Dr Tegwyn Williams Welsh Police Conspiracy Spreads to Somerset



I suggest the content of this document indicates what happened in court on 4th November 2011– see facebook



HM Courts and Tribunal Service HQ           Your Refs CO/4737/2014

The Ministry of Justice                                         2016/P1/11303

(old Home Office building)

St James Park


24th October 2016

Dear Sir/Madam,


  • Proposed Claim for Judicial Review re ABUSE OF PROCESSTo: Cardiff County Court Manager       
  1.        HMC&GTS (Wales)  
  2. The Claimant: Maurice J Kirk 
3   The defendant’s reference details

No reference

4  The details of the legal advisers, if any, dealing with this claim: May be

5   The details of the matter being challenged

South Wales Police gave instruction to Swansea prison staff to remove the claimant in his wheel chair from the prison van and then someone lied to Mr Justice Gilbart on 21st January 2015 that their MAPPA 3/3 victim was refusing to enter the prison van.

The claimant’s sister was quick to inform the welsh court that this was a lie.

Record of claimant’s complaint was applied for to be preserved, anticipating the usual conduct to delay, in that he even heard the direction over prison ‘walkie talkies’ to remove the claimant from the van thereby preventing his attending Cardiff Crown Cort sitting as The Administrative Court.

The case stated appeal was in pursuit to the over-turning of his prison sentence regarding the said police refusing to allow the claimant to have his passport returned by the Cardiff prison needed to obtain his BS614159 case records stored in France for safe keeping. Decades of police bullying and failure to investigate crimes committed against him, as in his 4th Action 7CF07345, are being unlawfully delayed due to exacerbate his medical condition.

6  The details of any interested parties include HMP Swansea, South Wales Police, HMC&TS (Wales), NHS (Wales) and GEOamey Custodial Service

7  The issues include:

Conduct contrary to Article 6 and the laws of natural justice have been breached by the prison’s actions and failure to disclose both police records of the criminal matter leading to the 21st January 2015 appeal re ‘case stated’. Failed disclosure of claimant’s custody records from both HM Prisons Swansea and Cardiff, Geoamey and HMCS&TS(Wales) court records is a common theme throughout twenty-five years of the claimant and family’s suffering.

Accentuated in this Swansea prison incident (3rd breach of purported restraining order) in that, on 1st Dec 2009 the clerk of the Cardiff magistrates court, Michael Williams, was ordered to both destroy part of the Cardiff magistrates court file and fabricate the remaining record but CCRC intervention finds the claimant had NOT even been served the restraining order.

The purported wording indicates the preventing the claimant’s publishing of the doctor’s indiscretions along with the then CPS prosecutor, in the conspiracy, to pervert the course of justice, one David Gareth Evans (photo to follow).

Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams was black-mailed by South Wales Police, while in collusion with Professor Rodger Wood of Swansea University who, himself, also contributed fabricated Caswell clinic medical records in that their victim should be sectioned to Ashworth High Security Prison, indefinitely, due to his ‘significant brain damage’.

The police purpose was to thus kill off the claimant’s formidable claims against Cardiff’s cabal culminating in the Chief Constable’s fabricated ‘machine-gun’ conspiracy in the hope in having her adversary in court, shot dead.

  • The details of the action that the defendant and interested party is expected to take

Disclose court, custody and MAPPA and IRIS surveillance records etc etc.

9  ADR proposals

This doesn’t seem appropriate in this particular case, unless the other respective parties have alternative proposals.

10    The details of any information sought

With the police, having successfully getting the claimant struck off the veterinary register in 2002 on a ‘tissue of lies’ when none of which related to animals, from 2002 onwards had served on their victim no less than seven times HORT 1 traffic infringement tickets to produce his driving documents.

On each occasion the police were told, in appropriate language, the claimant had no intention, what so ever, in producing any driving documents. The claimant therefore seeks disclosure of police records concerning each of the 7/8 incidents (one outside Wales) when each HORT 1 was torn up by the claimant, often in the face of each welsh police officer to hear nothing more.

These records are also needed in the ongoing BS614159 and associated claims for damages in the Cardiff County Court and now Taunton Magistrates for the substantive trial this welsh conduct appears to have now caused leading to the claimant’s arrest and custody.

Taunton magistrates, tomorrow, may enquire as to why the claimant was never prosecuted for his actions for an ‘absolute offence’ seven times?

This Parade, Taunton, incident was immediately followed by the two Somerset police officers taking instructions from the South Wales Police and Dolmans, solicitors for them defending in the civil claims.

No seizure notice was therefore served on the claimant for his WW2 Piper Cub, trailer and car parked in The Mall the day before or again in the centre of Taunton as, it appears, the habit of Welsh police irregularities have been ordered on others in England. No HORT 1 was served on the claimant either as it was clear, following instructions from dolmans via welsh police, he is exempt of the law, the rule of law- an expression alien to the South Wales authorities.

  • The details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary

As above and a lot more.

  • The address for reply and service of court documents

See Kirk Aviation business card     ‘find me under the wing of the cub’


13 Proposed reply date

I would invite you to respond well before fourteen days of receipt of this letter as it is abundantly clear that this matter concerning South Wales Police withholding prison video and police contemporaneous record, to deliberately delay ‘due process’ of 24years civil proceedings, has already been brought into question by Lord Justice Sweeney this year and requires your immediate attention.

Yours faithfully




R U Welsh?…..then read up who first rolled hot chocolate for the first Yeatman’s (spelt wrong) Watford chocolate factory where I was lost, for a long time, imagine, at 7 years of age and where my grand dad also created ‘chocolate buttons’ and converted plain cane sugar ( glucose/fructose) into invert sugar and ‘Sunny Spread’!


Court predicted reply as this pretence of ‘not under standing’ has been a welsh tactic against the English for centuries. In this case the criminal judged refused Janet Kirk the right to take notes on my behalf as I could hear very little from behind the bullet proof glass. I had gained entry to Cardiff prison and before being arrested for being in the prison without lawful authority no less than six CCTV cameras had witnessed I had arrested prison officer Rogan for withholding my passport following a phone call from the police.

Now the RCJ has castigated those perpetuating the welsh habit, in open court, this 2nd legal challenge by me is to have the automatic quashing of the Rogan prison sentence for’ assault’.

The six cameras caught my arrest of Rogan from six angles but, of course, no welsh judge would allow disclosure of evidence for immediate acquittal of an Englishman.

No one will ever change their bitter, ‘chip on the shoulder’ against the English  and with some inherent deceit is found in a few in high places.

On 26 Oct 2016 13:16, “Administrative Court Office Cardiff” <administrativecourtoffice.cardiff@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Good afternoon Mr Kirk,

I am unable to establish what, if anything you are asking the administrative court to do. You quote numerous case numbers throughout your document but I can see nothing that specifically makes reference to asking the administrative to take action.

Can you please clarify if this was for the administrative court or whether it relates to an action in another court (i.e county court, high court, court of appeal….)


Administrative Court Office, Cardiff

Tel: 02920 376 411  

From: Maurice Kirk [mailto:maurice@kirkflyingvet.com] Sent: 25 October 2016 21:40 To: Cardiff County, Hearings Subject: YET ANOTHER BLOCKED CARDIFF COURT CASE CO/4737/2014

