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

 

No comments: