Legal Battles : Cardiff Magistrates Court, McKenzie Friends

Sabine McNeill & Secrecy of our Family Courts

Maurice Kirk — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:48:00 GMT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPW4Bac3hDI&feature=player_detailpage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvQFlFy9Cs

Infringement Notice 15 07 07 Alun Cairns MP.docx

See Face Book,You Tube & petitions......BUT study the facts yourself

3rd Week of South Wales Police B ullying Trial with Avon and Somerserset Police on First

Maurice Kirk — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 18:08:00 GMT

Maurice Refused a Jury

Maurice Kirk v South Wales Police                                                                                               BS 614159

11^th Day

Monday 4^th March13

Claimant Position Statement

Applications for Consideration

1.       Defendant ordered, to be produced today , the 27 written complaints, as a written list, currently in possession of Defendant and referred to by former Inspector Sydney Griffiths during his cross examination.

2.       Result from those written complaints, identified on the list, to be disclosed.

3.       Claimant awaits the findings of his other complaints, mainly of non disclosure, not being identified by the Claimant, such as court cases with Claimant being the successful victim and police instigated ‘break ins’ to his various veterinary surgeries and places of residence.

4.       Incidents, referred to in paragraph 3., are absent from Barbara Wilding’s 25^th February 2009 sworn affidavit, prepared by Dolmans and signed six weeks late by her, then as Chief Constable, despite the specific court orders by His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC.

5.       Identification required of which Defendant witness relates to which of Claimant’s 52 leaver arch files given to Defendant,, to copy and so expedite proceedings, as there is now total confusion deliberately caused by Dolmans, solicitors, by having masked out the Claimant’s indices on each spine on every file!

6.       52 files were originally prepared and marked by Claimant’s secretary before they were disclosed as Claimant exhibits for South Wales Police to copy and to ‘settle out of court’.

7.       Claimant is seeking a ‘Medical afternoon’ before or after 3pm’, at the court’s convenience, this week, in order to find a GP, with which to register, well out of South Wales.

8.       The Claimant cannot proceed with cross examination until Crown Prosecution Service (Wales) and the Defendant produce both male psychiatrist’s falsely written and his Dr wife’s section 9 statements created, to adversely affect the Claimant, since 2009, in this trial.

9.       Following orders from Barbara Wilding , to cause the forensic psychiatrist(s) to attend Barry police station, at very short notice , to attend and contribute in the 8^th June MAPPA level 3 meeting, not to inform their victim, the Claimant was so registered and should the Claimant approach the Defendant again, to attempt ‘witness statements exchange’ he was ‘likely to be shot’ ‘.[quote from MAPPA contemporaneous notes taken at the time]

10.   The doctor’s 2012 victim MG 11witness statements are partly dictated and counter signed.

11.   That , alone, has caused the Claimant to be detained in numerous police stations, law courts and HM prisons due to one doctors and NHS (Wales) facing my million pound damages claim citing Barbara Wilding and her agents in the conspiracy.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

SCHEDULE SWP FINAL.pdf

I was originally awarded a jury trial by His Honour Judge Nicholas Chambers QC, nearly 10 years ago, against the bullying South Wales Police over our currently hotly contested 35 mainly motoring incidents being heard, NOW, before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC, at Cardiff’s Civil Justice Centre.

But only, His Honour said, if I chose any eight from the list.

I did and Swansea High Court judge promptly overturned it as too ‘document heavy’ for a jury to ‘comprehend’ so I suggested one jury for each incident!

[My gut feeling told me, now proved, as in my Royal College of Veterinary College ‘HM Partnership’ controlled trial and Lynette White murder trial scandal, also fiddled in Swansea and also refused to be heard out of Wales, no local judge was ever going to give me a jury unless the Welsh appointed judge could ‘get away’ with using case law, eg ‘Hill’, the murdered girl by ‘Sutcliffe’ ‘Jack the Ripper’ allowing police, effectively, ‘no duty of care’.

What I considered, for compromise, was say, four or five incidents for a jury, at a time.

