Monday, 10 October 2016

AMENDED DRAFT WRIT AGAINST MS LENA WILSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE AND MR IAIN SCOTT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND COMPANY SECRETARY, SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FOR CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES WITH AN INTENTION OF HARMING MR EDDIE CAIRNS ECONOMICALLY



 

a. Initial Writ

 

Sheriffdom of Glasgow, 1 Carlton Place, GLASGOW G5

Court reference 

INITIAL WRIT

In the cause

EDWARD EDELSTEN CAIRNS

Residing at 72 Hillhouse Street,

Springburn, GLASGOW G21 4HP

                                                                                        PURSUER

 

against

LENA WILSON and IAIN SCOTT

c/o Scottish Enterprise, Atrium Court,

 50 Waterloo Street, GLASGOW G2 6HQ

 

                                                                                       DEFENDERS

 

The pursuer craves the court:

1. To grant decree against the defenders for payment to the pursuer of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREETHOUSAND AND SEVENTY ONE POUNDS (£523,071), with interest thereon at the rate of eight per centum per annum from the date of decree until payment.

2. To find the defenders liable in the expenses of the action.

 

CONDESCENDENCE

COND. 1 The pursuer resides at 72 Hillhouse Street, Springburn, GLASGOW G21 4HP. The addresses of the defenders are not known to the pursuer but the defenders are employed by Scottish Enterprise which has a place of business at Atrium Court, 50 Waterloo Street, GLASGOW G2 6HQand this court has jurisdiction since the damage to the pursuer took place in Glasgow. To the knowledge of the pursuer, no proceedings are pending before any other court involving the present cause of action and between the parties hereto. To the knowledge of the pursuer, no agreement exists between the parties prorogating jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present cause to another court.

 

COND. 2 This case is focussed upon the destruction of the professional reputation and employability of a qualified accountant, the pursuer, who had rejected an invitation from his supervisors in a public agency, Enterprise Ayrshire, to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the company accounts and misappropriate £187,069 of public money.

It highlights the dangers of blowing the whistle on financial irregularities in a public authority and the need for judicial authorities to act in the interests of justice and in the public interest to uphold integrity in public finances where such difficulties arise.

The pursuer’s professional accounting body the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, having examined relevant documentary evidence, wrote to the Scottish Minister for Industry and Local Government Mr Allan Stewart MP on 23 September 1994 about this matter including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘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.’ 

There was no response.

 

COND. 3 The pursuer was a financial worker in the Scottish Enterprise group in 1993 where he was tasked with reconciling the balance sheet for Enterprise Ayrshire as at 2 July 1993 during which he discovered that £187,069 had been received by electronic transfer from the European Regional Development Fund directly into Enterprise Ayrshire’s main bank account on 25 June 1993 but had been omitted from the company’s accounts as instructed by his supervisors and deposited in a high interest bank account in the name of one of those supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey. 

The remedy sought is predicated on the existence of an alleged conspiracy to cover up the financial irregularities alleged by the pursuer. The averments set out below, supported by the productions, specify how and why the conspiracy was entered into and disclose prima facie grounds for the remedy sought.

Documentary evidence indicates concerted action by several individuals since 18 August 1993 with the common purpose of covering up the financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire that had been alleged by the pursuer. Those individuals entered into an unlawful means conspiracy with an intention of harming the pursuer economically by falsely pretending that the pursuer’s allegations had no substance and that the pursuer was an incompetent accountant and a false accuser.

 

COND. 4 When the pursuer put his concerns about the financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire into writing to his supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell, in an email dated 17 August 1993 he was removed from the premises less than a day later and effectively stonewalled.

The email had stated the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’

‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’

‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’

‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’  

 

COND. 5 In July 2016 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 Scottish Enterprise disclosed to the pursuer communications from Mr Iain Scott to Police Scotland and Scottish Enterprise about this case on 15 April 2016.

 

The disclosures included a copy of the original Scottish Enterprise report on their investigation into the alleged financial irregularities dated 20 August 1993.

 

The report was seriously defective in several respects as confirmed with regard to the other simultaneous disclosures as specified below. It indicated that a conspiracy to cover up the financial irregularities alleged by the pursuer had been in operation since 18 August 1993 up to the present day.  

 

The disclosures included a scanned copy of the pursuer’s bank reconciliation for Enterprise Ayrshire showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. The report produced by Scottish Enterprise falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

The disclosures included a scanned copy of the pursuer’s email to his supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 detailed above in Article 4. The report produced by Scottish Enterprise completely excluded this very important evidence which corroborated the pursuer’s witness statement that he had been incited to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in Enterprise Ayrshire.

 

The disclosures included a scanned copy of an extract from the Enterprise Ayrshire manual cash book showing the following words at the record of £187,069 received on 25 June 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G.TRACEY’

 

The report produced by Scottish Enterprise referred to a later version where the words ‘TO GO THROUGH JULY ACCOUNTS’ had been added. The report offered no explanation for this note, which corroborated the pursuer’s allegation of having been instructed by Mr Gary Tracey to falsify the accounts in respect of this receipt from the European Regional Development Fund. Further corroboration is provided by the actions of other finance staff who acted in accordance with Mr Tracey’s fraudulent instructions to falsify the accounts.

 

The report concluded with the following brief statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’

 

This conclusion corroborated the pursuer’s concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when he wrote his email to his supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell on 17 August 1993.

 

The report produced by Scottish Enterprise included a scanned copy of the press release dated 1 September 1993 which stated the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire’

‘Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.’

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of the pursuer’s written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false and very damaging for the pursuer’s professional reputation and employability.

 

Mr Iain Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016. Clearly, Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day with an intention to harm the pursuer economically in agreement with Ms Lena Wilson.

 

Detective Sergeant William Watters of Strathclyde Police, the police officer in charge of the 1993 investigation into financial irregularities at Enterprise Ayrshire, accepted and endorsed the report produced by Scottish Enterprise’s investigating accountant Ms Mandy Dickson and sent a copy to the Scottish Office with a compliments slip attached upon which were printed the words ‘With the Compliments of the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police’ to which Mr Watters added his signature and position ‘W. Watters D/S Fraud Squad’.

If the government had wanted a copy of the Scottish Enterprise report they would have requested and obtained it from Scottish Enterprise, not from the police.

Therefore this also points to the Scottish Enterprise report being adopted and utilised by the police instead of the police carrying out an independent investigation and producing their own report.

Further evidence of this fact is contained in a memorandum from Ms Mariot Leslie, the Scottish Office, to Mr Stewart, Minister for Industry and Local Government, dated 14 June 1994 which included the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘...... after Mr Cairns’ dismissal an investigating accountant from SE examined the records of EA and presented a report of the investigation to SE on 20 August. This found that the £187,069 was paid into EA’s main bank account on 25 June 1993 ........’

‘The report found however that the money had not been entered into the LEC’s July management accounts until 18 August and concluded that they should have done so in time for the June accounts.’

‘The report and evidence were also examined by Strathclyde Police ......’

Significantly, there is no mention here of any independent investigation having been carried out by Strathclyde Police.

 

COND. 6 In the light of these disclosures in July 2016 several statements by individuals in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise and their actions towards the pursuer can be seen to have been in concert for the purpose of covering up the alleged financial irregularities with an intention to harm the pursuer economically.

 

The pursuer’s contract was abruptly terminated by Enterprise Ayrshire’s Director of Corporate Services and Company Secretary Mr Andrew Downie around mid-day on 18 August 1993 before any investigation into the pursuer’s allegations had been carried out

 

An article in the Herald dated 2 September 1993 stated:

‘Enterprise Ayrshire has dismissed the allegations as utterly groundless ....’

‘Mr Gordon Brown, Enterprise Ayrshire’s director of business development, said it was aware of Mr Cairns’s allegations and rejected them totally. He said the European funds were handled absolutely correctly in legal and accounting ethical terms. The money was correctly received from Europe and correctly handled thereafter. Mr Cairns is incapable of accepting that. That’s why his contract was terminated. He was not sacked. His claims are without foundation.’

On 18 October 1993 an article published in the Herald quoted Mr Andrew Downie stating the following about the pursuer’s allegations of financial irregularities, which are reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘..........Allegations of this nature can damage the probity which Enterprise Ayrshire insists on in all aspects of its operations, and we are delighted that, after a thorough investigation, Strathclyde Police have confirmed that there is no substance to the allegations. ’

In fact as detailed above in Article 5 and as supported by documentary evidence Strathclyde Police did not carry out an independent investigation into the alleged financial irregularities but instead accepted and endorsed the Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993.

On 23 September 1993 Mr Tom Woodbridge, the Head of Finance at Scottish Enterprise, wrote to the government including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘Mr Cairns reported his allegations to Scottish Enterprise by telephone on the morning of 18 August. Scottish Enterprise investigating accountant carried out an examination of the books and records at Enterprise Ayrshire premises that afternoon. A full report on the investigation was presented on 20 August.’

‘The report showed that there was no question of fraudulent activity.’

In fact the report made no such statement.

Mr Woodbridge’s letter dated 23 September 1993 continued:

‘The issue at the centre of the allegations involved a technical accounting matter in regard to when a credit should have been disclosed in the management accounts.’

The notes from a review of this case by Audit Scotland’s Mr Jim Martin dated 20 August 2004 include the following:

 

‘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....’

 

In response to the pursuer’s request for information on this case the Acting Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Mr or Ms Ray MacFarlane sent a letter to the pursuer dated 14 October 1994 in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘Thank you for your letter of 4 October 1994 to Crawford Beveridge seeking comments on your departure from your contract post at Enterprise Ayrshire (EA). As Mr Beveridge is on leave at present, I have been asked to respond on his behalf.’

‘I am confident that the officers in EA have dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner. I realise that this will be a disappointing response for you, but have to inform you that, so far as Scottish Enterprise is concerned, the matter is now closed.’ 

As for the assertion that the officers in Enterprise Ayrshire had dealt with this case in an extremely professional manner, as already averred above it had been reported in an article in the Herald dated 2 September 1993 that:

‘Enterprise Ayrshire has dismissed the allegations as utterly groundless ....’

And:

‘Mr Gordon Brown, Enterprise Ayrshire’s director of business development, said it was aware of Mr Cairns’s allegations and rejected them totally. He said the European funds were handled absolutely correctly in legal and accounting ethical terms. The money was correctly received from Europe and correctly handled thereafter. Mr Cairns is incapable of accepting that. That’s why his contract was terminated. He was not sacked. His claims are without foundation.’

In a letter to the pursuer dated 8 March 2002 the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Mr Robert Crawford included the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘We have, in previous correspondence, explained our clear position. We have rejected your accusations of unethical accounting and of unfair treatment towards you.’

 

COND. 7 Statements in Ms Lena Wilson’s letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012 indicate that Ms Wilson had entered into the existing unlawful means conspiracy to cover up the financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire that had been alleged by the pursuer.

Extracts from Ms Wilson’s letter are reproduced below in italics for convenience and the pursuer has added explanatory notes in normal type:

(a) ‘The subject matter of Mr Cairns' complaint dates back to 1993 and relates to an accounting matter raised by Mr Cairns regarding when a credit should have been shown in the management accounts of Scottish.Enterprise Ayrshire (SE Ayrshire) formerly named Enterprise Ayrshire.’

 

This is not an accurate statement of the pursuer’s complaint.

 

The pursuer alleged that he had been incited by his supervisors Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell to join in a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in Enterprise Ayrshire in respect of a cash grant of £187,069 from the European Regional Development Fund that had been received on 25 June 1993.

 

Other finance staff had already agreed to falsify the accounts by omitting the routine entry for this money according to Mr Tracey’s misdirection, confirmed by a note in the manual cash book stating falsely that there was ‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G.TRACEY’ which was acted upon by the staff who made the routine journals for such transactions, enabling the cash to be misappropriated and held in a high interest bearing bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

 

Therefore the pursuer’s complaint was far more serious than that portrayed by the participants in the conspiracy to cover up the financial irregularities.

 

This misrepresentation of the pursuer’s complaint first appeared in the letter from Scottish Enterprise’s Head of Finance Mr Tom Woodbridge to the Scottish Office dated 23 September 1993 detailed above in Article 6.

 

On the contrary the issue at the centre of the allegations involved the incitement by Mr Tracey of staff more junior to him to falsify the accounts for a public agency and to enter into a conspiracy to commit fraud. The issue also involved the subsequent operation of a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in that public agency and thereby to commit fraud and the theft of £187,069 of public money which was taken control of by Mr Tracey and misappropriated for gain at the expense of UK taxpayers. 

 

 

(b) ‘The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified.’

 

As specified in Article 5 the report on Scottish Enterprise’s investigation had concealed material evidence and misrepresented the facts.

 

The report made no mention of Ms Wilson’s assertion that ‘the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified.’

 

In any event the defenders refused to address relevant questions put to them by Mr Bob Doris MSP on the pursuer’s behalf in relation to the alleged clarification of accounting requirements.

 

 

(c) ‘Strathclyde Police also investigated the matter ........’

 

As the available evidence shows Strathclyde Police did not carry out an independent investigation but instead endorsed the manifestly defective Scottish Enterprise report.

 

 

(d) ‘No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found.’

 

As confirmed by the available evidence this is a false statement designed to cover up the financial irregularities that had been alleged by the pursuer.

The pursuer himself had alleged fraud and wrongdoing therefore that fact alone confirms the falsity of Ms Wilson’s assertion that ‘No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found’. Clearly, the pursuer himself was an eyewitness to the alleged fraud and wrongdoing.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report had concluded:

‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’

 

This conclusion corroborated the pursuer’s allegations of financial irregularities.

The report confirmed the pursuer’s allegation that the money in question had been excluded from the accounts until shortly after the pursuer put his objections into writing on 17 August 1993. When the pursuer did so the accounts had already been falsified for almost two months by £187,069, which was a substantial amount of public money.

The correction to the accounts was made before the investigation had been carried out which indicates that senior finance staff in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise already knew that the accounts were wrong. They knew that because they had conspired to falsify the accounts.

The report offered no plausible explanation for the financial irregularities.

Ms Wilson’s assertion that ‘No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found’ does not accord with the facts.

 

(e) ‘Following unauthorised disclosures relating to the above matter to the press and various other third parties, Mr Cairns' position was untenable and his contract with Enterprise Ayrshire was terminated in August 1993.’

 

The pursuer in fact made no disclosures to anyone until after his contract had been terminated. The pursuer wrote to the police and his MP on 19 August 1993. The press were not approached by the pursuer until about two weeks after the termination of the pursuer’s contract.

The defenders are called upon to produce any evidence that the pursuer made unauthorised disclosures to anyone before his contract was terminated.

 

COND. 8 On 27 November 2013 Mr Iain Scott wrote to Mr Bob Doris MSP in response to Mr Doris’s letter dated 5 November 2013 to Ms Lena Wilson regarding the pursuer.

Mr Scott’s letter began in the following terms:

‘Thank you for your letter of 5 November 2013 to our Chief Executive, Lena Wilson. I am responding to your letter in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary and as a follow up to my conversation with your office on the background to this case on 21 November 2013.’

 

‘As you will note from our response to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP in May 2012, Mr Cairns' complaint dates back to 1993. Mr Cairns remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the original investigation and in the intervening period he has used various routes to continue to highlight his concerns.’

 

,

‘I understand that Mr Cairns has fully exhausted the complaints and review procedures of all the organisations that he has involved, including Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.’

Scottish Enterprise has never processed or responded to any complaint from the pursuer. Consequently there was never any response to be reviewed. 

On 10 November 2014 the pursuer wrote a letter to Mr Scott on this matter including the following:

‘I have obtained a copy of a letter written by SPSO Mr Jim Martin to Ms Lena Wilson on 31 March 2010 which includes the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

‘‘I have recently reviewed several complaints that Mr Cairns has brought to us on this subject since May 2009. Having done so, it has become apparent to me that none of the issues he has raised are suitable for consideration by my office.’’

 

‘I can therefore prove that your notification to Mr Doris MSP on 27 November 2013 that I had exhausted the SPSO complaints and review procedures was false.’

 

‘You also misled Mr Doris on 27 November 2013 in respect of me having exhausted Scottish Enterprise’s complaints and review procedures.’ 

 

‘I informed you several months ago that I had never received any complaints response from Scottish Enterprise.’

‘I had also pointed this out to Scottish Enterprise in a letter to Ms Lena Wilson dated 10 December 2010 which included the following extract, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

‘‘In a letter dated 24 November 2010 the Information Commissioner informed me that it had been decided that it was unlikely that Scottish Enterprise had complied with the DPA.’’

‘‘I was also informed that the Information Commissioner had asked Scottish Enterprise to provide me with a copy of the personal data I was entitled to receive as a matter of urgency.’’

‘’It is therefore a matter of very serious concern that your letter dated 3 December 2010 and disclosures still do not satisfy the requirements of the Act as detailed below:’’

‘‘1. No disclosures of Scottish Enterprise’s responses to any complaint from me have been provided.’’

‘No complaints responses were disclosed to me even after that letter.’

‘The Information Commissioner had already confirmed to me that information relating to my complaints is regarded as personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998.’

‘So as you can see I already formally requested these documents under the terms of the Data Protection Act but Scottish Enterprise failed to produce them.’

‘Therefore there is clear evidence that your statements to Mr Doris in respect of both the SPSO and Scottish Enterprise were false and damaging towards me.......’

 

Ms Wilson and Mr Scott can reasonably be regarded as having agreed upon this response dated 27 November 2013 to Mr Doris’s letter dated 5 November 2013 with the common purpose of continuing to cover up the financial irregularities the pursuer had alleged in Enterprise Ayrshire in 1993. Ms Wilson and Mr Scott acted in furtherance of that common purpose by falsely pretending that the pursuer had fully exhausted the complaints and review procedures of all the organisations that he had involved, including Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

The letter from Mr Scott to Mr Doris dated 27 November 2013 provides further evidence of the existence of an unlawful means conspiracy in which Ms Wilson and Mr Scott participated with an intention to harm the pursuer economically.

The letter from Mr Scott to Mr Doris dated 27 November 2013 included the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience and the pursuer’s comments follow in normal type:

 

‘We do not believe that it is the public interest (sic) to dedicate any further public resource to re-addressing questions posed by Mr Cairns that were the subject of the original complaint.’

The use of the term ‘we’ here confirms that the defenders were acting in concert.

The defenders’ accusation that the pursuer had asked Mr Doris to re-address questions posed by the pursuer that were the subject of the original complaint was false and can reasonably be regarded as having been asserted with an intention to cover up the alleged financial irregularities with an intention to harm the pursuer economically.

It was in the public interest to investigate the pursuer’s alleged financial irregularities properly and honestly, not to cover them up and destroy his career as happened in this case.

Mr Doris had not presented on the pursuer’s behalf questions posed by the pursuer that were the subject of the original complaint. Mr Doris’s questions were not questions that were the subject of the original complaint.  

In that regard the pursuer’s letter to Mr Scott dated 10 November 2014 continued as follows:

‘A reasonable suspicion arises that you made these false statements in order to avoid addressing the pertinent questions Mr Doris had raised in his letter to Ms Lena Wilson dated 5 November 2013 with reference to the statements about my case in Ms Lena Wilson’s letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012 that ‘the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified’ and ‘no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found’.’

‘Those questions are reproduced below in italics for convenience:’

‘‘Can you elaborate on what clarification was provided and to whom? Were Enterprise Ayrshire’s accountants unaware of their obligations to log cash receipts on time? Was Enterprise Ayrshire unaware that accounting standards apply to LECs?  If no wrongdoing had occurred, why was it necessary to clarify the requirements? I gather that an additional £187,069 was retrospectively added to the accounts following the investigation. Again, if accounting standards had been followed, why was this necessary?’’

 

‘Mr Doris tried again in vain to obtain answers to these questions in his letter to you dated 7 March 2014 in which he included the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

 

‘‘Thank you for your letter of 27 November 2013 regarding Mr Cairns, which I enclose for reference.’’

 

‘‘Having reviewed the case, I note you allude in that letter to Mr Cairns having exhausted your complaints procedures. That being the case, it would be most helpful if you could inform me how the complaints process dealt with the questions raised in the penultimate paragraph of my most recent letter, which I also enclose.’’

 

Mr Scott refused to inform Mr Doris how the complaints process had dealt with the questions raised in the penultimate paragraph of Mr Doris’s most recent letter. In the circumstances a reasonable suspicion arises that this was because the pursuer’s complaint had not been processed as a complaint at all.

 

COND. 9 The letter from Ms Lena Wilson to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012, the letter from Mr Iain Scott toMr Bob Doris MSP dated 27 November 2013 and the communications from Mr Iain Scott to Police Scotland and Scottish Enterprise on 15 April 2016 contain significant falsehoods as detailed herein and indicate that by 27 November 2013 the defenders had both entered into the existing unlawful means conspiracy with an intention of harming the pursuer economically that began on 18 August 1993 and has been in operation up to the present time.

The available evidence indicates that the conspiracy was initially entered into by Mr Andrew Downie of Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Tom Woodbridge of Scottish Enterprise and Detective Sergeant William Watters of Strathclyde Police in August 1993 and joined later by Mr or Ms Ray MacFarlane the Acting Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise and Mr Robert Crawford the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise for the concerted purpose of covering up the financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire that had been alleged by the pursuer.

Thereafter by 30 May 2012 the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Ms Lena Wilson entered into the conspiracy and the Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary of Scottish Enterprise Mr Iain Scott entered into the conspiracy by 27 November 2013 with the agreement of Ms Wilson for the additional purpose of covering up Scottish Enterprise’s refusal to process the pursuer’s original complaint with an intention of harming the pursuer economically. 

 

COND. 10 In a conspiracy each of the participants is responsible for the acts and omissions of all the other participants.

The defenders are responsible not only for their own acts and omissions but also for the acts and omissions of earlier participants in the conspiracy to cover up the alleged financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire with an intention to harm the pursuer economically that has been in operation since 18 August 1993.

The acts and omissions of earlier participants in the conspiracy to cover up the financial irregularities alleged by the pursuer with an intention to harm the pursuer economically are detailed herein.

It was unlawful for the defenders to agree to cover up the financial irregularities in a public agency as alleged by the pursuer and falsely to pretend that the pursuer’s complaint had fully exhausted the complaints and review procedures of all the organisations that he had involved, including Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

 

COND. 11 Copies of the Herald article dated 2 September 1993, the letter from Mr Tom Woodbridge to the Scottish Office dated 23 September 1993,the letter from Ms Mariot Leslie to Mr Woodbridge dated 4 October 1993, the memorandum from Ms Mariot Leslie to Mr Smith dated 4 October 1993, the Herald article dated 18 October 1993, the memorandum from Ms Mariot Leslie to Mr Allan Stewart MP dated 14 June 1994, the letter from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants to Mr Allan Stewart MP the Scottish Minister for Industry and Local Government dated 23 September 1994, the letter from the Acting Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Mr or Ms Ray MacFarlane to the pursuer dated 14 October 1994, the letter from the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Mr Robert Crawford to the pursuer dated 8 March 2002, the notes from the review by Audit Scotland’s Mr Jim Martin dated 20 August 2004, the letter from the SPSO Mr Jim Martin to Ms Lena Wilson dated 31 March 2010, the letter from the pursuer to Ms Lena Wilson dated 10 December 2010, the letter from Ms Lena Wilson to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012, the letter from Mr Bob Doris MSP to Ms Lena Wilson dated 5 November 2013, the letter from Mr Iain Scott to Mr Bob Doris MSP dated 27 November 2013, the letter from Mr Bob Doris MSP to Mr Iain Scott dated 7 March 2014, the letter from the pursuer to Mr Iain Scott dated 10 November 2014 and the communications from Mr Iain Scott to Police Scotland and Scottish Enterprise on 15 April 2016 are produced and referred to for their terms which are held as incorporated herein brevitatis causa.

 

COND. 12 The averments, supported by productions, indicate that participants in the conspiracy perverted the course of justice by concealing material evidence and unjustifiably portrayed the pursuer as an incompetent accountant and a false accuser thereby rendering the pursuer unemployable in his profession since 18 August 1993.

 

COND. 13 The pursuer is entitled to reparation from the defenders for economic losses resulting from the operation of the conspiracy since 18 August 1993.

 

COND. 14 At the date of the inception of the unlawful means conspiracy to harm the pursuer economically the pursuer’s earnings were £18,447 annually. Economic losses after tax and national insurance from 18 August 1993 to retirement at 26 April 2016 are estimated at a present value at the date of the claim of £617,202(for past losses over 22 years and ninemonthsat £27,121 per year,which is the estimated loss of net annual income after tax and national insurance based upon gross earnings of £35,668, which is thegross annual income of £18,447 inflated by the movement in the Retail Prices Index from the end of August 1993 to the date of this claim).

The pursuer’s actual income for this period was £94,131at present value at the date of this claim, resulting in a net claim of £523,071.

 

COND. 15 The defenders have been called upon to make reparation to the pursuer but refuse or at least delay to do so. This action is accordingly necessary.

 

 

 

 

PLEAS-IN-LAW FOR THE PURSUER

 

1. By 27 November 2013 the defenders had both entered into an existing unlawful means conspiracy with an intention to harm the pursuer economically that began operating on 18 August 1993 and has been in operation up to the present time.

 

2.The defenders are responsible for the acts and omissions of all the participants in the conspiracy since its inception on 18 August 1993.

 

3.The pursuer incurred economic losses as a result of the operation of the conspiracy.

 

4. The sum sued for being a reasonable amount of reparation in respect of estimated economic losses resulting from the operation of the conspiracy, decree should be granted as craved.

 

 

24 October 2016
                                                                                                                               PURSUER

No comments: