Clerk of the Court
Criminal Court of Appeal
London
201004016C1
12th April 2011
Regina v Maurice John Kirk
Hearing this morning
Dear Sir,
Should I be unable to attend today’s Appeal and their Lordships are minded to hear the case in my absence and not adjourn to obtain clarification from Dr Tegwyn Williams, as to my state of mind on the day of the alleged offence, please take in to account the following not already given in my 7th April 2011 submission or in the 11th April letter employing Dr Sheida Oraki as my Mackenzie Friend, explaining the serious need for medical clarification.
1. My anaesthetist wrote (enclosed) to His Honour Judge Cooke QC refusing to operate without medical clarification from Dr Tegwyn Williams.
2. My Barry, South Wales general practitioner wrote (enclosed) to HHJ Cooke QC requesting he order medical clarification as to my mental state from Dr Tegwyn Williams
3. I appeared before HHJ Cooke QC with copy of those letters and clear evidence of brain damage from three Dr Tegwyn Williams medical reports, also served on the court and his 7th August 2009 report stating I was suffering from a paranoid delusional disorder due to persecution by the South Wales Police.
4. I was in court on heavy doses of mind enhancing drugs, for analgesia, that the learned judge must have been aware of.
5. HHJ Cooke QC, with all the extraordinary medical reports before him, should have considered whether I had the mental capacity on the day to be both competent and compellable to stand trial for Contempt of Court. No relevant medical examination was carried out.
6. Should this court allow my calling eye witnesses plus HHJ Cooke QC, refused by the previous judge, they will all confirm the learned judge refused to allow an apology to be made or an explanation of my mental state.
7. The same witnesses, including the police officer present, will all confirm the learned judge had already risen from his seat to leave the court before I lobbed, a few feet, the file of medical evidence onto the clerk’s desk.
8. Any such incident, it is the Appellant’s submission, could, at most, only have carried a ‘binding over’ Order no longer relevant.
9. The prisoner was not medically examined with the view as to whether a pleading of insanity or temporary insanity should be have been considered, before the trial judge, in the light of all the confusing medical documents in the possession of both the court and prisoner.
Maurice J Kirk BVSc
MORE ON MAURICE HERE
|
