Tuesday, 12 April 2016


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street


24 September 2010



Mr J Crawford

Case Officer


PO Box 26300




Your refs:    PCCS/00448/08 and




Dear Mr Crawford,

I refer to your letter dated 21 September 2010 in which you list 82 letters that I sent to Strathclyde Police which you purport to be in response to my letter to the Commissioner dated 19 September 2010.

But my letter dated 19 September 2010 had included the following:


‘A simple proof would settle this issue.’


‘Please provide a list of the 82 complaints references allocated to these 82 complaints by Strathclyde Police and copies of the 82 responses from Strathclyde Police on which public resources were apparently wasted according to your report.’


Clearly, your list of my letters to Strathclyde Police does not provide what I had requested as proof of your assertions.

I requested the 82 complaints references allocated by Strathclyde Police to these supposed 82 complaints and I requested copies of the 82 responses from Strathclyde Police on which scarce public resources were apparently wasted according to the PCCS report.

You have not provided these proofs.

I have reproduced below the numbered list of letters you provided and I have marked against each letter whether or not it was a police complaint:


1.   23/01/2009       Not a complaint

2.   16/08/2008       Not a complaint

3.   06/08/2008       Not a complaint

4.   04/08/2008       Not a complaint

5.   03/08/2008       Not a complaint

6.   02/08/2008       Not a complaint

7.   01/08/2008       Not a complaint

8.   01/08/2008       Not a complaint

9.   31/07/2008       Not a complaint

10.  28/07/2008       Not a complaint

11.   28/07/2008       Not a complaint

12.   28/07/2008       Not a complaint

13.   26/07/2008       Not a complaint

14.   24/07/2008       A complaint

 15.   18/07/2008      Not a complaint   

16.   27/02/2007       Not a complaint         

17.   20/02/2007       Not a complaint

18.   19/02/2007       A complaint

19.   22/01/2007       Not a complaint

20.   14/02/2006       Not a complaint

21.   13/02/2006       Not a complaint

22.   11/02/2006       Not a complaint

23.   14/02/2005       Not a complaint

24.   31/01/2005       Not a complaint

25.   30/01/2005       A complaint

26.   18/01/2005       Not a complaint

27.   10/12/2004       Not a complaint

28.   18/11/2004       Not a complaint

29.   28/10/2004       Not a complaint

30.   23/09/2004       Not a complaint

31.   28/08/2004       Not a complaint

32.   12/08/2004       A complaint

33.   21/07/2004       Not a complaint

34.   09/07/2004       Not a complaint

35.   02/03/2004       Not a complaint

36.   31/01/2004       Not a complaint

37.   26/04/2003       Not a complaint

38.   07/03/2003       Not a complaint

39.   24/02/2003       Not a complaint

40.   13/02/2004       Not a complaint

41.   08/02/2003       Not a complaint

42.   07/02/2003       Not a complaint

43.   28/01/2003       Not a complaint

44.   28/01/2003       Not a complaint

45.   22/01/2003       A complaint

46.   14/01/2003       Not a complaint      

47.   13/01/2003       Not a complaint

48.   27/12/2002       Not a complaint

49.   20/12/2002       Not a complaint

50.   17/12/2002       Not a complaint

51.   27/04/2002       Not a complaint      

52.   25/04/2002       Not a complaint

53.   24/04/2002       Not a complaint

54.   17/04/2002       Not a complaint

55.   12/04/2002       Not a complaint

56.   12/04/2002       Not a complaint

57.   08/04/2002       A complaint

58.   06/04/2002       A complaint 

59.   04/04/2002       A complaint

60.   03/04/2002       Not a complaint

61.   03/04/2002       Not a complaint

62.   03/04/2002       Not a complaint

63.   02/04/2002       Not a complaint

64.   01/04/2002       Not a complaint

65.   01/04/2002       Not a complaint

66.   29/03/2002       Not a complaint

67.   24/03/2002       Not a complaint

68.   27/03/2002       Not a complaint

69.   24/03/2002       Not a complaint

70.   19/03/2002       Not a complaint

71.   16/03/2002       Not a complaint

72.   14/03/2002       Not a complaint

73.   14/03/2002       Not a complaint

74.   08/08/2001       Not a complaint

75.   04/08/2001       Not a complaint

76.   03/08/2001       Not a complaint

77.   02/08/2001       Not a complaint

78.   31/07/2001       Not a complaint

79.   31/07/2001       Not a complaint

80.   31/07/2001       Not a complaint

81.   30/07/2001       Not a complaint

82.   28/07/2001       Not a complaint


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.

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: