|
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 10036107)
I make no comment on the overall situation because I know too little about it, but from a purely technical legal standpoint this:
...is a valid defence. You can claim grounds for breaking a law or disobeying a judgement where you can show that in doing so you are intending to prevent a greater crime or public danger. Whether it is true or not I just don't know, but as a defence strategy it is perfectly valid. PDR |
You can claim grounds for breaking a law or disobeying a judgement where you can show that in doing so you are intending to prevent a greater crime or public danger. The place to argue both is in a court which, it appears, he has done to no avail on numerous occasions. QED. |
All valid points, sadly. I don't know the rights and wrongs of this situation - it's just sad to see someone who was clearly once an educated and intelligent man* reduced to sending scribbled notes from a prison cell.
PDR * He was a vet, and that's difficult to get into without intellect and education. A school friend of mine wanted to be a vet, but she didn't quite get the A-levels she needed so she took second best and became a doctor. |
Doctor Details
. GMC Reference Number: 2803906 Given Names: Tegwyn Mel Surname: Williams Gender:Man Status: Registered without a licence to practise Forensic psychiatry From 13 Jan 2000 but is not currently licensed to practise I find this entry from the BMA doctors register status. Why would he not have a licence to practice, unless he has moved abroad, in which how could Maurace have breached the restraining order? I have to say I have sympathy with Maurace faced with a legal system that goes against those without the ability to pay for legal representation or understand how the legal system works. In the case of Maurace, an educated man, he does not seem to understand the legal proceedures, for example at a magistrates hearing at Taunton Magistrates court about a year ago when appearing over a motoring offence, when adked his address, he said ' I have more important things to discuss'. I think he saw it as a retriall for previous court cases. Likewise ahead of his recent trial he wrote to the court asking to raise his other legal issues with Tgwin and the police, he didn't seem to understand that could not be re heard, he should have know that, as he should have known the consequences of breaching a restraining order, as the judge would have warned him. I feel quite sorry that a 73 year old angry but harmless man is given custodial. If he had been legally represented and kept quiet, I am sure he would have got a tag or suspended sentence. Last time he came out of prison he looked a really sorry state. |
What I see, from my limited knowledge of the facts, is a man being hounded past reasonable limits, in what seems like score settling. There's no justification for that.
|
It would seem Tegwyn Williams has fled to New Zealand, soa minor victory to Maurace.
Name Williams, Tegwyn Mel Status Practising Qualifications MB BS 1983 Lond Bachelor of Medicine Bachelor of Surgery University of London, England MRCPsych 1988 Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Royal College of Psychiatrists, England District **** Practising certificate from 1 March 2017 to 28 February 2019 |
Locally this is what intrigues people.
|
Altho' perhaps not to his taste, Is there a chance that his remedy in law might be found in reference to the Human Rights Act (1998 as incorporated).
It seems to work well for some of our home grown and not so home grown villains. |
In around 2012/13 while facing claims from Maurice (and others) |
I don't think that Cyberstalking an individual on here is at all helpful to Maurice.
|
Originally Posted by clareprop
(Post 10036294)
We all know about Kirk but I suggest the last part of your claim above is potentially libelous against a professional unless there is evidence to back it up..?
|
Originally Posted by Onmybike
(Post 10036295)
the Human Rights Act says there should be a fair trial. But the UK courts work by discretion and in the first original trial Magistrates Court Judge John Charles seemed to assume the doctor could do no wrong but whatever he used his discretion to prevent defence witnesses to say the doctor did wrong.
Similar tricks at the Crown Court appeal. At both trials the Judge said the doctor (an experienced expert in giving evidence in the witness box the criminal courts) was too vulnerable etc to be cross examined by Maurice and a court appointed lawyer was used to pretend some kind of credible questioning had occurred. But the essential questions were never put to the doctor at the trials. The EU case law on fair trials introduces the theme of "proportionality" but the courts will not examine the extent to which the doctor is the problem to determine proportionate terms to a Restraining Order or sentence. The doctor was not cross-examined by MK because as a victim of MK's harrassment allowing it would have allowed further harrassment. MK would have gone 'off-piste', so it was understandable the judge took this line. It is quite appropriate in such cases |
I just tried to delete my posts and the site does not allow it.
