of what else has been ‘held back’ from the other claimant’s delayed civil actions during these past twenty-three years.
  1. What else has been distorted by our tax payer’s funded Chief Constable’s ‘in-house’ ‘Special Legal Case-Work Department’? Orders for re-painting a Lewis machine-gun and having their victim sectioned MAPPA 3/3, under 1983 Mental Health Act, emanated from right there.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc (Claimant)


1754440 RL Hill Affidavit & Exhibits 1-9

1754441 A James signed Affidavit and 3 exhibits


Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Bridgend South Wales CF31 3SU

27th April 2016

Dear Mr Vaughan,

Hillsborough Tragedy Jury Decision and South Wales police’s Current Conduct

  1. There appears to be much media coverage as to accountability of officers in-charge of serious incidents within their community causing senior officer early retirement.
  1. An enquiry through the Freedom of Information Act, following the failure by your officers, then under a Ms Barbara Wilding, to cause her immediate resignation from office suggests, unless you can advise me otherwise, for the need of area Police Commissioner to intervene.
  1. Your 6th April 2016 FOI response letter  16 04 06 SWP FOI Response identifies apparently serious anomalies:

QUESTION 1: Did Barbara Wilding admit, by her February 2009 sworn affidavit, that all relevant disclosure had been dispatched to the Claimant also held by the Joint Legal Services and Special Legal Case Work Unit both housed in your HQ?

QUESTION 2: If not, why not and what evidence remains undisclosed?

QUESTION 3: your 6th April 2016 FOI response appears to also suggest that only those cases out sourced to external lawyers are rare and if so how many were there?

QUESTION 4: What are the terms of your insurance company in the light of your force solicitor being recommended to settle ‘out of court, in 1994, only for the Chief Constable to switch our dispute to a private law firm called Dolmans of Cardiff?

QUESTION 5: What are the terms of your insurance company to have caused my cases to be out sourced to a local private law firm free of restraints where the tax payer is concerned?

Question 6: Why then does Dolmans continue to be instructed in my ‘recent claims’ against the South Wales Police?

Question 7: Is it a coincidence that the moment Barbara Wilding resigned on full pension she had managed to register me MAPPA level 3 category 3, using unqualified Dr Tegwyn Williams, your Chief Forensic Psychiatrist for the whole of Wales, after her failed ‘machine-gun’/‘shoot to kill’ agenda collapsed to delay the case which is blocked now by HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC ?

Yours truly,

Maurice J Kirk BVSc                Copy to the new Welsh Secretary of State, Alun Cairns Esq.


25th April 2016

In the Cardiff County Court                  

Maurice John Kirk v South Wales Police Justice Ministry & Parole Board

Claimant’s unlawful eight month prison recall, denied both parole board hearings and medical attention, to avoid the still stayed 1CF07345 Machine Gun MAPPA3/3 ‘shoot to kill’ claim, was also reliant on Dr Tegwyn Williams & Professor Rodger Wood’s fanciful reports of ‘significant brain damage’ for 2009 police further attempt to have this claimant detained, indefinitely, in Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital

Dear Madam,

In response to your 15th April 16 email, asking for ‘further and better particulars’, may I suggest all three defendants have already been amply served with sufficient facts including claimant’s 11th August 2014 representations under Criminal Justice Act 2003 legislation and NHS (Wales) medical evidence still withheld from their victim by all three defendants.

To date the claimant is continuing to be denied proper disclosure in cases against your client and to include:

BS614159, CF101741, CF204141, 7CF07345, 9CF02983, 1CF07345, C90F012 etc

Yours truly

Maurice J Kirk BVSc (Claimant)


Parole Board claimFormPt7CountyCt2

16 04 25 C90F012 Particulars of Claim reponse


The following documents have been found in order to scan and print world wide just what is going on here in South Wales today the consequences of which meant the Musa Nigerian family had their 6 (7) kids successfully snatched by the Haringay Council and never to be seen again causing the CCRC  to now have had a bonfire.

A string of corrupt and very greedy lawyers, in the secret family high courts, were relied on  to prevent my attending, as a Mackenzie Friend, to get me goaled three times, (accused of child smuggling) and having the parents also goaled and then deported .


11 09 17 Musas and MJK at Tottenham Police Station

Where is Favour Musa? Appealing to all UK Police Stations

The Criminal Cases Review Commission have just admitted, THIS WEEK, they also ‘no longer have copy of the 1st Dec 2011 Cardiff magistrates records’ (see above newspaper cutting) despite proof that the police had  already confiscated clerk of the court’s original notes, court exhibits and copy of any applications, during 4th May 2012 jury trial for breaching a ;restraining order’ I never received

But here in South Wales ‘inherent deceit’ conquers all especially if your boss is the mystical ‘HM Partnership’.

At that equally chaotic event the jury even wrote asking for them also but the learned judge, John Curran QC, refused for fear of the consequences.

But not before Cardiff court staff were seen here trying to cover up now sacked Barrister David Gareth Evans criminal conduct in the face of the court when switching court exhibits the next jury , of course also asked to see.

Only obtained by entering the court office in disguise  much later on release from prison and will the ring leaders were at lunch.

  1. the doctored court log
11 12 01 Cardiff Doctored Court Log

Many a UK court, since 1st Dec 2011, has ‘perused’ numerous versions of the ‘court file’ with CCRC possibly having the only copy left of the original before theirs, the lawyer toldme, last week, has been ‘spirited away’!

2. His Honour Judge Llewellyn-Jones QC’s penny worth, on 14th Nov 2011 being, most likely the one to cause the panic for I had already been in prison, whilst unconvicted, facing no charge that could carry a prison sentence!


3. Now sacked CPS barrister David Gareth Evans had to quickly switch court exhibits.

Crown Prosecutors had over looked the fact that the allegations levelled at me had no custodial sentence eligibility so it was agreed by DC Charles that the barrister could slip in another charge, in front of my sister, Sabine and a packed court room fascinated observers.

I actually saw the South Wales area manger in charge, no less , in his usual waist coat and Brilcream, Mr Luigi Strinati, removing as many chairs as he could to avoid the publicity.

HM Prosecutor succeeded in saying I had  posted a note to the now sacked doctor Tegwyn Williams not with this:


but with this one:


switched WANTED014

while his draft ‘written all over’ by district Judge John Charles, to ‘beef it up’, the court heard was to be sent down it to me for my ‘approval’ before being typed up.

5. 11 12 01 RO CPS Draft

Please dont get me going on the 1st March 2012 farcicle  appeal, before His Honour Judge Hughes (see transcripts quietly preserved for the ECHR) with Tegwyn’s wife, Dr Hillier also of Caswell Clinic, having a right ‘set to’ to with my main witness, a Mr Eifion Edwards on his crutches, while I was not allowed, again, to even cross examine the police officer in charge in the case yet alone her Dr husband that he had not even  made a complaint nor ever wished to !!!!!!!!!!

After the jury, in May, had heard about the clerk of the court, another sacked one quickly sent out of the area participant, Mike Williams, had to hide in a court cell while the draft was ‘tendered’ to me in my cell by the liar Lee Barker with GEO Amey custody staff all looking on.

‘Looking on’, well not exactly as the police with Barbera Wilding, on the 8th June 2009 in Barry police station, had me registered as being amongst the top 5% most dangerous in the land-MAPPA 3/3 her victim to be shot. [see leaked MAPPA meeting contemporaneous notes].

6. 12 05 04 Judge Ignored Jury Note

Judge’s reply

7. 120504 Jury request rwritten down by MF

Is there a strange or familiar aroma to a veterinary surgeon wafting in your direction?

I WARNED THE CCRC within days of my being arrested in the Wood Green Crown Court, in December 2011, while trying to give  evidence in a similarly trumped- up case by greedy lawyers on the ‘gravy train’.

South Wales Police had  to have me registered in breach of an order, re harassing the now sacked Dr Tegwyn Williams, the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist for Wales, in order to further delay the 20 year on going damages claim concerning incessant police bullying.

Dr Williams did not even needed to examine his patient, in August 2009, to have me sectioned away to prison, under the 1983 Mental Health Act, as their fanciful machine-gun case was looming and already looking precarious after having to paint her a different colour to try and fool the jury.

WARNING  re ‘Gulag Card’ being played on You next……

REMEMBER, the world over-if authority are frightened of you due to your exposing their conduct, first they ignore you, then try and ridicule you and if that does not shut up they fabricate criminal charges.

For some authorities, who have too much to lose and where South Wales Police is concerned, meaning their promotion and pensions.

In my case, as with certain others who will not desist until something is corrected, the authority gunning for you will have you sectioned or in my case try having you shot.

The following Home Office document, almost totally fabricated by the South Wales Police, at least has the spelling of my name right.

MAPPA Restricted

That is what goes on here in South Wales if you are so daft an Englishman as  to have dared cross the Severn bridge in the first place and then dare to openly criticise their local court customs geared purely to protect the ‘gravy trian’ financed by the unsuspecting tax payers.

The police will have such a document for YOU and you will also know nothing about it unless you have the luck I had in Swansea prison.

The sequence of events leading up to my arrest on 20th May 1993 and subsequent incarceration in Cardiff prison was not accepted in the recent civil court hearing, in 2013, when considering damages. (judgment below)

In 1993 the police excuse was that I was ‘unidentifiable’ and that I had just been found with a possibly stolen motor bike after leaving HRH Prince Charles’ farm with a ‘garrotte’ type instrument with possible traces of blood on it.

HRH Prince Charles.jpg

The truth, unbeknown to the Cardiff magistrates, was that I was being detained by the police  for extradition to Guernsey, Channel Islands, over some unpaid parking ticket or other following the Guernsey police having told their welsh colleagues, in a similarly uncivilised part of the British Isles, that I had the habit of coming to court dressed in Nazi uniform,  apparently, but not letting on why.

Nazi loose in Guernsey

A Nazi let loose in Guernsey

In 1993  was quietly  sitting on a railing, in Cardiff, waiting for afternoon surgery to start down the road as clients arrived with their animals. As I walked off I was suddenly knocked to the ground from behind by one or two police officers neither of which had explained what their interest in me may be about.

After being transferred between a police van and Panda car, in hand cuffs, to make room for my confiscated motor bike, I was then locked up in a Cardiff police cell for about six hours with no explanation, what so ever, other than that I had been in breach of PACE, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s. 25 (old edition) despite no name or address being requested!

  1. This is of some importance, in that the custody record states that he was “arrested s25 PACE”. Section 25 Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides,

“(1)      Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence which is not an arrestable offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions is satisfied.

(2)        In this section, “the relevant person” means any person whom the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect of having committed or attempted to commit the offence or of being in the course of committing or attempting it.

(3)        The general arrest conditions are

(a)        that the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable;

(b)        that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name;

(c)        that –

  • the relevant person has failed to furnish a satisfactory address for service; or
  • the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service;

(emphasis supplied).

The learned judge, in the 2013 civil damages trial of ninety nine witnesses, has now reserved matters verifying his 257 page 26th October 2016 corrected judgment is also stayed until new evidence is submitted.

I have submitted, for example, a previous witness the police had locked up when he was due to give critical evidence and an air traffic controller, a Mr Jonathan Clayton,  who was protected by Cardiff airport armed police from receiving my witness summonses.

Jerry Thomas was locked up so he could not give evidence for me over the police deliberately removing the number plate of the guernsey motor bike following the lies they had to make to the magistrates in May of the same year.

30 April Ruling on witnesses

26th Oct 2015 Judgment extract re ‘garrotte’ type weapon incident subject to appeal

(Heavy type is of my making thus dividing the official judgment into segments when trying to keep continuity to understanding the facts in the case).

DRAFT for Royal Courts of Justice appeal

If there was any doubt as to who I was in Grand Avenue with a garrotte then this random bundle of the Claimant’s complaints with the police,covering the earlier incident, 2nd January 1993 ( no back lights), then where was Inspector Trigg in all this if not smack in the middle?

93 Garrotte inc008



Now the police have suddenly, last week,  produced my 1993 promised copy of the interview, under caution, to be subjected to forensic analysis as it is highly unlikely to be the original a copy I had ordered or police ‘working copy’!

93 05 20 interview tape

To next examine, after  this 26th Oct 2015 judgment extract, then, is the originally released redacted transcript while we all patently await the outcome, following His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC’s 15th April 2016 court order, for the tape to be played on this wordpress site later.

93 05 20 BS Garrotte Transcr pt 1

93 05 20 BS Garrotte Transcr pt 2

93 05 20 BS Garrotte Transcr pt 3

93 05 20 BS Garrotte Transcr pt 4

93 05 20 BS Garrotte Transcr pt 5

This week’s judge’s order

16 04 19 BS Tape Order

Of course it will be found now to be also redacted like the overhead Cardiff road camera filming of my being dragged out of my practice car, stationary in a queue of traffic, by a very angry PC Osbourne. Later decided to arrest me for a breath test when all knew I had been before the Recorder of Cardiff exposing the fabricated switch of court documents, a regular occurrence in Cardiff, in order to switch to a ‘breach of a restraining order’ to one of common assault and far more likely to get my name removed from the veterinary register.

Action 2 claim 11 stop at junction of Newport Road and Albany Road Cardiff 5 April 200

Please watch the camera ‘shake’ to cover up the redacted police copy video for court….

to be continued shortly…….








Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

£10,000 Reward for Police Custody Records as Machine-Gun/Fabricated Medical Records Damages Claim is Blocked Again

It is seven years now that I have been watching, with quiet amusement, at the lengths to which the Welsh authorities are still prepared to stoop to prevent the facts ever becoming published  on cyberspace with their domestic news papers well and truly gagged.

As to how the then Chief Constable managed to get Dr Tegwyn Williams, himself not even qualified nor having even having examined his patient, to then agree to fabricate evidence to get me registered a MAPPA level 3 category 3 victim, on one clandestine meet in Barry police station, remains almost inconceivable!

Then with both this chief forensic psychiatrist for Wales and the HM Crown Prosecutor telling His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC that my ‘significant brain damage’ was so serious for my current 23 year running damages claim to continue, compounded by Barbara Wilding’s dreamed up allegations, re my ‘trading in machine -guns ‘, just will be next?

BUT that was only the start of it it would now appear.

I have just served three years imprisonment because the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) still will not hand over the original ‘harassment’ conviction court records of the blackmailed NHS (Wales)m doctor’s complaint.

16 01 06 Jenny Thomas requests

This lady now admits the Commission has disposed of the missing  magistrates court records following my applications under Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts.

It stinks, doesn’t it?

In order for me to be transferred from Cardiff prison to Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital, it was hoped indefinitely, the police had needed to further blackmail the doctor and staff at Caswell clinic to dream up new evidence as to why I was just so dangerous.

But Dr T W had the last laugh on the little bstds by writing his 19th Oct 2009 psychiatric report clearly stating Maurice was not the threat, at all, as the real danger was by the writings to him from others outside the cage. All real Enid Blyton stuff.

Yesterday I witnessed yet another Cardiff court refusing to lift the six year ‘stay’ on my machine-gun’ damages claim with immediate effect and steps to ‘strike out’ all remaining damages claims against the South Wales Police.

AND what should appear, a solicitor’s 12th April 2016 signed witness statement!

They have had the 1993 ‘garrotte instrument’ custody tape all the time withheld from HM prosecutor, no doubt, next morning in Cardiff magistrates when the police were asking to detain me in the prison until extradited to Guernsey, of all places!

I enclose a summary:

16 04 12 Fresh Ev app024

16 04 14 Claimant’s Position Statement

16 04 11 Tape found

16 04 12 SWP admit tape001

16 04 12 tape 1

16 04 12 tape

16 04 16 Cl Pos St

So if the police so mysteriously just found the 1993 ‘copy ‘ tape, my property but snatched by senior management, what else will the next judge order for disclosure?

(Almost forgot the 4th Action 7CF 07345 needed also to be quashed to hide the publicity)

16 02 05 7CF07456 4th Action Order

10 11 0 4th Action judgment

4th Action contains same police officers in other incidents such as:



£10.000 reward for police held custody records, over many years, from CCRC, HM Prison, GEOamey Custody Cervices and both Cardiff Crown and Magistrate courts.

Payment by any denomination or currency

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

South Wales Police ‘Fresh Evidence’ to be heard in court on 15th April 2016 @ 12.30pm

Fresh Evidence

Proven Criminal Conduct by Police Inspectors, Howard Davies, Andrew Rice, Steve Parry, Greaves, Nicholas Kihlberg, Collin Jones, Griffiths, Trigg, Jenner, Roe, Hill, Merrett and many others

SWP Stops Sequence.jpg

SWP Private Prosecution


For ‘Dolmans’ please read as ‘Chief Constable’ and for ’Chief Constable’ please read as ‘Dolmans’

LIST OF INCIDENTS in first 33 of around 100

Action 1 claim 8 XXX

  1. Dolmans, solicitors, admit that HM Crown Prosecution Service, Stan Sofa, was ‘fully aware of his position should the Claimant, in these proceedings (Action 2 claim 5), find him in time to serve a witness summons for his evidence of ‘what really goes on in our courts’.
  1. Dolmans, at the Claimant’s March 2013 damages claim, withheld the names of at least two other police officers that had rushed to Barry magistrates’ courts, on 1st June 1998, with a Sergeant Andrew Rice after the prosecutor had been arrested for deliberately withholding the correct identity of the driver of the Claimant’s practice vehicle.
  1. Andrew Rice produced a Dolman’s prepared 21st January 2009 witness statement and sworn before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC as having been true to the ‘best of his belief’.
  1. Paragraphs 6/7 of Mr Rice’s statement (see p5) state he denies any knowledge of incident when the clerk of the court, Miss J A Caress, with all the others in the building, must have heard the sirens of two police cars arriving with Mr Rice as officer in charge.

09 01 21 RICE Perjury

NB Inspector Rice was the Barry custody officer in charge of altering the earlier ‘Breach of the Peace’ arrest records, re Vale of the Glamorgan Show at Barry police station.

The Claimant had been, on the day, the  Honorary Veterinary Surgeon for the show.

All three hurriedly drafted cock-eyed versions, before HM Prosecutor and clerk of the court, were deliberately withheld from the three Justices of the Peace) while keeping Inspector Rice well out of it.

The Claimant’s secretary, for 8 years, Commanding Officer for Wales Royal Air Force Cadets, has typed at least a 100 arch-ever files and disappeared into France, in retirement and recuperation to be unable to be found, in time, to give at least a week of extra evidence in the trial, including what she witnessed in the Barry and Cardiff courts as case after collapsed as if skittle pins had been hit, right on target, by a ‘Zummerzet skittle ball’).

In the collapsed ‘dangerous driving’ allegation (Action 2 claim 12) the Claimant had instructed Diane to even follow police officers (eg WPC Rewbridge) into the public lavatories of Cardiff Crown Court to ensure no more conspiring occurred for the next waiting witness after the previous witness had given evidence and was released.

His Honour Judge Nicholas Cooke QC, who had the Claimant’s daughter in tears, whilst reminding her, sitting in the public gallery, of the 15 year mandatory prison term he father was facing if he did not now divulge his defences, over the ‘machine -gun’ conspiracy,to a pro-bono defence barrister mysteriously suddenly available.

The same judge had stopped this August 2000 ‘dangerous driving’ trial as the jury had just caught a Barry police inspector (name forgotten’ but in transcript), sitting in the well of the court,signalling to respective prosecuting police officers as they were being cross examined, Their jury note, just as in the 4th May 2012 first of three ‘breach of a restraining order’ trials, had been purloined from the court’s cellars, many years later and can be viewed on the downloads of his dedicated to SWP bullying, http://www.kirkflyingvet.com.


  1. The explicit orders from senior police management had been to secure the HM Crown Prosecution file from Mr Sofa just as he or Inspector Hill had done, in the court room, following yet another collapsed trial (Action 1 claim 2) when snatching the CPS file from a totally bemused, Mr Mundy from Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism unit, following perjury having been committed by a Detective Constable Murphy of Cardiff airport.
  1. The then Chief Constable, Ms Barbara Wilding, by 21st January 2009, had already failed to comply to His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC court order for all disclosure available had been done. She therefore had to hand in her notice to leave it for Inspector Griffiths.
  1. Her six-week late affidavit was only signed after the Claimant had to visit Dolmans and thump his fist on their table but still avoided many of the forty odd incidents cited.
  1. Within 48 hours the Claimant’ family house was surrounded by armed police officers with their helicopter hovering overhead to arrest the Claimant for ‘trading in machine guns’.
  1. She had also concocted, ‘being in possession of prohibited ammunition’, ‘proceeds of crime’ with Dolman’s very own criminal allegation, thrown in, that of, ‘threats to do criminal damage’ carrying, in all, a mandatory minimum prison sentence exceeding fifteen years.
  1. Then the Chief Constable arranged with her chief forensic psychiatrist, Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams, by subjecting him to blackmail over another Caswell Clinic doctor and a Eifion Edwards Esq whom she had also, apparently, ‘stitched up’ and gaoled. This was to have the Claimant sectioned under the 1983 Mental Act on fabricated evidence to still further delay this case.


Sample of Criminal Cases Review Commission documents held (before they were switched) by arrested Crown Prosecutor, David Gareth Evans to obtain Claimant’s harassment conviction for a restraining order never ever served but later fabricated to obtain 3 years imprisonment of the victim’d police incessant bullying (Appellant to RCJ)

NOW CCRC refuse to even release following court exhibit when South Wales Police CPS switched WANTED poster and clerk of courts notes of evidence prove it.

What does one do when the conspiracy includes a few right in the heart of the Welsh judiciary seeking autonomy.

switched WANTED014.jpg

CCRC refuse to release following South Wales Police CPS switched WANTED poster and now face a Judicial review application in the next few days.


  1. Inspector Rice had also denied, on oath, knowledge of a Christopher Paul Ebbs/Alexander, identified in the court room and their meeting at Aust Ferry Services with a CAA representative and Bristol Crown prosecutor to discuss ongoing criminal proceedings destined for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons disciplinary proceedings in London.
  1. Mr Ebbs/Alexander also gave evidence, on oath, during the 2013 civil damages trial.
  1. Dolmans also withheld Fairwater Police Station custody records of Mrs J Griffiths’ account of having promised an unexpurgated 29th May 1999 transcript/copy tape, of the Guernsey police with a warrant out for his arrest, ‘being in possession of ‘garrotte’ type instruments’, ‘having stolen a BMW motor bike’, his own from right outside his Cardiff veterinary surgery and being, ‘unable to be identified’.

15 11 16 Provisional Grounds for Appeal BS 614159

  1. Senior police management have since redacted that interview transcript leaving the remainder, before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, to be interpreted quite differently.
  1. Dolmans also withhold CAA/NATS and ATC Gloucester aerodrome records of their respective investigations following two private flights of the Claimant’s British registered aircraft, G-KIRK and G-ARSW on 4th July 1999 (Action2claim2) and in Feb 1996 (Action2Claim 8.6) when allegedly smuggling pigs out of Southern Ireland and/or flying P1 without a valid licence.

96 CAA 2nd page

  1. G-KIRK occupants had a dangerous encounter following an entirely unnecessary police HQ launched police helicopter launch, full of officers as ‘observers’, to establish whether the Claimant was the pilot. A mere call to his mobile phone, a radio message over the aircraft’s sophisticated trans world communications system, to the pilot in command, should of sufficed if the four-minute drive to his airfield from the police station was impossible

99 07 04 Police Helicopter Chase

10 06 16 CAA Psch Rpt

  1. Dolmans is also in the possession of other withheld police records including detail on Inspector Nicholas Kihlberg having given false evidence at Barry magistrates that caused a charming locum prosecutor, fortunately, to have to draft, mid trial, an alternative summons.
  1. This Claimant was expected to then alter his plea to that of ‘guilty’ to one of ‘obstructing a police officer’ instead of the charge he was currently facing, ‘failing to supply a specimen of breath,’ so it could be withdrawn.
  1. Inspector Kihlberg later committed perjury before the 2002 Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons disciplinary proceedings in order to support his January 2001 South Wales Police Inspector Collins request that the Claimant’s name be removed from the veterinary register
  1. Inspector Kihlberg, on 1st December 2000, informed the Cardiff custody officer that the Claimant’s breath smelt of intoxicants but when the definitive breath test was then carried out both readings registered zero. It then took almost three weeks before the Inspector arrived, unexpectedly, at the Claimant’s veterinary hospital, to inform him that he was being reported for ‘failing to produce a specimen of breath’.
  1. This was to make it look as if he had over looked the fact at midnight, on the day of the incident, while he hid his victim’s practice vehicle for six weeks, unlocked with Immobilon and other dangerous drugs, on some private garage open forecourt. It was only by a police officer/client tipping him off that the vehicle was eventually found.

00 12 01kilberg BD cutting

99 12 01 Killberg BT.jpg

Extract from fairwater police station recording Inspector Kihlberg’s reason of arrest.

00 12 01Kilberg BT

Result of subsequent definitive breath test.

99 12 01 kilbrg BT 3.jpg

  1. Dolmans was also withholding a 27th November 1999 PC Wood’s vehicle rectification certificate (see Action 2 claim 10) re substantive hearing requiring ninety-nine witnesses. It was written out just minutes before the Claimant’s third police ‘stop’, that day, leading to a stand-up row between the two traffic officers with one hell bent on obtaining a ‘specimen of breath’ before the Claimant could drive away. The officer in charge flatly refused but it warned the Claimant they would be waiting in some lay by as he entered Barry for bed.

99 11 27 rec tkt.jpg

  1. That did not stop the irrate officer radioing on ahead for other patrolling officers to stop the Claimant on any pretext. Within minutes he was stopped yet again on the completely erroneous excuse that the Claimant’s car was seen ‘weaving’ whist over-taking another!
  1. “There was a strong smell of intoxicants”, the Claimant recalls the officer saying, years later, just like the other Kihlbergs of this world have the habit in saying.

16 02 18 Inspectors Steve Parry Twigg The two police officers ignoring witness summonsesas the first made up the idea of ‘all vets smell of intoxicants’ and the latter was the officer no one could find to ‘identify’ so he was sent to prison until he was.

Veterinary cars do not generally ‘smell of intoxicants’ and cannot not be mistaken with routine antiseptic/disinfectants used unless the police officer has some other agenda


  1. Chief Inspector Jenner and Inspector Roe

Judgment extract:

  1. It is inevitable that Mr Kirk should have deep suspicion of the motives and involvement of the police in this incident. In addition the fact of formulation by Mr Roe of the charges in relation to unlawful eviction is of profound concern, but I am unable to find in favour of the claim brought, which is for wrongful arrest.
  1. It requires overarching evaluation upon all the evidence in the case whether this is evidence of a police vendetta or conspiracy against Mr Kirk, or rather the product of Mr Roe’s individual actions alone; but on the direct evidence the latter is far more likely since the police intervention was reactive to an incident where the tenant complained to them of eviction and damage to goods.


AnnexeEvidence of Robert Roe Nelson. Re-called Monday 29 April 2013

Start 15:40:48

Judge: Just help me if you would Mr Roe. On the last occasion when you were giving evidence, of course I have the Witness Statement that you made for the purposes of these proceedings, and amongst other things you said “I advised Mr Gafael and Miss Jenner not to attempt to re-enter the premises” and in your Witness Statement, “I categorically deny that I was involved or had knowledge of any police officer gaining access to the flat”.  You were specifically asked about Mr Gafael’s statement where he said “later that afternoon following a conversation with Sergeant Roe, he and myself gained entry to the flat and I replaced (?) etc.” and you told me “I went with Mr Gafael and his girlfriend. There was a roller shutter door. We couldn’t get in as I recall. I can say for certain I would not have gained entry. I recollect going to the flat, the roller shutter door was down. I can only recollect going on the one occasion” which is where you were being specifically asked “Well, Mr Gafael says later that afternoon you went back with him, and into the flat” and of course having looked at your statement of the time, you’ve told me that, Yes you did.

Roe: Yes, I agree Sir, that I couldn’t recollect it at the time, that I’d gone back there, but after this period of time, times have merged somewhat and uh …. I didn’t recollect it at the time going back, but I have to agree that I must have returned there. I said it in my Statement and if I’ve said it in my Statement that would have matched up with my pocket book and everything else which I don’t have access to now.

Judge: Help me with this because it may be said at the end of this case, well Goodness! if there’s ever an incident even in busy Ely which you would recall it’s one which involves the daughter of a police inspector and one for that matter where a somewhat unusual charge was placed, so it may be said if you’d ever remember something, you’d remember this one.

Roe: You tend to recollect highlights not lowlights, uhh I… it’s a very unusual charge. I must admit I don’t recollect it. I can only go on my recollection at the time and I just didn’t recollect it at all but I’m not disputing that I went over to Fairw, uhh Barry Police Station and ….

Judge: You also told me, and today, about the process and once you have the file what you do with it and you said “I sent the file in and the report goes to them, it’s for my superiors, it’s they who would send to the Local Authority or the CPS”

Roe: That’s correct Sir.

Judge: And I think somebody will be saying at the end of the case, your Statement prepared by Solicitors says on a number of occasions that you would have submitted the report to the Local Authority. Now I will just read it out so you can hear the words “Whilst I have no specific recollection I would have subsequently prepared in submitting a report to the Local Authority. I’m likely to have placed a copy of the Statement of Mr Gafael and any Statement I obtained from Miss Jenner with my report to the Local Authority” and over to paragraph 18 “after submitting a report to the Local Authority I cannot recall having any further dealings with Mr Gafael, Miss Jenner or Mr Kirk about this incident”, which looks rather different.

Roe: It looks rather different. I think it’s a bit of possibly police terminology because everything is submitted through the chain of command and if whoever is in charge of that area makes the decision if it is forwarded on. I forwarded on to the Local Authority but the Superintendent may so no, we’re not doing this, or I think this should go in this direction instead. It’s his decision that carries the weight at the end of the day and all decisions of this nature and most others and it’s just the terminology “I submitted the report to the Local Authority” but it would have been through the normal chain of command.

Judge: Yes. Also we know that a charge was prepared and made in respect of the protection against conviction and you’ve already been asked the question as to [it being (?)] pretty much out of the ordinary, you told me, absolutely out of the ordinary

Roe: Oh Yes.

Judge: And, you told me that Mr Kirk was interviewed, because we’ve established it was at Barry Police Station and on the date of the interview 3rd July 1995 that that charge is put. And, when you were asked about that on the last occasion when you gave evidence before me, I think you may remember, Mr Kirk said “Did it surprise you that I was arrested for that?” and your answer was “You wouldn’t have been. As soon as it hit the custody officer he would have said that is not an arrest able offence and it’s a matter for the Local Authority”.

Roe: Yes

Judge: Whereas it did go to interview and charge, which was out of the ordinary for you. Now I have to look forward to what may be said on either side at the end of the case about this, and it may be said, it is really rather difficult to make a mistake like that, if something so out of the usual was pursued in respect of this absolutely by way of a charge. Can you tell me more?

Roe: Yeah, the charge that we were more concerned with was the allegation of criminal damage and uh well originally theft, but uh, that wasn’t to be held at all, the theft, the criminal damage was uh if uh, was the charge that was put. The other charges were ones the Local Authority must have recommended and there must have been some other because that’s a most unusual charge that he didn’t tell us. Now unfortunately the answers may have lay in the tapes of the interview of why that was there to answer the missing question of who is the owner of the property. Um, there are, it is unusual but uh, I must say I couldn’t remember it at all.

Judge: Yes and I think I’ll ask my own questions to you. You’ve been reminded very recently indeed that in your Statement to Dolmans which you checked and signed as being the correct record of your evidence, you said very clearly “I have no recollection of arresting Mr Kirk in relation to this incident it would be most unlikely. I believe that it is unlikely that Mr Kirk was arrested in relation to this incident” and of course we know that he was.

Roe: Yes

Judge: The arrangements were made to go over from your own station to Barry, that you interviewed him in connection with, what looks like PC Roche, in respect of, we’ve touched on this before, criminal damage which may have been a pretty straight forward matter and ending up with the charge which was the most unusual matter

Roe: Yes, yes

Judge: And so the question is how can you forget that?

Roe: Well how the mind works I don’t know Sir. All I can say is I can’t recollect these charges and the subsequent events from this case because basically, it’s not like an accident where you see drama enacting in a really serious way in front of you and it sticks in the mind. This was a thing which sort of ploughed its way on and uh, it uh, there was nothing untowardly dramatic about it, and it just didn’t stick in my mind after a while.

Judge: Yes?

Roe: I, I can’t give any other reason

It was of no surprise to the Claimant, during the 2013 civil hearing, that those that had lied the most had been promoted to Inspector or more and reminding him that promotion to that level of rank in the South Wales Police Service usually required membership of their area secret society that includes devil worship.

The list is to be continued on or before ‘fresh evidence’ is induced at 15th April 2016 12.30 am Cardiff Civil Justice Centre estimated three hour hearing.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc (Claimant)

Copies to RCVS/RCJ/County Court/Dolmans/IPCC

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

PC McGregor/Sgt Greaves Conspiracy

DRAFT                                                                                                                                  BS614159etc

Maurice Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary 

Appellant’s Action 2 para 6 Submissions to the Court of Appeal

Extract from October 2015 Judgment

703     Action 2 paragraph 6 – 16 March 1998 Southey Street, Barry and PC Holmes.

is a claim not for malicious prosecution, but for alleged wrongful arrest. The pleaded case is that Mr Kirk was stopped by PC Holmes whilst driving in Southey Street and required to provide a breath sample; that although Mr Kirk had not been drinking, he was arrested on the ground that the breath sample was positive and taken to Barry Police Station, yet a further breath test was negative; having been arrested at 13.00 hours he was released from custody at about midnight and arrest and detention were unlawful.

The Appellant humbly submits that this incident is yet another deliberate failure to disclose police records following their covert surveillance to affect civil proceedings.

Only after oral evidence by three police officers failing to disclose evidence, required to justify their actions for both Road Traffic Act and PACE legislation, did the Appellant realise to the extent to which their conduct had been again controlled by senior police management.

Such is the proof on their documentation, alone, despite original records having been redacted or withheld, that the impaired memory of the Appellant, referred to by the learned judge’s comment (see para 710 of judgment) even after fifteen years, highlights that point.

PC Holmes was the officer in charge (I/C) in relation to an alleged ‘careless driving’ in order to obtain a breath test to get the Appellant’s motoring details.

There is no record in PC Holmes’ note book nor evidence in his section 9 statement purportedly written immediately following the Appellant’s release from one of Barry police station’s cells.

A HORT1 rectification ticket was therefore needed to be issued for the proverbial ‘broken back light’ rectification in order to stop a driver. It would appear the Respondent did not have the Appellant’s insurance company details, once more, owing to his forced changes, so often, due to police harassment. His new insurance company’s name was needed to harass its office (see D&K Insurance Brokers’ Mrs Kenyon evidence) to have his insurance cover withdrawn.

There is only a purported three-line extract (Vol 11 p 75) of PC Holmes’ note book with the remainder blanked out by Dolmans. What little there is, however, reveals that it was written by PC Holmes at 23.55 hrs before any breath test taken.

[The Appellant’s web site readers, these past sixteen years, are aware that it has Dolmans’ conduct refusing to settle once a jury trial had been guaranteed. Senior officer orders routinely overrode those of junior officers and as to what subsequent records were to be disclosed or altered. This conduct, following His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC’s November 2008 Court Order, to disclose custody records, caused the Chief Constable’s personal involvement in the fabrication of the machine-gun/ MAPPA/Dr Tegwyn Williams’ still withheld psychiatric reports (see claim 1CF03351) currently stayed by his Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC].

This stayed conspiracy, along with the others, also stayed, are of similar, unusual and with extreme facts, including regularly altered or deliberately failed disclosure of their records as has already been proven in the Caswell clinic’s NHS (Wales)/Professor Rodger Wood/ Dr Tegwyn Williams conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by delaying this trial.

This conspiracy had been orchestrated, following the November 2008, by Barbara Wilding, the then Chief constable, when, in January 2009, apart from handing in her notice, plotted to have the Appellant shot (see leaked 8th June 09 Barry police station MAPPA minutes).

The Respondent’s Feb 2009 late but erroneous sworn affidavit, signed in her own name but drafted by Dolmans, originated, as with so many before, from this Southey Street, incident.

The Appellant had requested on how Sergeant Greaves could have been both the complainant of an RTA infraction, near Cardiff airport, with no corroborative evidence, (see his hand written altered 1st August 03 S9 statement and note book) and also be custody officer processing, in Barry police station, the prisoner’s tape recordings and a significant single driving document found on their victim’s person?

What actually happened in the Barry police station that night?

That is why the Appellant sent the first HORT 1 document, issued by PC Holmes, to the Barry police station’s Superintendent Colin Jones, on 23rd August 1999, for it to be yet another warning to get his officer’s ‘off his back’ or consequential civil particulars of claim would follow.

Action 1 was already before the Cardiff civil courts and this same civil judge (see para 658 of judgment) while sitting in Crown Court, when adjudicating 1997 Action 2 para 4 Link Road Barry incident, had rebuked officer that officer in charge, PC Roche, as did His Honour Judge Burr rebuked WPC Lott (see Action 1 claim 8.5 24th March 1993 stopped by PC Jane Lott).

Both police officers had also been caught, red handed, on documentation alone, having altered their personal note books or having them altered more likely, between the two separate Barry magistrates’ cases to their two successful appeals in Cardiff Crown Court and usual never getting paid compensation even for their victim’s bus fares as he was never legally represented.

PC Holmes, officer in charge of both the road side breath test and subsequent arrest, produced no section 9 statement either, detailing the incident, despite the Appellant having asked for custody records at the time and had also written demanding as to the retention of all records of the incident as the Appellant’ 1st Action (see 8.6 ‘garrotte’ type weapon/unable to identify appellant incident) was already in the County Court and already subjected to applications for police records, under CPR and being ignored.

PC Holmes’ 28th October 2008 witness statement (Vol 11 p 66) is the only ‘conveniently’ surviving document purported to be of his own making in this incident but was prepared by Dolmans, the Chief Constable’s private lawyers.

 Apart from a vehicle rectification HORT1 he issued for the proverbial ‘broken back light’, should the alleged ‘driving without due care and attention’ not comply with both PACE and Road Traffic Act, to allow a breath test, then where is the top or retained officer’s lower copy? (see Ely’s 1st Action 8.6 ‘garrotte’ type instrument/ stolen BMW motor cycle/goaled as unidentifiable incident and 3rd Ely’s 2nd Action para 14 breath-test during veterinary consultations in Appellant’s surgery.

The Appellant’s 4th October 2008 application to Dolmans for this and forty odd other police incidents, listed as occurrence numbers requiring disclosure following each act of harassment and again, was all over another ‘missing’ personal note book but on that occasion owned by a Chief Superintendent Hawkins’ because its content had also been maliciously used, in a criminal court, when failing to fabricate yet another fire arms allegation.

No wonder the Appellant was denied police station despite records as he had personally written to their Divisional Commander, yet again, Superintendent Colin Jones, complaining of his officer’s continuing police harassment (See 23rd Aug 99 letter referred to by the learned judge).

PC Holmes had written nowhere of the Appellant’s failure to produce a breath test (FTPBT) as opposed to PC McGregor’s note ( p60 paragraph 8) , no doubt, to also secure promotion as is so noticeable with the likes of Inspectors, Rice and Kilberg, in their conduct in so many incidents.

An interesting point, only at the substantive trial when police officers were subjected to some sort of cross examination, fifteen years after the incident, did PC McGregor suddenly produce, previously undisclosed, a document namely, a list of 44 names he had jotted on the back of a pocket note book, no doubt, the day before he gave evidence.

If the content of PC McGregor’s note book, written after their victim had been released and/or with PC Holmes, is to be believed then on his account, if not both police officers’ accounts, they recorded a time line thus:

‘after stopping the Appellant by applying blue flashing lights and then allowing him time to first to go find the house and examine a dying dog before returning to his vehicle, to obtain the necessary materials only to return to house to euthinase his patient…..Was this before or after the breath test, for handcuffs to Barry police station, all record as within 15 minutes, then someone is a liar.

Was another Hort 1 ever issued, after release from the police station and separate to the rectification form, specific for identity of the Claimant’s insurance company?

The police refused to produce the HORT 1 top copy for trial, deliberately sent by the Appellant to their Divisional Commander for ‘safe keeping’, because, from bitter experience, the appellant has suffered under the nefarious conduct of those in a uniform when on an entirely different agenda to that which the general public would be given to believe it to be.

Interesting also is that custody sergeant, Sgt Greaves, was also at the alleged RTA infringement of ‘careless driving’ as if his personal control of both incident’s records had been an order.

The order may have been thus: ‘you will never get away with it, this time, too risky following yet another -VE definitive breath test in the station custody suite within a few minutes of a +Ve on the road side.


A summary of the arrests, following a road side breath test for whatever reason, appears to be, on police records, always -Ve on the police station’s definitive test.

Approximately, in date order, the trend indicates police arresting from ‘+VE road side breath test’ to ‘refusal at road side’ to their last dreamed up explanation, ‘alcohol mouth wash’ swigged on moment the Appellant is seeing a police car in his rear view mirror.

Since then, in 2002, with the South Wales Police having successfully had their victim struck off the veterinary register how does it justify having demanded since, on more than six occasions, the production of this Appellant’s driving documents only for him always to refuse?

South Wales Police need not have a lawful excuse to arrest and detain as it may fabricate a reason later when actually wishing to:

  1. examine the vehicle for defects,
  2. establish their victim’s latest insurance company to harass
  • be able to fabricate a ‘resisting arrest’ or ‘common assault’.


All of this has been compounded by examples in 4th 5th 6th&7th Actions

A string of similar fabricated breath test cases, to this one, dominated criminal proceedings:

  1. Action 2 para 6  Southey Street (McGregor/PC Holmes) +VE – -VE
  2. Action 2 para 8  Pontypridd Road (Sgt Lott) (+Ve -Ve)
  • Action 2 para 9  PC Kilberg (‘refused’)
  1. Action 2 para 10  PC Ely Link Road (-Ve) & why?
  2. Action 2 para 11  PC Osborne (‘refused’)
  3. Action 2 para 12 WPC Rewbridge (+Ve -Ve) (‘mouth wash’ excuse)
  • Action 3 para14 Ely (-Ve) veterinary surgery consulting room & why?
  • Action 3 para 4 PC Barber (-Ve) (mouth wash excuse)!


Yes, the appellant was stopped from being able to expedite his own duty, that of the suffering dog. The police had arrived long after he had arrived at the client’s house to examine an old patient and it was only when he was returning to his vehicle to enable him to find suitable materials to ‘put the dog down’, did the police arrive, with no blue lights flashing, allowed him to euthanize his patient before conducting a breath test.

The Appellant submits that the rectification form was only issued AFTER his release, as per regulations and outside the police station making the timings of this incident to have ended much closer to 0100hrs (see para 723).

The Appellant could only have been traced, in the first place, to a Barry back street by covert surveillance of his girlfriend, later wife’s telephone call to him when giving him the client’s address.

Withheld police records would have further confirmed no refusing of a breath test as, is the production of driving documents, it is an absolute offence but was fabricated by PC McGregor as a positive breath test but never since supported by PC Holmes.


  • The Defence asserts that PC McGregor on that date observed the Claimant driving in an erratic manner, put out a call for Mr Kirk to be stopped and that shortly before midnight, and PC Holmes on duty in Southey Street Barry observed Mr Kirk’s vehicle and stopped him. “In view of his driving, the officer asked the Claimant to take a roadside breath test”. The pleaded case for the Defence is that the test proved negative, PC Holmes told Mr Kirk he would be reported for driving without due care and attention and issued him with an HORT 1 form for failure to produce documents.


  • Mr Kirk’s pleaded case is that he was arrested at about 13.00 hours. His witness statement however states that he was stopped, accused of careless driving, late at night (A2/2.45B) and he did not appear to dissent in oral evidence from the suggestion that it was not long before 12 midnight; nor from the suggestion that outside the Cwm Ciddy public house, Court Road, Barry there had been a line of stationary vehicles built up on the Rhoose side of the road incident, a queue which he overtook. Mr Kirk agrees that there were two police officers present when he was stopped in Southey Street, one of whom he expressly identified as PC Holmes, the son of one of his clients.

Stopped from being able to expedite his own duty, that of the suffering dog. The police arrived while he was returning to his vehicle long after he had arrived at the scene. Withheld police records would have further confirmed no daft conduct ‘to refuse’, an absolute offence occurred  as this tactic was now being introduced following a string of negative breath tests or positive ones at the road side to be swiftly found to be zero on different police station’s alcoholmeter machines.

  • PC 3546 Gareth Holmes and DS 3432 Barrie McGregor (at the time a uniformed patrol officer) gave witness and oral evidence that they were the two officers who stopped Mr Kirk. Each stated that Mr Kirk was stopped because a police officer had circulated a message by police radio, to the effect that he had seen Mr Kirk driving erratically. Mr McGregor identified acting Police Sergeant Greaves as the officer who had done so (A2/2.59 and 47).


Incorrect if said in evidence

  • I received witness statement and oral evidence from Mr Kirk, Mr Greaves, Mr Holmes, and Mr McGregor.+++
  • One can reliably conclude from contemporaneous documents that it was not long before midnight when Mr Kirk passed the Cwm Ciddy Public House on his way to Southey Street. The HORT 1 form issued by PC Holmes (which was in respect of a near side front indicator light) is timed at 23.50 on 16.03.98 (A2/2.76). The pocket entry of then acting Sergeant Greaves reads “23.45 RTA Cwm Ciddy. Obs from M Kirk” (A2/2.56). The police notebook of PC Holmes reads “23.50 report Morris Kirk for due care and attention – issued HORT 1 and report for no tax” (A2/2.68). (For convenience I note also here that the notebook of PC McGregor reads “23.55 stop Maurice Kirk driving white Escort Van D816 BRF Southey Street o/s No.17. 10 failed to provide specimen of breath. Arrest convey to BPS. Reports” (A2/2.70).

No mention or production of police records of ‘no tax’, of course was due to senior officer intervention as was the case in the Civil Aviation Authority’s investigation following the dangerous flying by the police helicopter (see 2nd Action para 7). The latter is currently subject to an FOI application following its reluctance to even admit over the telephone they had given the south Wales Police yet another ‘rap on the knuckles’ as in 2nd Action para 2 ‘smuggling in from Ireland’ in an early 60s two seat Piper Cub.

No breath test was refused in Southey street and a positive sample was recorded despite no known alcohol circulating in the Appellant’s blood stream. A recurrent tactic engineered to obtain an arrest with the hope of a subsequent assault charge as had been a reliable tactic conveyed by the May 1993 Guernsey police incident in the Cardiff’s ‘garrotte type’/ stolen motor cycle incident. The Channel Island telephone call was admitted by the arresting officer, PC Thomas, unlawfully assisting the Appellant to be sent to prison for four days on the pretext he could not be identified. ‘identified!


  • Otherwise, the documents placed before the court in relation to this incident are sparse. It is not easy to disentangle the facts of this incident, for more than one reason.++++++++++
  • As to Mr Kirk, his questions in cross examination of Mr Holmes and Mr McGregor were, without intended disrespect to Mr Kirk, meandering; and he told me in his own oral evidence that “my memory is not good on this one [i.e. on this incident at Southey Street Barry]”. As to the police officers at the scene, Mr Holmes had no note of failure to produce a specimen of breath or arrest in his police notebook (and acknowledged that he did not have a full entry in his pocket book – witness statement paragraph 9 A2/2.60). It was from a police pocket book entry of PC McGregor that Mr Holmes in his witness statement noted Mr Kirk had failed to produce a specimen of breath and was arrested, “Mr Kirk was then conveyed to Barry Police Station. It is my recollection that Mr Kirk provided a negative breath test and would thereafter have been released” (A2/2.60).
  • Mr McGregor says that PC Holmes asked Mr Kirk to take a roadside breath test, Mr Kirk made a half hearted attempt at providing a breath test and failed to illuminate the lights on the intoximeter, so that he was arrested for failing to provide a breath test and taken to Barry Police Station. It is clear on the recollection of all three (Kirk, Holmes, McGregor) that Mr Kirk was arrested and taken to the police station. In oral evidence, the two police officers were at one in stating that that it was Mr McGregor who had arrested Mr Kirk. If this incident involved an HORT 1 form only, it would have sufficed to give it to Mr Kirk at the scene and leave him there. The notebook entry of Mr McGregor was fuller than that of Mr Holmes. In addition Mr McGregor produced at trial the back of his notebook, which he said was a list of arrests carried out by him during the currency of that notebook. That included “Kirk FTPBT [failed to provide breath test]” and the figure “44” as a page reference to the notebook, sequentially placed in the list of arrests. Mr Kirk was dryly ironic in questions about the list (“do you get a bonus for this?”); as was Mr McGregor in reply (“not necessarily so”). Mr Kirk did not challenge the authenticity of this document; and his own case is that he was arrested.


But arrested for a positive breath test

  • It was common ground that the police delayed their questions to or procedure of Mr Kirk because Mr Kirk was attending an emergency call.
  • In questions of Mr Greaves, the police officer at Cwm Ciddy public house, Mr Kirk accepted that he had driven past a line of stationary cars. His question was, “was there anything careless about it?”. Mr Greaves replied that his recollection was extremely vague but he would say, Yes. Mr Greaves stated that he was familiar with Mr Kirk, and had some recollection that he was aware of the vehicle which Mr Kirk was driving, but that he had no particular acquaintance with Mr Kirk or his reputation “other than [that he had been] some sort of nuisance to or obstructive of officers. That’s my recollection of what other police officers were saying”.

No evidence was given, when challenged, of the Appellant being obstructive other than the urgency for attending a dying dog in considerable pain.

  • He agreed that if careless driving were to be pursued as a charge, there would be a plethora of documents, and statements, but said that whether this was pursued would very much depend on the method of disposal on the night. I can find no record of any charge of careless driving, and Mr Kirk does not suggest that any was preferred (respective witness statements A2/2.45B – C, 45D – E and 45F).

An almost weekly occurrence, in those days, of being stopped in the hope some defect could be found on the Appellant’s vehicle or he had been drinking to excess.

  • In his cross examination of Mr Holmes, Mr Kirk was somewhat paternal, having known Mr Holmes as a child and the son of one of his clients. He did not suggest that Mr Holmes was making up or adjusting his evidence. However Mr Holmes’ recollection of this event was on his own account limited: Mr Kirk and Mr McGregor did recollect the two police officers coming into the house where Mr Kirk was putting an animal to sleep, whereas Mr Holmes did not recollect it, adding “I’m saying I didn’t go into the house”.
  • I found it of some interest that, as emerged from the evidence of PC Holmes, the various shifts at Barry police station did not greatly overlap in personnel. For him, the PC’s at Barry were to his recollection PC McGregor, PC Darren Jones, PC Charmaine Kirson, PC Neil Addis and PC Mike Ruddle. Save for Mr McGregor, in relation to Southey Street, none of these names feature in other incidents when Mr Kirk was stopped, or later charged. Equally, they do not feature in Mr Kirk’s own evidence (formal or informal), or in cross examination.

Another reason why Barry police station custody records have not been disclosed not just had a -Ve breath test and released was because PC Mike Ruddle featured in March 1996 Cardiff Crown hearing T960109 and lied about the number of burglaries the Appellant’ veterinary surgery had suffered in a comparatively short time.

The evidence of Appellant’s witness, Llantwit Major veterinary receptionist, nee Ms Jane Walker, was clear in this civil court hearing on how police would fail to attend her complaints when burgled, at least four times.

Despite loss and considerable damage done, to break in, PC Reynolds stated there were no burglaries and the particular dates four incidents, requiring Mr Fairman, the practice handy man, were recorded in police records as ‘criminal damage’- a police policy in certain parts of the UK that has been met by much media publicity when hiding the truth.

PC Rundles deliberately lied to the jury when the Claimant was facing an indictment of improper control of clinical waste. A few cat vaccine empty bottles and a couple of empty 2 ml syringes’ found with twenty other refuse bags identified to be from a number of local residents believing it to be an official refuse tip.

The fact that only the Englishman was prosecuted was unremarkable but PC Mike Ruddle, on oath, upon denying any of the break-ins to the Llantwit Major veterinary surgery seriously contributed, with Sgt Nicholas Kilberg, in having the Appellant’s name removed from the veterinary register.

This is another classic example of failed police disclosure of their records, repeated throughout these past 23 years and now in this civil trial, of the Appellant forgetting, due to the extreme passage of time even, sometimes, who was the witness standing in the witness box.

The Appellant’s needed, during this trial, to leaving well over two hundred files in his flat where he was very soon perpetually being  harassed by a Mark Davenport, believed to be in police employ as a paid police informant (see another Appellant’s stayed Particulars of Claim) in the Cardiff County Court following the grievous bodily harm on Bristol bailiff’s staff whilst having him evicted.

  • Asked by Mr Kirk what Mr Kirk’s reputation was Mr Holmes replied that if the name came up, ‘it was in the context that he was very difficult to deal with’; “I don’t know, but I’m sure there were some people who would prefer not to deal with Mr Kirk, because there’d always be a complaint (fuller citation above); it was not his view but what other officers thought of Mr Kirk, a “general view”. Mr Holmes said that he had never heard of and no-one had told him to harass Mr Kirk.
  • Mr McGregor said he had had previous encounters with Mr Kirk, but in taking his own animals to him. “This is the single dealing I had [with him], it’s fair to say that Mr Kirk had some dealings at that time with the police in Barry”.
  • Mr Kirk believes that there must have been some bugging of him, whether of his phone or his car, for them to have been able to find him at Southey Street. His recollection, albeit expressly not good, (see above), was that he arrived at the house, and was coming down the steps of it, when the police arrived. Mr McGregor said that they followed Mr Kirk to that address although he could not remember when they started following Mr Kirk’s vehicle: they “would have” followed him, and put the blue lights on, “we followed you into the house – you said there was an animal that needed to be seen urgently”. He remembered that it was a white Ford Escort Van. The HORT 1 form is marked as given at 23.50, five minutes after the 23.45 entry in acting Sergeant Greaves’ notebook. Mr Holmes told me that the HORT 1 form would indicate to him that Mr Kirk was driving, (which is not a positive recollection of seeing Mr Kirk driving).[
  • All three men were straightforward in demeanour when giving evidence in relation to this incident. Of the three, (Mr Holmes, Mr McGregor and Mr Kirk), the one who seemed to have much the greatest recall in relation to the police actions and procedure was Mr McGregor. If he is correct, then there had been a radio call to observe Mr Kirk for his driving (as spoken to by Mr Greaves, Mr McGregor, and reflected in two police notebooks), and the police car had followed Mr Kirk’s vehicle to 17 Southey Street. I was unable to discern any animus of hostility to Mr Kirk on the part of Greaves or Holmes or McGregor, and I have not succeeded in identifying material to support significant prior contact between any of them and Mr Kirk. Mr Kirk’s theme and belief is that on a number of occasions individual police officers may have simply been acting as foot soldiers on instructions of others, but, on the evidence which I have received, this is a self contained incident.
  • As  matter of detail in relation to this incident, leading counsel elicited from Mr Kirk that he used alcohol based chemicals in his work, that it would smell to people like ordinary alcohol, but the smell might linger long if spilled and that he would use it on a daily basis and carry it in his car.
  • I think it unlikely that this played any role in relation to Southey Street. Firstly, Mr Kirk comes alive when asked to recall a detail of treatment of an animal, and he told me that he did not use it that night. Secondly, there is no suggestion from Mr McGregor that it was on account of the smell of alcohol that he required a breathaliser test of Mr Kirk at the road side, as opposed to suggestion of a moving traffic offence. He related a half hearted attempt on the part of Mr Kirk at the breathaliser test, and failure to complete it. The contrary was not suggested by Mr Kirk in his questions to Mr Holmes or Mr McGregor by Mr Kirk, nor in his own oral evidence. However if there was reason to suspect a moving traffic offence (on direct observation by the police officer himself or on report from another police officer, here Mr Greaves) then it would be lawful to require a breath test. Thirdly, leading counsel explored what Mr Kirk would have been doing earlier, if it had been a Sunday, (and it is true that Mr Kirk said “most likely coming back from a surgical problem at the surgery … which gives you the answer you’re after …was I using alcohol as a veterinary surgeon …Yes) but 16 September 1998 was a Monday.
  • I accept, on the strong balance of probability, that Mr Kirk passed a stationary queue of vehicles at Cwm Ciddy approaching midnight. It is established that there was an emergency with an animal that he dealt with on his return to his surgery, and he must have been returning expressly to deal with it. He has strong affinity with and pressing concern for animals who may need his care; he has less than pressing concern for what might interfere with his own view of what is urgent. It is not surprising that he passed a suite of stationary vehicles in order to return to the animal which required his care and it is not surprising that the acting sergeant who was dealing with the incident at Cwm Ciddy considered Mr Kirk’s driving erratic and radioed to report it. I accept, on the balance of probability, the evidence of Mr McGregor that (this being about midnight, not 1300 hours). I find that it has been established on the balance of probabilities that Mr Kirk made a half hearted attempt at providing a breath test and failed to illuminate the lights on the intoximeter, and that he was arrested for failing to provide a breath test in consequence of that. This sequence of events is wholly consistent with the test being found to be negative when administered at the police station. It is inconsistent with any notion that he was arrested on this occasion as part of a policy or conspiracy of harassment.
  • The closing submissions for Mr Kirk assert that ‘Holmes was only too well aware, in the 10 years, of the Defendant using data from covert surveillance earlier in order to first ‘stop’ the Claimant’. I cannot trace this being put to this police officer and the police officer gave no such evidence. In fact, he had said that ‘routine stops were our bread and butter’. I do not yet again repeat the detail of what a Defendant has to prove, in order to justify arrest as lawful, (i) an honest suspicion that an offence has been committed and (ii) reasonable grounds to support that suspicion, and the standard required to establish it. I consider that the Defendant has shown each to the required standard.

Was this a ‘routine stop’ for their ‘bread and butter’?  

Proper disclosure of both police note books, their statements at the time and custody records will disclose no ‘failure to supply a specimen of breath’ was occasioned and that a breath test was recorded as positive.

The standard South Wales Police tactic, below and with this prime example of it in all three police officers’ note books redacted or ‘missing’ together with crucial PC Holmes written, on the day, section 9 witness statement, as officer in charge, is enough for yet another incident that should have been quashed without the need of oral evidence from anyone.


Extracts from:

 Sgt Greaves 1st August 2003 2nd Statement? (p51-Trial Bundle Action 1 vol.2)

Paragraph 2.

This statement is made from my own knowledge except where I have indicated that matters are based on information that I have obtained or matters which I believe to be true. Where I have obtained or matters which I believe to be true. Where appropriate I have indicated the source of my information and/or belief.

(NB the wording compared to the other two)

 PC McGregor’s 26tt June 2009 3rd Statement? (p 46)


Paragraph 2.

This statement is made from my own knowledge except where I have indicated that matters are based on information that I have obtained or matters which I believe to be true. Where appropriate I have indicated the source of my information and/or belief.

This long before drafted statement by Dolmans was only signed by McGregor, just as with the Chief Constable’s ordered affidavit, once HMC&TS(Wales) had prior arranged that this Appellant be refused bail, on 25th June 2009, when there never ever had been the remotest chance of a conviction, even in a Cardiff court, for ‘trading in machine guns’ once having him registered a MAPPA level 3 category 3 victim without his knowledge.

All that was left to ‘snuff out’ this civil claim was for their victim’s incarceration requiring the Respondent’s chief forensic psychiatrist, Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams, to fabricate a fax to His Honour Judge Llewellyn Jones QC to section their victim under the 1983 Mental Health Act despite having never even examined his patient.

After six months of the Appellant’s refusing to divulge his defences Dr Tegwyn Williams was further blackmailed to have their victim further incarcerated into Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital but indefinitely, to avoid both the ‘machine -gun conspiracy being published.

This only required two doctor’s signatures, Crown Prosecution Service barrister, for Richard Thomlow to lie over a possible brain tumour and for Dr Williams to confirm his brain scans, whilst unsuitably qualified, that their victim had irreversible ‘significant brain damage’ arising from being a long term drinking partner of Oliver Reed Esq, having ditched his WW11 Piper CuB in the Caribbean and had flown to Australia without a map.

PC Holmes 28th October 2008 2nd or 3rd Statement? (p66)

Paragraph 2.

This statement is made from my own knowledge except where I have indicated that matters are based on information that I have obtained or matters which I believe to be true. Where appropriate I have indicated the source of my information and/or belief99 07 04 Heli Danger013 (2)

96 08 CAA  first page

96 CAA 2nd page

So, where are all these police officers ’contemporaneous records if no one will have them disclosed or have they also gone the same way as did HMCS(Wales), HM Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) and South Wales Police documents, in the 4th May 2012 Cardiff Crown Court. When the jury asked His Honour Judge, John Curran QC, asked the similar only to spark off a well prepared reposte?














Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Proven Inspector Andrew Rice Conspiracy

Action 2 paragraph 5 speed camera St Nicholas 2.10.1997

Inspector andrew Rice Conspiracy

Facts referred to in this extract of judgment are contrary to the facts in the case.

Dolmans, Solicitors, for South Wales Police, deliberately manipulated the learned judge into stating the ‘speeding’ vehicle was a Guernsey registered veterinary ambulance. This was due to a conspiracy emanating from Inspector Trigg of Barry police station causing Appellant to be gaoled in Cardiff Prison as ‘unidentifiable’

93 05 00 Grand Ave Surgery Arrest

EXTRACT from corrected October 2015 judge’s draft by Dolmans, solicitors

  1. Vehicle 43083, the vehicle on this occasion, was a Honda Acti Van. This vehicle ricocheted between registered keepers by November 1989 respectively Mr Kirk, Mrs Janet Kirk, Mrs Marianne Fanshawe and Mr Kirk again, all in Guernsey (“green” bundle pp 34–36). A theme of Mr Kirk’s evidence is that vehicles were being stopped because his name appeared as the registered keeper to police search; but it is not challenged that on this occasion the vehicle in question travelled through the speed camera at 44mph in a 30mph zone.

Both Janet and Mrs Fanshawe considered taking legal advice as to suing the police by their conduct with the former not being informed, until right now, as to why none of her children were ever to be educated in Wales owing to the apparent inherent deceit regularly nurtured in both the Principality’s schools and so called law courts.

Why? The vehicle on this occasion was not liable to road fund tax as a veterinary ambulance. (In Action 1 para 8.5 both judge and police failed to raise this simple fact re PC Lott’s excuse to stop-Road traffic Act).

PC Lott and police husband, Sgt Lott and also in Barry, had been briefed on all the Appellants Guernsey vehicles, in 1993 were not liable road fund tax (four motor bikes and thee motor vehicles) and hence the reason why all were mysteriously stolen in quick succession, mainly in broad day light and burnt out or destroyed.

None of his other UK registered veterinary vehicles, of course, were touched except the one Inspector Andrew Rice stole from right outside the Appellant’s veterinary hospital while his victim was tied up again with the usual weekly drivel from those, milking the system, in some equally smelly Cardiff Crown Court.

10 09 28 Murphy st (1)



All this sudden flurry from Barry police officers, appearing so concerned about Maurice’s welfare, was triggered to try and bury ‘Wednesbury reasonable’ legal argument in (Action 1.6) Prince Charles incident over a blood stained ‘garrotte’ type instrument that was used on His Majesty’s Boverton farm, Llantwit Major.

FACT: These fabricated criminal allegations again required Inspector Andrew Rice to deny incidents as ‘never occurred’. The Appellant was prosecuted for ‘speeding’ in a veterinary practice vehicle whilst not the driver already known to be the case by both police and HM Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Stan Sofa.

98 06 01 speed camera complaint p1

98 06 01 speed camera complaint.jpg

FACT: Inspector Rice’s version of accounts, as in paragraph 314, (see paragraph 262 Action 1 claim 8.11 3 October 1993 at St Athan stop and arrest for driving whilst disqualified) is also quite untrue as when he described this earlier motoring case’s police and court records. First the Appellant was convicted, in his absence and then, again in the Appellant’s absence, the conviction was over turned.

FACT: The Appellant was denied access to either police or court records relied upon to, first, obtain a successful prosecution and then, second, be made ‘aware’ the conviction was over turned.

Does it stink or does it not, demonstrating once again the thread of police deception for these civil proceedings on a motorist again being ‘stitched up’ by sheer spite.

FACT: Throughout most of these incidents the South Wales Police knew the Appellant was never ever going to get incriminating HM court, HM CPS or police records from any South Wales establishment. It is simply how things work in South Wales funded primarily by the English tax payer ‘gravy train’.

FACT: Inspector Rice had, also in evidence, with Christopher Ebbs alias Alexander present in the room, deny identifying him or having been at the Aust ferry cafe meeting, with Mr Alexander, CAA and Bristol police (involving an Appellant assault conviction, subject to appeal, in an incident in the Plume of Feathers public house, Bristol public house to discuss that and flights to Ireland.

FACT: The driver of the van, Kevin Fairman, was called to give evidence and without warning to anyone, including the appellant, stated he was routinely stopped by police believing him to be the Appellant when driving any of the now Appellant recognised vehicles.  No explanation, he told the court, was given or inspection of the vehicle other than police admitting they believed in was the Appellant as the driver.

FACT: Kevin Fairman indicated he was stopped more by Barry police in the Guernsey registered Acti van, (see-judge’s paragraph 684 below), assumingley because all side windows had been previously deliberately ‘blacked out’ by the Appellant and leaving only a small slit across the windscreen, for legally requirements.

FACT: Both police senior management and their lawyers, Dolmans, had been lying through their back teeth for years with their collective denials of the very existence of the Appellant’s veterinary ambulance featuring in Actions PC Lott 1.3, 1. PC OBrian1.23, 1. and many other unlawful stops in her contrary to Road Traffic Act 1991

FACT: The selection of ‘mysteriously now found’ police photos, (see- Action 1 claim 8.23 May 1995 The vet ambulance), of the Appellant’s untaxed with no MOT parked on a double yellow line, over night,  veterinary ambulance, outside his veterinary surgery, were originally taken to allow PC O’Brian and all other circulating police officers, should they see the Appellant and no one else driving, to have the excuse to stop him and attempt to identify their victim’s latest insurance company to harass 

95 05 15 PCs Matin & Obrian photo.jpg

(Please note police car and the fact police/dolmans denied all knowledge of this incident or photographs once PC O’Brian ‘no tax/MOT’ case collapsed in chaos as I failed to fall for the old rouse simply to identify my current insurance agency for police to again harass in London)

15 05 95 PC Martin PC Obrian photos

At the summary hearing therefore some FACTS also not in this judgement:

Inspector Rice

  • would not call the operator of the camera at the incident but prosecuted the Appellant when knowing he was not the driver.
  • had assisted in the earlier Barry magistrates hearing despite having already supplied HM Crown Prosecution Service’s Mr Stofa with two contrasting photographs name and address of the actual driver, Kevin Fairman
  • had confiscated the CPS court file, to shred no doubt, with all parties in the court room intently looking exactly as he had done or was it Sergeant Hill had done following the collapsed ‘smuggling pigs flight to Ireland’ fraud case.
  • Mr Soffa subsequent arrest, for ‘perverting the course of justice’, was now further supported by the incriminating clear photograph of the driver that had fluttered so gently to the ground from his CPS file.
  • The case was immediately abandoned for all trace of the hearing to be ‘expunged from the record’ as a lawyer said at the time in 2006 as. this is exactly what Texas’s State Psychiatric Prison’s court did to avoid the publicity.

Austin Psych

  • The Federal Aviation’s Authority’s speedy intervention, by a ‘wrap over the knuckles’, was kept from all the American newspapers just as the CAA’s repeated complaint of these Welsh police, in Actions 2 paragraph 2 flight to Ireland 9th February 1996 and Action 2 paragraph 7 – 4 July 1999 the police helicopter.
  • Until the South Wales Police had intervened by fabricating a PNC record coupled by erroneous psychiatric information to Austin’s police and repeating themselves in 2009, over a machine gun incident, all knew that at no time had the Appellant broken any FAA legislation while landing his cub next to the President’s ranch. He was simply carrying a letter thanking GW, personally, for causing this Appellant’s life from being saved from the Caribbean sharks by Julie, the pilot and one of his Coast Guard helicopters.
  • So, again, as if it was a figment in the imagination of the Appellant this is another court process that just never happened triggered by the clerk of the court’s 10 am fax to the Appellant, signed J Caress caused by police decision to try and bury it.
  • along with at least five other officers he was last seen escorting away Mr Sofa, in handcuffs, with the CPS file neatly tucked under his arm, to make, no doubt, the yet undisclosed but detailed MG11 statement as to ‘what the magistrate saw’.
  • disappeared Stipendiary magistrate, Ms Watkins, may well have been an eye witness to the other similarly collapsed hearing, see paragraph 430 Action 1 claim 8.23 May 1995 The vet ambulance but definitely in the ‘smuggled pigs’ fiasco case all to have the Appellant’s name removed from the veterinary register.
  • This incident supports the view to an overarching MAPPA type 24/7 surveillance conspiracy, along with the many yet to be heard ‘stayed’ damages actions, currently protected by HMC&TC, as in the current appeal by JR in the Royal Courts of Justice and Supreme Court, if need be, of no ‘restraining order’ having ever been served on their victim, in the 1st Dec 2001 Cardiff magistrates’ cells to then maliciously used to gaol him, for years to further prejudice his preparation for these civil proceedings.
  • As for any other witnesses, from the two crammed full vehicles, dispatched by Inspector Andrew Rice with all sirens blaring across the town, none, it appeared, could be identified on Chief Constable’s force’s records.

Wilding Wanted

  • Despite many years of both CPR and FOI act applications none of these three collapsed hearings nor that of 1st Dec 2011‘harassment’ conviction, when CPS switched exhibits mid-trial to be confiscated by Cardiff police to prevent the Appellant access to them fin subsequent trials have disclosed no contemporaneous notes of evidence or identity of any used exhibits.


EXTRACT  Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales Oct15 Judgment BS614159 

  1. Action 2 paragraph 5 speed camera St Nicholas 2.10.1997 On 2nd October 1997 a speed camera snapped a Ford Escort Van D821 LNY travelling apparently above the speed limit of 30mph. This is not disputed. The monitor on the speed camera showed 44mph to the police officer operating it. A Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent to Mr Kirk as keeper of the vehicle requiring him to identify the person driving the vehicle on this occasion.
  1. Vehicle 43083, the vehicle on this occasion, was a Honda Acti Van. This vehicle ricocheted between registered keepers by November 1989 respectively Mr Kirk, Mrs Janet Kirk, Mrs Marianne Fanshawe and Mr Kirk again, all in Guernsey (“green” bundle pp 34–36). A theme of Mr Kirk’s evidence is that vehicles were being stopped because his name appeared as the registered keeper to police search; but it is not challenged that on this occasion the vehicle in question travelled through the speed camera at 44mph in a 30mph zone.

How on earth could the Appellant have known what speed either of the vans had been doing? The police barrister would not call or cross examine on it in this civil trial as that would of liberated a whole new fragrance of corruption into the court room as yet another new ‘can of worms’ is opened.

  1. It appears to have been processed in the ordinary way by the Central Ticket Office, without fault in the process itself. It is not disputed that the Notice was sent in proper time (see notice itself dated 13.10.1997 at A2/2.20, and his letters of 21.7.1998 and 17.9.1998 at A2/2.38. A summons was issued on 27.4.1998 within the required 6 month period for excess speed and for failing to give information identifying the driver (A2/2.29, 31). Mr Kirk in fact pleaded guilty, “to save time”, but in mitigation said he was not driving and the Magistrates restored the matter to be tried at a hearing on 1st June 1998. On that occasion, the prosecution withdrew the prosecution (see A2/2.36 and 41 – 42). A letter from the CPS dated 28 September 1998 states that, following the adjournment of the case on 27 April 1998, “the case was further reviewed by a member of the Crown Prosecution Service. In view of the quality of the photographic evidence the Crown took the view that the case should not proceed against you in relation to the speeding offence” (see A2/2.42).
  1. The pleaded case is that the prosecution was instituted and continued by police officers maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, in that they knew that Mr Kirk was not the driver of this car at the time of the alleged traffic offence and there was no evidence that he had committed the offence (A2/2.1). His case is that the driver was his employee Kevin Fairman.
  1. The Defence, after further particulars of the date and occasion, served a witness statement from PC Lovell dated 3.11.2009, which simply records the date, time, vehicle registration number, and checks as to system, and that PC Lovell on that day sealed the video cassette and forwarded it to the Central Ticket Office at Treforest in the normal way. It did not identify or describe the driver. Mr Kirk declined repeated offers to call him for cross examination.

CF paragraph 684

  1. A copy of the photographic evidence from the video camera was sent to Mr Kirk: by letter of 11 November 1997 to the Central Ticket Office, he asked for a copy of it (A2/2.21); by letter dated 9 December 1997 he wrote again stating “I refer to my letter of the 11 November and your response thereto enclosing a photograph. I am able to confirm that the driver is not me but I cannot confirm his/her identity” (A2/2.23).
  1. By 21 July 1998 Mr Kirk was writing both to the police and to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors that “on receipt of the Notice of Intended Prosecution I wrote several times to the South Wales Ticket Office and my letter of the 10 March identified the driver, and his address who was well known to the Barry police as my employee”. By the time Mr Kirk was making a witness statement for the purpose of the present proceedings he was asserting that “in October 97 the police summoned me for speeding despite the fact that to the police’s knowledge I was not the driver. The camera photo clearly identified Fairman. Therefore the summons and trial were motivated by malice….. The police never even approached Fairman despite the fact that I told them in writing at the earliest opportunity that he was the driver, not me, and therein lies why I say it was harassment and malicious” (witness statement 19 May 2002 A2/2.3D); he repeated this in his 2009 statement (paragraph 647 A2/2.3B).
  1. In fact what he had written to the police was, “One of my staff has suggested the driver may have been a Mr K Fairman of 52 Tynewydd Road, Barry. Without sight of the original film I am in some difficulties.” (A2/2.28, emphasis supplied).
  1. By letter dated 21 January 1998 the police had written in reply that Mr Kirk had failed to establish the person and invited him to view the film at the Central Ticket Office which might assist in the identification process adding “I should point out that it is the responsibility of the registered keeper to supply such information” following a police request and “if you wish to view the film would you please contact this office on the above telephone number when the necessary appointment can be made” (A2/2.25).
  1. Mr Fairman was called as a witness before me. He had a worried look throughout; he had an uncertain memory. His written statement said that in 1995 he was stopped by Barry Police “at least three times” and made to produce his driving documents while driving Mr Kirk’s Guernsey registered van”, whereas orally before me he did not remember three occasions “I can only remember one occasion I was stopped”. (In fact, he was stopped three times, on 14.08.1995 in the Honda Acti van, see HORT 1 at Mr Kirk’s green Bundle 33; and on 23.08.1995 and 22.9.1995, see letter from South Wales Police 24 January 1996 Mr Kirk’s “green” bundle at 43).
  1. In my judgment the driver may well have been, and probably was, Mr Fairman. In a statement made during the currency of the hearing before me, Mr Fairman stated that in 1997 he was employed by Mr Kirk and was driving one of his vehicles through St Nicholas to cause him to receive a speeding ticket (“second statement” in Mr Kirk’s additional, “green”, bundle). In oral evidence, he told me that he had no dealings with the police, it was all dealt with by Mr Kirk; he could not remember being shown a picture of the person from the speed camera; and he did not remember the camera flashing but he remembered “the situation of it all. [Mr Kirk] must have said that I picked up a speeding ticket, it would have been the little white van I used to drive”.
  1. However it is clearly not the case that Mr Kirk “told [the police] in writing at the earliest opportunity that [Mr Fairman] was the driver’.
  1. Strictly in law, he was required to identify the driver within 28 days of service of the Notice of Intended Prosecution (which was on or about 13 October 1997). It would have been open to the police to lay an information, for summonses to be issued, by late November 1997 if Mr Kirk had not identified the driver by then.
  1. In fact, he asked for a copy of the photographic evidence by letter dated 11 November 1997 and expressly stated, having seen the photograph, to the police that as to the driver he could not confirm “his/her identity”. By 10 March 1998, five months after 2 October 1997 and over four months after expiry of the 28 day period, Mr Kirk was going no further than to say that one of his staff had suggested that the driver “may” have been a Mr K Fairman.
  1. In view of Mr Kirk’s own difficulty with the quality of the photographic evidence there is nothing inherently improbable in the CPS having taken a view, (after 27 April 1998 when Mr Kirk had pleaded guilty), that the quality of the photographic evidence was such that the case should not proceed (letter 28.9.1998 A2/2.42). The decision to offer no evidence was taken before the court hearing, and before any representations or requests by Mr Kirk at that hearing (see fax Magistrates Court to Mr Kirk “the prosecution is withdrawing the case this morning – no need to attend Court” (A2/2.36).
  1. Mr Kirk has (or has developed) furious suspicions or belief of ill motive or conspiracy in relation to this particular incident. Those centre on the fact that at the hearing the CPS representative was someone who knew Mr Kirk personally and regularly met him, but he would not produce the photograph to Mr Kirk, “he just withdrew the charge” (Mr Kirk’s statement of 2002 A2/2.3D). Remarkably, Mr Kirk physically seized Mr Stoffa the CPS representative and physically tried to wrest from him the photograph. “I therefore arrested the CPS Prosecutor, Stoffa. After a very long wait in the courtroom for the police, I handed him over by the scruff of the neck to the Police Sergeant, making it quite clear that I needed to make a statement of complaint and that they were to seize the CPS file before documents were shredded, as they had been in my previous cases when I’d made similar complaints…. The police refused to interview me concerning my complaint.” (A2/2.19 written statement of ?? 2002).
  1. Mr Kirk identifies Police Sergeant 1581 Rice as having attended (together with a body of police arriving ‘under blue flashing lights’) and as having seized the CPS file. This would in itself not be relevant to the merits of having prosecuted this matter, but during the course of this hearing a Mr Christopher Ebbs (or now Mr Alexander-Ebbs) attended Court and purported to identify Inspector Rice as a police officer present at a meeting at Aust Motorway Service Station when Mr Ebbs alleged that Mr Rice applied pressure to him to “sex up” his allegations against Mr Kirk in relation to an incident at the Plume of Feathers Public House Bristol.
  1. I deal with the evidence of Mr Alexander-Ebbs elsewhere, in more detail, but in respect of the present incident, it suffices to say that first, up to certainly 2007 Mr Kirk was anxious to emphasise to the courts that any information given by Mr Ebbs was totally false; and second, looking forward to my findings below, I found the evidence of Mr Ebbs before me bizarre and incapable of belief.

Would the RCVS now hold a similar view to their one ruled upon on 29th May 2002 when so reliant on the evidence of Christopher Ebbs, Inspectors Howard Davies, Khilberg and Andrew Rice and evidence from the likes of PC Osborne?

  1. When Mr Rice himself gave evidence before me, he denied any recollection of attending on the “Stoffa” occasion. I consider that there was more than a hint of seeking to distance himself from any and every possible suggested involvement with Mr Kirk. Whilst Mr Kirk’s memory is certainly not immune from error, as I have observed elsewhere, including occasions during the hearing before me when within minutes he misremembered what a witness had said, there is here a letter bearing the date 1 June 1998, (the very day of the Magistrates Court hearing involving Mr Stoffa), in which Mr Kirk identified “Sgt Rice number 1581”.
  1. I deal below with the allegations against PS Rice. However on logical analysis of Mr Kirk’s claim that he was maliciously prosecuted for speeding in respect of the present incident, (i) the fact of speeding by the vehicle in question is not in question; (ii) the matter was processed via the Central Ticket Office in the usual way; (iii) the photographic evidence was sent to Mr Kirk; (iv) Mr Kirk went no further towards identifying the driver (contrary to his later assertion or recollection) than I have set out above, and he did so long outside the statutory period within which he was required to identify the driver. I find it impossible fairly to discern evidence of malice or want of reasonable cause on the part of the police. Mr Kirk’s incendiary reaction to the CPS prosecutor declining to give up possession to him of the speed camera photograph speaks much to Mr Kirk’s personality and character, but the role actual or supposed of Sergeant Rice in restoring order to the courtroom or its environs adds nothing to Mr Kirk’s case overall in respect of this incident.
  1. Incorrect- both of the alleged van incidents of ‘speeding’ remain in question
  2. It was not processed in the ‘normal way’
  • no photographic evidence was ever sent to the Appellant, safe to identify anyone, especially when put alongside the still withheld clear enhanced copy of the CPS’s photo that had fluttered out of the police file to the court room floor

Despite the Appellant’s secretary’s repeated requests by both letters and telephone calls and by supplying further proof of the Appellant’s innocence, once again, ‘selective amnesia’ appears to have dominated those in Barry police station, deciding or not to prosecute, with their ‘in house gravy train’ colleagues, the area’s CPS office, just across the corridor within their police station walls

  • Ample opportunity had been allowed, from the Appellant’s information, supplied before the Barry magistrates hearing to withdraw the prosecution doomed to failure when fuelled by obsessed senior management with a ‘current batting average’ by now of still only a 11% win overall. This was to change once both roadside tactics were changed and HMC&TS offered to give a helping hand.
  • Inspector Rice’s denial of being at the incident of CPS’s Stofa arrest is again indication for the need for an outside police force to obtain proper disclosure of court records and a stark warning to others who chose to cross the bridge from England especially when the Westminster is shortly to grant Wales, like HM Guernsey, both their own police force and judicial autonomy!


see CCRC now blocking this and all the other exhibits confiscated by south Wales Police that the jury asked to see and HHJ John Curran QC refused as it would of simply lifted the lid off the original criminal conduct to obtain a harassment conviction and 1st ‘breach of its subsequent, never served restraining order to protect Dr Tegywn Williams

 Images for stan sofa

£1000 Cash reward for his whereabouts and of that for rtd clerk of courts, Ms Carass & Ms ? (hawkish features) ,  rtd Stipendary Ms Watkins (Dinas Powys?) who supply responsible witness statements fror the royal courts of Justice and outside police force.





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment