Wednesday, 13 April 2016

DIHONESTY OF THE SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN, MR JIM MARTIN, IN THE SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

14 April 2010

 

 

Mr J Martin

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

4 Melville Street

EDINBURGH EH3 7NS

 

 

Dear Mr Martin,

COMPLAINT AGAINST SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

Further to my letter dated 1 April 2010 in response to your letter dated 31 March 2010 I am copying my previous letters on this complaint to Scottish Enterprise, Audit Scotland, the Scottish Government’s Justice Directorate, Mr Bob Doris MSP, Strathclyde Police, the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland and the Crown Office so that none of these can be in any doubt as to the extent of impropriety, dishonesty and misconduct revealed by the available evidence in this case.

Separately, on the issue of my being categorised as a vexatious litigant, firstly this was obtained by alleged criminality which the Crown Office must arrange to be investigated by an independent arbiter. The Faculty of Advocates and the Legal Services Ombudsman have already advised me, in 2006 and 2007, that there are grounds for a complaint about the previous Lord Advocate’s conduct in that regard.

Secondly, a vexatious litigant is someone who instigates litigation to cause disruption or annoyance, or who does so without any serious purpose or value. Such a description is completely unjustified in my case and your pretence that it is justified is simply false and insulting.

As a result of dishonest and alleged criminal conduct by individuals in Scottish Enterprise and other public bodies my reputation and career were unfairly destroyed. Lost earnings alone can easily be valued at about half a million pounds. I lost all my assets, including my house and my car. More importantly, my health has been gravely damaged by acute stress, involving hospitalisation.

Audit Scotland’s reaction to this case, as disclosed in evidence obtained in May 2009, was far from categorising any such claim as vexatious. It was clearly regarded as a realistic possibility as disclosed in the following terms:

‘Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ............. Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.’

‘Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in. (emphasis mine)

Yours sincerely,

                                 Eddie Cairns

 

ATROCIOUS FAILURES OF THE SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN, MR JIM MARTIN, IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

1 April 2010

 

 

Mr J Martin

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

4 Melville Street

EDINBURGH EH3 7NS

 

 

Dear Mr Martin,

COMPLAINTS AGAINST SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE, AUDIT SCOTLAND AND THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT’S JUSTICE DIRECTORATE

I refer to your letter dated 31 March 2010.

Although your letter is headed Complaint against Scottish Enterprise you actually refer to the three complaints identified above, not only to my complaint against Scottish Enterprise.

You have not addressed even one of the points I raised in any of these complaints.

Several statements in your letter are simply disingenuous and would tend to raise a reasonable suspicion of impropriety in the mind of an independent observer.

The statements are listed below in their contexts and examined:

 

1. ‘I am writing further to Ms Cockburn’s letter to you dated 23 March 2010. As Ombudsman, I have taken the opportunity to review your complaint personally and this is why I am writing instead of Mr Carney.’

 ‘I have read your letters dated 16 March 2010 and 26 March 2010. I note that you are unhappy with Mr Law’s decision on your complaint against Scottish Enterprise.’

‘I have noted all the points you have raised and reviewed the file. Having done so, I have concluded that Mr Law’s decision on your complaint was correct and based on a full and fair assessment of all relevant information. Consequently, I will not be re-opening your complaint.’

You are referring to the Scottish Enterprise complaint in this section.

My letters and very substantial documentary evidence provided to you in respect of this complaint went into considerable detail to specify how Mr Law’s decision was not at all correct nor was it based on a full and fair assessment of all relevant information, contrary to your assertion which is completely devoid of any reference to the available documentary evidence.

This undoubtedly adds considerable weight to the suspicion of impropriety. It appears that in view of the overwhelming evidence proving my position and disproving Scottish Enterprise’s position you have deliberately disregarded the evidence in order to maintain your own personally biased and unfair approach towards me.

No matter what the facts show it would appear that you have decided that my complaint must be rejected and a reasonable suspicion arises that you want to cover for the wrongdoing of several public bodies that otherwise would be plainly revealed by acknowledgment of the facts.

Your effective misrepresentations of the facts in the context of my complaints are in breach of my rights under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Separately, I am legally entitled to the same rights and treatment as any other complainant, including the right to have the evidence that has been provided properly and impartially assessed, and the right to be given valid reasons for your decisions.

These are fundamental rights under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and in particular under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides, to the extent relevant:

‘(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.’

‘(6) ’An act’ includes a failure to act....’

 According to Reed and Murdoch, A Guide to Human Rights Law in Scotland, Butterworths, (2001), at page 106:

‘The fact that the Convention imposes positive as well as negative obligations is reflected in the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. (Section 6(6))’

At page 253 the following points are relevant:

Fair administration of justice’

‘Procedural propriety and the prohibition of the retroactive imposition of criminal liability lie at the heart of any legal system grounded in the rule of law. The European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 6 and 7 codify those crucial principles of the fair administration of justice which form the bedrock of European legal tradition.......’

‘The central importance of Article 6 is reflected in the volume and scope of applications claiming violation of its guarantees. This provision has been employed by applicants to challenge aspects of criminal, civil and administrative procedures of European legal systems, and the European Court of Human Rights has been at pains to protect the fundamental notion of the effective delivery of fair justice.........’  

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides, to the extent relevant:

‘1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.’

According to Reed and Murdoch, A Guide to Human Rights Law in Scotland, Butterworths, (2001), at page 280:

‘Practical and effective access implies the right to have a legal issue brought before a court or tribunal without improper or impractical difficulties.’

A relevant extract from the Scottish Government’s policy statement on fraud is reproduced below:

‘SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT FRAUD POLICY STATEMENT’

‘Introduction’

‘1. The Scottish Government (SG) requires all staff at all times to act honestly and with integrity........... The SG will not accept any level of fraud or corruption; consequently, any case will be thoroughly investigated and dealt with appropriately. The SG is committed to ensuring that opportunities for fraud - both internal and external - are reduced to the lowest possible level of risk.’

‘Definition of Fraud’

‘2. The term "fraud" is commonly used to describe a wide variety of dishonest behaviour such as deception, forgery, false representation, and concealment of material facts. It is usually used to describe the act of depriving a person of something by deceit, which may involve the misuse of funds or other resources, or the supply of false information.’

 

2. ‘While reviewing your complaint, I have noted that since May 2009 you have brought four complaints to my office which relate to your allegations of fraud at Ayrshire Enterprise in 1993 and to subsequent investigations of these allegations by public bodies. You have made two complaints against Audit Scotland, one against the Scottish Government’s Justice Directorate and one against Scottish Enterprise.’

‘I have reviewed all these complaints in detail and it has become apparent to me that none of the issues you have raised are suitable for consideration by my office.’

Your complete failure to refer to any of the details or to address any of the points of these complaints renders your review lacking in credibility.

Again, I am legally entitled to the same rights and treatment as any other complainant, including the right to have the evidence that has been provided properly and impartially assessed, and the right to be given valid reasons for your decisions.

Your apparent sudden realisation after months of handling these complaints that none of the issues I have raised are suitable for consideration by your office is simply not credible.   

A much more probable reason is that you want to avoid such consideration in the light of the considerable evidence recently provided to you in support of my position because that evidence proves what you do not want it to prove.

 

3. ‘This is because I consider that the complaints you have brought to us fundamentally relate to a historic matter, which has already been the subject of multiple investigations by public bodies over a number of years.’

Historic? That’s a clever ploy. Why don’t you try offering that one to the Roman Catholic priests, some of whom are currently facing allegations of child abuse going back thirty or forty years. See how the victims react.

In truth only a fundamentally unjust person would suggest that serious wrongdoers ought to be exonerated with the passage of time alone. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for perpetrating this puerile nonsense.

In any event my specific complaints have all been based upon relatively recent performances by the public bodies that are the subjects of the complaints.

In all these cases, the grounds of complaint arose in 2009 and 2010 because that is when the evidence became available to me.     

Your desperate attempt to disparage me has no valid basis in fact and would rather tend to reinforce any reasonable suspicion of impropriety on your part in the mind of an independent observer.

You also imply here that previous investigations by public bodies were unfavourable towards me in this case, which is not true at all.

For example in 2006 the Faculty of Advocates advised me that I have grounds for a complaint against the Scottish Government.

The Legal Services Ombudsman concurred with that view in 2007.

The Information Commissioner provided assessments in my favour in 2009 and 2010.

Any prolongation of the issues has in reality been caused by the stonewalling, the intransigence and the fundamental dishonesty of the public bodies in question. It has not been caused by any lack of effort or delay on my part.

Your decision effectively to reward certain public bodies for their stonewalling, intransigence and fundamental dishonesty in this case is perverse and shameful.

 

4. ‘I am also aware that you have sought to raise similar issues in the courts over a prolonged period of time, to the extent that you have been declared a Vexatious Litigant under the Vexatious Actions) Scotland Act 1898. Consequently, l have decided that it is not proportionate for my office to consider – or to ask public bodies to respond to – any complaints that are about, or which relate in any way to, the events of 1993 or their subsequent investigation. I have, therefore, instructed my staff not to accept any further complaints from you about these issues.’

These statements reveal an immoderate and hostile attitude towards me which is entirely inappropriate and unlawful.

In any event I have not sought to raise similar issues in the courts over a prolonged period of time.

Only after several years of being stonewalled did I resort to legal action against Scottish Enterprise and their crooked colleagues, in 2003.

That litigation was hampered firstly by my status as an undischarged bankrupt, which was attributable to the financial difficulties that were caused by the unfair conduct of Scottish Enterprise and other public bodies towards me.

 

Secondly the Lord Advocate’s corrupt conduct against me in secret opposition to my claims began very shortly afterwards therefore your reference to a prolonged period of litigation is fictional.

Evidence that I have submitted to the authorities includes a letter sent by Ms Claire Cullen at the Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive to solicitors Anderson Fyfe who were at that time acting for Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise director Mr Andrew Downie, my opponents in separate live civil actions and, simultaneously, suspects in the review of the criminal investigation based upon the same allegations relating to the £187,069 fraud.

The text of that letter, dated 18 August 2004, is reproduced below:

‘Dear Sirs,’

‘EDWARD CAIRNS’

‘PETITION UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1898’

‘I refer to previous correspondence, and in particular to my colleague’s letter to you dated 7 July 2004.’

‘The Lord Advocate has now instructed that the Petition be presented in terms of section 1 of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898. Counsel has been instructed and has been asked to deal with this Petition promptly.’

‘Yours faithfully,’

‘Claire F Cullen’

The live civil actions and the criminal investigation were not concluded until several months later, in 2005.

This shows that during the time that he was meant to be independently directing a criminal investigation by Strathclyde Police into allegations of fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice the Lord Advocate was in reality secretly colluding with the suspects to nullify my related civil claims against them.

Outrageously, the suspects were being informed that the Lord Advocate was taking urgent action against me, the whistleblower at the centre of the allegations of criminality, even before the criminal investigation had been concluded and before important evidence that the police had undertaken in writing to collect from me had in fact been collected for consideration. That evidence was actually never collected by the police, providing additional grounds for grave concern about the conduct of the Lord Advocate and the other conspirators.  

The letter proves that the Lord Advocate was not acting independently at all, nor was he acting in the public interest or in the interests of justice, and that several individuals were involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The letter also reveals that this corrupt correspondence with the solicitors acting for my opponents had been going on for some time, since it refers to previous correspondence on the matter.

The Lord Advocate’s supposed independent direction of the police and prosecutors had actually been biased against me from an early stage, contrary to the most fundamental requirements of justice, completely at odds with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

In any event vexatious litigants are not at all precluded from making formal complaints.

Your actions against me and statements of your intentions in respect of my complaints are therefore unlawful and frankly disgraceful. Your conduct is such as would tend to bring your office into disrepute.

These statements of intent are based upon inaccurate personal data in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

   

5. ‘If you do submit further complaints about these matters, they will be destroyed without acknowledgement. I have also written to Audit Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, and the Scottish Government’s Justice Directorate in order to confirm my position on your complaints. I can confirm that my decision is final and that I will not enter into further correspondence with you about this matter.’

Again, this reveals an immoderate and hostile attitude towards me which is entirely inappropriate and unlawful.

You are trying to deny me several basic legal rights as already detailed above.

Your stated intentions here, apparently in concert with these other public bodies, could reasonably be regarded as evidence of the operation of a conspiracy for which you will all have to answer in due course.

You appear to be labouring under a delusion that you are above the law.

I am assured that those who persist in trying to cover for the corrupt conduct of their colleagues and co-conspirators will get what they deserve given time, as has been shown to be the case in numerous other instances of corruption.

The public will be very unforgiving towards those who effectively condone and whitewash the theft of a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money, in this case £187,069.

Fundamentally, your decision is contrary to the public interest because it does nothing to counter the theft of £187,069 of taxpayers’ money by employees of Enterprise Ayrshire and the destruction of the reputation and career of an independent financial expert who acted in the public interest to resist that criminality.

Further, your decision does nothing to counter the devious and dishonest conduct of managers in Scottish Enterprise and Audit Scotland in particular who conspired to cover up the wrongdoing.

No matter how much effort you put into trying to attribute wrongdoing to me unfairly the truth will inevitably come to light for all to see and that will justify my honest actions while condemning your dishonest actions.

As my professional body wrote to the government in 1994:

‘‘Mr Cairns is a qualified management accountant and a member of this Institute, and we thought it might be helpful if the Institute clearly set out its position in this matter to you in the event of the case being re-opened.’

‘The Institute believes that the action taken by Mr Cairns in reporting to his superiors the apparent discrepancy of £187,069 in the main account of Ayrshire Enterprise was entirely correct, and that in doing so he was acting completely in accordance with the Ethical Guidelines of this Institute.’ 

Similarly, in the same year my MP Michael Martin’s letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland stated:

‘Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Mr Eddie Cairns regarding his dismissal from Enterprise Ayrshire.’

‘It would appear to me that Mr Cairns was punished for acting in a very honest and professional manner’.

‘I am at a loss to understand why the sum of £187,069 was omitted from the accounts of this public body for so long’

‘I would be obliged if this matter could be fully investigated’.

Very significantly, disclosures obtained from Audit Scotland in May 2009 revealed that responses from Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Office Ministers in this case were ‘disingenuous’.   

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

Separately, I have reason to believe that documents have been produced and are held on SPSO files containing personal data about me since I made my previous data subject access request.

In these circumstances I formally request data subject access disclosures relating to such information.

I am also concerned about inaccurate and damaging personal data held in SPSO files as detailed above. The inaccuracies require to be rectified.

The data in question do not comply with the fourth data protection principle:

‘Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.’

Part I of the Data Protection Act 1998 includes the following:

‘In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - .......... ‘’personal data’’ means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified from those data or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.’

Part V of the Act notes the following:

‘The fourth data protection principle requires a data controller to keep personal data accurate, and where necessary, up to date. A data controller will be required to rectify, block, erase or destroy any inaccurate data, including any expressions of opinion based on inaccurate data.’

In Part II of the Act the following is noted with reference to the fourth principle:

‘The steps that the data controller must take in ensuring the accuracy of the data depend on the individual circumstances of the case. It is clear that the greater the chance of risking the rights and freedoms of the individual, the greater the steps must be in ensuring that the data are accurate.’

In accordance with section 10 of the Data Protection Act I want the SPSO to stop processing information about me based upon these inaccuracies within a reasonable time in the circumstances. If such processing continues without the inaccuracies being corrected this is likely to cause me unwarranted or substantial damage or distress.

I am legally entitled to a formal response from the SPSO on this point within 21 days and disclosures within 40 days.

Thereafter if you fail to provide adequate and lawful responses I will report the SPSO’s breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Information Commissioner.

I have copied this letter to Scottish Enterprise, Audit Scotland, the Scottish Government’s Justice Directorate, Mr Bob Doris MSP, Strathclyde Police, the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland and 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.

Yours sincerely,

                               Eddie Cairns.   

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE NEW EVIDENCE


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

26 January 2016

 

 

Ms Lena Wilson

Chief Executive

Scottish Enterprise

Atrium Court

50 Waterloo Street

GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

 

Dear Ms Wilson,

In your letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP on 30 May 2012 you stated that I had already been told that unless I had new evidence Scottish Enterprise would not continue to correspond with me.

Recently I was reviewing documents relating to this issue. Over the years I have obtained a very large number of documents in subject access disclosures from several sources under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Among these documents I discovered a bank statement dated 24 August 1993 which is for an RBS account in the name of Gary Tracey, c/o Enterprise Ayrshire, with a balance of £187,000.

This proves that Mr Gary Tracey had taken personal control of this substantial amount of taxpayers' cash, apparently with the agreement of Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Tom Woodbridge in the light of my experience at the time.  

If I had taken £100 from the petty cash in Enterprise Ayrshire and deposited it in an RBS account in the name of Eddie Cairns, c/o Enterprise Ayrshire I believe I would be breaking the law.

I requested an investigation into this matter by Police Scotland on the grounds of this new evidence, a copy of which is attached, and today I gave a written statement to two detectives.

Now that this evidence has been brought to your attention are you going to continue pretending that my concerns were not justified? How did an employee of Enterprise Ayrshire come to have £187,000 of taxpayers’ cash at his disposal? In due course such questions will be put to you by the general public.

You may have heard in the news recently that not following up evidence of financial irregularities is regarded as culpable by the prosecuting authorities.

Yours sincerely,

                                    Eddie Cairns.

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND, PROFESSOR JOHN MCNEILL, UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

15 October 2010

                 

 

Mr John McNeill

Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland

PCCS

PO Box 26300

HAMILTON ML3 3AR

                                       

 

Dear Mr McNeill,

I refer to your letter dated 12 October 2010.

In that letter the following statements give rise to grave concern:

‘I have considered your complaint against Mr Todd and do not believe it to have any substance. In my view, Mr Todd’s letter to you was wholly appropriate in the circumstances.’

These significant statements indicate that you have no integrity whatsoever and no genuine interest in truth or justice.

As a former member of the Scottish Human Rights Commission you will of course have been fully aware of my right to an impartial and independent tribunal in the determination of my civil rights but you have defiantly acted contrary to what was lawfully required. Such blatant disregard for the rule of law is completely unacceptable and indeed an utter disgrace.

Clearly you were not sufficiently impartial and independent in the circumstances to consider this complaint at all and your inappropriate involvement simply reveals you to be a hypocrite and an impediment to justice.

Your intervention is a deliberate breach of my rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

In these circumstances your complete failure to address the specific points of my complaint and to provide reasons that are valid in law and that accord with the true facts serves to increase the reasonable suspicion of impropriety that could arise in the mind of an independent observer. That failure adds to the extent of your non-compliance with the basic legal requirement for fair treatment. You are apparently so unreasonably biased against me and so determined to stifle my rights in order to cover for your own failures that you now appear to be reckless and irresponsible. The consequences of that misconduct are inevitable. In time all crooks are found out.

Given the substantial objections that I swiftly detailed to you in response to your defective and largely fictitious report, your stubborn refusal to correct any inaccuracies confirms you to be a dishonest, complacent and arrogant person.

 

In particular, your calumnious fabrication that I had sent 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police, which supposedly resulted in substantial public resources being wasted, could reasonably be regarded as a despicable lie.

 

In reality, Strathclyde Police generally disregarded my letters entirely, 74 of which had absolutely nothing to do with police complaints in any event.

 

The vast majority of my letters simply presented information relevant to allegations of criminality in accordance with advice I had been given from a solicitor, the National Audit Office, Audit Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to give that information to the police.

 

To be falsely accused of having sent those letters as police complaints is absolutely outrageous.

 

You know that I only sent 8 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police. You expanded these 8 letters of complaint to 12 ‘heads of complaint’ during your lengthy deliberations.

 

According to your report 2 of these were withdrawn by me, another 1 was regarded as withdrawn by you, another 1 was considered by you to be a matter for the Information Commissioner, another 1 was regarded by you as a reiteration of an earlier complaint and Strathclyde Police failed to respond to 2 of the others.

 

That leaves a very few complaints that Strathclyde Police actually received and responded to, 5 rather than 82 according to the details in the body of your report, which is a very different picture from that painted by your summary, your recommendation and your comments to the press in which you roundly disparaged me, with no justification that accorded with the true facts, as detailed below:

The Scotsman     13 September 2010

‘......... complaints commissioner John McNeil ........... also said that, because of the "substantial amount of resources" police had spent dealing with him, they should no longer consider or respond to his complaints. Mr McNeil said: "I did not make this recommendation lightly. As a former human rights commissioner, I am, perhaps more than most, an ardent supporter of protecting the rights of individuals. However, it was time to draw a line.’’

"Substantial resources had been directed towards trying to understand and resolve the various complaints over an extended period of time.’’

"Everyone has the right to have a complaint considered, but I am also mindful that there will be occasions where resolution will not be possible, no matter how long the correspondence continues. This was one such occasion."


The Herald     13 September 2010

“A substantial amount of resources has been expended by Strathclyde Police in dealing with the above complaints, which in the vast majority of cases have been dealt with reasonably. In the particular circumstances of this complaint, the Commissioner recommends that Strathclyde Police no longer considers or responds to any complaint made by the applicant which is directly related to those listed in this report.’’

“The Commissioner does not make this recommendation lightly, but for the reasons stated considers it necessary to do so.”

However, ‘the reasons stated’ were simply a pack of lies.

At the heart of Strathclyde Police’s desperate attempt to cover up for their failure to investigate the original fraud allegations was their destruction of their file.

You generously absolved Strathclyde Police of any wrongdoing in the destruction of that file, falsely pretending that it was ‘in accordance with Strathclyde Police’s document retention policy’.

But evidence available to you showed that the original police report was still in existence in 1999.

Since the police file had relevance to live civil actions in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, since the police file had relevance to criminal reviews carried out during 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007, since the police file had relevance to formal police complaints raised in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008, since the police file had relevance for requests to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for clarifications in 2006, 2007 and 2008, since the police file had relevance to formal complaints to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and since the police file had relevance to your own review during 2008, 2009 and 2010, its destruction during any of these procedures was in fact unlawful, clearly in breach of any document retention policy and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

When was that file destroyed?

In any event you knew 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 that I had obtained a copy in 2003 and had immediately submitted it to Strathclyde Police along with several items of documentary evidence highlighting the report’s 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 and do not accord with the true facts. 

Why did you completely disregard the existence of this copy of the police report and all the evidence I submitted exposing its inadequacies?

Do you really think you will get away with this shameful episode? The public do not tolerate crooks and liars for long when they have been exposed.

Consequently, in due course the general public will perceive that you are unfit for your present position, or indeed for any position requiring a modicum of integrity, and will take appropriate action to get rid of you.

How many other complainants’ reputations have you destroyed with your pathetic lies?

And why should taxpayers go on subsidising the puerile nonsense that you produce at great expense?

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.

Yours sincerely,

                              Eddie Cairns.

 

DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND FOR LIES ABOUT EDDIE CAIRNS IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

11 October 2010

                 

 

Mr Ian Todd

Director

PCCS

PO Box 26300

HAMILTON ML3 3AR

                                       

 

Dear Mr Todd,

I refer to your letter dated 7 October 2010.

The draft writ that was enclosed along with my email dated 7 October 2010 categorically states the defender to be John McNeill, not the PCCS as an organisation.

Fundamental to any legal issue is the accurate identification of separate legal entities.  

As I pointed out in my letter dated 7 October 2010, according to Kenneth McK Norrie’s book, Defamation and Related Actions in Scots Law, Butterworths, (1995), at page 74:

‘An individual is liable for his or her own delicts, committed either personally or through the medium of another. To instruct one’s employee to defame another is to commit the wrong oneself (though the employee will be personally liable too). If more than one person joins in the defamation each is personally liable for the whole loss to the pursuer, for, notwithstanding that the defamation is committed by more than one person, liability is individual and not joint and several.’ 

Actions against the PCCS or any individuals who repeat defamatory statements about me would of course also be competent should I choose to draft and present them to the Court of Session. But I have not as yet proposed any action for defamation against your organisation and certainly not in the draft writ sent with my email on 7 October 2010.

In my letter to the PCCS dated 26 June 2010 I included the following relevant points:

‘Thirdly, any person who knowingly repeats defamatory material about me would thereby be acting maliciously and would be personally liable in a substantial claim for solatium in which there would not be a requirement for any monetary loss to be proved, in which the onus of proof that the defamatory statements are in fact true would be on the defender, and in which the element of malice would preclude any defence of qualified privilege.’

‘Fourthly, any professional who knowingly misrepresents the law or important facts could be investigated for professional misconduct.’   

You have acted disgracefully. Your conduct has misled the PCCS as an organisation and any individuals who have seen or heard what you have written to me and you have compounded the damage to my reputation thereby.

Consequently, I want to raise a formal complaint against you for falsely accusing me of threatening defamation proceedings that would require to be defended by your ‘organisation’.

Clearly the PCCS as an organisation is not the same legal entity as Mr John McNeill.

You ought to be very careful not to interfere on behalf of the PCCS in a private civil action that has nothing to do with your organisation.

Pressurising one of the parties in a legal action that has nothing to do with your organisation could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to pervert the course of justice, a very serious criminal matter.

Please inform me whether or not you are a solicitor or an advocate.

If you are you should also regard this letter as a formal complaint of unprofessional conduct and in the absence of an appropriate response within 4 weeks I may present a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Since I have reason to believe that the PCCS has recorded more inaccurate personal information about me since my last request I formally request subject access disclosures under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Yours sincerely,

                                 Eddie Cairns.

POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND OUTRAGEOUS LIES ABOUT EDDIE CAIRNS SUPPOSED 82 POLICE COMPLAINTS IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

2 October 2010

                 

 

Mr J Crawford

Case Officer

PCCS

PO Box 26300

HAMILTON ML3 3AR

 

 

Your ref:    PCCS/00448/08

                    

                    

Dear Mr Crawford,

I refer to your letter dated 29 September 2010.

Here is a reminder of the Commissioner’s statements published in the press:

 

The Scotsman     13 September 2010

‘......... complaints commissioner John McNeil ........... also said that, because of the "substantial amount of resources" police had spent dealing with him, they should no longer consider or respond to his complaints. Mr McNeil said: "I did not make this recommendation lightly. As a former human rights commissioner, I am, perhaps more than most, an ardent supporter of protecting the rights of individuals. However, it was time to draw a line.’’

"Substantial resources had been directed towards trying to understand and resolve the various complaints over an extended period of time.’’

"Everyone has the right to have a complaint considered, but I am also mindful that there will be occasions where resolution will not be possible, no matter how long the correspondence continues. This was one such occasion."


The Herald     13 September 2010

“A substantial amount of resources has been expended by Strathclyde Police in dealing with the above complaints, which in the vast majority of cases have been dealt with reasonably. In the particular circumstances of this complaint, the Commissioner recommends that Strathclyde Police no longer considers or responds to any complaint made by the applicant which is directly related to those listed in this report.’’

“The Commissioner does not make this recommendation lightly, but for the reasons stated considers it necessary to do so.”

 

These comments are consistent with an erroneous view that a very large number of complaints had been submitted by me to Strathclyde Police over an extensive period of time.

The following quotation from the report, which you now say does not mean 82 letters of complaint had been written, does in fact say that, and indeed that is how the newspapers have understood it and have reported it:

‘‘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.’’

This may reasonably be simplified to:

‘‘....... the applicant has written some 82 letters in which he makes ............ complaints about the police.’’

Your angle that the report did not actually say that I sent 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police is simply false. Perhaps you need to go on an English course. Your comprehension is fundamentally flawed. This inability to express things accurately is a major drawback for a report writer. That would appear to be the basic reason for your report to the Commissioner being rather obviously unreliable and misleading hogwash. The Commissioner apparently swallowed your lies on this point and on several other points.                         

You also state in your recent letter:

‘This passage reflects the number of letters sent by you to Strathclyde Police and not the number of complaints made.’

Oh really? Why then did you say that I wrote the 82 letters making complaints? You knew that the vast majority of those letters actually had nothing to do with police complaints. But you clearly reported to the Commissioner that they all did and thereby severely damaged my professional reputation. In due course the consequences of that deliberate falsehood will also damage the Commissioner’s professional reputation and your own professional reputation.   

Further proof of your misrepresentation on this point is provided in the Commissioner’s letter to me dated 16 September 2010 in which he includes the following:

‘In your letter dated 13 September 2010 you take exception to the reference in my report to you having written 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police. During the course of my review the police files received confirm that 82 letters were recorded as having been sent by you to Strathclyde Police during the period 28 July 2001 to 23 January 2009. This is a matter of fact.’

 

Examination of this extract confirms that the Commissioner does not refute that in his report he had referred to 82 letters of complaint that I had written to Strathclyde Police. He clearly asserts the opposite, that this was ‘a matter of fact’. He undoubtedly understood correctly that I had taken exception to what the Commissioner himself described as:

 ‘......... the reference in my report to you having written 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police’.

The PCCS report is therefore most definitely inaccurate and defamatory towards me in that respect and in several other respects as already detailed to you. Unless these corrections are made I will arrange for writs to be served on the Commissioner and on you in your personal capacities by the end of this month.

Your letter at least now admits that I did not send 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police. But, contrary to your attempted denial, the PCCS report did actually say that.

A reasonable suspicion arises that you tried to undermine my credibility by knowingly promulgating derogatory falsehoods about me.

In particular, you have given the false impression that I wasted a considerable amount of public resources thereby, which is of course very damaging to my professional reputation. Responses from the general public have lambasted me for that as a result of your dishonesty and ineptitude.

The PCCS’s recommendation to Strathclyde Police appears to be largely predicated upon the falsehood about 82 letters of complaint.

Chief Superintendent John Pollock was quoted in the Scotsman on 13 September 2010 in the following terms:

‘The decision to restrict this member of the public’s access to the complaints process was taken reluctantly and was based on the need to concentrate scarce police resources to the investigation to bona fide complaints. We welcome the PCC’s findings.’

As I stated in my letter dated 13 September 2010:

‘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.’

‘As can very easily be verified I submitted only two application forms to the PCCS for review and these were in respect of only two complaints against Strathclyde Police. The following statement in your report is a blatant distortion of the truth:’

‘‘In all, the applicant has asked the Commissioner to review 12 complaints.’’

‘The first application form was submitted to the PCCS on 17 November 2008 and the second on 21 June 2010.’

‘The exact texts of the sections in these forms containing details of the matters I submitted for review by the PCCS are replicated below:’

 

‘17 November 2008’

‘’WHY STRATHCLYDE POLICE DID NOT ASK  ANOTHER FORCE TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED FAILURES, IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.’’

‘‘STRATHCLYDE POLICE’S STATEMENT THAT ALL THE EVIDENTIAL FACTORS I IDENTIFIED WERE KNOWN TO THE POLICE IN 1994’’

 

‘21 June 2010’   

‘‘A DELAY OF 10 MONTHS IN RESPONDING TO MY LETTERS’’

‘‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 1993 INVESTIGATION’’

‘‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 2004 INVESTIGATION’’

‘’FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 2008 INVESTIGATION’’

 

‘These details related to only two specific complaints that I had submitted earlier to Strathclyde Police and in response to which I had received two corresponding letters from Strathclyde Police, one dated 19 September 2008 and one dated 11 June 2010.’

‘You knew therefore that I had actually asked the PCCS to review only two formal complaints that had been submitted to Strathclyde Police.’

‘The PCCS wrote to me on 23 June 2010, almost two years after I had submitted my first application form, including the following statement in respect of the PCCS’s identification of ten heads of complaint:’

‘‘I have (sic) an initial examination of the papers in your case and have identified what I believe to be your grounds of complaint.’’

‘These grounds of complaint would of course have to have been identified in relation to the two complaints that I submitted for review.’

‘On 11 August 2010 the PCCS wrote to me including the following statement in respect of the PCCS’s own suggested addition of two heads of complaint:’

‘‘I refer to your complaints about Strathclyde Police and write to inform you that the following grounds of complaint (known as ‘’heads of complaint’’) have (sic) identified in addition to those communicated to you in my letter of 3 June 2010.’’

‘Subsequently, however, this total of twelve heads of complaint identified by the PCCS in respect of the two formal complaints against Strathclyde Police that were submitted to the PCCS for review was misrepresented in your report in the following terms:’

‘‘In all, the applicant has asked the Commissioner to review 12 complaints.’’

‘This is a direct falsehood that can easily be verified with reference to the two application forms I submitted to the PCCS.’

Consequently, the PCCS report requires to be corrected in accordance with the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the same level of publicity is required by law for that correction as was given to the original report.

I have already given you notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998. I will follow that up with appropriate action in due course.

As I stated in my letter dated 24 September 2010:

‘There are 8 police complaints in this list, not 82. That averages about one complaint every two years since this significant case arose. And Strathclyde Police even failed to respond to some of these few complaints.’ 

‘Your pretence that Strathclyde Police handled 82 complaints from me and that a considerable amount of public money was wasted responding to 82 complaints is simply not true.’

‘Since this aspect of the PCCS’s report has been highlighted by the press and since it appears to be the basis for the recommendation in the report restricting my access to the complaints system this falsehood has caused me considerable damage.’

‘Everyone who has instigated or repeated such damaging defamatory statements about me knowing that these are based upon falsehoods is personally liable for that malicious conduct, as I have already warned the PCCS.’

‘My status as a vexatious litigant, currently the subject of a formal complaint to the Scottish Government in any event as you already know, does not totally exclude me from the legal process. I only have to present any proposed action to a judge in the Court of Session first for confirmation that the action is not vexatious.’

‘The Court of Session normally responds to such a request within a few days therefore actions against those who persist in malicious falsehoods about me could be served in a relatively short time.’

‘I am very experienced in drafting and presenting such actions in Sheriff Courts and in the Court of Session. One of those previous actions was featured in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland and was reviewed in the Herald. That case was certainly not regarded as vexatious and it came very close to costing a director of Scottish Enterprise over £400,000 plus expenses. It only failed on a technicality about jurisdiction. No such technicality would arise in the proposed cases.’

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.

I have also copied this letter to the Herald, the Scotsman and the Evening Times.

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.

Yours sincerely,

                               Eddie Cairns.