Maurice Kirk’s trial begins today

Today one of Sabine McNeill’s dodgy “Super-McKenzie Friends” will be in the dock at Cardiff Crown Court, facing charges of breaching a restraining order. We’ve written about Maurice Kirk in the past: he’s the “Flying Vet” whose antics during an antique airplane rally made the mainstream media late last year.

He was in court in March this year, attempting to have his current charges revoked, apparently to no avail.

In her usual bombastic yet self-pitying style, Sabine has been attempting to “support” Mr Kirk by complaining about how poorly she has allegedly been treated: [Not poorly enough—Ed.]

What Norman, Maurice and I have in common is a ‘Restraining Order’ in the context of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Subsection 3a says very clearly that Subsection 1 does not apply when preventing or detecting crime.

However, in the devious and deceptive way of twisting words and their meaning, as opposed to using common sense, Common Law or straight logic, this Act is routinely being used by white collar criminals to:

• imprison innocent citizens without investigating underlying causes and crimes;
• misguide ignorant juries who will only be asked guilty or not guilty of one minor aspect at the end of a road of
  • false medical records causing 3 months in Caswell Clinic;
    • here’s the critical page of Dr Williams’ report claiming “clear evidence of some degree of neuro-cognitive damage (brain damage)” of 2009;
    • here’s Dr Kemp’s ‘rebuttal’ of that false diagnosis – on behalf of the Yorkshire Law Society of 1st December 2009;
    • here’s the “all clear” brain scan of 2013;
    • here’s my letter to the Health Clinic, while Maurice was in prison in 2014;
    • here’s the letter from the Clinical Director of HMP Cardiff confirming that Maurice has an ‘ok brain’;
    • here’s the Civil Aviation Authority confirming that he has no mental disorder;
    • here is official correspondence about the correction of records that applies to “anyone” who has incorrect medical records that have a “substantial” adverse effect on them.
  • But Maurice is ‘restrained’ from ‘harassing’ Dr T Williams who feels ‘professionally embarrassed’, as we heard in Cardiff Court on July 23…

So far as we can tell, Dr Williams’ issue with Mr Kirk extends far, far beyond mere “professional embarrassment”. Mr Kirk has repeatedly posted “Wanted: Dead or Alive” posters featuring Dr Williams’ image, which in itself must surely have been distressing to Dr Williams and his family. How much of a threat is Mr Kirk?

Mr Kirk seems to have permitted blogger John Graham, aka “Butlincat”, to publish a copy of his 2014 OASys assessment: “OASys” stands for “Offender Assessment System”, and will have been filled in by a professional, most likely Mr Kirk’s probation officer. This document indicates the scope and nature of risk which Mr Kirk is believed to pose, and lists those most likely to suffer should he remain at large.

A few things stand out: in addition to the general public and criminal justice system staff, Mr Kirk is believed to represent a threat not only to Dr Williams and ex-Chief Constable Barbara Wilding, both of whom he has complained about for some time, but also to his two ex-wives and four children, as well as “public events” and “structures open to the public”.

The last two seem a bit odd, until you realise that the nature of the anticipated risk include “risk of harm caused by flying an aircraft (in) inappropriate locations/areas”. It seems that the authorities are actively concerned that Mr Kirk might attempt to disrupt events, or even worse, to fly his aircraft into a public event or a structure open to the public.

This is, of course, in addition to the more pedestrian “physical assault/verbal abuse/harassment”, all of which have landed Mr Kirk in serious hot water in the past.

As long ago as 1984, when Mr Kirk received a warning from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for his behaviour, they relied on the 17 convictions he’d accrued to that point, including:

• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm—he threw a tenant of his down a flight of stairs (6 months imprisonment suspended);
• Imperilling the safety of an aircraft while under the influence of drink (6 months imprisonment); and
• Assault of two police officers (3 months imprisonment).

At his 2004 hearing before the same body, at which time he was struck off as a veterinarian, the College considered further episodes of violence and anti-social behaviour:

• The 1997 assault of a 17-year-old girl, daughter of a tenant which whom he was having a dispute;
• A 1999 assault and subsequent resisting arrest; and
• The 2000 threat uttered against the CPS representative whilst in magistrate’s court—Kirk approached her and said, in a threatening manner, “If you don’t stop being obstructive I will turn you upside down and use you like a moneybox”.

The 2014 OASys assessment notes:

When Mr Kirk is in the community, the risk will be considered imminent given his determined behaviour to challenge authority and failure to observe any boundaries be they social, legal or otherwise.

In other words, as of 2014 Mr Kirk’s probation officer considered him enough of a threat to identify him as a MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) offender.

Such arrangements are not put in place lightly, whatever Sabine might wish us to think.

Speaking of Sabine, she writes: “I wish I could be in Cardiff Crown Court on Tuesday, but I am physically not able enough. Can you, maybe witness what will be going on?”

We confess we’re surprised at Sabine’s sudden relapse; as of only three weeks ago, she was seen striding about near Southwark Crown Court, sans walking sticks and yet still quite sprightly. (And for the curious amongst you, no, she didn’t enter the court; we suspect she was aware her name was mentioned several times during Rupert’s trial, and not in a complimentary way. Perhaps she feared that if she made an appearance she’d have found herself in an…uncomfortable situation? Hard to say, really.)