If you wish me or the site to remove anything please say and we can ask the administrator. I did not think it was wrong to discuss what I genuinely believe I witnessed ? What should we ask be removed ? What should we never post again ? How do I ask site admin to delete my posts ? I am not good with PCs Can anyone help delete my posts ? I do not want to say anything i should not. |
Originally Posted by NRU74
(Post 10035188)
Here's a copy of the Order [It's lost its formatting]but there appears to be a mistake re the sentencing date. He was actually sentenced on 14/12/17 ct7 Cardiff Cr Ct
In the Crown Court At CARDIFF Case No: T20170239 Court Code: 411 _______ Certificate of conviction (trial) This is to certify that: Maurice John Kirk Date of Birth: 12/03/1945 Was between the 12th September 2017 & 15th September 2017 Tried and Convicted upon indictment of: ACTING IN BREACH OF A RESTRAINING ORDER, contrary to section 5(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On the 15th September 2017 He was sentenced to: 2 years imprisonment To Pay a Victim Surcharge of £140.00 to be paid on release Restraining Order (Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S5) Until Further Order The defendant, MAURICE JOHN KIRK, must not: 1) Contact, approach or communicate with Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever; 2) Display or disseminate any material, photographic or otherwise, relating to Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams; 3) Become a party to the display or dissemination of any material, photographic or otherwise, relating to Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams; 4) Place any information on the internet concerning Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams; 5) Become a party to any material being placed on the internet relating to Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams 6) Display or post or continue to display or post any material relating to Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams on the internet or in social media; 7) Permit the display or continued display of any material relating to Dr Tegwyn Mel Williams on any website or in social media in the name of the defendant or under his control; 8) Attend within the curtilage of the Caswell Clinic or its grounds. This new order replaces the Restraining Order made by Cardiff Magistrates Court on the 12/4/2013 which is now discharged. |
Onmybike, why not just edit your post(s)? That will get rid of the material you no longer want to share.
|
Onmybike ... I really do not think anything you have stated is malicious falsehood in law unless Maurace has asked you to put up post, see the court order. you are entitled to you opinion as long as you beleive it to be truthful. I also agree with much of your posts.Also I would say the moderators are there for a reason and on the whole very fair.
Malicious falsehood. ... Malicious falsehood is a false statement made maliciously that causes damage to the claimant. Malicious in this case means the defendant either knew the statement was not true or did not take proper care to check. It is often covered under laws regarding defamation. |
Can anyone help with getting my post deleted? Rob |
I think the problem (for Maurice) is that he's in prison for breaching a restraining order - but keeps arguing his innocence using irrelevant (old) arguments (machine guns, mental illness etc.).
Whilst his arguments in these other cases might, or might not, be valid they are definitely not relevant for this particular case: 1. He was issued a restraining order. 2. He breached the restraining order. All pretty simple really, unfortunately. The reasons behind the restraining order are ancient history until his appeals for them are heard there. It's not going to happen, but is it possible he'd still be guilty of breaching the restraining order even if the case that created it was thrown out on appeal? Any lawyers out there? |
Sam...... I entirely agree with you, this for whatever reason is what Maurace does not understand. The problem being here a judge is not really allowed to advise a litigant in person (LIP). Having said that in a directions (pre trial) hearing, a sensible judge should have made the points your have clearly made through an interim order, because clearly Maurice did not understand what the trial was for.
|
It's more that Maurice doesn't care. He has a burning feeling of grievance and injustice and uses the courts as a way of expressing it.
It appears that he has been receiving advice, a lot of the time from people who are just making things worse. I don't envy the staff at the prison. He's going to be pulling some prima-donna stunts there, which will only extend his stay, at taxpayers expense. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.