But my old inherited gift of ‘premonitions’, from Mum or Dad, told me to forget it, that has kept me alive, so far, on ‘terra firma’, in ‘terra aqua’ and even after 14 ‘donkey stops’, having ‘broken the bonds of Earth’ only to suddenly finding myself running out of height , airspeed and ideas, all at the same time!

March 2001.

While I was about to set off from Biggin Hill, with 51 other aircraft, senior South Wales police officers were scheeming to have my name removed from the veterinary register all planned for shortly after my return from Australia.

10 11 25 Forensic Analysis MJK[1].pdf

It was obvious that if I could not get these cases out of Wales, early on or get a jury, then I was now doomed as it was now far too late, fiddled and pre planned by the Taffia, Cardiff’s Cabal, 20 years on, as still further obscene costs would have been inflicted.

As it has turned out, for the whole World now to witness, only due to cyberspace, by no other media, four times they have further delayed these Actions, against their ‘extreme and unusual malicious behaviour, first successfully appealing against a jury, then the ‘machine gun’ conspiracy, then the ‘Dr Williams’ et al playing the ‘Gulag Card’ and MAPPA card, the subsequent ‘fabricated ‘harassment of someone who is a criminal ‘on the run’ to this 14^th March fiasco, as fiasco it will surely be, the Criminal Court of Appeal hearing of my stitched up ‘Breach of a Restraining Order’ when no order was ever served!

The most unusual case continues

Cardiff's Judicial Cabal Caught Conspiring Playing the Race Card

Maurice Kirk — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:17:00 GMT

So, following my May ‘Breach of a Restraining Order' jury trial conviction and the fact we all knew, from the start, it was all faked, we each having our own agenda on how the trial was to be conducted; now it is pay-back time.

We witnessed Cardiff cabal's latest bit of skulduggery, their refusal in accepting there was no ‘restraining order' even having been printed when, on 1^st December last, I was supposed to of had it officially served on me down in the magistrates' cells by some privately employed custody lackey.

Did anyone one sign for it, did anyone log it into either the magistrates or custody logs, did anyone hear me say anything or even agree to its terms in order to be released, as was, that day? - No, of course not. The evil little shits had already swept away so many procedural rules, in the past, what was the worry for a few more?

Their pre-planned second term of imprisonment, one of nine months, was to further hamper my preparation for the numerous outstanding civil damages claims against the South Wales Police and especially for the latest malicious prosecution, the ‘Lewis machine gun' conspiracy. Can they not just forget King Edward and simply move on?

Is not a shame I let so few know, over twenty years living in the Principality, my grandmother was a Morgan and my eminent grandfather was a Jenkins?

Is it not a shame Dolmans, solicitors, http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/South-Wales-Police-Conspiracy-to-Have-me-Shot.aspx with their own little conspiracy, to ‘pervert the course of justice' for their client, Barbara Wilding, did not appear to know before instructing their Mr Nightingale to get me arrested.

09 06 20 SWP Dolmans MG 11.pdf

As you read in his 20^thJune 2009 statement had he detected a Welsh accent over the phone I may never of then been incarcerated for nearly eight months at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

As in the ‘machine gun' case we all knew the police had had to paint her a different colour, in order to attempt to fool the jury, long before the 2010 trial started, as it was to be hawked
around the country first, almost two thousand miles I calculated from my cell, to try and find a tame prosecution witness to say what they wanted in order to get that ten year custodial sentence if two rogue doctors could not be found for IPP and a certain life sentence.

So, once again, a similar bunch of Cardiff judges were rolled out to again turn a ‘blind eye' this time to fact that, for a conspiracy to succeed, basic court procedures, CPS responsibilities and policing methods all had to be thoroughly distorted.

For the facts to fit the case there just had to have been some prior planning even before the 1^st December Harassment conviction.

What the cabal had planned, for their ‘breach of restraining order' scam, was for a much longer custodial sentence from the preceding summary offence of ‘harassment' and NOT just the eighteen weeks prison term District John Charles had just read out straight from his government instruction pamphlet!

But Charles had to ‘about turn' at the very last moment because just too many in the public gallery were up to speed of what the Cardiff cabal had orchestrated.

Once this judge realised the audience knew the prosecution exhibits had been switched mid trial and seven police had already advised the accused that both his pamphlets appeared legal then both he and the CPS barrister, David Gareth Evens, now had real problems.

Also, to obtain a prison sentence, I would of have to have posted to or telephone to the complainant directly but evidence, following cross examination, showed neither could have occurred, incident three disclosing the posted purported wanted poster envelope having been written by someone in the postal service as a redirected letter.

So, in the dying moments of this farce of a trial, the barrister whispered in the ear of the judge but I heard it from the dock, he seeking permission to allow both my ‘Wanted'
versions of the posters, displaying the rogues faces involved in the ‘machine gun'/MAPPA conspiracy, to be admitted as an act of harassment.

Some had just' Wanted' printed above the culprits mug shot, see photo gallery on this web site, while others had ‘Wanted Dead or Alive' the reason for exhibits hurriedly being switched not just in the lower court but again, in March this year, in the Crown Court at the appeal!

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/Wanted-for-Attempted-Murder.aspx

Since May I have offered ten or so eye witnesses to give witness statements to the South Wales Police that this latest jury was successfully fooled this time by the need for a Cardiff clerk of the court being used to lie, on oath......an indictment alone as to the desperate measures these individuals are prepared to go now just to preserve their ‘gravy train', ‘jobs for life', cesspit environment while they patiently await autonomy from England's judiciary.

The court clerk stated he had been asked to hide in an unlocked vacant cell by the GEOamey manager, only to poke his head out and peep through the corridor grill when hearing this custody manager speaking to me.

He said from the witness box I had been walking down the corridor, on crutches, from the lavatories when the papers were served.

The custody manager stated things quite differently. He had to unlock my cell door, first, to hand the single piece of paper to me my not even needing to get up from the bench seat on the opposite side of the cell. He, in fact, even stated it was from the CPS for my ‘approval' or not, before taking it back to the court.

It worked alright though; a majority decision was given by the jury but no Exhibit One, a copy of the restraining order, had ever been handed to me until after my arrest and Exhibit
One turned out to be significantly different, yet again, to the two variations, this very week, obtained by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC during my on-going 20 year damages claims.

It was this rough part hand written unsigned document, the same most likely, that my eight or so witnesses had seen the CPS barrister hand up to the district judge. They all watched him alter, with his fountain pen, in dis approval and then directing the clerk take it to me to see if I agreed.

This action, instead, was palmed off as an authentic ‘Restraining Order' once my release was announced, prison staff expecting to serve it on me to let me out on licence once I had signed as proof of the agreement for my release.

District Judge Charles' sudden change of heart and ordering my release on the same day by shortening and backdating the prison sentence completely cocked up plans of others.

That is why all cctv footage from inside the cell and the corridor was shredded when obviously essential to establish the truth.

It, as is so usual, therefore went all pear shaped with neither court nor custody staff anticipating my retrospective time in custody to count for the eighteen weeks.

I cannot recount the many lies that then followed, from my numerous visits to Cardiff magistrates public counter and phone calls to both Crown Court and CPS offices, once I was told,
over the telephone from Llantwit Major police station, that there was an arrest warrant out for me for breaching a restraining order I had never even seen!

Everyone seemed to be trying to pass the ‘buck', again.

And they still are today and will be tomorrow if someone from Whitehall does not finally step in.

The Restraining Order stated I was not to harass someone who had ‘convinced' nine Cardiff Crown Court Judges' I had ‘significant brain damage' and possible brain tumour. Do you want me to name all these Welsh judges? Well, I suggest you study some of their conduct recorded on the PDFs on web site ‘Downloads'.

But, today, with witness evidence already lodged at Cardiff Central police Station, the police quickly wash their hands of it directing all enquiries to CPS repeatedly refusing me the right to submit four more witness statements or even my own!!!!!

Well over twenty long telephone calls were made yesterday to CPS, Crown Court, police and magistrates and to their bête noir, the Royal Courts of Justice.

No one in Cardiff was prepared to come clean and face the music, the facts so plain for all to see.

One certain named lady of the CPS says we can do nothing with the new evidence as their own barrister was the one who sent his own draft of a proposed
restraining order, written over by Charles using his fountain pen, to my cell, only to be returned to him by the court clerk or custody officer.

Well, she didn't, in fact, word it quite that way.....far too bright; she actually said that until the Criminal Court of Appeal in London granted me ‘leave to appeal' none of this new
evidence from police investigation would even be disclosed to their London CPS office.

"So, what if I had not appealed?"......silence.

Anyway, she said, nothing at all will be done until the London CPS office return papers of my lodged appeal and they have not.

The RCJ told me, yesterday, they were dispatched by them on the 1st June.

This same prosecuting barrister, remember, admitted much this in Crown Court, before Mr Bowen and myself, the former I hasten to say, only in the Dock with me as my Mackenzie Friend and even the presiding judge was tipped off, a man who should never have allowed the case to even start having read the contradictory depositions from the two key
prosecution witnesses.

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/Police-Block-Further-Statements-being-Taken-.aspx

No, of course the Cardiff police, CPS and HM Court Service, HM prison and GEOamey custody staff will never put up their hand to any of this or the whole HM Partnership , the bed rock upon which welsh version of justice is based, will come tumbling down.

So, what next?

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/HM-Treasury-Solicitors-Office.aspx

All so predictable when dealing with those I have experienced in these past 20 years.

Oh, how I long never ever to have to cross the Severn Bridge ever again in my life, unless, of course, it is to see my daughter.

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/Evil-Cardiff-Magistrates.aspx

This photo was taken just minutes after my being physically thrown out o fthe cells, after 5pm, by five GEOamey custody officers throwing my crutches on top of my head

IPCC seem to protect the police elswhere in the UK

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/picture2588.aspx

Maurice 'Burnt Out' and Needs Your Help!

Maurice Kirk — Tue, 29 May 2012 14:34:00 GMT

Please, anyone, have a quick look at the enclosed draft appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeal, London and suggest improvements as it has to be deposited there by this Friday's dead line.

It is far too dangerous to enter Wales and deposit it at Cardiff Crown Court , as procedure dictates, because I run the risk of yet another jail term. Last time I did a Derrick Hassan who supplied falsified forensic police evidence to have me sectioned under the 1983 Mental Health Act , for Broadmoor, puched me down the court steps and broke my leg.

http://kirkflyingvet.com/files/folders/south_wales_police/entry1467.aspx

Keith Vaz MP takes up interest in South Wales' IPCC conduct over falsification of forensic evidence in Cardiff Crown Courts

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/Machine-Gun.aspx

Photo of my leaving Cardiff Magistrates, in hand cuffs, by narked South Wales Police, on 1st December 2011, with no knowledge of any existance of a 'restraining order but beaten up by GEOamey Custodial Services just minutes before. all caught on video the judge, Mr Curran, refused to be made shown to the 4th May12 jury in Cardiff Crown Court.

http://kirkflyingvet.com/photos/legal/Evil-Cardiff-Magistrates.aspx

Cardiff Cabal are so embarassed this incident, leading to my arrest, has been tranferred to Bristol Crown Court for trial, for fear of the publicity

Can anyone, please, cross the bridge to Cardiff and deliver it, with the court forms, on my behalf, before 4pm Friday, 1st June2012?

I am currently in Bristol and can deliver docs to anyone who can help.....thankyou

But I need help to improve the document as I cannot remember much of what was said during the numerous trials that have kept me locked up since most of the last eight months

tel 07907937953 maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

http://www.channel4.com/news/police-corruption-trial-collapses

His Honour Judge Patrick's Section 39 Order Restricts the publication of more details ...Re Musa trial

so be there!

I hope to be in London, until Friday, while I attend:

the Nigerian seven snatched children, by Haringey Council, a scandalous affair, at Wood Green Crown Court, while their parents remain in prison facing deportation..

http://kirkflyingvet.com/files/folders/south_wales_police/entry1450.aspx

DRAFT GROUNDS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

THE QUEEN

- v -

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

____________________________

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

______________________________

AGAINST CONVICTION

"REAL POSSIBILITY" OF ACTUAL AND/OR PERCEIVED PREJUDICE AND/OR BIAS OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE CURRAN

1. His Honour Judge Curran ought to have recused himself from presiding over the trial of the Appellant as he had previously stayed the Appellant's application to the Cardiff Administrative Court for Judicial Review of the Appellant's appeal at Cardiff Crown Court, Case A20110290, on 1^st March 2012 and his conviction and sentance of harassment, contrary to the Section 2 of Protection from Harassment Act 1997, at Cardiff Magistrates Court, on 1st December 2011, the subject of the Restraining Order allegedly breached in this present case.

2. Whilst accepting that the issues of fact in the trial were for the jury, His Honour Judge Curran made a number of rulings that erred in law similar if not identical to those by both District Judge John Charles, at Cardiff Magistrates and his Honour Judge PD Hughes QC, in its appeal, at Cardiff Crown Court.

3. Subsequently, failed disclosure of evidence, by way of court and custody documents and cctv footage, all under the control of the South Wales Police, caused the Appellant, in each of these court cases, compounded the reasons for refusal of access to his own legal papers in both court and prison and be given any facilities, at all, to either interview or call his own witnesses.

4. All prosecution witnesses, in the two previous above mentioned trials, were prevented from being cross examined by the Claimant while the main witness, a doctor, in the jury trial, subject to this appeal, was denied the Claimant's required examination or cross examination, contrary to His Honour Judge Curran QC's 22^nd February 2012 Court Order.

5. This was further compounded following, first by the failure to attend of the court instructed barrister, to cross examine the witness(es) ‘on the Appellant's behalf ', under Section 36 of Youth and Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and following His Honour Judge Hugh Davies QC's April 2012 Court Order that caused this main prosecution witness to be removed from the witness list, as irrelevant and so facilitate the Appellant's immediate release from prison.

6. For the prosecution barrister, on 2^nd May 2012, to then open the prosecution's case by stating, before the jury and the trial judge, that the South Wales Police had ‘just decided' not to now call the doctor to give evidence, was nothing short of a criminal offence.

7. For the Appellant then not to be allowed to call this already empanelled prosecution witness, being ‘anybody's property', as his psychiatrist, expert witness and/or witness of fact and/or as his character witness, was a further abuse.

8. Before His Honour Judge Hugh Davies QC the prosecution had admitted it was only by the citing of this same witness, in all these three hearings, 2009 WW1Machine Gun trial and numerously related other summary hearings, by the South Wales Police, that the Crown Prosecution Service had been able to be successful, for the South Wales Police, to oppose the Appellant's preparation of both his civil and criminal cases, against the Chief Constable, out of custody, since 8am 22^nd June 2009.

9. By April 2012 the Appellant had almost served the pre arranged prison sentence of nine months, in any event, when bail would have been granted, by His Honour Judge Hugh Davies QC, had the Appellant been so stupidly minded as to apply.

10. There was a "real possibility" of actual and/or perceived bias, as a result of His Honour Judge Curran presiding over the Appellant's trial, when the learned Judge had already stayed the Appellant's application for permission to apply for Judicial Review of the dismissal of his appeal against conviction, on 2 March 2012, relating to the conviction in respect of which the Restraining Order, imposed by Cardiff Magistrates', which was alleged to have been now breached.

11. The certificate of conviction, at last released to the Appellant by HM Court and Tribunals Service, states the 1^st or 9^th December 2011 dated Restraining Order was dependent upon the conviction for a breach in Section 2 of the said Act but Prosecution Exhibit 1 indicates the ‘served order' on the Appellant was that from a Section 4 Restraining Order dated 8^th December 2011.

12. His Honour's failure to conduct a ‘Vue de Justice' with the jury, following the custody officers in the both courts, employed by GEOamey Custody Services Ltd, confiscation of the Appellant's scale drawings of the Cardiff magistrates custody suite, where the alleged offence took place was an abuse in law.

13. His Honour's failure to grant an adjournment for medical attention or even access to his medication in the cells below, following GEOamey Custody Services' vicious assaults upon the Appellant, both on 1^st December 2011 and 4^th April 2012, was an abuse of process.

14. His Honour's failure to allow the Appellant sight of all the prosecution exhibits, eg website blog of 4^th December 2011 on http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/, on arrest, before caution and/or during the trial and sight of various jury ‘notes', passed to His Honour, following the Appellant's suggestion, in the course of the trial, was also wrong in law.

15. His Honour's failure to ever allow the Appellant sight of the original or sight of a certified true copy, of the Restraining Order, allegedly served on him, was also wrong in law.

16. His Honour's failure to order HM Prison, Cardiff to release the Appellant's legal papers and posted in court exhibits by his Mackenzie Friend, allow him proper access to facilities, in order to conduct is defence did nothing but to compound his difficulties and were further breaches in his rights under the Rule of Law.

17. In the alternative, at the appropriate time, His Honour failed to properly consider granting bail, out of custody, in the light of these apparent extreme and unusual circumstances, unable to find local legal representation, as was indicated by His Honour Judge Hugh Davies QC, on 7^th April 2012, in Cardiff Crown Court and by His Honour Judge Lambert in Bristol Crown Court, during an apparent application for bail well outside South Wales.

18. The Appellant therefore had an unfair trial and/or the said trial took place in breach of article 6(1) of the ECHR as incorporated by schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

"REAL POSSIBILITY" OF ACTUAL AND/OR PERCEIVED PREJUDICE AND/OR BIAS OF MR DAVID GARETH EVANS OF COUNSEL PROSECUTING FOR THE SOUTH WALES POLICE

1. Mr. David Gareth Evans of counsel ought not to have prosecuted the case against the Appellant as he was a potential prosecution or defence witness relating to the drawing up and purported ‘service of a ‘Restraining Order' signed? by District Judge Charles at Cardiff Magistrates' Court on 1^st December 2011.

2. An approach by the Appellant's Mackenzie Friend caused the CPS barrister to produce another version of Prosecution Exhibit One, ‘Restraining Order', not date stamped by the court. Prosecution Exhibit One included the court date stamp 9^th Dec 2011.

3. The prosecution barrister admitted, before the jury, a ‘draught' Restraining Order did still exist and was ordered to produce it, by the following day, by His Honour Judge John Curran.

4. There was discussion, quite wrongly before the jury, as to whether Mr. Evans would be called as a witness relating to the ‘drawing up' of the ‘Restraining Order and he indicated to His Honour Judge Curran that he would have to "seek advice from his professional body the Bar Council for England and Wales".

5. The court heard no more so the Appellant called him as a defence witness and was refused.

6. The Appellant was refused an adjournment in the light of late prosecution disclosure of relevant evidence germane to the original 1^st December 2011 conviction, upon which the Restraining Order relied.

7. Further evidence to support, unavailable in the time frame available, was the ‘contemporaneous note' made by the Appellant's solicitor of his client's memory of events on the 1^st December 2011, on 22^nd December2011, just two days before the Appellant's arrest and subsequent incarceration.

8. HM Cardiff prison's governors denied the Appellant proper client/solicitor/witness access, his access to his own funds for the defence or provide proper service of his letters/faxes/e-mails and telephone calls, to and from his solicitor, helpers or proposed witnesses controlled by MAPPA.

9. An issue had therefore arisen in the case as to what documents were allegedly served on the Appellant relating to the Restraining Order and as to whether one had been served as handwritten by District Judge Charles as there had been evidence adduced before the jury by way of unsworn submissions by Mr. Evans and by sworn evidence from those in the public gallery, that the former had handed up a draft of the proposed Restraining Order to District Charles for approval and that District Charles had written comments on it in order stating he withed to make the Restraining Order stronger (change to a Section 4 Order, ‘fear of violence').

10. There was a "real possibility" of actual and/or perceived bias as a result of Mr. Evans prosecuting the case, when he had made oral submissions to His Honour Judge Curran which were in effect the giving of evidence which was unsworn and in respect of which the Appellant was unable to challenge by way of cross-examine.

11. In fact the Appellant had been absent in the cells at Cardiff Magistrates' Court when the issue of the ‘Restraining Order' had been discussed by Mr. Evans with District Judge Charles on 1^st December 2011.

12. In addition, the relevant exchanges between Mr. Evans as prosecutor and His Honour Judge Curran were heard in the presence of the jury when they should have been ordered to retire, causing prejudice and bias in the Appellant's case.

The jury specifically asked for sight of the original, not copy, of both the GEOamey Custodial Services custody and clerk of the court's log and contemporaneous notes of evidence but the judge indicated, in the absence of the Appellant, that they were not relevant.

14 The Appellant therefore had an unfair trial and/or the said trial took place in breach of article 6(1) of the ECHR as incorporated by schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

LACK OF DISCLOSURE IN RESPECT OF THE APPELLANT

1. The prosecution failed to supply to the Appellant the complete log with handwritten notes and annotations of the custody records and cctv footage, kept by GEOamey Custodial Services, that had been in charge of security in the cells at Cardiff Magistrates' Court and also the notes made by Mr. Michael Williams, the Clerk of the Court and others at Cardiff Magistrates' Court.

2. Further, it emerged on 3 May 2012, during the trial that Mr. Evans was appearing in for the prosecution, he had handed up a draft of the ‘Restraining Order' to District Judge Charles on 1^st December 2011 and the learned District Judge had made handwritten additions to it with suggestions for making it stronger to be one under Section 4 of the Act.

3. There was an issue in the trial as to exactly which version of the ‘Restraining Order' had actually been served on the Appellant in the cells by the Security Officer Mr. Leigh Barker and so the existence of the copy of the ‘Restraining Order' with the handwritten additions made by District Judge Charles became an issue as the Appellant wished the jury to see it.

4. At the conclusion of the proceedings, on 3 May 2012, His Honour Judge Curran enquired as to the whereabouts of the version of the Restraining Order with the handwritten additional made by District Judge Charles and was told by Mr. Evans that it was at the CPS Headquarters in the Appellant's case file at Merthyr Tydfil.

5. Although His Honour Judge Curran directed that it be produced at the resumption of the proceedings, on 4 May 2012, only a computer print out of the amended restraining Order was produced and the jury was deprived of seeing either the original version with the handwritten additions, made by District Judge Charles or a certified true copy of the original 1^st December 2011 Restraining Order made on some date between 1^st and 9^th December 2011.

6. The Appellant had also again sought disclosure of the notes made by Mr. Michael Williams, the Clerk of the Court at Cardiff Magistrates' Court at the commencement of the proceedings, on 4 May 2012 but no order or any determination was made by His Honour Judge Curran for their production, instead, in the absence of the Appellant, informing the jury they, along with the prison and GEOmey Custodial Services records were not relevant.

7. Prior to trial His Honour knew the Appellant had received correspondence from Cardiff Magistrates stating he was not entitled to any court record other than the certificate of conviction for this and some currently seven ongoing summary cases, different but all related to this current appeal.

8. The Appellant therefore had an unfair trial and/or the said trial took place in breach of article 6(1) of the ECHR as incorporated by schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE JURY

1. Although the Appellant didn't make any submissions of ‘no case to answer', after the close of the prosecution's case, His Honour Judge Curran should have withdrawn the case from the jury on the grounds that the evidence as it then stood, relating to the alleged service of the Restraining Order on the Appellant in the cell number three of Cardiff Magistrates' Court, on 1^st December 2011, was so unreliable that no jury properly directed could convict on that evidence.

2. Conflicting evidence had been given between the Clerk of the Court, Mr. Michael Williams and the Security Officer, Mr. Leigh Barker as to whether the Appellant had been serviced in one of the cells or in the corridor of the cell area below the Magistrates, whether he had been served with one or two separate documents, if at all and when put alongside their original but conflicting police witness statements, it is the Appellant's submission, that for this case to have even reached a jury was an abuse of process fueled by vengeance.

3. In addition, Mr. Barker had given evidence that he had read "Restraining Order" at the top of the document, that he had stated in evidence he had given to the Appellant but didn't give any evidence that the Appellant's name was on the document or that he had read the Appellant's name on the document in question.

4. There was a serious risk of doubt regarding the alleged service of the ‘Restraining Order' on the Appellant in the cell area of Cardiff Magistrates' Court by Mr. Barker on the Appellant.

5. In the premises, the Appellant's conviction is thereby rendered "unsafe" under section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

THE QUEEN

- v -

MAURICE JOHN KIRK

_____________________________________________

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

_____________________________________________

49 Tynewydd Road, (for sale, 'cheap, cheap')

Barry,

CF62 8AZ