Tuesday, 12 April 2016


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street


15 October 2010



Mr John McNeill

Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland


PO Box 26300




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.


No comments: