Mr E Cairns
13 September 2010
Mr John McNeill
Your refs: PCCS/00448/08 and
Dear Mr McNeill,
Further to my letter dated 10 September 2010, I again refer to your report on the handling of my complaints by Strathclyde Police dated August 2010 and your letter dated 8 September 2010.
A significant falsehood in your report has been highlighted in press reports today. That falsehood is reproduced below:
‘During the period 2001 to 2009 the applicant has written some 82 letters to Strathclyde Police in which he makes both criminal and non criminal complaints about the police.’
I have most certainly written nothing like 82 letters of complaint against Strathclyde Police. Have Strathclyde Police taken time to respond to 82 complaints from me? Absolutely not.
You cannot possibly produce 82 letters of complaint from me against Strathclyde Police because that grossly exaggerated number is simply a calumnious fabrication.
On 26 June 2010 I wrote a second very important letter to the PCCS in the following terms:
‘In support of points made in my letter to you dated 13 June 2010 I enclose a copy of a letter dated 7 April 2005 from HMIC to Strathclyde Police recently disclosed to me by the PCCS.’
‘That letter includes the following significant statements:’
‘‘Mr Cairns’ suspicion of collusion between the police and others appears largely founded on itemised entries on an account from the solicitors Maclay, Murray and Spens.’’
‘‘.......... HMIC understands that Maclay, Murray and Spens acknowledged, in a letter dated 8 July 2002 to Henessy, Bowie and Co, that a copy of the police report had in fact been supplied to them. HMIC recognises that the means by which the document had been provided was not divulged. This information may, nevertheless, be considered to add substance to Mr Cairns’ interpretation of the itemised account.’’
‘‘Could you please advise if any additional enquiry into Mr Cairns’ complaint was instigated as a result of the force receiving this new information and whether he was provided with an update in relation to the possession of the police report by Maclay, Murray and Spens..........’’
‘‘I can confirm that HMIC has been provided with a copy memorandum dated 19 July 2002 from .......... to Chief Supt ......... concerning the issue and a note, apparently written by Chief Superintendent ........ suggesting that no further action is to be taken.’’
‘The copy of the itemised account in question confirms that the police report was supplied by Detective Sergeant William Watters, the same person who is alleged to have conspired with employees of Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and others to pervert the course of justice in this case.’
‘I have already indicated to you that a reasonable suspicion arises that the police copy of this report was deliberately destroyed unlawfully, during investigations into my police complaints, and/or during live civil actions and/or ongoing criminal investigations to which it had particular relevance, in order to conceal its obvious defects, including the fact that it had actually been prepared by Scottish Enterprise and was plainly rigged.’
As I stated in my letter to you dated 10 September 2010 in that regard:
‘In particular, your assertion that ‘At the time the applicant made his complaint the police file relating to the applicant’s original fraud allegation had been destroyed in accordance with the Strathclyde Police’s document retention policy’ is not the whole truth.’
‘You knew when you made this statement that the officer in charge of the original police investigation, DS William Watters, had copied the police report to the Scottish Office and later to solicitors Maclay Murray and Spens.’
‘You also knew when you wrote the statements quoted above that I had obtained a copy of that police report in 2003 and had immediately submitted it to Strathclyde Police along with several items of documentary evidence highlighting its many serious failures.’
‘The copy that I obtained from the Scottish Office had been sent by DS Watters to the Scottish Office along with a compliments slip containing the words ‘With the Compliments of the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police’, signed ‘W. Watters D/S Fraud Squad’.’
‘Consequently, your assertions that ‘any investigation into the independence of the investigating officers would have been hampered by the destruction of the police file’ and that ’any enquiries conducted in relation to this complaint would not have been likely to yield reliable evidence’ are simply disingenuous.’
‘Why have you completely disregarded the existence of this copy of the police report and all the evidence I submitted exposing its inadequacies?’
In view of the very serious nature of the above and its relevance to wider issues in this case I have copied this letter to Strathclyde Police, to Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Government’s Ms Stella Manzie, Director General Justice and Communities, to Audit Scotland, to Mr Bob Doris MSP and to the Crown Office.
This is clearly a matter of public interest that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice, justice not having been seen to be done.
This letter has therefore been put into the public domain as is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.