Please find another enclosed for your shredder

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

Tel 07708586202                                 ______________________________________________________________________



to Civil, Criminal, Administrative
Your reply was anticipated……Any possible delay in a clear incident of the  Welsh Authorities again blocking my access to court (for the 7th time) simply because I have proved time and time again rampant deceit percolating through the stench of Cardiff courts.
switched WANTED014
 26th Oct 2016
I enclose , again, for a reply, please, as the HMC&TS (Wales) appears to be continuing to give me the ‘run-around’
St Doha
2223- Merdrignac
Your Ref:   2016/PI/11303
31st July 2016
Civil Appeals Office
Royal Courts of Justice
Dear Sir
I thank you for your letter dated 13th July 2016 regarding my Appellant’s Notice and Supporting Grounds of Appeal sent to the court in this matter.
You state that the matter was referred to the Master of the Court of Appeal who directed that the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the application concerning the order of Mr. Justice Blake dated 15th April 2016, on the basis that there is no right of appeal regarding an order made under CPR Pt. 52.17(7).
However, it was made plain in my Grounds of Appeal that I considered that the Honourable Judge had in fact proceeded with my set aside application under the wrong rule, when he could and should have considered the application under CPR Pt 3.1(7) to revoke the previous order of dismissal of Mr. Justice Gilbart made on 21st January 2015.
Without prejudice to whether or not the court had jurisdiction to consider an application to appeal against Mr. Justice Blake’s order, the prohibitions in respect of appeal didn’t apply to Mr. Justice Hickinbottom’s subsequent order dated 14th June 2016.
This wasn’t an application under CPR Pt. 52.17(2), but an application to set aside Mr. Justice Blake’s previous order purportedly made under CPR Pt. 52.17(2).
Mr. Justice Hickinbottom purported to rule that he had no jurisdiction to entertain my application for set aside in respect of Mr. Justice Blake’s previous order.  As can be ascertained from my supporting Grounds of Appeal, I don’t agree with that ruling, and irrespective of whether any appeal would have lain directly in respect of Mr. Justice Blake’s order, the prohibition against an appeal didn’t apply to Mr. Justice Hickinbottom’s order.
I consider that the paper ruling of the Master of the Court of Appeal was a denial of access to justice under article 6(1) ECHR as incorporated under schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 accordingly without any hearing regarding the matter under review, or hearing my submissions relating to jurisdiction etc.
I would therefore request that the matter be referred to a Lord Justice of Appeal accordingly or the matter be remitted back to the Master for further reconsideration accordingly.
I re-enclose a copy of my original Appellant’s Notice and Grounds of Appeal and the three orders of Mr. Justice Gilbart dated 21st January 2015, Mr. Justice Blake dated 15th April 2016 and Mr. Justice Hickinbottom dated 14th June 2016.
I look forward to hearing from you accordingly.

Yours faithfully

Maurice Kirk BVSc

CCRC have the Evidence of Cardiff wide corruption, re Dr Williams, MAPPA3/3 , Caswell Clinic court officials etc but appears to refuse to disclose …..’nothing new under the sun’ where the Welsh judiciary is concerned and what has happened to that outstanding arrest order ??????? Policitically embarrassing is it?


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

One of Our Aircraft is Missing

dr-tegwyn-williams-wanted-poster19th October 2016                                                                                                              BS614159 etc

                           Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police Constabulary      

Claimant’s Position Statement

  1. Withheld South Wales Police evidence caused Claimant’s name to be permanently removed from the veterinary register.
  2. After 90% of all police allegations against the Claimant having been now quashed in criminal proceedings, between 1992 and 2002, (first three of Claimant’s ten Actions seeking damages) but the currently presiding civil trial judge still continues to refuse to order police full disclosure within the current thirty-three incidents of over one hundred yet for trial.
  3. Police swore this had been done, back in 2009, in the signed Barbara Wilding’s Chief Constable affidavit ordered by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC’s predecessor, His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC.
  4. 1st Action para 8.6 HRH Prince Charles ‘garrotte’ incident is just one outstanding example when 2013 cross-examination revealed Guernsey extradition proceedings were even tried without victim even knowing.
  5. Another example of unlawfully withheld police data is seen in the closing transcript extract, re retired Sergeant Rowe, in the yet to be ‘sealed’ purported October 2015 judgment for the Royal Courts of Justice. It refers to just how Cardiff police unlawfully brought duel summonses and made use of a sledge hammer to gain access to the Claimant’s veterinary premises, without his knowing, just to put back their chief superintendent’s pregnant daughter and drug dealer boyfriend to be able to repeat still further extensive vandalism of claimant’s property.
  6. After the RCVS 29th May 2002 verdict the police then served on the Claimant no less than seven HORT 1 road traffic tickets for him to produce both his driving insurance and driving licence. The Claimant refused on each occasion and no known legal proceedings have ever followed until last week.
  7. In the past two weeks The Claimant has been subjected to PNC scrutiny by the Metropolitan Police in order for his Vintage Air Rally aircraft, shortly to fly to Table Mountain South Africa, to be displayed on Horse Guards Parade both with his vehicle and equally road worthy trailer.
  8. The 2nd time was following a confrontation on his aircraft, that same night, having been parked up in The Mall.
  9. The 3rd occasion was from another police patrol, next morning, checking on the legality of the Claimant’s right to drive down The Mall towing his WW2 Piper cub on a public highway.
  10. On arrival in Taunton, Somerset, the local police finally arrested the Claimant for having, it is rumoured, neither a driving licence nor the mandatory 3rd party insurance cover and goaled him for the night where he was denied both his medication or right to see a doctor.
  11. During the Claimant’s time in handcuffs he heard the police speaking to both the South Wales Police and Mr Adrian Oliver of Dolmans, solicitors, the latter currently defending the police in the Claimant’s numerous actions. One includes 1CF06331, the HMC&TS Cardiff Cabal conspired machine-gun 2010 jury trial scandal now blocked for well over six years along with almost all the others by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC.
  12. The 2nd radio message, also appearing to come from South Wales Police, caused the 2nd officer to confirm that he was expected to press for as many charges as possible but both had other ideas, thankfully.
  13. The magistrates were informed that the Claimant had been summoned with his aircraft on a public road, in central Taunton, with neither valid driving licence nor with appropriate insurance cover and yet no assistance has been given by the authorities as to just how this can be?

The local newspaper, face book , twitter and other such social media all seem to have varying accounts far from the truth.



20161012_083114 (2).jpg20161013_133915.jpg



Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Two Can Play at That!

An expert in the art of suing the police has  explained just  what the Cardiff Cabal are up to–I must be bankrupted in order to stop my remaining nine cases arising out of decades of police bullying and inactivity to protect my property, me and my family.

First, there had to be a perverse judgment on the first three damages claims which is wrong in both law and fact an when do I get ‘sealed’ copy, ‘handed down’, I will never know!

Secondly, the cabal must prevent the judgment from ever reaching the Royal Courts of Justice for the Court of Appeal…….see previous blogs of what the cabal will stoop to in order to preserve their pensions all paid for by YOU.

And thirdly,  then apply for my bankruptcy in order to wipe-out all my remaining seven damages claims against the South Wales Police, at a simple stroke, including my feared  MAPPA 3/3 Machine-Gun Dr Tegwyn Williams NHS (Wales) two million pound claim for falsifying court records, crown Prosecutors lying to a succession of judges all wrapped up in malicious prosecutions to delay and delay these civil claims until after I die from natural causes or am shot after their first bungled attempt.


This has been deliberately blocked by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC for six years, so far, as I have proved malfeasance right across the South Wales judiciary  currently, incidentally, seeking autonomy with its own police force!

HHJ Seys llewellyn QC

judge’s draft Judgment

DRAFT for Royal Courts of Justice appeal

So I file with the court the following application:

In Cardiff County Court BS614519/CF101741/ CF204141/ 1CF03361/ 7CF07345

Maurice John Kirk v Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Claimant Application for an Early Hearing to:


  1. Have machine-gun 1CF03361 case listed for hearing as six-year court delay is an abuse of process
  2. Add Claimant’s 2010 malicious Caswell Clinic arrest incident, unlawfully fabricated for a purported restraining order, to amended 4th Action as it is an abuse in preventing Claimant obtaining that court withheld evidence in that he was only gaoled as a registered MAPPA category 3 Level 3 victim as diagnosed with ‘significant brain damage’ from a brain tumour
  3. Allow Claimant an adjournment from proceedings in the first four of his ten Actions after 23 years of relentless but unlawful police delaying tactics for Claimant and all witnesses to forget evidence, go senile, go mentally ill, emigrate, get lost or simply die off.
  4.  Adjournment applied for is from 1st November 2016 to a date in early January 2017 yet to be known

5. Expedite the return of originals or copies of his property, tampered with or not, from

i)       those copies of Claimant 90s exhibits held by the Defendant from original Claimant files not now found as court exhibits as Defendant prepared the ‘trial bundles

ii)     a court copy of his potential vexatious litigant file sent to HM Treasury Solicitor

iii)) the purported court seized Claimant’s 20th May 93 ‘garrotte’ police interview tape

6. . Provide Claimant with:

i)   a copy of the court logs from all above listed cases since inception-cash still waiting

ii)  a copy of the Defendant’s ‘corrected’ version of the original judge’s draft copy of the purported final judgment sent out to both parties in October 2015, now returned to the court for preparation of the purported ‘sealed’ handed down judgment

iii)  a copy of the purported October 2015 learned judge’s hand down ‘sealed’ judgment yet to be received by the Claimant despite being informed that the same court no longer has a copy of it on its computer while The Court of Appeal continues refusing the claimant’s appeal application without it

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

3rd October 2016


So, if the Welsh police are allowed to slip-in their new defence exhibit for His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC to then immediately confiscate my purported property, when the ‘original’ tape was made over 23 years ago while their conspired malicious allegations started to fall apart in their faces, then so can I.


lloyd-williams-qc A great snap-shot, where credit is due,  I complement the photographer



Another typically concocted criminal allegation, against an Englishman, was when I had to arrest Stan Sofa, the then HM Crown Prosecutor for South Wales’ police and their crooked Cardiff cabal.

While the police successfully withheld content of my 52 arch lever prosecution exhibit files, from the learned trial judge, when served on them around 10 years ago, their now doctored ‘offensive weapon’ custody interview tape, just released this year to the civil court, of my being found using ‘a garrotte -type instrument’ on HRH Prince Charles’ property, can still be snookered.

Action 1 claim 8.6, 20 May 1993 arrest at Grand Avenue Cardiff.

93 Garrotte inc008

93 05 20 BS Garrotte Transcr pt 2

Take another random police incident, from the hundred or so currently withheld from an English court say, Stan Sofa’s current whereabouts? A witness subpoena was to be served on him for at least a dozen court hearings, in the 90s, being withheld by Dolmans solicitors, no less and their barrister, Mr Williams, on a £100,000 retainer per annum to defend my action for damages.

How did it go, ah yes, one police barrister was just leaving the 2013 court room, during the 99 witness trial on very limited evidence, when she said something like, “where are all your witnesses, Mr Kirk?” (after 20 years gone missing, emigrated gone gaga or dead BUT not the key police officers asked for) while the other, the QC (to some meaning ‘quaintly corrupt’), was heard to say something like, “Mr Sofa (is not here) prefers to forget the embarrassing incident ever happened (in that chaotic Barry magistrates court hearing as  court staff were all seen dashing to their respective exits!

It caused Inspector Andrew Rice, PC Killick and at least two others, also out of breath, come bursting into the court room while Mr Sofa hung suspended from his coat collar following his arrest for withholding evidence, the speed-trap photo recording just who the driver really was that day.

Action 2 claim 5 2nd Oct 1997 speed camera St Nicholas F

But in Wales, in both civil and criminal cases, this QC, MR Williams, has no duty what so ever to divulge to the respective judge the fact that he had, throughout, given orders/instruction advice, take your pick, that none of my witness summonses, delivered to the police, were to be processed.

For example, Inspector Trigg (Prince of Wales incident 1st Action 8. 6), inspector Hill’s ‘smuggling pigs to Ireland’ 1968 Terrorism Act incident or barristers advising Dolmans on how to have me surrounded by armed Cardiff airport police to prevent my witness summons being successfully served on Air Traffic Control’s Mr J Clayton, who saw the  spectacular police air-to-air video proving police criminal conduct by deliberately endangering life.



 Mr Justice Gilbart LIED TO by Welsh Authorities

If ever there was an example of Cardiff cabal prevarication it is this one.
Lord Justice Sweeney et al have already handed down the judgment, in my favour, directly relating to my false imprisonment because of the nefarious habits within both Cardiff civil and criminal court accepted, apparently, by the locals such as:
1. refusing me an application to consider legal aid,
2  refusing me my legal papers in Cardiff court rooms
3.  and latest, not even allowing Janet Kirk the right to take notes on my behalf in the public gallery of a Crown Court while your victim is held behind sound- proof glass dock unrepresented and without his reading glasses even.
Seven times I have been refused access from Welsh custody to my own court hearings, whist unrepresented and this incident followed the police instruction to Swansea prison to wheel me off the prison van so I could not attend a win/win case of a malicious prosecution before gilbert J now proved by another route.
My sister, ex magistrate, has vivid recollection as she was quick witted enough to have told the court the prison had wheeled me off and taken to my cell refusing to deliver
YOU are still sitting on my applications since February 2016 RCJ judgment that was inevitable to be in my favour BECAUSE it was heard in a n ENGLISH COURT OF LAW.
Will you confirm receipt of this email and list an early date for a hearing and provide the transcript of the Gilbart J court hearing and HHJ seys Llewellyn QC as I keep asking for it for world wide web sites?
This information is for HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC re police deliberate attempts to snuffing-out an Englishman simply exercising his legal rights in a so called UK law court.
Enclosed is just one of my applications currently ignored by your Cardiff building……oh, what is new under the sun?
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FOUND: Dr Tegwyn Williams & Dr Janis Hilliar in Canterbury New Zealand -Caswell Clinic Staff required shortly as Witnesses of Fact not Fiction


MY attempts to see, by previous invitation, my lovely MAPPA 3/3 appointed Dr Gaynor Jones at Glanrhyd Hospital, Caswell Clinic, Bridgend, psychiatrist were not only stopped, of course, by police intervention but had  they had me gaoled again,  just on release from Cardiff prison for having nearly eight months incarceration over the Cardiff Cabal’s scandalously concocted ‘machine-gun’ conspiracy, only to lock me up at Caswell Clinic awaiting my appointment!

Could JK Rowling make her new book out of this tuff?

. Even Judge Seys Llewellyn QC has blocked, for six years, my civil claim for compensation for loss of my family, profession, health, wealth and damned near my sanity!


Bunch of bloody ‘small minded’ short arsed deceitful bastards and an utter disgrace to their fellow country men and women, including miners, soldiers, factory-workers and house wives, the list is endless, who fought and slaved through two world wars and for just what? This?—Only turning to Europe, not Brexit, do we have a chance of breaking HM Partnership so distorted now, that it’s prime aim appears to be driven by greed.

I cannot even get a lawyer in the land to sue the authorities for this —I am locked up accused of attempted burglary, assault, harassment and something else, I cannot remember…..just as with the 2010  2nd alleged ‘breach of a restraining order’ malicious arrest, never served on me in the first place, for my months in both Bristol and Cardiff prisons until the South Wales Police, knowing it would lose, meant the senior police officers had to eventually had over my ‘arrest file’ to the Crown Prosecution Service who promptly dropped the case  like a ‘hot potato’.

One of the HM Prosecutors, in particular,was quick to telephone me to say the allegations were, in effect,  ‘a load of bollocks’ as Drs Tegywn Williams and Hilliar’s MG11 witness statements had been fabricated by the police on the specific instructions of Barbara Wilding , the then Chief Constable of South Wales Police.

Police records , to the CPS, contain a statement that  I had been around to the doctors’ home, in the dead of night,with 4 gallon jerry-can of Avgas ……idiots.

Coronation Street actress, Michelle Collins,  over the  Musa family scandal prevented my purported 1st December 2009 Harassment Restraining Order on me getting served due to South Wales Police being asked from Tottenham not to produce me from Cardiff prison  two days earlier as a critical witness in their fight to keep their own children being snatched.  children used as the usual ‘lawyer collateral damage scam’ to steal from the bottomless HM Treasury’s coffers.



WANTED both as witnesses to give evidence, on oath, in both HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC’s 10 ongoing 23 years of civil damages claims and various private prosecutions, currently blocked by Cardiff courts, also against the South Wales Police and /or their Agents

Wilding Wanteddsc00529lee-barker-1st-dec-2011-custody-manager

Geoamey’s custody manager, Lee Barker, on the wrong end of the handcuffs, is the key witness, again,  in the next most available court hearing to see if a Cardiff judge finally has ‘the bottle’ to order his, police and court records are disclosed.

In your dreams , Maurice.

By BARKER simply revealing  all records of 1st December 2011 harassment conviction hearing from his employer, his own diary, court file, court clerk contemporaneous files, CPS (Bristol) and the police, in my immediate ‘gate arrest’ on 1st Dec 2009 release, will the Restraining order allegations will be quashed.

Then London’s authorities will get records  then released to prove the unlawful manner in which London Family court lawyers conspired with the Welsh cabal to have me unlawfully locked up, not once, not twice but three times, in order to assist in the Musa’s six Nigerian children being successfully snatched by the Haringey Council by preventing my 28th November 2011 evidence being heard. The Crown court then blocked my having an appeal despite lodging it there and then in the building.

12 06 15 K Team at County Court

11 09 09 Musas RCJ

Musa parents at RCJ, in London, fighting a losing battle for the return of their kids.

bis 45

Fowl mouthed ex Coronation Street Michelle Collins–you need to listen to the tape!

11 09 13 Michelle Collins

And her language uttered in my face but caught both on my camera and John’s tape recorder, on her own door step was very much to do with the Musa’s eventual deportation without their children after their two vindictive 7 year prison sentences and the much ‘oiling of the wheels’ for the family courts ‘gravy train’ going quite unchecked, as usual, and not dissimilar as to what we witness in the Welsh courts.



Extract of psychiatric report written by someone neither qualified on purported August 2009 brain scans nor even had examined his MAPPA 3/3 victim before recommending the police prisoner, for alleged  ‘trading in machine-guns’, be served a s35 incarceration under the 1983 Mental Health Act that immediately prevented either his name being replaced on the veterinary register nor right to pilot any aircraft in UK air space


Professor Rodger Wood who is a major cause of this protracted injustice simply due to his plain arrogance and having got away with, so far, for his fanciful 2009 psychology reports.


A library recording this lot’s conduct on a one time veterinary surgeon having been so stupid to have crossed the Severn Bridge into that evil place, South Wales.

John Graham Esq, a star fighter for the Musas, has just obtained a passport in order to visit South Island NZ, on my behalf, to trace the exact whereabouts of the couple for two international witness summonses to be served before Christmas.

16 01 21 SWP Judgment Hearing 2

Meantime, I will have a particular pleasure in serving a lot more summonses on Professor Rodger Wood of Swansea University and his various devil-worshipping cronies,  senior past and present police officers and Crown Prosecution lawyers, all intimidated Dr Tegwyn Williams into writing that Caswell Clinic MAPPA 3/3 medical report, before His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC on 2nd December 2009, in the first place.

One of the seen court hearings I was blocked from hearing from start until finish.

Police fabricated in order to avoid their already concocted machine-gun trial, to have me locked away for minimum of 10 years, by both Dr williams and CPS prosecution barrister, now judge, Richard Thomlow, both recommending their victim be further sectioned but this time to Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital,  IPP indefinitely,  in order to avoid any further proof of the gross police misfeasance incidents ‘going public’.

One incident, in particular, was the South Wales Police concocted  ‘garrotte’ HRH Prince Charles affair now  emerging, late, from my twenty three years of civil claims.

Police withheld that custody interview tape, to prevent my practicing veterinary surgery ever again and could reveal that no questions was were ever asked of me, at the BMW motor cycle scene or before I was assaulted by two police officers, by knocking me to the ground  before handcuffing me to be gaoled in Cardiff prison as ‘in-identifiable’!

93 05 20 Interview Tape


Then, of course, there is the documentary proof of my allegations in the next blog to be published . No wonder there is no HHJ Seys Llewllyn QC sealed order on the court lap top!

to be continued……

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dimwit Maurice Too Slow for ‘Garrotte’ HRH Prince Charles Incident Conspiracy

Appellant’s Position Statement Cases BS614159 + 2

Dozy me I have only just found  time to put together a page from a copy of one of the court management files  copy , prepared by the police, purportedly from their choice of the claimant’s documents (court refused prosecution exhibits) stored for more than two decades in hidy holes in both France and England to finally get the lying little welshing bastards off his back by needing to take the civil action route – in a welsh court room , of all places once the jury trial promised by His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC had been proved a fallacy and only put into place to delay the prosecution of the bullying police by a further five years.

Today is the first time, also, that the claimant  has had the chance to copy those cherry-picked documents released eventually from the Judge’s Chambers about two months ago withheld from the Claimant by dolmans first doctoring the prosecution exhibits before being released back to their client’s victim.

The following pages (photos) is from the triage of files of same number (incident) and put along side each other to see what the police were attempting to hide by way from being  identified as police officers cited in each of the thirty three incidents. Ninety nine witnesses in the 2013 was but 20% of the witnesses the claimant was wishing to call.

The Claimant’s 90’s memo sheet, made up mainly of his then secretary’s writing,  appeared in the court police prepared copy, the judge’s own copy but NOT in the returned copy from the police via Dolmans solicitor’s offices, in 2003, to me with  my original papers in the fifty odd lever arch files.

The police made damned sure he  did not see the content of it as it identifies those undisclosed police officers that he had been deprived of throughout the RCVS London 2004 disciplinary hearing at the Privy Council in Downing Street all implicated in ‘garrotte’ conspiracy.


Inspector Griffiths (one of same named in non-cautioned in custody interview on ‘garrotte’, I wonder, Caspar?) knew about all this and, yet alone inspector Manners, was it, not allowing me to call these witnesses, concerning my imprisonment on the excuse I could not be ‘identified’ or giving sufficient time for the Guernsey police to have the Claimant extradited (see previous blogs). Griffiths, for the new Chief Constable, Vauaghn, again still refused to produce the witness statement attempting to cover-up this as in at least three other related incidents to be included in the mid 2013  substantive civil trial before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC.

BUT Inspector Griffiths confirmed to His Honour that Chief Constable Barbara Wilding’s six week late February 2009 personally sworn affidavit content had been correct in that full disclosure of police records had already been disclosed according to  Welsh  Law.

All routine stuff in Welsh courts  when all knew they were immune to prosecution, in any event,  so well experienced now by  a then very naïve veterinary surgeon who had originally  only crossed  the bridge from England for a two week locum tenens position.




and here is another, a court withheld exhibit of my notes of what was said in Cardiff magistrates …a pack of lies throughout-if only I had known this sort of conduct was common place in Welsh courts I would of ‘high tailed it’ back over the bridge to England!

93 06 21 garrotte mag notes.jpg


93 05 20 Interview Tape

The Claimant’s May 1993 custody interview tape ‘found’ by police in 2016! Oh surprise , surprise ……so why did it belatedly get disclosed and for the current judge to then swiftly seize it?   Don’t hold your breath for the truth as you are witnessing a police force being aloud to continue to operate unchecked ESPECIALLY now so many voted Brexit for the ill conceived Welsh judicial autonomy policed by it’s own hand picked bully boys.

So who was it so observant as to seeing on the document the name Inspector Hill and why the police had withheld the Claimant’s own document at the time of the Whitehall ‘vexatious litigant’ fairy tale story, the then Mr Burdon, had spouted such nonsense, in 2003, to HM Solicitor -General frantic to stop this civil claim.

Inspector Hill , remember, was the police officer who burst into the Barry court following the collapse of the case when Anti-Terrorism senior CPS officer from London, Mr Mundy ‘offered no evidence’, following PC Murphy having been proved a liar, while on oath, meaning the confiscated Crown Prosecutor’s file, yet again by a senior Barry police officer, had been achieved yet again in order to shred the concocted police evidence by the Chief Constable driven only by avarice in the first place.

Hill, in the full face of the court hearing, snatched that file just as Inspector Andrew Rice had when the Claimant had been accused of smuggling pigs into Ireland.

The Claimant was accused of having no car insurance when there has been no offence or evidence tendered in the law court to that effect. That had led to CPS solicitor, Stan Soffa, being arrested there and then.



Yet another police cocked-up conspiracy with the current judge again refusing even clerk of the court’s Ms Caress records of it being in the civil trial, convinced there never had been a Barry Magistrates hearing in the first place!

Any way,  Wilding had stated that in her affidavit thse two trials never happened so the judge must be right. The small matter of His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, mid trial,  then noting that on one of the Claimant’s court records of the solicitor being arrested were both led  away in hand cuffs by Inspector Andrew Rice and then PC Killick, the latter yet another not having been allowed to give evidence court case took place.

World -widereaders fail to under stand, quite often, that  Englishmen in Welsh law courts are not always allowed access to public record of the pr0cedings as Lord Justice Thomas emphasised before Patrick Cullinane Esq and the Claimant, in RCJ, while, apparently, hiding the RCVS legal argument. the veterinary college decision  was based entirely on South Wales Police complaint of 6th January 2001 to have his name removed from the veterinary register so no revenue was available for the Claimant to employ a lawyer.

The Claimant does not forget Lord Justice Sweeny and Mr Justice’s 4th February 2016  judgment, either, citing Cardiff Crown court’s habit of not allowing an Englishman’s Mrs Kirk’s notes from being taken in a Welsh court public gallery especially as the victim usually brought in his own notes, per rectum.

Their Lordships had denied him his right to take notes in their court but also seemed to have an issue with the strange goings on , so often reported in the Principality’s law courts:



ALL relating to this admission by the ‘ being in possession of a garrotte type instrument’ charge, given without caution, arresting police officer to force solicitor:



Exactly, again, this accepted police conduct in the Welsh courts is seen in the 1st Dec 2011 District Judge John Charles ‘harassment’ conviction fiasco of similar police conspiracy, with ordering of the destruction of the court file following Dr Tegwyn Williams having been proved a liar in court whilst on oath- see police withheld records of Claimant’s ‘gate arrest’ immediately upon release from the court cells.

The Claimant was purported to have been escorted away from the doctor’s house, in the dead of night carrying five gallons of AVGAS in order to burn down Dr Tegwyn Williams and Dr Janis Hillier’s house for having given such totally conflicting psychiatric reports within the familyof one of their more affable laboratory specimens to experiment on in Glanrhyd hospital’s Caswell clinic.

And who else is there withheld from me as Claimant witnesses identified on the document but Inspector Trigg, a detective constable, PC 3961 Dilworth & PC 1798 Walker Adam and Kim , all of police staff, confirming my personal copy had been set aside from the station shredder for posting to its rightful owner.

The photo above  identifies the Claimant’s secretary’s note following police librarian, Mrs Griffiths, apologising in first promising to post the police victim’s copy of his custody tape and then having to state senior management had now over-ruled her.

‘Nothing new under the sun’ where the South Wales Police are concerned when dealing with the English.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Twice the South Wales Police have Smashed-in My Car Window for a Non Arrestable Offence & Cardiff’s Civil Trial Judge Has Ignored the Lot!

Like the proverbial ‘Shit stuck to a blanket’……No wonder too many voted for Brexit not realising their funded judiciary gravy-train is now on a down hill run, completely un checked, all the way to the bank.

Video appears to show police officer smash car window – BBC News

NOW watch my first of two incidents with South Wales Police and each Cardiff criminal  court up through the UK appeal nonsense , before my being eligible for Strasbourg, blocked this video from disclosure until too late to prevent my name being removed from the veterinary register.




WATCH THIS PACE later for my police incidents facts, chapter & verse with overhead video capturing police assault on me  as I am dragged out while stationary in a queue of Cardiff traffic. Meanwhile the cctv is recording but  the redacted police video is on my You Tube site clearly shows where the ‘splices’ were made to avoid the PC Osborne assault and then dragging me from the car where left for ages , alone, in wide open doored van in the traffic jam……..hoping I would attempt to run away…..no arrest  PACE procedure had even yet stated….

Action 2 Paragraph 11 stop at junction of Newport Road and Albany Road Cardiff 5 April 2000

This violent incident caught on their own CCTV shows the lengths to which the South Wales Police were prepared to go in order to delay its disclosure until after the criminal Crown Court appeal was lost so as to assist in causing the veterinary surgeon being ‘struck off the register.

The full extent of that redaction of the CCTV footage is not known, during the time PC Osbourne had smashed his way into the Appellant’s vehicle and assaulted him before then dragging him out having not been arrested.

No breath test was contemplated until instructions from senior management moving the video camera accordingly and no doubt, to try and fabricate an excuse of the actions of an officer in a flaming temper.

Their victim was left for a significant time, without handcuffs in a police van to deliberately try and provoke him to try and escape. their through the deliberately left hide open double back doors. The Appellant refused to fall for their obvious ploy to justify what had just happened and was later cleared on a negative police station definitive breath test without even an apology.

Osbourne’s excuse was either at magistrates, if there was a hearing or in Crown Court or at the Royal college that he saw some empty beer cans in the vehicle and assumed the driver was ‘over the limit’.

Appellant had been, all morning, proving the irregular conduct of Now Inspector Rice, then a sergeant in Barry police station having detained the Appellant, over night, whilst recovering from the violent assaults, first by ex inspector Howard Davies an then Security guard who had knocked him to the ground from behind, the Vale of Glamorgan Agricultural Show. He detained the Appellant, in custody over night, without either a charge or summons to allow it.

The learned trial judge in these civil proceedings had ‘struck out’ quite wrongly, part of the PC Osborne incident and the whole of the Vale of Glamorgan incident both successfully embellished upon before the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ 2002 Disciplinary Committee.

This civil court argument was that a conviction existed and therefore the conduct of PC Osborne is irrelevant. The Appellant submits that is wrong.

At original magistrates court all five offences were not defended in order not waste time as the appellant was very short staffed in an environment where, clearly, everything had already been settled even without evidence yet heard.

When the Appellant had brought it to their notice, again, that the MOT, insurance and ‘no seat belt’ were all easily proven as valid, by relevant documents, the latter valid by doctor’s letter, all three convictions were reversed. These, along with the CPS having already withdrawn the ‘mobile phone’ allegation, left only one.

Once the overhead video was known about the Appellant tried to again change his plea on the remaining breath test conviction but was refused, he believes unlawfully as no evidence was allowed to be heard at any time.

That video, in copy of original form, remains undisclosed along with the plethora of police audit trail, previously applied for and refused.

That single conviction remained in order for the police to have him off the road and make a written complaint to have his name removed from the veterinary register.

As for ‘using a mobile phone’ and the CPS having offered ‘no evidence’ further supports the Appellant’s claim that Osborne’s purported ‘car chase’ carried no offence nor had reasonable cause. It currently stands that the single conviction, denied, has nothing to do with the requirements of a veterinary surgeon but with Osborne making the assault on his victim, without an arrest, germane to the Appellant’s right of compensation.

EXTRACT FROM JUDGE’s PURPORTED 2015/16 JUDGMENT a year ago and still the cabal refuse to give me a sealed copy despite my travelling to The Royal Courts of Justice to try and lodge my case eventually for Strasbourg’/Action 2 Paragraph 11 stop at junction of Newport Road and Albany Road Cardiff 5 April 2000. This head of claim was subject of an application to strike out. I gave written judgment on 30 November 2010. For the reasons there set out I struck out the claim for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution for an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath. The other allegations remain. Those are (i) unlawful detention, namely that “the detention of the Claimant beyond 12.05 was longer than was reasonably necessary and was in breach of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Act 1984”; and (ii) malicious prosecution for offences of driving without valid insurance and MOT certificate, and failing to wear a seatbelt.

  1. The pleaded defence is that Mr Kirk was observed by PC Osbourne driving a Peugeot car in Park Place Cardiff, not wearing a seatbelt and observed to be using a mobile phone; further that when Mr Kirk’s vehicle was stopped at a junction, PC Osbourne went up to the window of the vehicle and requested him to stop, but Mr Kirk locked the doors to his car and drove off. It recites details of the arrest for refusal to provide a specimen of breath and removal to Roath Police Station; asserts that Mr Kirk’s detention was lawfully authorised by PS Roberts the custody officer, that Mr Kirk then informed PS Roberts that he would provide a specimen of breath, and arrangements were made to transport him to Rumney Police Station for a sample to be provided.

Where, exactly, did the Appellant ‘drive-off’ to when CCTV indicates stationary in a police cordoned off queue of stationary traffic?

  1. “Once at Rumney Police Station, the Claimant provided a specimen of breath which indicated an alcohol level below the legal limit. Such was the Claimant’s behaviour however, that the custody sergeant at Rumney Police Station Sergeant Pickett authorised…. Further detention so as to enable him to be assessed by a doctor as to whether he was driving whilst unfit through the consumption of drugs”. A Dr Lush arrived at 1:11am, Mr Kirk refused to allow the examination to proceed, on the grounds that Dr Lush was unable to provide written proof of his position; as a result Mr Kirk was charged with a number of matters following which he was released from custody at 2:02am. There is a denial that the police acted maliciously or without reasonable or probable cause.

Incorrect- police tried dealing their usually infallible ‘gulag card’ to incarcerate their victim in a psychiatric prison.

  1. As I set out in my judgment on preliminary issues, the stop was on 5 April 2000. In respect of the seatbelt, MOT, and no insurance prosecution, it appears from correspondence of the Crown Prosecution Service (letter of 22 May 2002) that Mr Kirk attended the CPS on 21 May 2002 to produce a valid MOT certificate, resulting in the CPS not wishing to pursue that matter further; and produced evidence of medical excuse for not wearing a seatbelt. As to the MOT certificate, it was urged for the Defendant that this, in May 2002, was the first indication that any MOT certificate had been produced; and that the production of evidence as to medical reason not to wear a seatbelt was a tacit acknowledgment that he was not wearing a seatbelt on the occasion of the incident on 5 April 2000. Thus, it was argued, there could not therefore be an absence of reasonable or proper cause to prosecute in respect of either of these matters; and the certificate of insurance that was produced appeared to be for a different vehicle.


  1. In my written judgment I noted the strong criticism expressed by His Honour Judge Jacobs of the evasive way in which Mr Kirk dealt with insurance for his various vehicles. These seemed to me powerful points, “which might very well decide the claim at the end of these proceedings after the hearing of all the evidence”. However I ruled that it was not inconsistent with the ultimate finding of the Court as a matter of record to pursue the claims and it was conceptually possible that Mr Kirk might deploy evidence and or make progress in questions of the police officers concerned, “in a way which gave more strength than now appears to his claims”, (paragraphs 113 and 114 of that judgment). I adopt in full those observations here.

A successful observation by His Honour Judge Peter Jacobs, the day he was due to get out of South Wales himself, for good it was assumed, following his own admission the Appellant’s insurance head office had again been bothered, this time by the CPS on behalf of his own Honour’s request.

What the learned criminal judge, however, did not make public was that he had, before the hearing, first asked the Cardiff Crown Court manager to plead with the Appellant’s good nature to explain the web ‘weaved’ by the police, to deceive.

The Appellant was NOT legally obliged to but for nearly an hour during his busy surgery time he answered the clerk’s questions proving the reasoning behind why this veterinary surgeon needed to use so many vehicles and insurance companies.

As this trial has now proved the police had pestered his agent and insurance company directly, knowing it would only be a matter of time before the motorist was refused insurance cover.

Why, also, there had to be so many practice vehicles appearing to be foreign and registered in such names including, ‘Onest ‘Arry, a retired Guernsey car dealer, G Mallory Esq, possibly the first climber to have conquered Everest, Whilbur Smith and numerous members, past and present, of the Kirk family.

  1. This was a morning when Mr Kirk had left the Crown Court “where I was spending most days, at the height of police harassment” and says that he was aware that he was again being followed by the police. In his statements he says that whilst stationary at a traffic jam he was attacked and dragged out of his car by PC Osbourne who promptly arrested him and, Mr Kirk is insistent, nonetheless left the door of the police van wide open in the hope that he would abscond and give the police yet more material to pursue against him.


  1. Whilst Mr Kirk says he did not ever refuse a breath test at the scene, that is a matter which is not open to me to consider, in the light of the binding conviction for failing to give a breath test and for the reasons set out in my judgment on preliminary issues of November 2010.

The learned civil court judge, it is submitted, erred in law again on this recurring issue as he was only too aware of the police psychiatrist’s conduct, as he had sat in judgement, (failed ‘strike out’ of the Claimant’s multi thousand damages claim against Dr Tegwyn Williams for falsifying his vitim’s psychiatric report when not having the knowledge/qualifications, in the first place, to have written it.

Police had blackmailed Williams to have the Appellant locked away, if not shot, for life and MAPPA registered should neither the fabricated police ‘machine gun’ case, for a mandatory minimum 10 year imprisonment or the Ashworth high security psychiatric hospital application, for life, also failed.

It is submitted that the overarching format of this incessant harassment in these and other similarly vivid particulars of claims should of been taken into consideration rather than ‘striking out’ such an incident so brilliantly exposed on film,as the Oborne would be, with disclosure, despite senior management intervention to leave the best ‘footage’ on their Bridgend HQ’s ‘cutting room’ floor.

  1. Mr Kirk says, “Later I was taken to two police stations, knocked about, refused custody videos be retained they leaving, as they do, my car full of drugs, unlocked with the window down…. A negative breath test caused further detention for a drug test and waiting for doctor. I was very frightened, as harassment had lately become dangerous and irrational” (witness statement 19 June 2009 paragraphs 692-693).


  1. Mr Kirk sets particular store on a video from a street camera which shows that it took only moments from the police van pulling up behind him to his window being smashed and him being removed very forcibly from his car. Objection was taken to me viewing this video, on the basis that judgement on preliminary issues barred Mr Kirk from complaining of the lawfulness of the arrest. I ruled that I should look at this evidence, in case it cast light on those allegations which remain. It shows that it is only some six seconds, from the police van pulling up behind Mr Kirk’s car at the junction of Newport Road and Albany Road, to his car window being smashed and his immediate forcible removal from the car.


  1. Mr Kirk relied on a witness statement prepared, according to its own date, on 6 April 2000 (in other words, the next day) in which he states that he was taken to Roath Police Station and made it clear that he was quite happy to do a breath test, and was transferred to Rumney Police Station where he gave two zero readings on their breath machine. “I told the Sergeant that they had to release me or they would be sued for false imprisonment. He said I believe you are under the influence of drugs and you will have to be detained and be examined by a doctor and if you refuse you will be detained in custody for Court tomorrow’ about an hour and a half later a doctor came to the cell and explained his position. I asked if I was legally obliged to be examined? He didn’t know, so I demanded the Sergeant. The Sergeant admitted that there was not a legal obligation but it would be recorded as a refusal. I asked to be examined without further delay”…. The doctor was unable or refused to produce any form of identification before the medical examination and appeared to leave the police station in haste! I was then detained a further half an hour for finger prints, DNA test and photographs”.


  1. As to the assertion that Mr Kirk was taken to two police stations “[and] knocked about….”, (statement of 19 June 2009) he made no suggestion of assault at the police station or stations in the statement he made the next day,


  1. The police evidence of what led to the stop is primarily that of PC 1215 Osbourne, with some contribution from PC 3689 Price, each of whom gave evidence at trial before me. PC Osbourne and PC Price were in a marked police vehicle in Park Place Cardiff and Mr Kirk was driving the other way. PC Osbourne says that the driver appeared not to be wearing a seatbelt and also to be using a mobile phone and so he turned and followed Mr Kirk’s vehicle. At a junction, Mr Kirk’s vehicle stopped at the lights, PC Price left the police vehicle and knocked on the passenger window of Mr Kirk’s car; PC Osbourne says the driver turned and looked at PC Price but then looked away, PC Price then went to the driver’s window and knocked, the driver looked at him and then locked the door driving off on the green light.


  1. There are handwritten “notes made at scene of incident/arrest” timed at 11:25 to 11:35 (namely some 25 minutes after the stop), on which there is a date stamp April 5 00 and a time stamp 11:35. PC Price has endorsed this with “I have read the above notes and they are a true account of the events that took place” (A2/5.79-80). According to this the Peugeot moved off and the police vehicle followed, PC Osbourne on his own account flashing the headlights on the police van and sounding two-tone horns in an effort to attract his attention and to get him to stop “so I then used my personal police radio to inform other police units we were following a vehicle which was refusing to stop”. Mr Kirk’s car came to a halt in lane three at the junction of Newport Road and Albany Road because of stationary traffic at the traffic lights.


  1. A marked police van stationed itself to block the movement of all vehicles in Newport Road including Mr Kirk, “at this point I left my vehicle and went to the drivers door of the Peugeot, it was still locked, I knocked on the window and Mr Kirk ignored me, I continued to indicate to him and ask him to open the door. He refused to do so. I then went to the rear passenger door, on the drivers side, this door was also locked so I then used my PR24 baton and I smashed the rear passenger window. I smashed the rear window so that Mr Kirk would not be sprayed with glass. I then reached into the vehicle and unlocked the drivers door by lifting the button on the door…. Having opened the drivers door of the Peugeot I removed him from the vehicle. I cannot recall if by now he had his seatbelt on.” (witness statement PC Osbourne, A2/5.22-23 paragraphs 7-11, emphasis supplied).


  1. Turning first to Mr Kirk’s evidence at trial, some of it was inherently unlikely. He was unaware that the police were trying to attract his attention with a view to stopping his vehicle. This is improbable. He said that something ‘caught his attention’, which he accepted might have been PC Price knocking on his car; and that he could see the “middle part of a person” behind his car whom he ‘assumed had something to do with’ the police van he saw directly behind him, In cross examination he told me that slightly further down the road, (it would appear at the next junction) he took a photograph of a (Volvo) car which he thought was a police car. This is consistent only with Mr Kirk being aware that the police were following him and trying to stop him.


  1. There is no allegation in the pleadings of assault at the police station thereafter but, in the light of Mr Kirk’s overarching case of being targeted and harassed by the police in South Wales, it is appropriate to deal with it.


  1. It was to Roath Police Station that Mr Kirk was taken first of all. The custody sergeant at Roath Police Station was PS Roberts. During his cross examination of PS Roberts, Mr Kirk suggested that he had there been assaulted by being dragged about by his feet while he was sitting on the floor. In cross examination, Mr Kirk told me that he was pulled around on the floor of his cell, “I’m not fingering Osbourne, ’cos I can’t remember”.


  1. A little later, Mr Kirk said that he did not exclude Osbourne or Price from being involved, or present. However he did not suggest either to PC Osbourne or to PC Price that they had taken part in, or might have taken part in, or were present when assault on him took place.


  1. Mr Kirk was not certain of whether the alleged assault was before or after his presentation to the custody sergeant. The custody record at Roath contains no complaint of assault, and Mr Kirk told me he could not remember whether he told the custody sergeant. There is no record of complaint at the succeeding Rumney Police Station, and Mr Kirk thought it very unlikely that he would have reported it there.


  1. A video, which was played to the court (it seemed to me as much at the insistence of the Defendant as Mr Kirk), shows Mr Kirk in the corridor to the custody desk, coming through with PC Osbourne and PC Price. The video footage was played at trial a number of times and I have given it the closest attention. The custody sergeant is seen behind his desk, throughout the relevant period, at the other end of the corridor in which Mr Kirk was waiting, behind his desk. Mr Kirk thought that his mistreatment occurred in a cell where he had to sit on the floor because there was no seating.


  1. The witness statement of Mr Roberts, since retired, is not lengthy. It records arrival at 11:27 and processing, at 11:31 Mr Kirk was read his rights and supplied with copies of Notice of Rights, refused to provide the custody sergeant with details; “He was concerned about animals in his vehicle and I allowed him to use the telephone to make arrangements for the animals. I have recorded that Mr Kirk was angry and refused to co-operate. He in fact sat on the floor crossed his arms and legs and refused to speak to me”. It was at 11:43 that Mr Kirk informed him that he would provide a specimen of breath so that at 11:44 Mr Kirk was transferred to Rumney Police Station. This is as set out in the contemporaneous custody record (A2/5.49-50). Thus in total, Mr Kirk was detained at Roath Police Station for some 17 minutes.


  1. PS Roberts gave evidence, which I have no reason to doubt, that the only cell which does not have a bench or seat within it was the “drunk” cell, which had a camera trained on it continuously which could be viewed by the custody sergeant. As to the video shown in court, other than for snatches of a few seconds, the only officers who were at Mr Kirk’s end of the corridor were PC Osbourne and PC Price and they remain in sight whether by the top of their hands or a hand or hands resting against a wall; if so, it is difficult to see how they could have assaulted, pulled, or knocked Mr Kirk about.


  1. The custody record, at Rumney police station, at 12:19 hours, records Mr Kirk as sitting on the floor as he was being booked in. Mr Kirk at trial said that this was because his ankle was hurting. (I note that the video footage displays timing at all times four minutes out from the custody record but the video footage is complete and nothing turns on this). Otherwise, it would appear to anyone else to be unusual behaviour.


  1. In my judgment the most striking fact of all is that in a statement made by him the very next day, Mr Kirk makes no complaint or mention of an assault or being dragged around the floor of a cell at Roath Police Station.


  1. As I have indicated, at Roath Police Station Mr Kirk was insistently sitting on the floor and in general refusing to speak to those with custody of him. Such was not contested by him in his oral evidence. It is, unless known to be because of pain or injury, unusual behaviour. It is of some interest that it is at 11:40, 13 minutes after his arrival that the log records, “DP has been identified as Mr Maurice Kirk”. At another time, the footage shows him periodically pacing around the custody unit, with his hands in his pockets.


  1. The custody log shows transfer of Mr Kirk being accepted at Rumney Police Station at 11:54. The custody sergeant was PS 2244 Pickett. There, at 13:05, the log records an intoximeter showing a lowest reading of nil (in fact both readings were nil) and “he has refused to sign the copy provided by the machine”. At 12:07, it records “In view of the above, I’m not happy with the DP’s demeanour. I am therefore authorising further detention for the DP to be assessed by a doctor re being unfit through drugs”; and at 12:19, “DP searched. Whilst property being booked in DP insisted on sitting on the floor”.


  1. The witness statement dated 16 January 2003 by Mr Pickett (since retired) is effectively a recital of the entries in the custody record. In oral evidence, he said that his view (that Mr Kirk might be under the influence of drugs) was based on entries by the other custody sergeant of being aggressive, refusing to answer questions or speak, “the fact that he is zero on the intoxylator indeed he might be intoxicated from some other cause. The entry at 12:19 hours of “sitting on the floor” added to the unusual behaviour.


  1. Mr Kirk asked him whether there was any obligation on his own part to answer any questions in custody. Mr Pickett agreed that there was not, but said that the impression that he might be under the influence of drugs came from the fact that he was refusing to answer questions, and the change in demeanour to being angry after being allowed to use the telephone. He said that it was not based purely on that entry (11:32 “I have allowed to use the phone to arrange for the animals. DP is angry and refuses to co-operate”) but “on my views when you came into custody, when you came into custody refusing to answer, refusing to co-operate in any form indicated to me that there may be other reasons why you were acting like that other than alcohol”.


  1. I myself rephrased a question from Mr Kirk, who had become too agitated to formulate an intelligible question, as follows: “Q. I think Mr Kirk is really asking this question. There’s nothing unusual about people refusing to answer questions at the police station when they are in custody? A. No, as I say everyone has a right not to answer the questions, but taken in total with the demeanour and the previous entries whilst he was in Roath I determined that there may be other reasons why he was behaving like that”.


A little later, Mr Kirk asked,


“Q. Right, point out where there is indication on the custody record that I was under the influence of drugs…. A. Uh the fact that you drove off from the officers.

  1. Sorry? A. The fact that you drove off from the officers as they tried to speak to you.
  2. Where, where was that? A. Circumstances for arrest and grounds for detention…. Your first page….. I can only base my answers on what’s on the custody record. I wasn’t present at the time.
  3. But you must have had a conversation with Osbourne…. About it…. About drugs… the possibility? A. No, I formed the opinion based on, purely on what was written on the custody record and having seen you before.
  4. So it was your idea? A. Yes.
  5. Are you sure about that? A. Yes….. because if there had been any evidence given to me by the officer I would have made a record in the custody record.

“Q. Right, point out where there is indication on the custody record that I was under the influence of drugs…. A. Uh the fact that you drove off from the officers.

  1. Sorry? A. The fact that you drove off from the officers as they tried to speak to you.
  2. Where, where was that? A. Circumstances for arrest and grounds for detention…. Your first page….. I can only base my answers on what’s on the custody record. I wasn’t present at the time.
  3. But you must have had a conversation with Osbourne…. About it…. About drugs… the possibility? A. No I formed the opinion based on, purely on what was written on the custody record and having seen you before.
  4. So it was your idea? A. Yes.
  5. Are you sure about that? A. Yes….. because if there had been any evidence given to me by the officer I would have made a record in the custody record. “


These citations are illustrations from a cross examination which repeated essentially the same questions and elicited the same answers, at some length.


  1. A doctor was called to examine Mr Kirk. A Dr Lush attended, who gave witness statement and oral evidence before me and who wrote a contemporaneous note at 13:00 hours, “Initially seen in cell to request examination for fitness to drive. Possibly under influence of drugs – breathalyser – ve. He had discussion with custody sergeant regarding legality of such request. He came to medical room and refused to speak unless I can provide written identification of my position. Coherent speech. No overt injury/ataxia. Returned to cell by custody officer” (emphasis supplied). Mr Kirk did not contest the evidence of Dr Lush.



  1. For completeness I record that I also received witness statement and oral evidence from retired PS Mahony who took over as custody sergeant for the shift from 14:00 hours to 22:00 hours. Mr Mahony had little present recollection of the event, but was the author of entries in the custody record at 13:33, “Change of custody officer: I have taken over custody duties and have enquired into the circumstances of detention and consider that they continue to be necessary. I have visited the detained person in the cell/detention room and find the detained person to be fit for detention. I have reminded the detained person of all rights and entitlements” and at 13:37 in the log records the charges placed with the unusual entries at 13:41 “the DP refused to sign charges unless he saw the length of fingers on the officers hand (sic, emphasis supplied)”, and at 13:52 “The DP is un-cooperative in taking of his fingerprints and force may have to be used. He has been warned of this”. At 13:59 he was bailed to the Magistrates Court.


  1. Self evidently, the assessment was, once seen by Dr Lush, that Mr Kirk was not under the influence of drugs and was fit to drive. Thus Mr Kirk was released some 22 minutes after Dr Lush wrote that the detained person refused to be examined because he could not provide written proof of his position.


  1. The charges were presented for hearing before the Cardiff Magistrates Court on 11 April 2000. Mr Kirk in fact pleaded guilty to all of the offences, (save for not having proper control of the vehicle; no evidence was offered in respect of that). He was subsequently sentenced in respect of the charges to which he had pleaded guilty (see A2/6.139-146). He then attempted to vacate his guilty pleas and enter not guilty pleas. In judgment on preliminary issues I recorded fully the sequence of appeals, application for judicial review to the single judge, and renewed application to the Administrative Court, and appeal with refusal of Mr Kirk’s attempts to resile from his plea of guilty.


  1. With remarkable persistence, Mr Kirk wrote to Cardiff Magistrates Court asking it to re-open his pleas of guilty to other offences, and on 20 May 2002 District Judge Watkins decided to set aside the conviction for no insurance and allowed Mr Kirk to change his plea with a not guilty verdict being entered. It is clear that the court was told that the prosecution accepted that Mr Kirk had valid insurance on the day of his offence. I refer, as elsewhere, to the caustic comments of His Honour Judge Jacobs about Mr Kirk’s insurance habits while driving vehicles registered in the name of others, and the late production, time and again, of evidence of insurance.


A basic necessity, now proved, of survival if one is so foolish to as to practice veterinary surgery and try to raise a family in a place like South Wales-see paragraph 862

  1. In relation to the offences of no seatbelt, no MOT certificate, and no insurance, I adopt that which I set out in the judgment on preliminary issues (including the fact that Mr Kirk later produced medical evidence of a reason not wear a seat belt, from which it is reasonable to infer that he was not wearing a seat belt when first seen by PC Osbourne; and Mr Kirk’s unusual habits of insurance which are calculated to induce suspicion of driving without insurance. In relation to these offences, nothing has emerged since that judgment which properly supports any case of malicious prosecution.


  1. I have borne in mind throughout the street camera video footage which shows Mr Kirk being dragged from his car. It demonstrates that it took only 6 or 7 seconds from the moment when PC Osbourne alighted from his own police vehicle to the time that he dragged Mr Kirk from the car. I found PC Osbourne’s explanations for this, and his evidence in general, profoundly unimpressive. I do not accept that he pursued the measured and rational process which he alleges in his witness statement (namely of going to the driver’s door, still locked, knocking on the window, Mr Kirk ignoring him, he “continuing” to indicate to Mr Kirk and asking him to open the door and only then going to the rear passenger door to smash the rear passenger window).


  1. On the other hand, it was reasonable for PC Osbourne to conclude that Mr Kirk had deliberately not responded to PC Price, first at his passenger window, and then at the driver’s window, at the previous location when Mr Kirk had come to a stop.


  1. I am bound by the finding of an offence of refusing to give a specimen of breath at the roadside (of which Mr Kirk remains convicted). In April 2000 PC Osbourne was a uniformed patrol officer stationed at Cardiff Central Police Station. Mr Kirk was no slave to authority or conventional restrictions. I find it strongly probable that Mr Kirk was not wearing a seatbelt (see above) and plausible that Mr Kirk was using a mobile phone when driving, as PC Osbourne says he was.


  1. It is natural for Mr Kirk to associate this stop with the fact that he had just returned from the Crown Court, dealing with matters of complaint against police actions. However there is no positive evidence of prior acquaintance between PC Osbourne and Mr Kirk (or between PC Price the accompanying officer and Mr Kirk). Once there was a refusal of breath specimen at the roadside, and given that such a finding binds me, there was lawful reason to arrest Mr Kirk and take him to the police station. Yet again, I have considered whether the facts of the immediate incident as I have found them are susceptible to proper inference of a wider picture that it was by way of targeting or malicious selection of him for police attention or treatment that Mr Kirk was stopped, and/or dealt with thereafter, on this date. However I find it strongly probable that he was wearing no seat belt, and probable that he was using a mobile phone as the police officers Price and Osbourne stated, so that there would be nothing particularly unusual in the police vehicle following him; conversely there was something unusual in the fact that the driver deliberately ignored PC Price knocking at his window, (since I am satisfied that Mr Kirk did ignore him knowing that it was a police officer), and that he then drove off. The sorry fact is that by now Mr Kirk’s view of the police was so bitter that he was prone (if he could) to ignore what any police officer said to him or did; and thereby he was prone to bring more suspicion upon himself by the individual police officers who encountered him.


  1. In rushing to Mr Kirk’s car to break a window and drag Mr Kirk out PC Osbourne was acting angrily, and it may be intemperately, but that is not the same as acting in pursuit of a conspiracy to target and inconvenience Mr Kirk, at least as evidenced directly in respect of this occasion.


  1. It scarcely needs to be stated that it follows, from the conviction of failure to give a breath test at the roadside which stands and which binds me, that there was lawful reason to detain Mr Kirk until the zero reading at Rumney Police Station at 12:05. Has it been shown to be lawful to detain him longer than that?


  1. Mr Kirk is certainly in a mould of his own, with his own logic and view of things. He clearly did not, in evidence or at trial generally, regard it as odd that he should sit on the floor in the custody reception area, or odd that he should refuse to be examined by a doctor unless the doctor produced written identification that he was a doctor. Others are likely to have found these behaviours more than odd. Custody officers unacquainted with Mr Kirk, (and I find on the balance of probabilities that these custody officers were unacquainted with Mr Kirk) may not know or see through the eccentricity. The behaviours were likely to be viewed as odd by custody officers both at Roath police station and at Rumney police station. On the authorities cited to me, a police officer including a custody sergeant (and in particular the custody sergeant at Rumney police station), is entitled to rely upon what he or she has been told by another officer whether that information is conveyed directly, or contained in documents, such as the custody record.


  1. In the end I have concluded that it is not implausible that the circumstances related by the arresting officer, with the (true) account of Mr Kirk driving on and not stopping despite the police approaching him, and his distinctly unusual behaviour at the police stations, would in the presence of a zero alcohol reading reinforce a suspicion that he may have been driving under the influence of another substance. Within 22 minutes of the doctor’s attendance he was discharged from custody. I consider that the Defendant has shown that it was lawful to detain him during the period they did.

 2nd Inspector Nicholas Khilberg incident …..smashing his way into my car, by using his truncheon




 TO BE continued




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Twice Police Smashed My Car Window to Violently Drag Me Out for Non arrestable Offences

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment