Monday, 7 November 2016

COMPLAINT AGAINST LORD TYRE IN CONSPIRACY CASE AGAINST SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE OFFICIALS


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

Tel 07501 346 490

6 November 2016

 

Judicial Office for Scotland

Strategy & Governance

Court of Session

1A Parliament Square

EDINBURGH EH1 1RQ

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT – LORD TYRE

I want to raise a formal complaint about unethical conduct by Lord Tyre in respect of the manner of his rejection of my proposed writ against Ms Lena Wilson and Mr Iain Scott on 2 November 2016.

The Scottish Judiciary has an honourable tradition in the attainment of high standards of judicial conduct. Maintaining such standards is essential if the community is to have confidence in its judiciary.

 

Lord Tyre appears to have failed to act in accordance with the principles of impartiality, integrity, propriety and competence and diligence.

In the section of the published report on Judicial Ethics that addresses
the principle of impartiality the following statements are made:
 
‘Where there exists some reason, apart from pecuniary interest,why a judge should not handle a case on its objective merits, or may reasonably appear to be unable to do so, he or she should recuse himself or herself. Thus, for example, a meaningful acquaintance with a litigant, or a person known to be a significant witness in the case might constitute such an objection. Other examples of such reasons are set out in the judgment of the court in
Locabail (U.K.) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd (C.A.) [2000] Q.B. 451 at Statement Of Principles of Judicial Ethics for the Scottish Judiciary April 2010 23page 480. Further, recusal would be necessary where a well informed and fair-minded observer would consider that there was a real possibility of bias: Porter v Magill [2002] 2 A.C. 357. Consideration of the operation of that principle is to be found in Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2008 SC (HL) 1.’

 
In the section that addresses the principle of integrity the report states ‘a significant failure on the part of a judge to observe the requirements of the law’ would be an example of unacceptable behaviour.’

In the section that addresses the principle of propriety the report states ‘the judge should avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favouritism or partiality.’

In the section that addresses the principle of competence and diligence the report states:
Since the public have certain legitimate expectations as to the decision making of the court, it is important that these should be met. Written decisions should be formulated in such a way as to render them comprehensible to the public, so far as that is consistent with the handling of what may be very complex legal and factual issues. Judges should carefully consider whether they have a sound basis for making critical observations in their
judgments.....’

 
As detailed below, Lord Tyre appears to have violated all these principles.

 
Firstly, Lord Tyre’s reasons for refusal to grant authority to raise proceedings barely conceal his utter disdain for me and my proposed claim. In the light of the documentation presented to him every reason given by Lord Tyre is exposed as absolutely false. Since Lord Tyre’s false statements are so egregious and contemptuous towards me and my proposed claim and since every statement by Lord Tyre can be verified to be absolutely false an appearance of bias against me is unavoidable.

Each of Lord Tyre’s misstatements merits careful examination. These are reproduced below one by one in bold type and I have added explanatory notes thereafter in normal type:
 

1.     ‘As regards vexatiousness, the allegation of conspiracy has no rational foundation.’    

It is well known and widely recognised that workers who oppose unlawful practices in their places of work are often unjustifiably vilified and mistreated by those whose unlawful practices are being resisted and their managers. The unlawful practices are commonly denied and covered up.

It was therefore perfectly rational to expect such conduct in this case, which centred upon financial irregularities alleged by me in Enterprise Ayrshire in August 1993.

In the proposed writ I averred several instances of concerted action by the individuals involved in the financial irregularities and their managers to cover up the irregularities and attack my professional integrity and competence. I provided a considerable number of proofs.

For example consider the following averments:

‘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.’’ 

 

‘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. 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.........’ 

 

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

‘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.’

 

The last sentence ends the extracts for consideration in this section.

There were many other such averments and proofs presented in support of the allegation of a conspiracy. The extracts reproduced here are sufficient to expose Lord Tyre’s assertion that ‘the allegation of conspiracy has no rational foundation’ as patent nonsense.

Since the writ contains considerably more averments and proofs alleging the operation of a conspiracy than those referred to above an explanation from Lord Tyre would appear to be required in order for justice to be seen to be done.

Separately, by his false and disdainful statements about me and my proposed claim Lord Tyre has displayed inordinate animosity towards me. 

Since the Court is obliged to comply with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 which may be relied upon in any legal proceedings Lord Tyre’s falsehoods and contemptuous comments give rise to an appearance of bias which renders his involvement in this case unlawful without consideration of any other points, being a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.  

The last sentence ends my submissions on this point.

 

2.     ‘It appears to be based upon no more that (sic) the fact that the individuals whose names are listed at the end of condescendence 9 have reached conclusions with which the applicant disagrees.’

Lord Tyre’s assertion that the allegation of a conspiracy appears to be based upon no more than the fact that the individuals whose names are listed at the end of condescendence 9 have reached conclusions with which I disagreed is simply a disgraceful fabrication by Lord Tyre that bears no resemblance to the actual contents of the documents submitted.

Consequently Lord Tyre appears to have acted erroneously and unjustly on the basis of assessing his own fabricated and gravely distorted version of the proposed writ instead of on the basis of assessing the actual proposed writ that was put before him.  

In reality I provided adequate averments and proofs for the alleged conspiracy prima facie which Lord Tyre has culpably and disgracefully either misrepresented or totally disregarded.

Therefore Lord Tyre has acted unlawfully and unethically by failing to examine and address the arguments and evidence put forward. ((Quadrelli v Italy (11 January 2000), para 34), (Ruiz Torija v Spain (1994) A 303-A, para 19)  

In these circumstances a reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that Lord Tyre has unfairly taken advantage of what he knew to be the position as confirmed in the Court’s notification to me on 4 November 2016 that ‘This decision is final and not subject to review to this or any other court’.

Lord Tyre appears to have acted recklessly because he knew that his decision is final and not subject to review.

 

The last sentence ends my submissions on this point.

 

3.     ‘Nor is any rational basis provided for attributing responsibility for statements made up to 20 years earlier to the two individuals whom the applicant wishes to sue. The litigation is vexatious.’

Lord Tyre appears not to have read the proposed writ carefully enough because the rational basis for attributing responsibility for statements made up to 20 years earlier to the two individuals whom I want to sue is clearly stated therein in considerable detail.

Is Lord Tyre completely unaware of the law of Scotland regarding unlawful means conspiracies?  Does Lord Tyre really have not the slightest inkling about the responsibilities of participants in an unlawful means conspiracy for the acts and omissions of all the other conspirators as well as for their own acts and omissions?

Lord Tyre’s assertions about there apparently being no rational basis provided for attributing responsibility for statements made up to 20 years earlier to the two individuals whom I want to sue and that the litigation is vexatious would certainly indicate that Lord Tyre’s understanding of Scots law on the point is far less than adequate.

Lord Tyre appears not to have given any consideration at all to my valid statements on the point.   

Therefore Lord Tyre has failed to act in accordance with the ethical principle of competence and diligence.

The following extracts from the proposed writ are relevant:

 

‘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.’ 

 

‘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.’

 

‘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.’

 

‘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.’

 

‘COND. 9 The letter from Ms Lena Wilson to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012, the letter from Mr Iain Scott to Mr 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.’

 

The last sentence ends the extracts on this point.

 

4.     ‘As regards prima facie grounds, no stateable case is made that the applicant has incurred any loss as a consequence of anything done by the two individuals whom he seeks to sue.’

Lord Tyre’s assertion that no stateable case is made on this point has no basis in fact or in law. It is simply false.

I firmly grounded my case prima facie upon the averments and proofs that these two individuals had entered into an unlawful means conspiracy that had been in operation since 18 August 1993 to cover up the financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire that I had alleged and they did so with an intention of harming me economically by falsely pretending that my allegations had no substance and that I was an incompetent accountant and a false accuser, thereby rendering me unemployable in my profession.      

The following extracts from the proposed writ are relevant:

 

‘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 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.’

 

‘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.’

 

‘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.’

‘........ 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.’

 

‘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.’

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

‘‘........ 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.’’

‘‘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.’

 

‘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. 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.’

 

The last sentence ends the extracts for this section.

 

The defenders were fully aware of the concerted action by several individuals since 18 August 1993 to cover up the financial irregularities with an intention to harm me economically. The defenders participated in that conspiracy knowingly and they are deservedly responsible for joining in the existing cover up with an intention to continue with the disparaging falsehoods about me and my professional competence, integrity and employability that they know to have been unjustifiably communicated repeatedly for over 20 years.

The defenders are responsible for knowingly maintaining a false position on the outcome of Scottish Enterprise’s original investigation into the irregularities that I had alleged. The defenders communicated outrageous falsehoods to the police in April 2016 including the seriously defective report on the 1993 investigation. 

 

Lord Tyre has failed to address the arguments and evidence presented in the proposed writ and he has failed to provide convincing reasons for his conduct that would enable the public to comprehend it.

Disturbingly, Lord Tyre seems to have completely abandoned his duty to act carefully in the interests of justice and in the public interest to uphold integrity in public finance and he has done so quite disgracefully to the point of effectively ridiculing my proposed claim for reparation for the destruction of my professional reputation and employability by the operation of a conspiracy since 18 August 1993 regardless of the many proofs that I submitted in support of my position.

Lord Tyre’s defectively reasoned conduct does not respect my fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, as established in the Human Rights Act 1998.

As stated above, the judge should avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favouritism or partiality’ and ‘Judges should carefully consider whether they have a sound basis for making critical observations in their judgments.....’

 

Such apparently improper conduct violates Judicial Ethics and would tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Lord Tyre has provided no sound basis for making the critical observations in his interlocutor in respect of not being satisfied that the proceedings were not vexatious and that prima facie there was no ground for the proposed proceedings.

Consequently, a reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that Lord Tyre was determined to exclude me from the court by whatever means regardless of the valid grounds for the proposed proceedings.

All these failures were also incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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....’

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 323:

‘5.80  In general, the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 obliges courts to give reasons for their judgment. (Hadjianastassiou v Greece (1992) A 252-A, para 33) The giving of reasons is generally implicit in the concept of a fair trial since reasons inform the parties of the basis of the decision and enable them to exercise any right of appeal available to them, and also enable the public to understand the rationale for judicial decisions.......’

‘The right to a reasoned judgment imposes on domestic courts a duty, in principle, to examine and address the arguments and evidence put forward by the parties to a case. (Quadrelli v Italy (11 January 2000), para 34), (Ruiz Torija v Spain (1994) A 303-A, para 19) ..........’

‘The reasons given must be valid in law. (De Moor v Belgium (1994) A 292-A, paras 54-55)’  

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.........’ 

As stated above, in the section of the published report on Judicial Ethics that addresses the principle of integrity the report states, ‘a significant failure on the part of a judge to observe the requirements of the law’ would be an example of unacceptable behaviour.

 

Consequently for all the reasons presented herein Lord Tyre’s conduct appears to be unlawful, unsound and biased rendering it unethical and unacceptable.

In a wider context Lord Tyre’s failure to have any regard for my right to restore my professional reputation and to claim reparation for the unjustified destruction of my employability by the defenders’ participation in a conspiracy that has been in operation since 18 August 1993 when I had acted properly as a financial expert and whistleblower to oppose financial irregularities in a public authority, is clearly not in the public interest nor is it in the interests of justice.

In the light of the available evidence Lord Tyre has effectively denied justice to me regardless of the law of Scotland on the issues by pretending, without giving valid reasons to enable the public to understand the rationale for his conduct, that prima facie the proposed action is vexatious and that there is no ground for it.

My proposed writ contained 15 pages of averments and there were over 70 pages of supporting evidence. These were placed before Lord Tyre on 2 November 2016, the same day that Lord Tyre made his decision.

In the light of the very serious misrepresentations by Lord Tyre of the proposed writ that are detailed above a reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that Lord Tyre did not take my proposed action seriously enough to peruse the documents adequately.

Certainly Lord Tyre’s obviously defective understanding of the issues as expressed in his unjustified and disproportionate criticisms of the proposed writ reveal his conduct in this matter to have fallen far short of applicable professional standards.   

Lord Tyre appears to regard himself as above the law, impervious to ethical principles and answerable to nobody.

Such blatant injustice will be a matter of very grave concern to the general public who naturally expect the authorities to support finance workers who try to maintain integrity in public finance.

Consequently I have published this letter in my blog on Scottish Justice which has attracted over 45,000 views to date.

Yours faithfully,

                                  Eddie Cairns.

No comments: