Saturday, 7 October 2017

FURTHER ATTEMPT BY THE CROWN OFFICE'S SENIOR LEGAL MANAGER MS JANE BENSON TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN THE SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

Springburn

GLASGOW G21 4HP

6 October 2017

 

Ms Jane Benson

Senior Legal Manager

Response and Information Unit

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

25 Chambers Street

 

EDINBURGH EH1 1LA

 

Your ref: R012035/R013830/R011782/R012542

 

Dear Ms Benson,

I refer to your letter dated 4 October 2017.

The COPFS sent me an email on 6 April 2017 with an attachment that was 98 pages long. I did not object to that because that is what was required to communicate the information. Similarly, one of my attachments was about the same size because that is what was required to communicate the information.

Your allegations that I am being demanding and unduly persistent mainly on the basis of the size of an attachment that was only about the size of an attachment the COPFS had already sent to me are hypocritical and unjustified in the circumstances.

Your further accusations that my correspondence amounts to continued repeat

complaints, repeat questioning and requests for information, and repeat

comments or concerns, having no regard to information and explanations

previously provided by RIU are again falseand can reasonably be described as unsupported nonsense.

 

For example, in your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 you included the following unlawful point, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

In respect of point 3(e) of your correspondence, I do not consider that COPFS records of any investigation of COPFS staff or subsequent disciplinary action in relation to their actions in relation to, or treatment of you, constitutes your personal data, but would be the personal data of another person.

 

In fact the Information Commissioner had already notified the COPFS on 4 December 2009, as recorded in the 98 page attachment to me from the COPFS, that such information would indeed form my personal data.

 

In my letter to the COPFS dated 8 April 2017 I specifically referred to that important fact along with other information that is likely to form my personal data in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which you have culpably disregarded:

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

The disclosures provided with your letter to me dated 6 April 2017 along with the disclosures provided on 3 March 2017 do not constitute the disclosures to which I am entitled.

The omissions are listed below:

................

 

3.     Specific information notified to the COPFS by the Information Commissioner in December 2009 as likely to form my personal data, including:

(a)     all records of correspondence, documents, evidence, or other items sent to, or by me, irrespective of the sender (including external bodies)

(b)     any internal or external communications (including email) about me including:

     (i)     any speculation or expressions of opinion regarding my reasoning or motivation behind my complaints and requests for clarification.

     (ii)     any advice (including legal advice), comments, or reports on COPFS’s duties to respond to, or otherwise how to handle, my correspondence, requests for clarification, complaints, and information request(s).

     (iii)     any other expressions of opinion about me.

(c)     any information recording contact COPFS staff have had with me.

(d)     my witness statements and any other information provided by me, or records of evidence provided by me, in relation to ‘the fraud case’.

(e)     the records of any investigation into COPFS staff, or subsequent disciplinary action, in relation to their actions in relation to, or treatment of, me.

(f)     any comments about me and my complaints expressed by persons accused by me.

 

Your accusations that I have made speculative accusations about members of staff and about the concealing of evidence by members of COPFS staff are also false.

In fact my accusations are soundly based upon important new evidence of alleged criminality that you have culpably disregarded.

 

For the sake of brevity I will list here only a few of the grave accusations in question with references to the supporting new evidence:

 

 

(1)     I alleged that on 8 April 2005 Ms Catherine Dyer falsely stated that I was the only witness and that there was no corroboration of any of my allegations.

 

The documents disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 and by the COPFS on 6 April 2017 confirm Ms Dyer’s statements to have been false.

 

I wrote to you in respect of this matter on 20 April 2017 including the following:

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SECTION 10 NOTICE

Thank you for your letter dated 18 April 2017.

 

My letter dated 30 March 2017 included the following important statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

In the light of the new evidence arising during 2016 in this case the COPFS’s letter to me dated 8 April 2005 is shown not to be in accordance with the evidence now available.

 

In particular, the following statements in that letter are inaccurate:

 

1.     ‘In this particular case the only witness alleging that criminal conduct took place by either the police officers or any personnel of Ayrshire Enterprise (sic) or the organisations that reviewed  Ayrshire Enterprise’s (sic) intromissions with these funds is a single source, namely yourself.’ 

 

2.     ‘There is no ‘’corroboration‘’ of any of your allegations and accordingly there is an insufficiency in law to allow any proceedings on criminal charges.’

 

Consequently I request a prompt and impartial review of this case by persons not previously involved.

 

.....  I want the inaccurate and damaging information about me to be corrected.

You have 21 days to respond to this Notice.

The last sentence ends the extracts.

Clearly, your letter fails to address these points.

Firstly, in the circumstances I am entitled to be informed about whether or not you have previously been involved in this case.

......... The following statement in your letter, reproduced here in italics for convenience, is therefore based upon a falsehood:

Accordingly, I do not consider that there is any information to correct.

The information about me that I want you to correct was plainly identified in my letter dated 30 March 2017 as detailed above. These were the statements contained in the COPFS letter to me dated 8 April 2005. You have completely disregarded my objection to that information which inaccurately stated that I was the only witness and that there was no corroboration of any of my allegations.

In the Notice I identified new evidence arising in 2016 as relevant. I have already provided copies of that evidence to the COPFS along with explanatory information. These are attached again. 

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 I am legally entitled to have the specific alleged inaccuracies about me properly addressed and assessed in the light of the available evidence.

Unless you respond adequately today you will have exceeded the time allowed by law for a substantive response to the DPA Section 10 Notice dated 30 March 2017.

That ends the extracts from my letter to the COPFS dated 30 March 2017.

 

Regardless of these significant points brought to your personal attention you persisted in acting unlawfully towards me by refusing to admit and correct the falsehoods issued by Ms Dyer. 

 

 

(2)     I alleged that the COPFS elicited no report from the police in respect of the original purported investigation in 1993 but instead acted in concert with the police and Scottish Enterprise to conceal material evidence and pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

On 6 April 2017 the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service provided disclosures to me on this case under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Under a section headed Copies of letters to/from the police and enforcement agencies the following item is listed:

 

20 August 1993             Enterprise Ayrshire Special Investigation: ERDF Receipt

 

This new evidence proves that the original report provided by the police to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was the report dated 20 August 1993 which was in fact produced by Scottish Enterprise, not by the police.

 

The item quoted above is material since as you know the police have asserted that they produced the report that was submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 1993 which is shown to be false in the light of this new evidence.

 

 

(3)     I alleged that senior police officer Mr Ruaraidh Nicolson falsely pretended that the police had conducted a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993.

 

Disclosures from the COPFS on 6 April 2017 confirm that on 23 September 2008 the COPFS had received a letter from me ‘outlining allegation of criminal conduct by Supt. Nicholson (sic) of Strathclyde Police.’

 

The disclosures contain no record of any response by the COPFSand no indication that any investigation into that very serious allegation was carried out.

 

And again the new evidence proves that the original report provided by the police to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was the report dated 20 August 1993 which was in fact produced by Scottish Enterprise, not by the police, and that Mr Nicolson’s pretence that the police had conducted a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993 was indeed false.

 

 

(4)     I alleged that the police were given false information by Scottish Enterprise in August 1993 and again in April 2016 including a copy of the manifestly defective Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 along with copies of several significant items of documentary evidence that had been concealed from that report.

 

The disclosures to me from Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 and from the COPFS on 6 April 2017 support those allegations and constitute important new evidence that has never been properly assessed.

 

 

(5)     I alleged that new evidence that I submitted to the police in January 2016 included a copy of a crucial bank statement dated 24 August 1993 in the name of an employee of Enterprise Ayrshire personally which contained a deposit of £187,000 while this public money was missing from the company’s balance sheet and that the police had brushed aside the significant financial irregularities exposed by this document and related documents.

 

How will you explain to the general public, as will be required in due course,the fact that the £187,000 that was missing from the company’s balance sheet for exactly the time I alleged was found to have been deposited into a bank account in the name of an employee and to have been credited with £919 interest on the misappropriated taxpayers’ cash while it was missing from the company financial accounts and bank account?

 

Even the seriously defective in other respects Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993, copied to the police by Scottish Enterprise on 15 April 2016 and to me by Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016, confirmed these important points.

 

 

 

(6)     I alleged that the COPFS unfairly and unjustifiably treated me as a persistent complainer in order to disregard several important requests for clarifications I had submitted to the COPFS while simultaneously recording that I had in fact submitted no letter of complaint at that time.

 

The disclosures from the COPFS on 6 April 2017 included the following:

20 November 2008

I understand  (redacted)  e-mailed you yesterday to explain that Mr Cairns is a persistent complainer. We have no letter of complaint as such just numerous letters in general from Mr Cairns. This was reported to CO (copy report attached) and an instruction was received saying that we were no longer to correspond with Mr Cairns.

How can I be regarded as a persistent complainer at that time when it is recorded that I had actually submitted no letter of complaint?

There was no reasonable basis for treating me as a persistent complainer and disregarding my correspondence.

 

(7)     I alleged that the COPFS received several very serious letters from me requesting clarifications but no clarification was provided, contrary to the COPFS published policy.

 

In the disclosures provided by the COPFS on 6 April 2017 it is recorded that the COPFS received 25 letters from me between 5 July 2008 and 16 August 2008. These were very important letters requesting clarifications and explanations in the case of alleged fraud in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise and the alleged operation of a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving senior police officers, senior employees of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise, and senior employees of the COPFS.

 

The only response was a letter from the Area Procurator Fiscal for Glasgow, Ms Lesley Thomson, dated 10 October 2008, intimating that the case was now closed and that no further correspondence would be entered into.

 

No clarifications or explanations were provided at all.

 

 

(8)     I alleged that since I had raised concerns about COPFS staff colluding with Scottish Enterprise employees and police officers to pervert the course of justice by concealing material evidence in this case no employee of the COPFS would appear to be sufficiently independent and impartial to assess my allegations.

 

The COPFS’s contrary stated view is unlawful being incompatible with the requirements of 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.’

Since I made very serious allegations against COPFS staff there is a real possibility of bias by submitting my allegations to COPFS employees for consideration.

 

It has been established that declining to handle a case would be required where a wellinformedand fair-minded observer would consider that there wasa 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.

 

The legal requirements to ensure fairness, independence and impartiality were all disregarded by the COPFS in my case.

 

 

(9)     I alleged that COPFS employees destroyed important evidence in this case regardless of the fact that I had obtained important new evidence in support of my position after the last police assessment concluded on 31 May 2016.

 

The documents disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 and by the COPFS on 6 April 2017 contain significant new evidence in support of my position as detailed in my recent correspondence that ought to be submitted to independent Crown Counsel or alternatively to an English prosecution service for consideration.

 

 

(10)     I alleged that COPFS employees destroyed important evidence regardless of the fact that I had notified the COPFS that there are ongoing investigations by the Scottish Police Authority into this case.

 

No such evidence ought to have been destroyed in those circumstances.

 

 

(11)     I alleged that COPFS employees have acted dishonestly and with criminal intent.

 

It is clearly dishonest to pretend that the Scottish Enterprise fraud case has ever been properly investigated in the light of the evidence known to have been available at the time of the original investigation, which was outrageously carried out by the suspects instead of by the police with COPFS’s blessing, and in the light of the increasing amount of evidence in support of my allegations available at every time any review was supposedly carried out, none of which reviews in reality ever came close to resembling an effective investigation. Every COPFS performance has been deliberately ineffective and dishonest, a criminal matter.

Intending to destroy evidence relevant to ongoing SPA investigations in which there are allegations of misconduct by several COPFS employees in collusion with Scottish Enterprise and the police, indicates criminal intent by COPFS employees, being beyond reasonable doubt designed to cover up the alleged criminal conspiracy and obstruct justice.

Intending to destroy evidence in the light of important new evidence arising in 2016 and 2017 yet to be properly investigated and assessed further indicates criminal intent by COPFS employees, being beyond reasonable doubt designed to cover up the alleged criminal conspiracy and obstruct justice.

When the public hear the COPFS’s mantra that there was insufficient evidence although you actually had a bank statement in the name of one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey, containing the £187,000 that was missing from the company balance sheet and when the public further hear about the interest of £919 additionally credited to Mr Tracey’s personal account as a result of the fraud they will rightly be astonished and very concerned indeed about the egregious failures and criminal conduct of COPFS employees.

Did Mr Tracey tell the investigators that the money was, like in the case of Father Ted, just resting in his account before he moved it on? Oh I forgot, Mr Tracey would not have had to explain why he was caught red-handed with this substantial amount of taxpayers’ cash because according to the 1993 report nobody was interviewed at all, not even the person who was found to have the missing money.

 

How many other public officials have helped themselves to public funds and gained interest with impunity despite the matter being reported to the COPFS? And how many other honest finance workers have had their careers wrecked by the deliberate ineptitude, downright dishonesty and criminal intent of COPFS employees?

 

According to disclosures from Scottish Enterprise their Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, Mr Iain Scott, was interviewed by the police in 2016 in the context of another review. What was his explanation for the cash found to be in an employee’s personal bank account, earning interest for him while the cash was missing from the company’s balance sheet? That remains a mystery because the COPFS already notified me that no police report was submitted to them following that purported review. What a surprise. 

 

Senior individuals involved in the Hillsborough case are now deservedly facing very serious consequences for indulging in such deliberate ineptitude, dishonesty and criminal intent over decades, having misrepresented the evidence and repeatedly lied about that case just as you and your colleagues have done in the Scottish Enterprise case. 

 

 

(12)     I alleged that the police were not sufficiently independent and impartial to decide upon the sufficiency of evidence in support of my allegations against DCI Kenneth Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart in the circumstances of my existing allegations of misconduct against their colleagues, including their superior officers CC Gormley, ACC Nicolson and DCC Livingstone.

 

 

The COPFS notified me that:

 

It may assist if I explain what happened in relation to your complaint against the police. Your allegation that officers of Police Scotland in carrying out a review of evidence in relation to a fraud allegation concealed material evidence to avoid carrying out proper investigation into alleged criminality acted corruptly and attempted to pervert the course of justice was referred by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) to CAAPD as it involved an allegation of criminal conduct. As you may be aware, PIRC cannot investigate allegations of criminality and will refer such matters to CAAPD.

CAAPD asked the Professional Standards department of Police Scotland to investigate and report. They did so. On the basis of that report there was insufficient evidence to show the commission of any criminal offence by any police officer. CAAPD wrote to PIRC to advise them of this in January 2017. You have asked why no statement was taken from you and why the case was not referred to Crown Counsel. In the leaflet titled Guide for complaints against the police which I enclose it is clear that it is for COPFS to consider the evidence and decide what action to take. It is also for the CAAPD to decide whether or not a case requires to be reported to Crown Counsel. They had the information from you as provided by the PIRC. As there was insufficient evidence of the commission of a criminal offence, the case did not require to be reported to Crown Counsel.

 

 

The following extract from the guide for complaints about the police has relevance:

 

‘What happens if a case is

reported to the COPFS?’

 

‘Crown Counsel will consider the case and will decide whether

to prosecute. The Criminal Allegations Against the Police

Division of COPFS will let you know what Crown Counsel decide.’

 

The PIRC did refer this case to the COPFS. Why then was this case not considered by Crown Counsel in accordance with the published guide?

 

And why did the CAAPD ask the Professional Standards department of Police Scotland to investigate and report on this matter knowing that I had already submitted separate complaints against senior officers in relation to this case, namely CC Gormley, DCC Livingstone and ACC Nicolson?

 

Clearly, in those circumstances the Professional Standards department, under the control of those officers, cannot be regarded as sufficiently independent and impartial to make such decisions. The resulting appearance of bias renders decisions taken in this case unlawful according to the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, as already detailed above.

 

 

Your reliance upon a vexatious actions order to interfere with my complaints is not valid. That order only restricts my access to court, not to any complaints process.

In any event you already know that the Legal Services Ombudsman concurred with the Faculty of Advocates in their opinion that I have grounds for a complaint about the misconduct of the Lord Advocate in obtaining that order by misdirecting the police and interfering with live civil actions.

 

Your accusations that my contact is imposing a significant burden on COPFS, not having a serious purpose or value, having the effect of harassment, and would in the opinion of a reasonable person be considered to be manifestly unreasonable and disproportionateare absolutely false and disgraceful in the light of the important new evidence arising after the date of the last police assessment.

 

The persistent unreasonableness and unlawful conduct of the COPFS towards me are recorded in the 98 page COPFS attachment referred to above. It is recorded that the Information Commissioner considered the COPFS to have contravened the Data Protection Act 1998 in my case. Several communications from the Information Commissioner were required in order to get the COPFS to act lawfully towards me, including threats of issuing an Information Notice compelling the COPFS to comply and of the case being considered for formal regulatory action.

 

You falsely state that my complaint has been fully dealt with in terms of the COPFS Comments andComplaints Policy.

 

In fact I have recently submitted to the COPFS complaints against four individuals. Therefore there are four complaints to be processed, not just one.

 

In fact none of my complaints has been fully dealt with in terms of the COPFS Comments andComplaints Policy.

 

It is particularly unlawful for you to make a decision about my case since in addition to my existing concerns about my correspondence being handled by colleagues of those against whom I had submitted allegations of misconduct and criminal intent, separately I had already submitted a formal complaint about you to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Clearly, you do not appear to be sufficiently independent and impartial in those circumstances.

 

I will of course be appealing against your decision which amounts to further outrageous and unlawful misconducttowards me, not least the repeated failures to respect my right to fairness under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, the continuing mishandling of my complaints and the blatant disregard for my serious concerns about alleged criminality by COPFS employees in collusion with Scottish Enterprise and the police.

 

Yours sincerely,

                                 Eddie Cairns

Tuesday, 3 October 2017

CROWN OFFICE'S MR ANTHONY MCGEECHAN'S DISHONESTY IN RELATION TO SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


To    Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service



1 Oct at 11:58 AM


Dear Sir or Madam,

I am concerned about the dishonesty of Mr McGeechan.

In his letter to me dated 27 September 2017 he made dishonest statements in the following respects:

 

1.     He falsely stated that there is no basis for concluding that my complaint cannot properly be dealt with by a COPFS employee.

 

2.     He falsely stated that the COPFS did not hold evidence of the fraud alleged by me.

 

3.     He falsely stated that COPFS did not hold and has not destroyed any evidence of any alleged criminal offence.

 

4.     He falsely stated that there is no basis for my allegation that Ms Wallace or Ms Benson requested the destruction of evidential material.

 

5.     He falsely stated that there is no basis for my allegation of criminal conduct by COPFS staff.

 

6.     He falsely indicated that there was no reason to refer my allegations to Crown Counsel.

 

7.     He falsely stated that the police had conducted a review and assessment of the information I had provided. In fact the police letter dated 31 May 2016 was written before much of the new evidence had arisen. In any event the police letter itself reveals that the purported review and assessment concluded as at 31 May 2016 was defective in several respects.

 

8.     He falsely stated that there is no information in my correspondence which supports allegations of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by Police Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and COPFS.

 

9. He falsely stated that my allegations of fraud had been repeatedly investigated over a period of 24 years.

 

10.     He falsely stated that substantive reviews of the available evidence have taken place in 1993, 2004, 2008 and 2016.

 

11.     He falsely stated that there is not any evidence that my allegations have not been given repeat, careful consideration.

 

12.     He falsely stated that there is no basis for COPFS to reconsider the matter or take further action.

 

13.     He falsely indicated that it is for COPFS to consider the evidence and decide what action to take whereas he knows that it would be unfair for COPFS to do so in a case including allegations of criminality against themselves.

 

14.     He falsely stated that the complaint against the police is over whereas in fact the same allegations are currently being investigated by the Scottish Police Authority because senior officers are alleged to have been involved.

 

15.     He falsely stated that my complaints against COPFS staff have all been dealt with whereas the complaints process has not been carried out in accordance with published procedures.     

 

 

Yours faithfully,

Eddie Cairns  

CROWN OFFICE'S MR ANTHONY MCGEECHAN'S MISCONDUCT IN RELATION TO SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

30 September 2017                 

 

Mr Anthony McGeechan

Head of Policy and Engagement

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

Your ref:    R013356

 

Dear Mr McGeechan,

I refer to your overtly biased and inaccurate letter dated 27 September 2017.

Extracts from your letter are reproduced below, numbered and in bold italics for convenience, with my comments following in normal type:

 

 

1.     I am not satisfied that there is any basis for concluding that your complaint cannot properly be dealt with by a COPFS employee.

 

Your view is unlawful being incompatible with the requirements of 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.’

Since I made very serious allegations against your colleagues in the COPFS there is a real possibility of bias by your involvement.

 

It has been established that declining to handle a case would be required 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.

 

The legal requirements to ensure fairness, independence and impartiality were all disregarded by you.

 

 

2.     COPFS has properly destroyed correspondence and case papers in relation to the matters raised by you as part of normal business processes.

 

My letter to Ms Gertie Wallace dated 12 August 2017 already addressed this point in the following terms:

 

‘No business need? Such mealy mouthed drivel would tend to induce nausea. What about all the new evidence arising in 2016 and 2017 that I submitted to the COPFS in further support of my allegations? Have the COPFS totally lost the place? Is it no longer any business of the COPFS to ensure that significant new evidence supporting allegations of financial irregularities in a public agency and of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving Scottish Enterprise, the police and COPFS employees are properly investigated by an independent and impartial tribunal and appropriate action taken in the public interest?’ 

 

‘In the circumstances such an approach, that there was apparently ‘no business need’ is criminally negligent, warped and despicable.’

 

‘Of course the real reason for destroying the records held was to cover up persistent neglect of duty, misconduct and criminality by the police and COPFS employees who have repeatedly produced worthless fabrications devoid of any relation to the truth and deliberately excluded material evidence from consideration.’

 

 

3.     COPFS did not hold and has not destroyed any evidence of any alleged criminal offence. There is therefore no basis for your allegation that Ms Wallace or Ms Benson requested the destruction of evidential material.

 

COPFS did indeed hold and subsequently destroy communications from Scottish Enterprise to Police Scotland that were disclosed to me on 7 July 2016 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 and which did indeed contain evidence of the concealment of material evidence in this case.

 

As my correspondence proves, Police Scotland advised me to present the evidence in question directly to the COPFS and I did so again on 20 April 2017 although I had already submitted it to the COPFS on 13 July 2016 in a letter including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Scottish Enterprise

 

Thank you for your letter dated 5 July 2016.

 

Police Scotland notified me on 23 June 2016 that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

Since then I have received disclosures from Scottish Enterprise under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which make reference to DC Stewart of Police Scotland and which contain new evidence relating to several matters of serious concern that I would bring to the attention of Police Scotland but for the notification to me on 23 June 2016 that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

I have written to the Scottish Police Authority to complain about the failure of the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland to respond to these matters of serious concern.

 

Copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise, which provide new evidence in this case, and a copy of my letter to the SPA detailing the matters of serious concern arising from that new evidence are attached.

 

I have been advised that these matters may be brought to the attention of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service directly.

 

In summary, Scottish Enterprise provided significant disclosures to me on 7 July 2016 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to the review of this case carried out by Police Scotland during January to May 2016.

I wrote to the COPFS on 13 July 2016 attaching copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise and my letter to the Scottish Police Authority on 8 July 2016 detailing matters of serious concern arising from that new evidence.

My letter to the Scottish Police Authority dated police dated 8 July 2016 is reproduced below in its entirety because of its importance:

 

 

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

8 July 2016                 

 

 

Scottish Police Authority

1 Pacific Quay

GLASGOW G51 1DZ

 

Scottish Police Authority Complaints Reference Number SPA0682

                    

Dear Sir or Madam,

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN POLICE SCOTLAND

I have received disclosures from Scottish Enterprise under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which make reference to DC Stewart of Police Scotland.

The disclosures contain several matters of serious concern that I would bring to the attention of Police Scotland but for the notification to me on 23 June 2016 that I will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

Consequently, I want to add the failure of the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland to respond to these matters of serious concern, which are detailed below, to my formal complaint against that senior officer.

If you think the officer ought to be given an opportunity to change his or her mind on the matter please notify me. As things stand, however, I believe that it is reasonable for me to proceed in accordance with the existing stated position by the Police that I will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

Copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise are attached.

The following matters of serious concern arise and require to be addressed in the public interest and in the interests of justice:

 

1.          Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘Hi DC Stewart,’

‘As discussed, here is a scan of the court papers from 2004. I have scanned them as 2 separate documents with the first being Productions 4 to 10 (where production 9 is the bank confirmation of the funds being transferred to a ‘’Customer Bid Deposit Account’’ for just over a month.’

‘Kind regards’

‘Iain.’

 

Of course the chumminess reflected in this correspondence is entirely inappropriate in the context of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in a public authority.

The document referred to here as production 9 is the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmation of a £187,000 deposit to account 00151450 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey dated 1 July 1993.

Significantly, Mr Scott culpably omits to mention that the funds in question, £187,000 of public money, were deliberately excluded from the company’s balance sheet for the entire period of its transfer into an account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

If the £187,000 held in the name of Mr Tracey had really been in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, as suggested in Mr Scott’s letter, it would have been included in the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. 

 

But the Scottish Enterprise report and the extract from my bank reconciliation as at 2 July 1993, which are both included in Mr Scott’s scanned documents sent to DC Stewart, confirm that £187,069 was missing from the company’s balance sheet at 2 July 1993.    

 

Where was this money at 2 July 1993 and for several weeks thereafter? It was in the hands of Mr Tracey.

 

This deposit was MATURING at 2 AUG 1993, which was one calendar month and one day after the date of the initial deposit. 

 

According to the terms of the account this money was actually committed in the name of Mr Tracey until 4 September 1993 because the money was deposited again into the same account on 3 August 1993 which means that it did not mature until 4 September 1993. But the ERDF receipt was to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise during the July 1993 accounting period according to the operating contract. The accounts would normally be finalised around the middle of the following month, in this case around the middle of August 1993.

 

This evidence alone proves that the financial irregularities were fraudulent. Excluding the cash from the accounts was the deception that brought about the practical result of making the cash available to be taken control of without the owners’ consent, in other words without the general public’s consent as laid down in the laws applicable to this public authority, and thereby gaining interest that otherwise would not be gained, at the expense of UK taxpayers.

 

Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Gary Tracey took control of this public money beyond what was lawful. Taxpayers’ cash was indeed effectively stolen thereby.  

 

The money was in the hands of Mr Gary Tracey for the whole time it was deliberately omitted from the company accounts as instructed by Mr Tracey.

 

In the context of a police review Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in respect of these points in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

 

2.          Mr Iain Scott wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘The second document is Production 11, which is the ‘’Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire’’. You will see that page 14 of this document is the same bank statement that he has recently sent to you.’           

 

Firstly, I did not present this document to Scottish Enterprise or to the police in this civil action, which was an action for defamation against a private individual.

 

Mr Scott’s assertion that this evidence was contained in the productions in a case against a private individual is entirely irrelevant and disingenuous in the context of this review.

 

Neither the police nor Scottish Enterprise had any valid involvement in this case. 

 

However, the fact that Scottish Enterprise holds such documentation indicates that Scottish Enterprise, a public authority, was indeed improperly, unfairly and unlawfully involved in assisting my opponent in a civil action which had nothing to do with Scottish Enterprise or the police.

 

Scottish Enterprise was neither the pursuer nor the defender in this case. Why does Scottish Enterprise hold these details about me and why has Scottish Enterprise disclosed such details about me to the police? I believe this is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and another indication that Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

Mr Scott’s scanned documents on this case in his communication with DC Stewart clearly identify it as the case of Edward Edelsten Cairns v Andrew Downie.

The inclusion of this single page in the productions was in any event incidental. It happened to be included in the 36 page Scottish Enterprise report but there was no reference at all to this page in the case record.

Since the police informed me that their copy of this report was destroyed around the year 2000 this document would not have been available to the police for about the last 16 years.

In any event the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland rejected my provision of a copy of this report for consideration in its review of the Police’s handling of my complaints, as recorded in the PCCS report on this case dated August 2010.

As for any recorded consideration of this document by the police, none exists.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that this bank account was in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire and made no mention of the fact that it was plainly shown to be in the name of GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE.

 

‘C/O’ means ‘at the address of’.

 

Therefore this bank account, according to documentary evidence, was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.

 

Further, including the words ‘‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO GARY TRACEYTO ANDREW DOWNIE  NO-ONE ELSE’ on the face of this bank statement was clearly abnormal and gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of financial irregularity but the Scottish Enterprise report completely overlooked this.

 

 

3.          Mr Scott’s inclusions of the Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire and other productions in the scanned documents he sent to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, which report Scottish Enterprise knows was in fact produced by one of their accountants Ms Mandy Dickson and not by the police at all, give rise to some important considerations:

 

     (a)     The police informed me that their copy of this report had been destroyed several years ago, around the year 2000.

 

Its provision to Police Scotland by Scottish Enterprise now permits perusal of its contents in the light of the available evidence.        

 

     (b)     The first matter of concern is the amount of evidence concealed by Scottish Enterprise and the police, including in the recent review, as already detailed above and further detailed below.         

 

     (c)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.

 

The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

     (d)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my email to Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which 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.’  

 

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.

 

    (e)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the extract from the 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 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 my 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

 

(f)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the SE report which concluded the following, 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 justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.

 

In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of a press release in the following terms, 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.’

 

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

 

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

Mr Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart. Clearly, Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day, a very grave matter.

 

 

4.          Separately, there were several other new items of evidence submitted recently to Police Scotland which have either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by Scottish Enterprise, or by the police or by the Crown Office.

 

These appear to have been completely disregarded, which indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the police have colluded with Scottish Enterprise in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

Yours faithfully,

                               Eddie Cairns.

 

 

COPFS did indeed hold and subsequently destroy the disclosures to me provided on 6 April 2017 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which did indeed contain evidence of the concealment of material evidence in this case.

 

My letters to the police dated 8 July 2017 and 10 July 2017 detailed that evidence and they are reproduced below in their entirety because of their importance:

 

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

8 July 2017

 

Mr Alan Speirs

Chief Superintendent

Professional Standards Department

Police Scotland

 

CO/00008/10

CO00318/10

MI/00476/16

 

Dear Mr Speirs,

 

NEW EVIDENCE

 

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

 

 

On 6 April 2017 the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service provided disclosures to me on this case under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Under a section headed Copies of letters to/from the police and enforcement agencies the following item is listed:

 

20 August 1993             Enterprise Ayrshire Special Investigation: ERDF Receipt

 

This proves that the report provided by the police to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was the report dated 20 August 1993 which was in fact produced by Scottish Enterprise, not by the police.

 

A scanned copy of the disclosures containing this new evidence is attached. The item quoted above is material since as you know the police have asserted that they produced the report that was submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 1993 which is shown to be false in the light of this new evidence.

 

The significance of the item quoted above is that the report by Mandy Dickson was defective in several respects, primarily in concealing material evidence and misstating facts.

 

The new evidence showing that the police provided Mandy Dickson’s report to the COPFS instead of a police report is corroborated by other evidence I already provided to the police on this point, namely the compliments slip attached to the front of the report dated 20 August 1993 stating ‘With the Compliments of the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police’ and signed ‘W.Watters D/S Fraud Squad’ whereas the author of the report was in fact Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise. 

 

I already provided significant points on several defects in this report in Section 7 of the background to my complaint to the Scottish Police Authority against ACC Nicolson in the following terms:

 

 

 

SECTION 7

The narrative in the Scottish Enterprise 1993 report is reproduced below and I have added some comments as footnotes:

 

SE FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT

 

TO               Tom Woodbridge

 

CC               John Langlands

                     Averil MacLachlan

 

DATE           20 August 1993

 

ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION ERDF RECEIPT

 

OBJECTIVE

Following an allegation by a member of EA’s temporary staff, Tom Woodbridge requested that I visit EA to investigate the facts behind the report. [1] The substance of the allegation was that ERDF money had been received by EA in June 1993 but had not been recorded in the accounting records [2].

 

WORK DONE

1)         I established when the ERDF income had been received by EA by reviewing the bank statements.

2)          I reviewed the relevant accounting records to establish when and if the income had been recorded.

3)          Following the processing of the journal entry to bring the income into the July accounts [3] , I reconciled the ledger balance for the bank account to the bank statement.

 

 

FINDINGS

1)      A payment of £187,069 was made directly into EA’s main bank account on the 25 June 1993. The funds were subsequently transferred, over a period of a week, through three separate bank accounts. These accounts were all in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire [4] and are high interest call accounts managed by the Royal Bank of Scotland on EA’s behalf.

2)        The receipt of the money was recorded in the cash book on the 25 June 1993. [5] The following note was next to this entry:-

‘(No journal required as per G. Tracey [6]) To go through July accounts.’

3)        The income was journalised into the July ledger on the 18th August 1993 [7], the date of my visit.

4)        A review of the bank reconciliation indicated that the bank statements had been reconciled only to the cash book[8]. As the entry had been made in the cash book for the ERDF income, no discrepancy arose. [9]Had the cash book balance been subsequently reconciled to the bank account in the financial ledger the difference would have been highlighted[10]. There was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out[11].

 

CONCLUSION

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 [12]

Mandy Dickson

Financial Monitoring Team

 

I therefore request an urgent review of this case.

Yours sincerely,

                                   Eddie Cairns.

 

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

10 July 2017

 

Mr Alan Speirs

Chief Superintendent

Professional Standards Department

Police Scotland

 

CO/00008/10

CO00318/10

MI/00476/16

 

Dear Mr Speirs,

 

ADDITIONAL NEW EVIDENCE

 

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

 

 

On 6 April 2017 the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service provided disclosures to me on this case under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Under a section headed Annex A the following items are listed:

 


 

 


 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

In this extract it is recorded that the COPFS received 25 letters from me between 5 July 2008 and 16 August 2008. These were very important letters requesting clarifications and explanations in the case of alleged fraud in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise and the alleged operation of a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving senior police officers, senior employees of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise, and senior employees of the COPFS.

 

The only response was a letter from the Area Procurator Fiscal for Glasgow, Ms Lesley Thomson, dated 10 October 2008, intimating that the case was now closed and that no further correspondence would be entered into.

 

No clarifications or explanations were provided at all.

 

It is also recorded in this extract that the COPFS received a letter from me dated 23 September 2008 outlining allegations of criminal conduct by Superintendent Nicholson (sic) of Strathclyde Police.

 

There was no response and no indication that any investigation into those very serious allegations was carried out.

 

Additional items of new evidence that were provided to me by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on 6 April 2017 are detailed below in italics for convenience with my comments added in normal type:

 

4 November 2008

 

Sorry but why is this needed after my last report and CO instruction to terminate correspondence etc. I did that and we wrote and said no more letters would be responded to. nothing else I can say and I won’t be reading these as déjà vu coming on..

Can you forward   (redacted)  our final letter to EC. 

Clearly the person who wrote this had no intention of even reading my concerns about this case, never mind responding to them properly, and expressed unacceptable disdain towards me.

Since I had never received responses to any of my letters the decision to terminate correspondence had no legally valid basis. 

  

20 November 2008

I understand  (redacted)  e-mailed you yesterday to explain that Mr Cairns is a persistent complainer. We have no letter of complaint as such just numerous letters in general from Mr Cairns. This was reported to CO (copy report attached) and an instruction was received saying that we were no longer to correspond with Mr Cairns.

How can I be regarded as a persistent complainer at that time when it is recorded that I had actually submitted no letter of complaint?

There was no reasonable basis for treating me as a persistent complainer and disregarding my correspondence.

 

2 November 2010

I thought it might be helpful to flag that after this letter to Eddie Cairns, if we receive any more correspondence from him, it is highly likely that we will not acknowledge or respond to it.

We would only have to deal with correspondence that raises new substantive issues that have not previously addressed.

This confirms that the substantive issues raised in my letters ought to have been addressed but Annex A shows that they were not addressed at all although they had contained allegations of grave failures by COPFS employees including the concealment of material evidence and the participation in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Annex A confirms that no substantive response was sent to me and no clarifications were provided. The correspondence was just abruptly terminated despite my very serious concerns being entirely unaddressed.

 

16 June 2011

To see attached – let me know if you wish me to acknowledge as I am not sure where we are with Mr Cairns!   

The position was plainly recorded in the correspondence but this person appears not to have examined the existing correspondence with sufficient care to comprehend it and respond appropriately.

The alleged confusion was not because of any unreasonable communications on my part, contrary to the impression conveyed in this inaccurate statement.

 

27 June 2011

This has a long history and he has complained about everyone a lot and ultimately the Ombudsman bounced him I think.  

(redacted)  would you mind if this went in your name after you’ve had a chance to consider? If in mine it would just fan flames I think.

The reason this has a long history is that employees in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service refused to address any of my serious concerns, not because of any unreasonable communications on my part, contrary to the impression conveyed in the disclosures.

In fact I had not complained about everyone a lot and the Ombudsman simply decided not to investigate. I was not ‘bounced’.

In addition, the person who wrote this is revealed to have acted deviously and evasively by asking someone else falsely to pretend to have written to me the letter in question. His or her admission that writing in his or her own name would just fan flames indicates that this person was obviously not sufficiently impartial to respond or that there was some other obvious reason for concealing the identity of the author. This is not the conduct of an honest person.  

Such disclosures undermine the credibility of any correspondence sent to me by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

 

27 June 2011

I wonder therefore if this correspondence (which is an attempt to go over the same ground by different means) could be better dealt with in someone else’s name? However, we struggle to find people who he hasn’t dealt with previously (and complained about). Could  (redacted) deal with it? 

In truth my correspondence was not going over the same ground. None of my concerns had been addressed at all.

In addition, this person is revealed to have acted deviously and evasively by asking someone else falsely to pretend to have dealt with my correspondence.

 

24 November 2011   

As you will see, I decided not to take forward his complaint. 

No reasons were given for this decision by the SPSO.

This statement confirms that the COPFS’s disclosure stating that I had been ‘bounced’ by the Ombudsman was an exaggeration, giving the false impression that my concerns were trivial.

 

16 November 2013

Do you happen to have any papers up there for Eddie Cairns? I found a wee bundle in our cupboard and it is felt that it would be better if these were all kept together. 

This is an indication that for years my case has not been taken seriously at all.

This disclosure reveals that my case has been generally ignored and mismanaged, regarded more as a joke than as a serious concern about an injustice perpetrated by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employees concealing material evidence and conspiring to pervert the course of justice in the case of alleged fraud and theft of some £187,000 of taxpayers’ cash in a public agency, Scottish Enterprise. 

 

18 November 2013

 

Yes according to the mail we have papers in a box downstairs in basement. I will go down at some point and send them to you. Makes sense for everything to be kept together.

 

This document further confirms that my case has been generally ignored and mismanaged. 

 

 

The disclosures provided on 6 April 2017 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 reveal that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have never handled this case properly. Instead, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employees appear to have regarded my efforts to obtain justice as merely futile and amusing. The disclosures reveal that paperwork about my case was found in ‘a wee bundle’ in a cupboard. I want such outrageous failures by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employees to be properly investigated by persons who are sufficiently independent, impartial and professional as a matter of urgency.    

  

The disclosures expose as false all statements by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service pretending that my correspondence has been properly handled and that the Scottish Enterprise fraud case has been adequately investigated.

There is not the faintest hint in all the disclosures that any of the very serious issues presented in my correspondence were addressed or even mentioned.

Available evidence now confirms beyond reasonable doubt that COPFS employees had decided to take no action in this case regardless of the available evidence, neglected to respond appropriately to my correspondence, falsely pretended that my correspondence had been properly handled, treated me as a persistent correspondent and a persistent complainer without reasonable justification, concealed and disregarded material evidence, failed to investigate the very serious allegations I had raised and conspired with senior police officers and senior Scottish Enterprise employees to pervert the course of justice.

On 22 May 2017 I wrote to Ms Jane Benson, Response and Information Unit, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, including the following extracts:

 

You state in your letter that by 26 May 2017 you will be destroying all documentation you hold which relates to me in the case involving Scottish Enterprise/Enterprise Ayrshire apart from the minute supposedly outlining the reason why no action was taken in the case.

Firstly, I object to that destruction on the grounds that I have already alleged misconduct by several COPFS employees in this case in collusion with Scottish Enterprise and the police, including the concealment of material evidence and the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice therefore your destruction of documents which contain relevant evidence may reasonably be regarded as designed to cover up that alleged misconduct and obstruct justice.

There are ongoing investigations into this case by the Scottish Police Authority involving allegations that police officers conspired with Scottish Enterprise employees and COPFS employees. The evidence you intend destroying should not be destroyed before those investigations are concluded.

The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner already reported on the Scottish Police Authority’s handling of my complaint against a senior police officer in this case that as insufficient enquiry was carried out and as the response was not adequately reasoned my complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard.

The allegations in that complaint included the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience, clearly including alleged misconduct by senior COPFS employees in respect of which the evidence you intend destroying has significant relevance:

 

SECTION 5

I obtained important evidence in February 2003 and passed it on to the police.

In July 2003 the police asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.                     

Consequently from a very early stage the police and the Crown Office had no intention of reviewing properly this evidence.  Instead they wanted to cover up the failures revealed in the evidence by having me legally disabled.

The following statement was contained in a copy of a letter sent from the police to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland dated 16 March 2009 which was disclosed to me in 2010 by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998:

‘In July 2003, the Force took out an Action against Mr Cairns to have him declared a Vexatious Litigant in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1878 (sic).’   

However, the police were supposedly reviewing this case until 2008.

The Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales concurred with the Faculty of Advocates’ Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a judge at the Court of Session, who advised me that I had grounds for a formal complaint about the conduct of the Lord Advocate in this case for interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police.

Those same allegations are included in the ongoing complaints against other senior police officers currently being investigated by the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner may assess those investigations in due course. Your destruction of material evidence in these circumstances indicates criminal intent on your part. 

On 28 July 2008 I wrote to the Lord Advocate, including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE AND SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

In order to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Finucane v United Kingdom, and in the light of the Legal Services Ombudsman’s Opinion dated 31 January 2007, clearly it is impossible for any police force in Scotland to be sufficiently independent from the Lord Advocate to conduct this investigation. As the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman declined to produce an opinion because of such a lack of sufficient independence, so also ought this investigation be taken from Strathclyde Police and arrangements made for it to be carried out by an English police force.

My letter to the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow of 9 July 2003 reminded your department of such requirements where allegations of collusion have been made. Why did you not ensure that the persons responsible for and carrying out this investigation were independent from those implicated in the events?

Along with your letter dated 18 May 2017 you provided another copy of the COPFS letter to me dated 8 April 2005 which gave the following reasons for taking no action in the case, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

In this particular case the only witness alleging that criminal conduct took place by either the police officers or any personnel of Ayrshire Enterprise (sic) or the organisations that reviewed  Ayrshire Enterprise’s (sic) intromissions with these funds is a single source, namely yourself. 

 

There is no ‘’corroboration‘’ of any of your allegations and accordingly there is an insufficiency in law to allow any proceedings on criminal charges.

 

These reasons were in fact both false when viewed in the light of the available evidence as explained below.

I already provided several objections to these falsehoods including in a letter to the COPFS dated 21 April 2017 which included the following:

‘I have received a letter dated 13 April 2017 from Chief Superintendent Alan Speirs, Professional Standards Department, Police Scotland, on behalf of DCC Livingstone, in which he advises me to raise with the COPFS concerns I brought to the attention of Police Scotland during April 2017.’

‘My letter to DCC Livingstone dated 4 April 2017 contained the following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

 

‘In the light of the new evidence arising during 2016 in this case the letter to me from Ms Catherine Dyer of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service dated 8 April 2005 is confirmed not to be in accordance with the evidence now available.’

 

‘In particular, the following statements in that letter, reproduced here in italics for convenience, are inaccurate:’

 

‘1.     In this particular case the only witness alleging that criminal conduct took place by either the police officers or any personnel of Ayrshire Enterprise (sic) or the organisations that reviewed  Ayrshire Enterprise’s (sic) intromissions with these funds is a single source, namely yourself.’ 

 

‘2.     There is no ‘’corroboration‘’ of any of your allegations and accordingly there is an insufficiency in law to allow any proceedings on criminal charges.’

 

‘On 15 April 2011 Ms Michelle Macleod, Head of Policy, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, wrote to me including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

 

‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’

 

‘Since I have alleged that the new evidence arising in 2016 confirms beyond reasonable doubt that employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service concealed material evidence and conspired to pervert the course of justice in this case, Ms Macleod’s assertion about my allegations not amounting to conduct of a criminal nature has no credibility, giving rise to an appearance of unfairness in the handling of this case by named individuals in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that may reasonably be suspected as attributable to their lack of the required independence and impartiality.’

 

‘To this day employees in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service appear to be deliberately refusing to submit my allegations to independent Crown Counsel not because my allegations did not amount to criminal conduct but rather in order to cover up misconduct by their colleagues.’

 

‘Copies of relevant documents disclosed by Scottish Enterprise in 2016 are attached.’

 

The last sentence ends the extracts from my letter to the COPFS dated 21 April 2017 and confirms that the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, in your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 is disingenuous and misleading:

There is no record of Police Scotland submitting further evidence to COPFS in July 2016 and accordingly COPFS do not hold the documents you refer to in part 2(d) of your letter.

As this correspondence proves, Police Scotland advised me to present the evidence in question directly to the COPFS and I did so again on 20 April 2017 although I had already submitted it to the COPFS on 13 July 2016 in a letter including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Scottish Enterprise

 

Thank you for your letter dated 5 July 2016.

 

Police Scotland notified me on 23 June 2016 that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

Since then I have received disclosures from Scottish Enterprise under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which make reference to DC Stewart of Police Scotland and which contain new evidence relating to several matters of serious concern that I would bring to the attention of Police Scotland but for the notification to me on 23 June 2016 that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

I have written to the Scottish Police Authority to complain about the failure of the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland to respond to these matters of serious concern.

 

Copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise, which provide new evidence in this case, and a copy of my letter to the SPA detailing the matters of serious concern arising from that new evidence are attached.

 

I have been advised that these matters may be brought to the attention of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service directly.

 

In summary, Scottish Enterprise provided significant disclosures to me on 7 July 2016 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to the review of this case carried out by Police Scotland during January to May 2016.

I wrote to the COPFS on 13 July 2016 attaching copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise and my letter to the Scottish Police Authority on 8 July 2016 detailing matters of serious concern arising from that new evidence.

Extracts from my letter to the Scottish Police Authority dated 8 July 2016 are reproduced below in italics for convenience:

The following matters of serious concern arise and require to be addressed in the public interest and in the interests of justice:

1.          Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘Hi DC Stewart,’

‘As discussed, here is a scan of the court papers from 2004. I have scanned them as 2 separate documents with the first being Productions 4 to 10 (where production 9 is the bank confirmation of the funds being transferred to a ‘’Customer Bid Deposit Account’’ for just over a month.’

‘Kind regards’

‘Iain.’

Of course the chumminess reflected in this correspondence is entirely inappropriate in the context of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in a public authority.

The document referred to here as production 9 is the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmation of a £187,000 deposit to account 00151450 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey dated 1 July 1993.

Significantly, Mr Scott culpably omits to mention that the funds in question, £187,000 of public money, were deliberately excluded from the company’s balance sheet for the entire period of its transfer into an account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

If the £187,000 held in the name of Mr Tracey had really been in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, as suggested in Mr Scott’s letter, it would have been included in the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. 

 

But the Scottish Enterprise report and the extract from my bank reconciliation as at 2 July 1993, which are both included in Mr Scott’s scanned documents sent to DC Stewart, confirm that £187,069 was missing from the company’s balance sheet at 2 July 1993.    

 

Where was this money at 2 July 1993 and for several weeks thereafter? It was in the hands of Mr Tracey.

 

This deposit was MATURING at 2 AUG 1993, which was one calendar month and one day after the date of the initial deposit. 

 

According to the terms of the account this money was actually committed in the name of Mr Tracey until 4 September 1993 because the money was deposited again into the same account on 3 August 1993 which means that it did not mature until 4 September 1993. But the ERDF receipt was to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise during the July 1993 accounting period according to the operating contract. The accounts would normally be finalised around the middle of the following month, in this case around the middle of August 1993.

 

This evidence alone proves that the financial irregularities were fraudulent. Excluding the cash from the accounts was the deception that brought about the practical result of making the cash available to be taken control of without the owners’ consent, in other words without the general public’s consent as laid down in the laws applicable to this public authority, and thereby gaining interest that otherwise would not be gained, at the expense of UK taxpayers.

 

Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Gary Tracey took control of this public money beyond what was lawful. Taxpayers’ cash was indeed effectively stolen thereby.  

 

The money was in the hands of Mr Gary Tracey for the whole time it was deliberately omitted from the company accounts as instructed by Mr Tracey.

 

In the context of a police review Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in respect of these points in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

2.          Mr Iain Scott wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘The second document is Production 11, which is the ‘’Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire’’. You will see that page 14 of this document is the same bank statement that he has recently sent to you.’

Firstly, I did not present this document to Scottish Enterprise or to the police in this civil action, which was an action for defamation against a private individual.

 

Mr Scott’s assertion that this evidence was contained in the productions in a case against a private individual is entirely irrelevant and disingenuous in the context of this review.

 

Neither the police nor Scottish Enterprise had any valid involvement in this case. 

 

However, the fact that Scottish Enterprise holds such documentation indicates that Scottish Enterprise, a public authority, was indeed improperly, unfairly and unlawfully involved in assisting my opponent in a civil action which had nothing to do with Scottish Enterprise or the police.

 

Scottish Enterprise was neither the pursuer nor the defender in this case. Why does Scottish Enterprise hold these details about me and why has Scottish Enterprise disclosed such details about me to the police? I believe this is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and another indication that Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

Mr Scott’s scanned documents on this case in his communication with DC Stewart clearly identify it as the case of Edward Edelsten Cairns v Andrew Downie.

The inclusion of this single page in the productions was in any event incidental. It happened to be included in the 36 page Scottish Enterprise report but there was no reference at all to this page in the case record.

Since the police informed me that their copy of this report was destroyed around the year 2000 this document would not have been available to the police for about the last 16 years.

In any event the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland rejected my provision of a copy of this report for consideration in its review of the Police’s handling of my complaints, as recorded in the PCCS report on this case dated August 2010.

As for any recorded consideration of this document by the police, none exists.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that this bank account was in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire and made no mention of the fact that it was plainly shown to be in the name of GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE.

 

‘C/O’ means ‘at the address of’.

 

Therefore this bank account, according to documentary evidence, was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.

 

Further, including the words ‘‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO GARY TRACEYTO ANDREW DOWNIE  NO-ONE ELSE’ on the face of this bank statement was clearly abnormal and gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of financial irregularity but the Scottish Enterprise report completely overlooked this.

 

 

3.          Mr Scott’s inclusions of the Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire and other productions in the scanned documents he sent to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, which report Scottish Enterprise knows was in fact produced by one of their accountants Ms Mandy Dickson and not by the police at all, give rise to some important considerations:

 

     (a)     The police informed me that their copy of this report had been destroyed several years ago, around the year 2000.

 

Its provision to Police Scotland by Scottish Enterprise now permits perusal of its contents in the light of the available evidence.

 

     (b)     The first matter of concern is the amount of evidence concealed by Scottish Enterprise and the police, including in the recent review, as already detailed above and further detailed below.

 

Since Scottish Enterprise investigated itself clearly there was a strong motive to conceal material evidence and that is indeed what happened as detailed herein.

 

There was an unacceptable lack of independence and impartiality that breached my civil right to fair treatment.

 

     (c)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.

 

The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

     (d)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my email to Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which 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.’  

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.

 

     (e)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the extract from the 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 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 my 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

 

     (f)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the SE report which concluded the following, 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 justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.

 

However, the report provided no plausible explanation for this irregularity.

 

Neither has Mr Scott provided a plausible explanation.

 

     (g)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of a press release in the following terms, 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.’

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

The fact that Mr Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day, a very grave matter.

 

     (h)     The report contained no witness statements whatsoever. This was beyond reasonable doubt an indication that the report writer concealed material evidence and Mr Scott has condoned this fundamental failure.

 

The last sentence ends the extracts from the pursuer’s letter to the Scottish Police Authority dated 8 July 2016 and copied to the COPFS on 13 July 2016.

 

The disclosures from Scottish Enterprise in July 2016 indicate that, contrary to the fake reasons provided by the COPFS for taking no action, there were several other witnesses, including documentary sources, to the financial irregularities alleged and there was substantial documentary evidence corroborating my allegations.

Other witnesses named in this documentary evidence include Mr Thomas Woodbridge, Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Ms Mandie Dickson, Mr John Langlands, Ms Averil MacLachlan, Mr William Watters, Mr Iain Scott and Ms Yuanne (sic) Stewart.

The disclosures included a copy of the original Scottish Enterprise report on its investigation into my allegations of financial irregularities in August 1993 and included copies of several significant documents that ought to have been addressed in that report but were not addressed, indicating that material evidence had been concealed.

The disclosures contain substantial evidence that the COPFS’s earlier assertions about me being the only witness and about there being no corroboration of any of my allegations are false.

 

The concealed items to which reference is made above are listed below along with explanatory notes:

 

 

     (a)     My reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.

 

The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

  

 

     (b)     My email to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which 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.

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.

 

 

     (c)     An extract from the Enterprise Ayrshire manual cash book showing the following words at the record of £187,069 cash received by electronic transfer directly into an Enterprise Ayrshire bank account on 25 June 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G.TRACEY

 

The report referred to a later version where the words ‘TO GO THROUGH JULY ACCOUNTS’ had been added after the pursuer put his objection into writing.

 

The report offered no explanation for this note, which corroborated my allegation of there having been an instruction 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 employees who carried out Mr Tracey’s fraudulent instructions to falsify the accounts

 

 

     (d)     The report contained no witness statements whatsoever. This was beyond reasonable doubt an indication that the report writer concealed material evidence.

 

 

The last sentence ends the list of excluded items.

 

 

The Scottish Enterprise report contained the following conclusion, 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 justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.

 

However, the report provided no plausible explanation for this financial irregularity.

 

The report had copies of several documents attached to it including a copy of a bank statement dated 24 August 1993 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

 

By 3 August 1993 the interest on the misappropriated Scottish Enterprise cash amounted to £919.31 which is shown in the disclosed document to have been paid into this account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey, confirming that on 3 August 1993 £187,919.31 of public money was at the disposal of Mr Tracey personally while it was completely excluded from the company’s balance sheet.

 

A press release from Scottish Enterprise was also attached to the report in the following terms, 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.

Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise

September 1, 1993

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities of almost two months’ duration, plainly the press release was false.

 

The assertions in the press release about there being no substance to any of the allegations and about there being no grounds for taking any action were incompatible with the evidence and with the report, which although defective in several respects at least confirmed that the £187,069 cash that had been received on 25 June 1993 had not been entered into the accounts until 18 August 1993, the day after I wrote my email objecting to having been incited to enter into a criminal conspiracy to falsify the accounts.

 

In your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 you refer to my complaint about the police dated 4 June 2016 but you culpably omit to mention that my letter contained the following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which clearly allege misconduct by COPFS employees in respect of which you intend destroying evidence:

The combination of public authorities involved in assisting my opponents in this civil action included the police, Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and the Crown Office, the same authorities that appear to have colluded with one another and concealed material evidence since 1993 in the case of the alleged fraud in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.

Strathclyde Police’s relatively recent assertions that all the documentary evidence submitted by me in recent years had been available to the police in 1993 indicates that the police did not handle that evidence properly because that evidence was not passed on to the Procurator Fiscal according to clarifications provided to me.

Clarifications obtained from the Procurator Fiscal in 2005 included an assertion that I was the only witness to the alleged financial irregularities in 1993.

Documentary evidence available to the police since 1993 according to the new evidence detailed above contains references to Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Ms Alison Norton.

Since the Procurator Fiscal has maintained since 2005 that I was the only witness to the financial irregularities in 1993 the police appear not to have passed on this evidence to the Procurator Fiscal. Alternatively, employees in the COPFS acted improperly by concealing relevant evidence.

I was given the following very important advice by the COPFS for the first time in a letter dated 15 April 2011:

‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’

My letters raised the very important new substantive issue that the COPFS appear to have dishonestly refused to handle my allegations against COPFS employees properly and that this has been perpetrated by COPFS employees falsely pretending that the criminal allegations submitted were not criminal allegations. The general public already know that the alleged actions listed in my letters do amount to allegations of criminality.

Your effective concurrence with the COPFS’s abject failure to address my genuine concerns indicates that you have effectively entered into the existing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in this case.

The COPFS’s angle that I was the only witness to the original financial irregularities, which was insufficient for a prosecution, remains an outstanding very significant falsehood.

I did not make any entry in the accounts in respect of the £187,069 of public money in question. I did not make any arrangements for the transfers of the cash, over a period of a week, through three separate bank accounts while the money was excluded from the balance sheet.

How was I the only witness? Were the financial manipulations as revealed in the available documentary evidence conjured up by Harry Potter? Or was it Paul Daniels?

What about the names on the documents recording the financial manipulations and my objections? The names that appear are Andrew Downie, Gary Tracey, Janie Maxwell and Alison Norton.

I also provided the name of Valery Spence, who had been instructed by Gary Tracey not to enter the cash into the accounts at the time of its receipt.

In truth the COPFS’s reason given for not proceeding has no basis in fact or in law. I was plainly not the only witness and the COPFS’s disgraceful persistence in this obvious lie should be properly investigated in the public interest and in the interests of justice.

The police have in reality wasted an enormous amount of public money in this case trying to suppress the truth and cover for the wrongdoers.

You seem to have completely failed to take appropriate action to have those allegations properly investigated, not least in respect of the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving senior managers in Scottish Enterprise, senior Strathclyde Police officers and senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Since the allegations, supported by documentary evidence, included several instances of senior Strathclyde Police officers conspiring to pervert the course of justice you ought to have arranged for another force to carry out a prompt, effective, independent and impartial investigation. Further, since very serious allegations had been made in respect of senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service the force that you should have approached to investigate that matter ought to have been from another jurisdiction.

 

In your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 you also refer to my complaint about the police dated 8 June 2016 but culpably fail to address any of the important information provided therein, indicating further concealment of material evidence by COPFS employees, now including you.

In your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 you make the following further assertions, reproduced here in italics for convenience, and I have added my comments in normal type:

I also note your concerns regarding the disclosures you have received. COPFS do not accept that the comments you have referred to indicate that your correspondence was not taken seriously or dealt with appropriately.

This response from you is clearly dishonest, evasive and inadequate in the light of documentary evidence available.

In the circumstances your decision to destroy documentation can reasonably be regarded as inappropriate in the circumstances, being an attempt to conceal further material evidence and pervert the course of justice, a criminal matter.

Consequently I have copied this letter to the Lord Advocate and the Justice Secretary.

I have already approached an MP who has requested and obtained a mandate to act on my behalf in this case.

Since these are plainly matters of very serious concern to the general public I have also published this letter on the internet in my Scottish Justice blog which has attracted about 50,000 views to date.

Separately, I intend submitting a formal complaint to your professional body about your dishonest conduct as detailed above.

Therefore I request the identification of your professional body.

 

The last sentence ends the extracts from my letter to Ms Jane Benson, COPFS, dated 22 May 2017.

 

There was no response.

 

 

I therefore request an urgent review of this case.

Copies of the disclosures from the COPFS on 6 April 2017, Ms Jane Benson’s letter to me dated 18 May 2017, my response dated 22 May 2017 and my letters to the COPFS that appear in Annex A and which were submitted to the SPA in support of my complaint against ACC Nicolson are attached.

 

Copies of my letters to the Crown Office which were submitted to the SPA in support of my complaint against ACC Nicolson are also attached.

 

The requests for clarifications and explanations contained in the list of my letters to the COPFS attached herewith were completely and deliberately disregarded. Why?

 

A reasonable suspicion of impropriety could arise in the mind of an independent observer that the reason for disregarding my correspondence, a perusal of which would confirm to have been very serious indeed, was in order to cover up the wrongdoing of all the persons involved in the original case and in every subsequent review.      

 

Yours sincerely,

                                   Eddie Cairns.

 

 

 

4.     I am therefore not upholding your complaints against them.

 

How surprising that you are not upholding my complaints of criminal conduct by your colleagues.

 

Your stated reasons do not accord with the facts therefore your decision is further invalidated.

 

 

 

5.     As there is no basis for your allegation of criminal conduct by COPFS staff these allegations will not be referred to Crown Counsel as you request in your letter dated 27 August 2017.

 

 

Your assertion that there is no basis for my allegation of criminal conduct by COPFS staff is absolutely false.

 

My letters and documentary evidence provided substantial information and proofs that material evidence had been concealed repeatedly by Scottish Enterprise, the police and COPFS employees in this case.

 

The COPFS letter to me dated 8 April 2005 gave the following reasons for taking no action in this case, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

In this particular case the only witness alleging that criminal conduct took place by either the police officers or any personnel of Ayrshire Enterprise (sic) or the organisations that reviewed  Ayrshire Enterprise’s (sic) intromissions with these funds is a single source, namely yourself. 

 

There is no ‘’corroboration‘’ of any of your allegations and accordingly there is an insufficiency in law to allow any proceedings on criminal charges.

 

These reasons were in fact both false when viewed in the light of the available evidence as explained in my correspondence and supported by documentary evidence that I provided.

How will you explain to the general public, as will be required in due course, the fact that the £187,000 that was missing from the company’s balance sheet for exactly the time I alleged was found to have been deposited into a bank account in the name of a Scottish Enterprise employee personally and to have been credited with £919 interest on the misappropriated taxpayers’ cash while it was missing from the company financial accounts and bank account? Even the seriously defective in other respects Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 confirmed these points.

 

Separately, the following extract from your guide for complaints about the police has relevance:

 

What happens if a case is

reported to the COPFS?

 

Crown Counsel will consider the case and will decide whether

to prosecute. The Criminal Allegations Against the Police

Division of COPFS will let you know what Crown Counsel decide.

 

The PIRC did refer this case to the COPFS. Why was this case not considered by Crown Counsel?

 

 

6.     I confirm that I have considered your complaints against Ms Benson and Ms Wallace in light of your assertion that there is new evidence in relation to your allegation of fraud, the information you have provided and your allegations of conspiracy and attempts to pervert the course of justice.

 

In fact you have not addressed the specific points submitted in my complaints.

 

For example, you have disregarded the following important points in my complaint against Ms Jane Benson:

 

The Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales concurred with the Faculty of Advocates’ Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a judge at the Court of Session, who advised me that I had grounds for a formal complaint about the conduct of the Lord Advocate in this case for interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police.

Those same allegations are included in the ongoing complaints against other senior police officers currently being investigated by the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner may assess those investigations in due course. Your destruction of material evidence in these circumstances indicates criminal intent on your part. 

On 28 July 2008 I wrote to the Lord Advocate, including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE AND SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

In order to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Finucane v United Kingdom, and in the light of the Legal Services Ombudsman’s Opinion dated 31 January 2007, clearly it is impossible for any police force in Scotland to be sufficiently independent from the Lord Advocate to conduct this investigation. As the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman declined to produce an opinion because of such a lack of sufficient independence, so also ought this investigation be taken from Strathclyde Police and arrangements made for it to be carried out by an English police force.

My letter to the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow of 9 July 2003 reminded your department of such requirements where allegations of collusion have been made. Why did you not ensure that the persons responsible for and carrying out this investigation were independent from those implicated in the events?

 

Along with your letter dated 18 May 2017 you provided another copy of the COPFS letter to me dated 8 April 2005 which gave the following reasons for taking no action in the case, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

In this particular case the only witness alleging that criminal conduct took place by either the police officers or any personnel of Ayrshire Enterprise (sic) or the organisations that reviewed  Ayrshire Enterprise’s (sic) intromissions with these funds is a single source, namely yourself. 

 

There is no ‘’corroboration‘’ of any of your allegations and accordingly there is an insufficiency in law to allow any proceedings on criminal charges.

 

These reasons were in fact both false when viewed in the light of the available evidence as explained below.

I already provided several objections to these falsehoods including in a letter to the COPFS dated 21 April 2017 which included the following:

‘I have received a letter dated 13 April 2017 from Chief Superintendent Alan Speirs, Professional Standards Department, Police Scotland, on behalf of DCC Livingstone, in which he advises me to raise with the COPFS concerns I brought to the attention of Police Scotland during April 2017.’

‘My letter to DCC Livingstone dated 4 April 2017 contained the following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

 

‘In the light of the new evidence arising during 2016 in this case the letter to me from Ms Catherine Dyer of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service dated 8 April 2005 is confirmed not to be in accordance with the evidence now available.’

 

‘In particular, the following statements in that letter, reproduced here in italics for convenience, are inaccurate:’

 

‘1.     In this particular case the only witness alleging that criminal conduct took place by either the police officers or any personnel of Ayrshire Enterprise (sic) or the organisations that reviewed  Ayrshire Enterprise’s (sic) intromissions with these funds is a single source, namely yourself.’ 

 

‘2.     There is no ‘’corroboration‘’ of any of your allegations and accordingly there is an insufficiency in law to allow any proceedings on criminal charges.’

 

‘On 15 April 2011 Ms Michelle Macleod, Head of Policy, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, wrote to me including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

 

‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’

 

‘Since I have alleged that the new evidence arising in 2016 confirms beyond reasonable doubt that employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service concealed material evidence and conspired to pervert the course of justice in this case, Ms Macleod’s assertion about my allegations not amounting to conduct of a criminal nature has no credibility, giving rise to an appearance of unfairness in the handling of this case by named individuals in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that may reasonably be suspected as attributable to their lack of the required independence and impartiality.’

 

‘To this day employees in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service appear to be deliberately refusing to submit my allegations to independent Crown Counsel not because my allegations did not amount to criminal conduct but rather in order to cover up misconduct by their colleagues.’

 

‘Copies of relevant documents disclosed by Scottish Enterprise in 2016 are attached.’

 

The last sentence ends the extracts from my letter to the COPFS dated 21 April 2017 and confirms that the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, in your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 is disingenuous and misleading:

There is no record of Police Scotland submitting further evidence to COPFS in July 2016 and accordingly COPFS do not hold the documents you refer to in part 2(d) of your letter.

As this correspondence proves, Police Scotland advised me to present the evidence in question directly to the COPFS and I did so again on 20 April 2017 although I had already submitted it to the COPFS on 13 July 2016 in a letter including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Scottish Enterprise

 

Thank you for your letter dated 5 July 2016.

 

Police Scotland notified me on 23 June 2016 that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

Since then I have received disclosures from Scottish Enterprise under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which make reference to DC Stewart of Police Scotland and which contain new evidence relating to several matters of serious concern that I would bring to the attention of Police Scotland but for the notification to me on 23 June 2016 that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

I have written to the Scottish Police Authority to complain about the failure of the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland to respond to these matters of serious concern.

 

Copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise, which provide new evidence in this case, and a copy of my letter to the SPA detailing the matters of serious concern arising from that new evidence are attached.

 

I have been advised that these matters may be brought to the attention of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service directly.

 

In summary, Scottish Enterprise provided significant disclosures to me on 7 July 2016 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to the review of this case carried out by Police Scotland during January to May 2016.

I wrote to the COPFS on 13 July 2016 attaching copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise and my letter to the Scottish Police Authority on 8 July 2016 detailing matters of serious concern arising from that new evidence.

Extracts from my letter to the Scottish Police Authority dated 8 July 2016 are reproduced below in italics for convenience:

The following matters of serious concern arise and require to be addressed in the public interest and in the interests of justice:

1.          Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘Hi DC Stewart,’

‘As discussed, here is a scan of the court papers from 2004. I have scanned them as 2 separate documents with the first being Productions 4 to 10 (where production 9 is the bank confirmation of the funds being transferred to a ‘’Customer Bid Deposit Account’’ for just over a month.’

‘Kind regards’

‘Iain.’

Of course the chumminess reflected in this correspondence is entirely inappropriate in the context of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in a public authority.

The document referred to here as production 9 is the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmation of a £187,000 deposit to account 00151450 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey dated 1 July 1993.

Significantly, Mr Scott culpably omits to mention that the funds in question, £187,000 of public money, were deliberately excluded from the company’s balance sheet for the entire period of its transfer into an account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

If the £187,000 held in the name of Mr Tracey had really been in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, as suggested in Mr Scott’s letter, it would have been included in the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. 

 

But the Scottish Enterprise report and the extract from my bank reconciliation as at 2 July 1993, which are both included in Mr Scott’s scanned documents sent to DC Stewart, confirm that £187,069 was missing from the company’s balance sheet at 2 July 1993.    

 

Where was this money at 2 July 1993 and for several weeks thereafter? It was in the hands of Mr Tracey.

 

This deposit was MATURING at 2 AUG 1993, which was one calendar month and one day after the date of the initial deposit. 

 

According to the terms of the account this money was actually committed in the name of Mr Tracey until 4 September 1993 because the money was deposited again into the same account on 3 August 1993 which means that it did not mature until 4 September 1993. But the ERDF receipt was to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise during the July 1993 accounting period according to the operating contract. The accounts would normally be finalised around the middle of the following month, in this case around the middle of August 1993.

 

This evidence alone proves that the financial irregularities were fraudulent. Excluding the cash from the accounts was the deception that brought about the practical result of making the cash available to be taken control of without the owners’ consent, in other words without the general public’s consent as laid down in the laws applicable to this public authority, and thereby gaining interest that otherwise would not be gained, at the expense of UK taxpayers.

 

Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Gary Tracey took control of this public money beyond what was lawful. Taxpayers’ cash was indeed effectively stolen thereby.  

 

The money was in the hands of Mr Gary Tracey for the whole time it was deliberately omitted from the company accounts as instructed by Mr Tracey.

 

In the context of a police review Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in respect of these points in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

2.          Mr Iain Scott wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘The second document is Production 11, which is the ‘’Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire’’. You will see that page 14 of this document is the same bank statement that he has recently sent to you.’

Firstly, I did not present this document to Scottish Enterprise or to the police in this civil action, which was an action for defamation against a private individual.

 

Mr Scott’s assertion that this evidence was contained in the productions in a case against a private individual is entirely irrelevant and disingenuous in the context of this review.

 

Neither the police nor Scottish Enterprise had any valid involvement in this case. 

 

However, the fact that Scottish Enterprise holds such documentation indicates that Scottish Enterprise, a public authority, was indeed improperly, unfairly and unlawfully involved in assisting my opponent in a civil action which had nothing to do with Scottish Enterprise or the police.

 

Scottish Enterprise was neither the pursuer nor the defender in this case. Why does Scottish Enterprise hold these details about me and why has Scottish Enterprise disclosed such details about me to the police? I believe this is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and another indication that Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

Mr Scott’s scanned documents on this case in his communication with DC Stewart clearly identify it as the case of Edward Edelsten Cairns v Andrew Downie.

The inclusion of this single page in the productions was in any event incidental. It happened to be included in the 36 page Scottish Enterprise report but there was no reference at all to this page in the case record.

Since the police informed me that their copy of this report was destroyed around the year 2000 this document would not have been available to the police for about the last 16 years.

In any event the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland rejected my provision of a copy of this report for consideration in its review of the Police’s handling of my complaints, as recorded in the PCCS report on this case dated August 2010.

As for any recorded consideration of this document by the police, none exists.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that this bank account was in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire and made no mention of the fact that it was plainly shown to be in the name of GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE.

 

‘C/O’ means ‘at the address of’.

 

Therefore this bank account, according to documentary evidence, was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.

 

Further, including the words ‘‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO GARY TRACEYTO ANDREW DOWNIE  NO-ONE ELSE’ on the face of this bank statement was clearly abnormal and gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of financial irregularity but the Scottish Enterprise report completely overlooked this.

 

 

3.          Mr Scott’s inclusions of the Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire and other productions in the scanned documents he sent to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, which report Scottish Enterprise knows was in fact produced by one of their accountants Ms Mandy Dickson and not by the police at all, give rise to some important considerations:

 

     (a)     The police informed me that their copy of this report had been destroyed several years ago, around the year 2000.

 

Its provision to Police Scotland by Scottish Enterprise now permits perusal of its contents in the light of the available evidence.

 

     (b)     The first matter of concern is the amount of evidence concealed by Scottish Enterprise and the police, including in the recent review, as already detailed above and further detailed below.

 

Since Scottish Enterprise investigated itself clearly there was a strong motive to conceal material evidence and that is indeed what happened as detailed herein.

 

There was an unacceptable lack of independence and impartiality that breached my civil right to fair treatment.

 

     (c)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.

 

The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

     (d)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my email to Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which 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.’  

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.

 

     (e)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the extract from the 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 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 my 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

 

     (f)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the SE report which concluded the following, 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 justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.

 

However, the report provided no plausible explanation for this irregularity.

 

Neither has Mr Scott provided a plausible explanation.

 

     (g)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of a press release in the following terms, 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.’

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

The fact that Mr Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day, a very grave matter.

 

     (h)     The report contained no witness statements whatsoever. This was beyond reasonable doubt an indication that the report writer concealed material evidence and Mr Scott has condoned this fundamental failure.

 

The last sentence ends the extracts from the pursuer’s letter to the Scottish Police Authority dated 8 July 2016 and copied to the COPFS on 13 July 2016.

 

The disclosures from Scottish Enterprise in July 2016 indicate that, contrary to the fake reasons provided by the COPFS for taking no action, there were several other witnesses, including documentary sources, to the financial irregularities alleged and there was substantial documentary evidence corroborating my allegations.

Other witnesses named in this documentary evidence include Mr Thomas Woodbridge, Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Ms Mandie Dickson, Mr John Langlands, Ms Averil MacLachlan, Mr William Watters, Mr Iain Scott and Ms Yuanne (sic) Stewart.

The disclosures included a copy of the original Scottish Enterprise report on its investigation into my allegations of financial irregularities in August 1993 and included copies of several significant documents that ought to have been addressed in that report but were not addressed, indicating that material evidence had been concealed.

The disclosures contain substantial evidence that the COPFS’s earlier assertions about me being the only witness and about there being no corroboration of any of my allegations are false.

The last sentence ends the extracts from my complaint against Ms Jane Benson that you have failed to address.

 

Similarly, you have failed to address the following points in my complaint against Ms Gertie Wallace:

 

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

COPFS INEPTITUDE, DISHONESTY AND CRIMINALITY

Your letter to me dated 10 August 2017 in response to my letter dated 22 May 2017 merits careful consideration.

 

I have reproduced and numbered statements from your letter below in bold italics for convenience with my comments following in normal type:

 

 

1.     COPFS do not accept your allegations of dishonesty and criminal intent.

 

It is clearly dishonest to pretend that the Scottish Enterprise fraud case has ever been properly investigated in the light of the evidence known to have been available at the time of the original investigation, which was outrageously carried out by the suspects instead of by the police with COPFS’s blessing, and in the light of the increasing amount of evidence in support of my allegations available at every time any review was supposedly carried out, none of which reviews in reality ever came close to resembling an effective investigation. Every COPFS performance has been deliberately ineffective and dishonest, a criminal matter.

Intending to destroy evidence relevant to ongoing SPA investigations in which there are allegations of misconduct by several COPFS employees in collusion with Scottish Enterprise and the police, indicates criminal intent by COPFS employees, being beyond reasonable doubt designed to cover up the alleged criminal conspiracy and obstruct justice.

Intending to destroy evidence in the light of important new evidence arising in 2016 and 2017 yet to be properly investigated and assessed further indicates criminal intent by COPFS employees, being beyond reasonable doubt designed to cover up the alleged criminal conspiracy and obstruct justice.

When the public hear the COPFS’s mantra that there was insufficient evidence although you actually had a bank statement in the name of one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey, containing the £187,000 that was missing from the company balance sheet and when the public further hear about the interest of £919 additionally credited to Mr Tracey’s personal account as a result of the fraud they will rightly be astonished and very concerned indeed about the egregious failures and criminal conduct of COPFS employees.

Did Mr Tracey tell the investigators that the money was, like in the case of Father Ted, just resting in his account before he moved it on? Oh I forgot, Mr Tracey would not have had to explain why he was caught red-handed with this substantial amount of taxpayers’ cash because according to the 1993 report nobody was interviewed at all, not even the person who was found to have the missing money.

 

How many other public officials have helped themselves to public funds and gained interest with impunity despite the matter being reported to the COPFS? And how many other honest finance workers have had their careers wrecked by the deliberate ineptitude, downright dishonesty and criminal intent of COPFS employees?

 

According to disclosures from Scottish Enterprise their Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, Mr Iain Scott, was interviewed by the police in 2016 in the context of another review. What was his explanation for the cash found to be in an employee’s personal bank account, earning interest for him while the cash was missing from the company’s balance sheet? That remains a mystery because the COPFS already notified me that no police report was submitted to them following that purported review. What a surprise. 

 

Senior individuals involved in the Hillsborough case are now deservedly facing very serious consequences for indulging in such deliberate ineptitude, dishonesty and criminal intent over decades, having misrepresented the evidence and repeatedly lied about that case just as you and your colleagues have done in the Scottish Enterprise case. 

 

 

2.     The decision to destroy the records held was on the basis that there was no business need to retain them.

 

No business need? Such mealy mouthed drivel would tend to induce nausea. What about all the new evidence arising in 2016 and 2017 that I submitted to the COPFS in further support of my allegations? Have the COPFS totally lost the place? Is it no longer any business of the COPFS to ensure that significant new evidence supporting allegations of financial irregularities in a public agency and of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving Scottish Enterprise, the police and COPFS employees are properly investigated by an independent and impartial tribunal and appropriate action taken in the public interest? 

 

In the circumstances such an approach, that there was apparently ‘no business need’ is criminally negligent, warped and despicable.

 

Of course the real reason for destroying the records held was to cover up persistent neglect of duty, misconduct and criminality by the police and COPFS employees who have repeatedly produced worthless fabrications devoid of any relation to the truth and deliberately excluded material evidence from consideration.

 

    

3.     Your complaint that no proceedings were being taken has been fully considered on a number of occasions and has been closed off on our systems.

 

Fully considered on a number of occasions? That is utterly false. You are revealed to be an inveterate liar by such easily disproved assertions.     

 

The first occasion would have been in August 1993 when the available evidence shows that the police carried out no investigation at all but, as further confirmed by the new evidence disclosed on 6 April 2017, submitted to the COPFS the manifestly defective report produced by Scottish Enterprise, the public organisation supposedly under investigation for fraud. Surely the COPFS would not have expected Scottish Enterprise to produce anything but a fair assessment of the criminal allegations against themselves. Right? 

 

The second occasion would have been when I obtained voluminous important evidence from the Scottish Government in February 2003 and immediately passed it on to the police. The police and the COPFS took immediate action, in the person of the Lord Advocate, to cover up the alleged wrongdoing by interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police, as already detailed in my correspondence and supporting evidence.

 

The third occasion would have been in 2005 when the COPFS helpfully explained to me that no proceedings were taken because I was the only witness and there was no corroboration of any of my allegations. However, as you know having looked at the case, both these reasons were in fact disgusting falsehoods, a criminal matter to be answered for by Ms Catherine Dyer and other conspirators in due course.   

 

The fourth occasion would have been in 2008 when the following false statements were contained in a letter to me from DCS Ruaraidh Nicolson dated 19 September 2008 in collusion with the COPFS, and I have added some comments as footnotes:

 

‘My officers have assessed your correspondence and I can now confirm that a full investigation was undertaken in relation to your complaint in 1993.’     [13]

‘As a result of that investigation a report of the circumstances was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal at Kilmarnock in 1994 and at a subsequent meeting with the Procurator Fiscal direction was given that no further action should be taken.’      [14]

‘In 2004 DI Robertson again carried out enquiries into the ‘new evidence’ identified by you.  [15]   As a result of that it was established that all the evidential factors you identified were known to the Police and the Procurator Fiscal in 1994 and informed the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to progress the enquiry.’      [16]

’In conclusion Strathclyde Police has conducted a full and thorough investigation into your allegations when reported in 1993 and also when the enquiry was reviewed at your instigation in 2004.’      [17]

 

Perusal of the 1993 report confirms these statements by the police to be completely false. All the documentary evidence and witness statements that I had provided to the police in 1993 were totally omitted from the report, proving that material evidence was concealed by the investigator or investigators, who beyond reasonable doubt acted with criminal intent thereby.

The fifth occasion would have been early in 2016 when the police supposedly reviewed this case. But wait. Did the COPFS not already notify me that no report had been obtained from the police following that purported review, which I have already alleged, with supporting evidence, to have been inadequate and, the police officers concerned having concealed material evidence in collusion with Scottish Enterprise, giving rise to allegations of criminal conduct by those officers?

 

The COPFS’s recent assertion that the reason for no proceedings being taken against those officers was that there was insufficient evidence is not credible in the light of the amount and quality of documentary evidence available in support of my allegations. The communications from Scottish Enterprise to Police Scotland in April 2016 included a copy of the original 1993 report along with copies of several items of very significant documentary evidence that had been concealed from that report.

 

Scottish Enterprise’s Mr Scott included in his communications to Police Scotland a copy of their press release in 1993 which falsely stated the following:

 

‘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.’

 

In reality Scottish Enterprise’s investigation was far from thorough, material evidence had been concealed, no witness statements were recorded, my allegations were actually found to be true but that was dishonestly denied, and swift action had indeed been taken to correct the accounts which had been falsified by £187,069, as Mr Tracey had corrupted staff more junior to him to do.

 

These were all very grave matters especially in the context of assisting the police during a criminal investigation.

 

Mr Scott thereby deliberately misled the police in 2016 by repeating the false information that had originally been communicated by Scottish Enterprise in 1993. 

  

Is the provision of false information to the police in the context of a criminal investigation or review no longer regarded by the COPFS as a criminal offence? Why has no action been taken against Mr Scott? And why has no action been taken against the police officers who processed such obvious falsehoods in an alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

 

So of five occasions when the decision that no proceedings were being taken was supposedly fully considered according to you, in reality not even on one of those occasions was that assertion by you a true statement.

 

Why were you not afraid to put such blatant falsehoods into writing in the context of a criminal investigation or review?

 

 

4.     There was no business need to retain that information and it was destroyed on that basis.

 

Your pretence that the COPFS have ‘no business need’ to retain information relevant to alleged criminality in the light of important new evidence arising is patent nonsense.

 

Again, it is obvious to any fair minded individual that the COPFS’s unconvincing reasoning to justify the destruction of material evidence is deeply flawed. The real reason is of course to cover up the wrongdoing of every person involved in grossly mishandling this case over many years by persistently spewing out ridiculous falsehoods. 

 

 

5.     The decision to destroy the material was on the basis that there was no longer any need for COPFS to retain the material. This was a reasonable decision.

 

I have already detailed sound reasons for retaining the information in question.

The destruction of evidence relevant to ongoing SPA investigations and especially in the light of new evidence arising in 2016 and 2017 in support of the original allegations of criminality, in relation to which new evidence COPFS employees have shown no interest whatsoever, can truly be regarded as a reasonable decision only by a crook.

 

Crooks have no rightful place in the Scottish Justice system.  

 

 

6.     I can advise that Mrs Benson is a solicitor enrolled with the Law Society of Scotland.

 

I will shortly submit a formal complaint to the Law Society of Scotland about Mrs Benson’s dishonest conduct and criminal intent.

 

Separately, I intend submitting a formal complaint to your professional body about your own dishonest conduct and criminal intent. Therefore I request the identification of your professional body.

Your deliberate misstatements and misrepresentations about this case are utterly shameful. How do you sleep at night knowing that all your lies and culpable inaction will inevitably come to light in due course?

The last sentence ends the extracts from my complaint against Ms Gertie Wallace that you have failed to address.

 

 

 

7.     I understand that in 2016 following your assertion that there was new evidence in the case Police Scotland conducted a review and assessment of the information provided by you. Police Scotland advised you that there would be no further investigation as the officers did not consider that the matters you raised constituted any new evidence of criminality. COPFS has therefore not received any further report from the police in relation to your allegation of fraud. Whilst you are unhappy with the decision of the police not to report the matter to us following their review of what you described as new evidence, the reasons for this decision have been fully explained to you by letter dated 31 May 2016, which you attached to your correspondence dated 18 August 2017 to COPFS.

 

The letter from the police dated 31 May 2016 was produced before the disclosures to me from Scottish Enterprise on 7 July 2016 and before the disclosures to me from the COPFS on 6 April 2017 therefore the police did not consider that new evidence at all.

 

You have carelessly disregarded these important facts therefore your opinion is not lawful, not being based upon the facts truly stated.

 

According to Kenneth McK Norrie’s book, Defamation and Related Actions in Scots Law, Butterworths, (1995), at page 143:

‘Public policy has no interest in preserving the right to comment on facts that are misstated. ( London Artists v Littler (1969) All ER 193 at 201 per Edmund-Davies LJ.)

‘The comment must ...... not misstate facts, because a comment cannot be fair which is built upon facts which are not truly stated, and, further, it must not convey imputations of an evil sort, except so far as the facts, truly stated, warrant the imputation.’ ( Joynt v Clyde Trade Publishing Co (1904) 2 KB 292 at 294 per Kennedy J.)( Brent Walker Group plc v Time Out Ltd (1991) 2 All ER 753.)’

‘The facts must be true in reality and not simply in the defender’s mind, so the defence is not available just because the defender genuinely believes that the facts were as he stated them.’

 

 

8.     I do not consider that there is any information in your correspondence which supports allegations of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by Police Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and COPFS.

 

This statement is directly contradicted by the many proofs I provided in support of my allegations.

 

For example, new evidence proves that the police carried out no investigation at all in 1993 but submitted the manifestly defective Scottish Enterprise report dated 20 August 1993 which concealed several items of material evidence as detailed in my previous correspondence and again in this letter. The COPFS acted in concert with the falsehoods issued by Scottish Enterprise and the police in 1993, in 2004, in 2008, in 2016 and in 2017, as confirmed by the new evidence.   

 

 

9.     Your allegations of fraud has (sic) been repeatedly made and repeatedly investigated over a period of 24 years. Substantive reviews of the available

evidence have taken place in 1993, 2004, 2008 and 2016. I do not consider that there is any evidence that the allegations made by you have not been given repeat, careful consideration. There is no basis for COPFS to reconsider the matter or take further action as this time.

 

These statements are all false and are exposed as a pack of lies in the light of the new evidence.

 

As I pointed out in my complaint against Ms Gertie Wallace:

3.     Your complaint that no proceedings were being taken has been fully considered on a number of occasions and has been closed off on our systems.

 

Fully considered on a number of occasions? That is utterly false. You are revealed to be an inveterate liar by such easily disproved assertions.     

 

The first occasion would have been in August 1993 when the available evidence shows that the police carried out no investigation at all but, as further confirmed by the new evidence disclosed on 6 April 2017, submitted to the COPFS the manifestly defective report produced by Scottish Enterprise, the public organisation supposedly under investigation for fraud. Surely the COPFS would not have expected Scottish Enterprise to produce anything but a fair assessment of the criminal allegations against themselves. Right? 

 

The second occasion would have been when I obtained voluminous important evidence from the Scottish Government in February 2003 and immediately passed it on to the police. The police and the COPFS took immediate action, in the person of the Lord Advocate, to cover up the alleged wrongdoing by interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police, as already detailed in my correspondence and supporting evidence.

 

The third occasion would have been in 2005 when the COPFS helpfully explained to me that no proceedings were taken because I was the only witness and there was no corroboration of any of my allegations. However, as you know having looked at the case, both these reasons were in fact disgusting falsehoods, a criminal matter to be answered for by Ms Catherine Dyer and other conspirators in due course.   

 

The fourth occasion would have been in 2008 when the following false statements were contained in a letter to me from DCS Ruaraidh Nicolson dated 19 September 2008 in collusion with the COPFS, and I have added some comments as footnotes:

 

‘My officers have assessed your correspondence and I can now confirm that a full investigation was undertaken in relation to your complaint in 1993.’     [18]

‘As a result of that investigation a report of the circumstances was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal at Kilmarnock in 1994 and at a subsequent meeting with the Procurator Fiscal direction was given that no further action should be taken.’      [19]

‘In 2004 DI Robertson again carried out enquiries into the ‘new evidence’ identified by you.  [20]   As a result of that it was established that all the evidential factors you identified were known to the Police and the Procurator Fiscal in 1994 and informed the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to progress the enquiry.’      [21]

’In conclusion Strathclyde Police has conducted a full and thorough investigation into your allegations when reported in 1993 and also when the enquiry was reviewed at your instigation in 2004.’      [22]

 

Perusal of the 1993 report confirms these statements by the police to be completely false. All the documentary evidence and witness statements that I had provided to the police in 1993 were totally omitted from the report, proving that material evidence was concealed by the investigator or investigators, who beyond reasonable doubt acted with criminal intent thereby.

The fifth occasion would have been early in 2016 when the police supposedly reviewed this case. But wait. Did the COPFS not already notify me that no report had been obtained from the police following that purported review, which I have already alleged, with supporting evidence, to have been inadequate and, the police officers concerned having concealed material evidence in collusion with Scottish Enterprise, giving rise to allegations of criminal conduct by those officers?

 

The COPFS’s recent assertion that the reason for no proceedings being taken against those officers was that there was insufficient evidence is not credible in the light of the amount and quality of documentary evidence available in support of my allegations. The communications from Scottish Enterprise to Police Scotland in April 2016 included a copy of the original 1993 report along with copies of several items of very significant documentary evidence that had been concealed from that report.

 

Scottish Enterprise’s Mr Scott included in his communications to Police Scotland a copy of their press release in 1993 which falsely stated the following:

 

‘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.’

 

In reality Scottish Enterprise’s investigation was far from thorough, material evidence had been concealed, no witness statements were recorded, my allegations were actually found to be true but that was dishonestly denied, and swift action had indeed been taken to correct the accounts which had been falsified by £187,069, as Mr Tracey had corrupted staff more junior to him to do.

 

These were all very grave matters especially in the context of assisting the police during a criminal investigation.

 

Mr Scott thereby deliberately misled the police in 2016 by repeating the false information that had originally been communicated by Scottish Enterprise in 1993. 

  

Is the provision of false information to the police in the context of a criminal investigation or review no longer regarded by the COPFS as a criminal offence? Why has no action been taken against Mr Scott? And why has no action been taken against the police officers who processed such obvious falsehoods in an alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

 

So of five occasions when the decision that no proceedings were being taken was supposedly fully considered according to you, in reality not even on one of those occasions was that assertion by you a true statement.

 

Why were you not afraid to put such blatant falsehoods into writing in the context of a criminal investigation or review?

 

The last sentence ends the extract from my complaint against Ms Gertie Wallace on this point.

 

 

10.     It may assist if I explain what happened in relation to your complaint against the police. Your allegation that officers of Police Scotland in carrying out a review of evidence in relation to a fraud allegation concealed material evidence to avoid carrying out proper investigation into alleged criminality acted corruptly and attempted to pervert the course of justice was referred by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) to CAAPD as it involved an allegation of criminal conduct. As you may be aware, PIRC cannot investigate allegations of criminality and will refer such matters to CAAPD.

CAAPD asked the Professional Standards department of Police Scotland to investigate and report. They did so. On the basis of that report there was insufficient evidence to show the commission of any criminal offence by any police officer. CAAPD wrote to PIRC to advise them of this in January 2017. You have asked why no statement was taken from you and why the case was not referred to Crown Counsel. In the leaflet titled Guide for complaints against the police which I enclose it is clear that it is for COPFS to consider the evidence and decide what action to take. It is also for the CAAPD to decide whether or not a case requires to be reported to Crown Counsel. They had the information from you as provided by the PIRC. As there was insufficient evidence of the commission of a criminal offence, the case did not require to be reported to Crown Counsel.

 

Again, the following extract from your guide for complaints about the police has relevance:

 

‘What happens if a case is

reported to the COPFS?’

 

‘Crown Counsel will consider the case and will decide whether

to prosecute. The Criminal Allegations Against the Police

Division of COPFS will let you know what Crown Counsel decide.’

 

The PIRC did refer this case to the COPFS. Why then was this case not considered by Crown Counsel in accordance with the published guide?

 

And why did the CAAPD ask the Professional Standards department of Police Scotland to investigate and report on this matter knowing that I had already submitted separate complaints against senior officers in relation to this case, namely CC Gormley and DCC Livingstone.

 

Clearly, in those circumstances the Professional Standards department, under the control of both these officers, cannot be regarded as sufficiently independent and impartial. Such an appearance of bias further renders decisions taken in this case unlawful according to the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, as already detailed above.

 

My letters of complaint against the more junior police officers who are alleged to have perverted the course of justice in this case are reproduced below in their entirety for ease of reference, followed by my letters of complaint against the more senior officers:

 

Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

4 June 2016

 

 

The Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

DCI Kenneth Thomson sent me a letter dated 31 May 2016 which I believe does not comply with applicable professional standards.

 

Extracts from the letter are listed below in italics for convenience and I have added my comments in plain type.

 

 

1.          ‘I refer to your letter dated 18th January 2016 addressed to Mr Milne regarding Enterprise Ayrshire/Scottish Enterprise.’

 

Mr Milne wrote to me on 21 January 2016 including the following:

 

‘Dear Mr Cairns’

‘Ref – SPA0608’

‘I am writing in response to your following emails dated;’

‘1)    18 January 2016 - relating to the newly discovered bank statement dated 24 August 1993 in the name of Gary Tracey.’

 ‘..............’

‘The SPA and Police Scotland are two separate public bodies.’

‘In relation to your email dated 18 January, may I advise you that the SPA Complaints Team has no investigative role, any enquiries that you have relating to a request for a re-investigation should be referred to Police Scotland.’

Thereafter I wrote several letters directly to Police Scotland and provided significantly more documentary evidence of criminality that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously. These are the letters to which Mr Thomson ought to have made reference, not my letter to Mr Milne.

By focusing upon my letter to Mr Milne at the SPA, and by quoting reference SPA0608, Mr Thomson has omitted to address all the other documents provided for consideration.

Separately, Mr Thomson’s reference to Mr Milne and SPA0608 indicates that he knew I had an ongoing complaint about a higher ranking officer in his chain of command.

In those circumstances Mr Thomson was rendered insufficiently impartial to handle my case.

 

2.         ‘In respect of the first point, you have implied that you have located a crucial document, ‘new evidence’ which has either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police.’

This is correct but Mr Thomson then refers to civil actions in which this document was included along with many other items of evidence as if this changed the position in respect of a police review of alleged criminality based upon this crucial document and several other items of evidence that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously.

The document which was produced to DS Adams and DC Stewart as Item 60 was the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmation of a £187,000 deposit to account 00151450 in the name of Gary Tracey dated 1 July 1993.

If the £187,000 that appears to have been held in the name of Mr Tracey had really been held in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, as was suggested by Mr Adams at our meeting on 4 April 2016 as a possibility, and according to Mr Thomson’s letter, it would have been included in the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. 

 

But the SE report, Item 6, and the extract from my reconciliation at 2 July 1993, Item 31, both confirm that £187,069 was missing from the company’s balance sheet at 2 July 1993.    

 

Where was this money at 2 July 1993 and for several weeks thereafter? It was in the hands of Mr Tracey at least until 24 August 1993 as recorded in Item 4.

 

This deposit was MATURING at 2 AUG 1993, which was one calendar month and one day after the date of the deposit. 

 

Therefore according to the terms of the account as shown in Item 60 this money was actually committed in the name of Mr Tracey until 4 September 1993.

 

The money was deposited again into the same account on 3 August 1993 as confirmed with reference to Item 4, which means that it did not mature until 4 September 1993, according to the terms shown in Item 60. But the ERDF receipt was to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise during the July 1993 accounting period according to the operating contract. The accounts would normally be finalised around the middle of the following month, in this case around the middle of August 1993.

 

This evidence alone proves that the financial irregularities were fraudulent. Excluding the cash from the accounts was the deception that brought about the practical result of making the cash available to be taken control of without the owners’ consent, in other words without the general public’s consent as laid down in the laws applicable to this public authority, and thereby gaining interest that otherwise would not be gained, at the expense of UK taxpayers.

 

Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Gary Tracey took control of this public money beyond what was lawful. Taxpayers’ cash was indeed effectively stolen thereby.  

 

 

3.          ‘DS Adams and DC Stewart have conducted a review and assessment of the reported ‘new evidence.’ 

On the contrary, the letter from Mr Thomson goes on to reveal that rather than conducting a review and assessment of the evidence I provided that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously, instead the police put considerable effort into investigating civil actions I had raised years ago.

 

In view of the detailed references to these civil actions contained in Mr Thomson’s letter, the police have beyond reasonable doubt colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

Mr Thomson’s assertions that two of the documents submitted as evidence to the police were already included amongst productions in civil actions are entirely irrelevant. The implied suggestion that this somehow fulfilled the police’s responsibility to investigate evidence of alleged criminality that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police is complete nonsense. The civil actions had nothing to do with the police. They were actions for damages, not criminal proceedings.

 

Since DS Adams and DC Stewart appear not to have carried out an adequate investigation into alleged criminality taking into consideration the evidence I submitted that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police, beyond reasonable doubt they acted corruptly in order to cover for ACC Nicolson, a higher ranking officer in their chain of command, who is known to them to have been previously involved in the Scottish Enterprise case and who is alleged to have conspired to pervert the course of justice.

 

Available evidence indicates that the police and Scottish Enterprise have already colluded and interfered in civil actions and other legal proceedings unlawfully and unfairly in order to harm me and pervert the course of justice as detailed further on below.

 

 

4.          ‘In January 2004, Anderson Fyfe Solicitors, your legal representatives wrote

to Jackie Edwards c/o Scottish Enterprise.’

 

This is a completely false statement which reveals unacceptable carelessness by DCI Kenneth Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart in this matter.

Anderson Fyfe were never my legal representatives. They always acted for my opponents, including Scottish Enterprise.

However, Mr Thomson’s reference to a letter from Anderson Fyfe to Scottish Enterprise further supports a reasonable suspicion that the police have again colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

5.          ‘Further to this, a writ was raised by you, reference A3641/2003, supported by multiple documents which included a ‘Fifth Inventory of Productions’. Within these documents is a copy of the RBS bank statement titled ‘Strictly Private and Confidential, Gary Tracey c/o Enterprise Ayrshire.’

The Fifth Inventory of Productions referred to above in fact contained only one item, the original Scottish Enterprise report, signed by the Scottish Enterprise investigating accountant and countersigned by DS William Watters himself, the police officer in charge of the initial police investigation.

A rather obvious question arises. Why did DCI Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart not confront Scottish Enterprise on the important matter of several blatant defects apparent in this report? The police already informed me that this report had been destroyed years ago. Its many defects are detailed below in point 8.

Clearly, Police Scotland seriously failed to act properly here in the public interest. Instead of addressing the alleged criminality supported by this report they ferreted out one page amongst what Mr Thomson admits to be multiple documents in this civil action, in a desperate attempt to discredit me, which is utterly shameful.

This proves beyond reasonable doubt that DCI Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart have colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in another disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

6.          ‘I turn now to the second point, Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire’s funds being utilised for a personal gain by Mr Gary Tracey. This is a matter you have raised civilly, as per court reference A3864/03 which concluded that the RBS bank account to which the £187,000 was credited to an account operated and controlled by Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire (sic).’ 

Again, Mr Thomson’s reference to a civil action is entirely irrelevant. I did not raise the matter of Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire’s funds being utilised by Mr Tracey for personal gain in this civil action.

Mr Thomson’s assertion that this civil case concluded that £187,000 was credited to an account operated and controlled by Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire is also false.

This was an action against Mr Andrew Downie for defamation. It was not an action against Mr Gary Tracey, or Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire or Scottish Enterprise.

The conclusion was that the court did not have jurisdiction in respect of the letters sent by Mr Downie to addresses in Edinburgh and London.

There was certainly no conclusion by the court that the RBS bank account to which the £187,000 was credited was to an account operated and controlled by Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire. 

Mr Thomson’s misrepresentation of this civil action indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the police have again colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

7.          ‘With regards to the third matter you raised with DS Adams and DC Stewart, this has been considered in the original Police investigation and the subsequent reviews and consultation with Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service.’

No it has not.

I have already presented a copy of the original rigged report along with details of material evidence having been concealed and further evidence of police failures in subsequent reviews in consultation with the COPFS.

And I have also presented to the police evidence of misconduct by senior prosecutors in this case which has yet to be submitted to independent Crown Counsel for consideration. 

 

8.          ‘In respect of the matters you raised with DS Adams and DC Stewart these have been previously considered and do not support any ‘new evidence’ of criminality.’

This is another false statement from Mr Thomson which further indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Thomson has concealed material evidence and acted corruptly in order to cover for ACC Nicolson’s alleged misconduct relating to this case.

 

Several important documents were submitted to Police Scotland that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously. In particular, the following Items produced recently for Police Scotland confirm that for many years the police failed to collect evidence from me that they had said they would collect in relation to this case:

 

 

52.      Letter to me from DI Robertson, Strathclyde Police, dated 20 February 2004.

 

53.      Letter from me to DI Robertson, Strathclyde Police, dated 21 July 2004.

 

54.      Recorded delivery proof for Item 53 above – side 1.

 

55.      Recorded delivery proof for Item 53 above – side 2.

 

With regard to Mr Thomson’s assertion that these matters have been considered previously, I gave the following information to Police Scotland in January 2016 along with supporting evidence further indicating the falsity of Mr Thomson’s assertion:

‘I obtained important evidence in February 2003 and passed it on to the police.’

‘In July 2003 the police asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.’                     

‘Consequently from a very early stage the police and the Crown Office had no intention of reviewing properly this evidence.  Instead they wanted to cover up the failures revealed in the evidence by having me legally disabled.’

‘The following statement was contained in a copy of a letter sent from the police to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland dated 16 March 2009 which was disclosed to me in 2010 by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998:’

‘’In July 2003, the Force took out an Action against Mr Cairns to have him declared a Vexatious Litigant in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1878 (sic).’’   

‘However, the police were supposedly reviewing this case until 2008.’

‘The Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales concurred with the Faculty of Advocates’ Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a judge at the Court of Session, who advised me that I had grounds for a formal complaint about the conduct of the Lord Advocate in this case for interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police.’

As for previous unfair police involvement in civil matters intended to harm me, I also gave the following information to Police Scotland in January 2016:  

‘In 1999 the police provided a copy of the 1993 report to solicitors Maclay Murray and Spens who were acting for my opponents during my civil action against a third party.’

‘I have in my possession an itemised account from Maclay Murray and Spens, dated 21 June 2001, for expenses in that action.’

 

‘It includes the following disturbing details:’

 

‘‘1999 Nov 30    Attendance on telephone with Det. Sgt. Tom Forrest, Fraud Squad, advising re the Pursuer’s various references to him [23] , discussing circumstances of Pursuer’s allegations and noting standard steps taken in such circumstances; having him search for computer records in this particular matter, noting details of Police records and clarifying the conclusions reached following detailed investigation – engaged 30 minutes (qualified)’’

 

‘’1999 Dec  7     Short telephone call with Tom Woodbridge re clearance required to access the Scottish Enterprise files on the investigation into Pursuer’s allegation of accounting malpractice – engaged 4 minutes.’’

 

‘’1999 Dec  9     Writing Det. Ch. Insp. Nicolson providing background details, discussing his involvement  in investigating an alleged mis – treatment of European Community Funds, advising of documentation we require sight of and discussing arrangements to inspect  - 2pp’’

 

‘’1999 Dec  9      Attendance on telephone with Andrew Downie, now of Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise, enquiring if there is any substence (sic) to Pursuer’s allegations going over circumstances and noting details – engaged 20 minutes (qualified)’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 13    Telephone attendance with Crown Office at Kilmarnock discussing matters – engaged 6 minutes’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 14     Writing the PF at Kilmarnock, providing background details and discussing previous investigations and requesting sight of Police Report sent to them for consideration - 2pp’’

 

‘‘1999 Dec 17    Telephone attendance with DCI Nicolson, going over points raised in our recent letter, noting comments in respect of Police investigations – engaged 6 minutes’’

 

‘‘1999 Dec 20  Telephone attendance with DI Riggins (sic) noting difficulties and forwarding a Police Report to PF and noting suggested course of action via PF’s office - engaged 8 minutes’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 23   Telephone attendance with PF in Kilmarnock noting difficulties in providing Report and pressing for Progress engaged 6 minutes’’

 

‘‘1999 Dec 23   Telephone attendance with London agents obtaining further details following their further investigations and discussing Police being assisted by Mr Woodbridge in obtaining details and discussing element of defamation, taking further instructions – engaged 10 minutes’’

 

‘‘1999 Dec 23   Telephone attendance with PF at Kilmarnock making further detailed enquiries and noting position’’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 24   Attendance on telephone with witness William Watters going over all circumstances and taking details for his precognition – engaged 30 minutes (qualified)’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 24   Writing Mr. Watters with his precognition, discussing terms of same and enquiring for a copy of his report to the PF’’

 

‘’2000 Jan 5    Short telephone call with William Watters acknowledging receipt of Police reports and enquiring if he is willing to waive the confidentiality Rules’’

 

‘’2000 Jan 5     Attendance considering Police Report, considering latest version of amended Writ and amending defences – engaged 1 hour (qualified)’’

 

‘’2000 Jan 6    Writing DI Riggins (sic)  reporting following our discussions with Mr. Watters, advising that he is likely to be needed as a witness and requesting authority to lodge Police Report with Court’’

 

‘’2000 Jan 24    Telephone attendance with Duncan Campbell, Chief Solicitor of Strathclyde Police, going over circumstances and noting specific demands for documentation that they would generally comply with – engaged 8 mins’’

 

‘’2000 Feb 8   Writing the Principal Procurator Fiscal Depute Mr W J Andrew at Kilmarnock providing the Pursuers with further details’’ [24]

 

‘The combination of public authorities involved in assisting my opponents in this civil action included the police, Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and the Crown Office, the same authorities that appear to have colluded with one another and concealed material evidence since 1993 in the case of the alleged fraud in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.’

‘Mr Andrew Downie, who misrepresented the outcome of the 1993 investigation on behalf of Enterprise Ayrshire, may have acted here in his personal capacity but may fairly be regarded as having added to the combination an element of support from Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise. ‘

‘Significantly, in the item above dated 20 December 1999 the following is stated:’

  ‘’...... forwarding a Police Report to PF ......’’

‘Why was the Procurator Fiscal involved in 1999? It looks like the Procurator Fiscal had not been informed adequately in 1993 if at all.’

‘I formally complained to Strathclyde Police about the misconduct of these individuals as revealed in this evidence.’

 

‘The response was from Detective Inspector John Riggans on 1 August 2001 who should not have handled the complaint at all because he was one of the persons about whom I had complained.’

 

‘Of course the Mr Nicolson who put falsehoods to me in writing on 19 September 2008 as detailed in section 6 below may be the same Mr Nicolson who appears in the expenses item above.’

 

‘Since Mr William Watters in particular apparently waived confidentiality rules and interfered unlawfully with a civil action by providing a Police Report to my opponents which resulted in the defences in that case being altered according to this document, these were very unfair actions by Strathclyde Police with seriously adverse consequences for me.’

 

‘It is likely that Mr Watters provided the same report here as he had provided earlier to the Scottish Office, which was in fact prepared not by Strathclyde Police at all but by Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise.’

 

‘Perhaps the so-called ‘Police Report’ was then swiftly destroyed in order to hide that fact from being found out.’

 

‘There is considerable evidence available indicating that no independent 1993 police report ever existed.’

 

‘On 26 June 2010 I wrote an important letter to the PCCS in the following terms:’

‘’In support of points made in my letter to you dated 13 June 2010 I enclose a copy of a letter dated 7 April 2005 from HMIC to Strathclyde Police recently disclosed to me by the PCCS.’’

‘‘That letter includes the following significant statements:’’

‘‘’Mr Cairns’ suspicion of collusion between the police and others appears largely founded on itemised entries on an account from the solicitors Maclay, Murray and Spens.’’

‘‘.......... HMIC understands that Maclay, Murray and Spens acknowledged, in a letter dated 8 July 2002 to Henessy, Bowie and Co, that a copy of the police report had in fact been supplied to them. HMIC recognises that the means by which the document had been provided was not divulged. This information may, nevertheless, be considered to add substance to Mr Cairns’ interpretation of the itemised account.’’

‘‘Could you please advise if any additional enquiry into Mr Cairns’ complaint was instigated as a result of the force receiving this new information and whether he was provided with an update in relation to the possession of the police report by Maclay, Murray and Spens..........’’

‘‘I can confirm that HMIC has been provided with a copy memorandum dated 19 July 2002 from .......... to Chief Supt ......... concerning the issue and a note, apparently written by Chief Superintendent ........ suggesting that no further action is to be taken.’’

‘The copy of the itemised account in question confirms that the police report was supplied by Detective Sergeant William Watters, the same person who is alleged to have conspired with employees of Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and others to pervert the course of justice in this case.’

‘I have already indicated to you that a reasonable suspicion arises that the police copy of this report was deliberately destroyed unlawfully, during investigations into my police complaints, and/or during live civil actions and/or ongoing criminal investigations to which it had particular relevance, in order to conceal its obvious defects, including the fact that it had actually been prepared by Scottish Enterprise and was plainly rigged.’    

‘As I stated in my letter to you dated 10 September 2010 in that regard:’

‘‘In particular, your assertion that ‘At the time the applicant made his complaint the police file relating to the applicant’s original fraud allegation had been destroyed in accordance with the Strathclyde Police’s document retention policy’ is not the whole truth.’’

‘‘You knew when you made this statement 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 when you wrote the statements quoted above that I had obtained a copy of that police report in 2003 and had immediately submitted it to Strathclyde Police along with several items of documentary evidence highlighting its 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.’’ 

‘’Why have you completely disregarded the existence of this copy of the police report and all the evidence I submitted exposing its inadequacies?’’

‘The 1993 police report, which was likely to have been prepared by Scottish Enterprise, had relevance for an ongoing appeal to the Court of Session in respect of the civil action referred to above. In a hearing at the Court of Session in the summer of 2001 the Lords granted permission to lodge an appeal. The 1993 police report should not have been destroyed until at least the appeal hearings were over.’

 

‘The following statements were contained in a letter from DCS Ruaraidh Nicolson to me on19 September 2008 and I have added some comments as footnotes:’

‘’My officers have assessed your correspondence and I can now confirm that a full investigation was undertaken in relation to your complaint in 1993.’’     [25]

‘’As a result of that investigation a report of the circumstances was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal at Kilmarnock in 1994 and at a subsequent meeting with the Procurator Fiscal direction was given that no further action should be taken.’’      [26]

‘‘In 2004 DI Robertson again carried out enquiries into the ‘new evidence’ identified by you.  [27]   As a result of that it was established that all the evidential factors you identified were known to the Police and the Procurator Fiscal in 1994 and informed the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to progress the enquiry.’’      [28]

‘’In conclusion Strathclyde Police has conducted a full and thorough investigation into your allegations when reported in 1993 and also when the enquiry was reviewed at your instigation in 2004.’’      [29]

 

‘Similarly, the following statements were contained in a letter from DI Graham Cowley to me on 26 March 2010:’

‘‘I have read the content of all the letters which you sent to me and write to advise that none of these contain any information not previously considered during the initial Police investigation in 1993 [30] and the subsequent reviews undertaken by this office in 2004 and 2008.’’ [31]

‘Perusal of the 1993 report reveals these statements to be false. All the documentary evidence and witness statements that I had provided to the police in 1993 were completely omitted from the report as detailed further on below.’

‘And the report itself had been prepared hurriedly and carelessly by Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise instead of by the police.’

‘On 9 July 2012 I wrote to the police including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

‘Strathclyde Police’s relatively recent assertions that all the documentary evidence submitted by me in recent years had been available to the police in 1993 indicates that the police did not handle that evidence properly because that evidence was not passed on to the Procurator Fiscal according to clarifications provided to me.’

‘Clarifications obtained from the Procurator Fiscal in 2005 included an assertion that I was the only witness to the alleged financial irregularities in 1993.’

‘Documentary evidence available to the police since 1993 according to the new evidence detailed above contains references to Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Ms Alison Norton.’

‘Since the Procurator Fiscal has maintained since 2005 that I was the only witness to the financial irregularities in 1993 the police appear not to have passed on this evidence to the Procurator Fiscal. Alternatively, employees in the COPFS acted improperly by concealing relevant evidence.’

‘I was given the following very important advice by the COPFS for the first time in a letter dated 15 April 2011:’

‘‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’’

‘My letters raised the very important new substantive issue that the COPFS appear to have dishonestly refused to handle my allegations against COPFS employees properly and that this has been perpetrated by COPFS employees falsely pretending that the criminal allegations submitted were not criminal allegations. The general public already know that the alleged actions listed in my letters do amount to allegations of criminality.’

‘Your effective concurrence with the COPFS’s abject failure to address my genuine concerns indicates that you have effectively entered into the existing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in this case.’

‘The COPFS’s angle that I was the only witness to the original financial irregularities, which was insufficient for a prosecution, remains an outstanding very significant falsehood.’

‘I did not make any entry in the accounts in respect of the £187,069 of public money in question. I did not make any arrangements for the transfers of the cash, over a period of a week, through three separate bank accounts while the money was excluded from the balance sheet.’

‘How was I the only witness? Were the financial manipulations as revealed in the available documentary evidence conjured up by Harry Potter? Or was it Paul Daniels?’

‘What about the names on the documents recording the financial manipulations and my objections? The names that appear are Andrew Downie, Gary Tracey, Janie Maxwell and Alison Norton.’

‘I also provided the name of Valery Spence, who had been instructed by Gary Tracey not to enter the cash into the accounts at the time of its receipt.’

‘In truth the COPFS’s reason given for not proceeding has no basis in fact or in law. I was plainly not the only witness and the COPFS’s disgraceful persistence in this obvious lie should be properly investigated in the public interest and in the interests of justice.’

‘The police have in reality wasted an enormous amount of public money in this case trying to suppress the truth and cover for the wrongdoers.’

‘You seem to have completely failed to take appropriate action to have those allegations properly investigated, not least in respect of the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving senior managers in Scottish Enterprise, senior Strathclyde Police officers and senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.’

‘Since the allegations, supported by documentary evidence, included several instances of senior Strathclyde Police officers conspiring to pervert the course of justice you ought to have arranged for another force to carry out a prompt, effective, independent and impartial investigation. Further, since very serious allegations had been made in respect of senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service the force that you should have approached to investigate that matter ought to have been from another jurisdiction.’

 

‘The narrative in the Scottish Enterprise 1993 report is reproduced below and I have added some comments as footnotes:’

 

‘SE FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT’

 

‘TO    Tom Woodbridge’

 

‘CC               John Langlands

Averil MacLachlan’

 

‘DATE           20 August 1993’

 

‘ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE’

‘SPECIAL INVESTIGATION ERDF RECEIPT’

 

‘OBJECTIVE’

‘Following an allegation by a member of EA’s temporary staff, Tom Woodbridge requested that I visit EA to investigate the facts behind the report. [32] The substance of the allegation was that ERDF money had been received by EA in June 1993 but had not been recorded in the accounting records.’ [33]

 

‘WORK DONE’

‘1)         I established when the ERDF income had been received by EA by reviewing the bank statements.’

‘2)          I reviewed the relevant accounting records to establish when and if the income had been recorded.’

‘3)          Following the processing of the journal entry to bring the income into the July accounts [34] , I reconciled the ledger balance for the bank account to the bank statement.’

 

 

‘FINDINGS’

‘1)      A payment of £187,069 was made directly into EA’s main bank account on the 25 June 1993. The funds were subsequently transferred, over a period of a week, through three separate bank accounts. These accounts were all in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire [35] and are high interest call accounts managed by the Royal Bank of Scotland on EA’s behalf.’

‘2)        The receipt of the money was recorded in the cash book on the 25 June 1993. [36]  The following note was next to this entry:-‘

‘‘(No journal required as per G. Tracey [37] ) To go through July accounts.’’

‘3)        The income was journalised into the July ledger on the 18th August 1993 [38], the date of my visit.’

‘4)        A review of the bank reconciliation indicated that the bank statements had been reconciled only to the cash book [39]. As the entry had been made in the cash book for the ERDF income, no discrepancy arose. [40] Had the cash book balance been subsequently reconciled to the bank account in the financial ledger the difference would have been highlighted. [41]  There was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out. [42]

 

‘CONCLUSION’

‘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.  [43]

‘Documents disclosed to me by Audit Scotland in May 2009 included the following statements in a document headed Notes from review of papers submitted by E Cairns, prepared by Audit Scotland’s Mr Jim Martin, dated 20 August 2004 and reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

‘Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ....................... Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.’

‘Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here ................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.’

 

‘.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in.’

 

‘The last sentence ends the quotation.’

 

‘This was an important case that ought to have been adequately investigated by Audit Scotland. The figures in the monthly management accounts at Enterprise Ayrshire were the basis for obtaining public money. Evidence available to Audit Scotland confirmed that I had been instructed to commit a criminal act in Enterprise Ayrshire, treated with open hostility by the other members of staff who had already agreed to enter into the conspiracy, summarily dismissed before any investigation by Scottish Enterprise had taken place, stonewalled thereafter and unjustifiably publicly disparaged, rendering me unemployable in my profession.’

 

9.          Therefore, I will not be instructing any further Police investigation.’

Mr Thomson has failed to act in accordance with his responsibilities to ensure that an adequate enquiry was carried out into evidence that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously.

The available evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Thomson, Mr Adams and Ms Stewart conspired with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors to pervert the course of justice in this case, a very grave matter.

 

Consequently, in the first instance I want to raise a formal complaint against DCI Kenneth Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart.

 

I will shortly forward copies of documents in support of my position by email.

Yours faithfully,

                                    Eddie Cairns.

 

Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

8 June 2016

 

 

The Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please add the following points to my letter dated 4 June 2016:

 

1.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report, recently referred to by Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson in his letter to me dated 31 May 2016 as contained in the Fifth Inventory of Productions in civil action reference A3641/2003, in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart the failures of police officers to ensure that an adequate investigation had initially been carried out in this case, including failures by Detective Superintendent Gordon Ferrie and Detective Sergeant William Watters.

 

2.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart the falsity of subsequent statements by police officers that all the evidence I submitted to the police had already been considered in that initial report, including false statements by Assistant Chief Constable Ruaraidh Nicolson and Detective Inspector Graham Cowley.

         

3.          Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart appear to have knowingly persisted in falsely stating that all the matters I raised had been considered previously.

 

4.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart that material evidence had been concealed by employees of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise in the context of assisting the police enquiry in this case.

 

The employees involved included Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell of Enterprise Ayrshire and Mr Tom Woodbridge and Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise.

 

 5.          Material evidence that had been concealed included the following:

 

          (a)          Any evidence or witness statement from me.

 

The investigating accountant made no contact with me whatsoever and disregarded all the documentary evidence in support of my allegations that was available on the premises of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.

         

          (b)          My witness statements to Detective Sergeant William Watters on 7 September 1993.

 

Since the Scottish Enterprise report was dated 20 August 1993 the police ought to have ensured that the report was updated.

 

          (c)          My letter to Detective Superintendent Gordon Ferrie, dated 19 August 1993, and the documents I enclosed with that letter ‘showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire’.

 

          (d)          My email dated 17 August 1993 to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell, which stated the following:

‘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.’  

 

          (e)          Evidence of my regular monthly reconciliations to the financial ledger which were held in the Enterprise Ayrshire Excel files at my workstation, in particular the reconciliation which had been forwarded to Mr Gary Tracey by email showing the discrepancy in the first accounting month in which it had arisen, June 1993. The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

Mr Tom Woodbridge, Scottish Enterprise Head of Finance, and Enterprise Ayrshire employees Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracy and Ms Janie Maxwell knew that I had produced reconciliations showing the £187,069 to have been omitted from the balance sheet in the June 1993 and July 1993 accounts that had been presented to me for reconciliation. 

 

          (f)          Names of all the finance workers involved in the financial irregularities and witness statements from them. These ought to have included Mr Tom Woodbridge, Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Ms Alison Norton, Ms Valery Spence and myself.

          (g)          A plausible explanation for the irregularities.

The money had been received in June 1993 and should have been entered into the accounts in that month but had not been entered until 18 August 1993. One could justifiably ask why there was no reason elicited by the investigator. Why had staff who routinely made the entries for cash receipts and payments omitted to do so in this case? Documentary evidence and even the report’s confirmation that there was a note blocking the journal entry support my allegation that it was because they had been instructed to do so by one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey. He had also tried to incite me to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in respect of this money.

 

          (h)          My allegation that I had been incited by Mr Gary Tracey to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in respect of this money.

My allegation was supported by the note blocking the journal entry and the actions of finance workers who had accepted the invitation to falsify the accounts.

 

          (i)          The fact that one of the bank accounts through which the £187,000 in question was transferred was not in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, contrary to what was falsely stated in the Scottish Enterprise report, but was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey. This is the person that the evidence shows had instructed the financial irregularities and had thereby corrupted staff more junior to him.

         

          (j)          The fact that the bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey was not a high interest call account managed by the Royal Bank of Scotland on EA’s behalf, contrary to what was falsely stated in the Scottish Enterprise report. Deposits into Mr Gary Tracey’s account did not mature at call. They matured one month and one day after the deposit had been made. The bank did not manage Mr Gary Tracey’s account.         

 

          (k)          My allegation that I had been questioning the financial irregularities in my reconciliation work and had objected in writing to the instruction to comply.

           

          (l)          My allegation that I had approached Mr Tom Woodbridge, Scottish Enterprise Head of Finance, for help when I had been immediately threatened with dismissal by my one of my supervisors, Ms Janie Maxwell, when she read my email recording my objections to the financial irregularities but that Mr Woodbridge had declined to give me any support.                                       

 

          (m)          The evidence showing that the £187,000 had been re-deposited in a high interest bank account on 3 August 1993, maturing not at call but on 4 September 1993, in the name of Mr Gary Tracey while still omitted from the company’s financial ledger whereas it ought to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise in the month following receipt. This indicated that the senior finance staff had no intention of handling this money in accordance with correct procedure until I raised my objection in writing on 17 August 1993.

 

          (n)          My allegation that I had been instructed to overlook in my account reconciliation work the deliberate omission from the accounts of a cash grant for £187,069 received on 25 June 1993 by electronic transfer from the European Regional Development Fund.

 

My allegation was supported by my email to my supervisors dated 17 August 1993.

 

          (o)          My allegation that the reason for the financial irregularities was to gain interest that would otherwise not be gained.

 

          (p)          Any recognition that in Scots law the definition of theft is taking control of an asset that does not belong to you without the owner’ s permission.

          (q)          Any recognition that fraud has been defined as ‘the bringing about of any practical result by false pretences.’ (Macdonald, 52)

 

6.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart that Scottish Enterprise’s Head of Finance, Mr Tom Woodbridge, had concealed material evidence and misrepresented the Scottish Enterprise report in the context of assisting the police in their initial investigation.

On 23 September 1993 Mr Tom Woodbridge wrote to the government including the following:

‘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. 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.’

As the evidence shows, the Scottish Enterprise report had not been full and it had contained no such assertions.

In the same letter Mr Woodbridge disclosed that he knew, as recorded in the following extract, that there was a recognised problem in accounting for and controlling European grants received by the Local Enterprise Companies directly:

 

‘Examination of European receipts is part of the annual Financial Appraisal and Monitoring plan. We discussed this point after the 100% plan meeting on 7th September and I suggested that Scottish Office may be able to assist our monitoring arrangements in this respect by notifying us of European funding payments made directly to Local Enterprise Companies.’

 

In addition I wrote to Police Scotland on 28 January 2016 alleging that current directors in Scottish Enterprise, namely Ms Lena Wilson and Mr Iain Scott, had recently lied and acted evasively about this case in responses to pertinent questions put to them by Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP and Mr Bob Doris MSP.

For example, on 30 May 2012 Ms Lena Wilson wrote to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP including the words that are reproduced below, misrepresenting the true position:

‘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.’

‘The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified. No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found.’

Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report would have confirmed that it contained no such assertions.

Mr Iain Scott misrepresented the Scottish Enterprise report in communications with Mr Bob Doris MSP.

Beyond reasonable doubt Mr Scott made false statements in order to avoid addressing the 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’.

The 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 Mr Scott 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.’

 

I provided documentary evidence to Police Scotland in support of this issue but Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart have entirely disregarded my allegations about Scottish Enterprise’s original falsehoods in this case and my allegations about their recent additional falsehoods.

 

7.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart that employees of the Scottish Office had conspired with Scottish Enterprise to pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

The Scottish Office’s Ms Mariot Leslie admitted that Scottish Office officials had considered the evidence and that Scottish Enterprise was responsible, through the Scottish Office, to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the overall performance of its duties which included monitoring the LECs’ performance.

 

Statements from the Scottish Office’s Ms Mariot Leslie, Mr John Patterson and Ms Julie Kane indicate that they failed to act in accordance with the Scottish Office’s obligations and that beyond reasonable doubt they conspired with Scottish Enterprise officials to pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

Ms Leslie, Mr Patterson and Ms Kane ought to have addressed Scottish Enterprise’s failures and reported these to the police for their enquiry to be reviewed.

 

The documented reliance of the police on Scottish Enterprise to investigate the alleged financial irregularities was entirely misplaced according to the available evidence.

And the reliance of two MPs on the Scottish Office carrying out a thorough investigation into the alleged financial irregularities, which also involved the police according to the available evidence, was also entirely misplaced.

I provided documentary evidence to Police Scotland in support of this issue but Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart have entirely disregarded my allegation that Scottish Office officials conspired with Scottish Enterprise to pervert the course of justice in this case.       

Yours faithfully,

                                  Eddie Cairns.

 

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

25 June  2016                 

 

 

Scottish Police Authority

1 Pacific Quay

GLASGOW G51 1DZ

 

                                              

Dear Sir or Madam,

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN POLICE SCOTLAND

On 18 June 2016 I sent a letter to the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland in which I indicated that I wanted to raise a formal complaint.

In support of that communication I referred to letters I had sent to the Professional Standards Department dated 4 June 2016 and 8 June 2016 in which I had stated that I wanted to raise a formal complaint against DCI Kenneth Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart for not complying with professional standards.

On 23 June 2016 I received a response indicating that the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland would not be responding to my complaint.

Consequently, I want to raise a formal complaint against that senior officer.

Yours faithfully,

                               Eddie Cairns.

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

15 August 2016                 

 

 

Scottish Police Authority

1 Pacific Quay

GLASGOW G51 1DZ

 

                                              

Dear Sir or Madam,

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF POLICE SCOTLAND, MR PHILIP GORMLEY

I want to raise a formal complaint against the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Mr Philip Gormley.

I sent an important letter dated 1 July 2012 by email to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police attaching several previous letters that I had sent to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police and to which reference was made in the letter dated 1 July 2012.

I sent another important letter dated 9 July 2012 by email to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police and I was notified by email on 12 July 2012 that the Chief Constable had instructed that my correspondence be passed to Mr Ruaraidh Nicolson, Assistant Chief Constable for Crime, who would ensure that I was contacted in due course.

Mr Nicolson has never ensured that I was contacted nor has he ever informed me why.

 

On 8 May 2013 I sent an email pointing out that I had not been contacted by anyone yet and that I had not followed this up before this time because of illness.

 

In due course ACC Nicolson’s failure to ensure that I was contacted became a responsibility of the new Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Mr Philip Gormley.

The allegations contained in my complaint to the Scottish Police Authority about ACC Nicolson’s failures also apply to this complaint about the Chief Constable of Police Scotland because the failures related to a direction from the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police to ACC Nicolson that ought to have been followed up with appropriate action by the Chief Constable of Police Scotland to ensure its fulfilment, especially in view of the reminder I sent on 8 May 2013.

No retraction of the direction to ACC Nicolson to ensure that I was contacted has ever been notified to me.

Consequently I formally incorporate brevitatis causa the allegations against ACC Nicolson contained in my complaint about his failures into this complaint against the Chief Constable, including the supporting evidence already provided.

On 10 January 2016 I requested a review by Police Scotland of the case of alleged fraud in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise in 1993, which was notified to me on 31 May 2016 to have been concluded.

Shortly thereafter I submitted to Police Scotland a complaint containing several serious concerns.

On 23 June 2016 I received a response indicating that the Chief Constable would not be responding to my complaint in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘With reference to your letters dated 4 June and 8 June 2016, you were sent an email in answer to a query asking the status of your complaint.  This was a courtesy email as your complaint had not at that time been assessed by Professional Standards.’

‘Police Scotland will not re-investigate your complaint.  You should be aware of this, as your complaint went to PIRC for review.’

‘Your contact with DCI Thomson was in relation to what you reported as new evidence.  After a review of this new evidence, it was assessed not to be the case and you received a letter from DCI Thomson notifying you of the same.’

‘You will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.’

 

Contrary to the email from the Police, this complaint did not in fact go to the PIRC for review.

If the email from Police Scotland is referring here to my two complaints submitted to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland in 2008 and 2010 clearly my concerns about material evidence having been concealed in 2016 and about Scottish Enterprise presenting false information to Police Scotland in April 2016 during a review beginning in January 2016 and ending in May 2016 could not have included all those allegations.

The exact texts of the sections in the forms containing details of the matters I submitted for review by the PCCS are replicated below:

 

17 November 2008

’WHY STRATHCLYDE POLICE DID NOT ASK  ANOTHER FORCE TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED FAILURES, IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.’

‘STRATHCLYDE POLICE’S STATEMENT THAT ALL THE EVIDENTIAL FACTORS I IDENTIFIED WERE KNOWN TO THE POLICE IN 1994’

 

21 June 2010   

‘A DELAY OF 10 MONTHS IN RESPONDING TO MY LETTERS’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 1993 INVESTIGATION’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 2004 INVESTIGATION’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 2008 INVESTIGATION’

 

These details related to only two specific complaints that I had submitted earlier to Strathclyde Police and in response to which I had received two corresponding letters from Strathclyde Police, one dated 19 September 2008 and one dated 11 June 2010.

Perusal of the texts replicated above confirms that they did not address the matters included in my complaint about the review in 2016.

As for the assertion that evidence I had submitted to Police Scotland in 2016 was not new, my complaint to the SPA about the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland addresses that issue and exposes it as false. The same details apply to this complaint.

In fact in 2016 I presented many items of evidence that had never been adequately considered or that had never been considered at all by the police. Inexplicably, the police have disregarded about a hundred items of evidence that I presented in 2016. 

Since Police Scotland, under the Chief Constable’s direction, maintain that they had already considered the evidence I presented in 2016, but only refer to one item, the bank statement in the name of Mr Gary Tracey, an important question arises in any event. How did an employee of Enterprise Ayrshire come to have £187,000 of taxpayers’ cash at his disposal while it was excluded from the public authority’s balance sheet?

Since the police assert that they already considered this evidence what was the plausible explanation apparently discovered for these serious financial irregularities?

My complaint about the conduct of the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland contains other allegations which are also applicable to this complaint about the Chief Constable of Police Scotland.

Therefore I formally incorporate brevitatis causa the allegations against the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland into this complaint, including the supporting evidence already provided.

In a letter to me dated 31 May 2016 from Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson I was notified that, replicated here in italics for convenience:

 

‘DS Adams and DC Stewart have conducted a review and assessment of the reported ‘new evidence.’ 

 

On the contrary, the letter from Mr Thomson goes on to reveal that rather than conducting a review and assessment of the evidence I provided that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the police previously, instead the police, under the direction of the Chief Constable, put considerable effort into investigating civil actions I had raised years ago.

 

In view of the detailed references to these civil actions contained in Mr Thomson’s letter, the police have beyond reasonable doubt colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

Mr Thomson’s assertions that two of the documents submitted as evidence to the police were already included amongst productions in civil actions are entirely irrelevant. The implied suggestion that this somehow fulfilled the police’s responsibility to investigate evidence of alleged criminality that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police is complete nonsense. The civil actions had nothing to do with the police. They were actions for damages, not criminal proceedings.

 

Since DS Adams and DC Stewart appear not to have carried out an adequate investigation into alleged criminality taking into consideration the evidence I submitted that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police, beyond reasonable doubt they acted corruptly, under the direction of the Chief Constable, in order to cover for ACC Nicolson, a higher ranking officer in their chain of command, who is known to them to have been previously involved in the Scottish Enterprise case and who is alleged to have conspired to pervert the course of justice.

 

Available evidence indicates that the police and Scottish Enterprise have already colluded and interfered in civil actions and other legal proceedings unlawfully and unfairly in order to harm me and pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

In his letter to me dated 31 May 2016 Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson added:

 

 

‘Further to this, a writ was raised by you, reference A3641/2003, supported by multiple documents which included a ‘Fifth Inventory of Productions’. Within these documents is a copy of the RBS bank statement titled ‘Strictly Private and Confidential, Gary Tracey c/o Enterprise Ayrshire.’

 

The Fifth Inventory of Productions referred to above in fact contained only one item, the original Scottish Enterprise report, signed by the Scottish Enterprise investigating accountant and countersigned by DS William Watters himself, the police officer in charge of the initial police investigation.

Another rather obvious question arises. Why did DCI Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart not confront Scottish Enterprise on the important matter of several blatant defects apparent in this report? The police already informed me that this report had been destroyed years ago.

Clearly, Police Scotland seriously failed to act properly here in the public interest. Instead of addressing the alleged criminality supported by this report they ferreted out one page amongst what Mr Thomson admits to be multiple documents in this civil action, in a desperate attempt to discredit me, which is utterly shameful.

This proves beyond reasonable doubt that DCI Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart, under the direction of the Chief Constable, have colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in another disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

 

In his letter to me dated 31 May 2016 Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson further added:

 

 

‘In respect of the matters you raised with DS Adams and DC Stewart these have been previously considered and do not support any ‘new evidence’ of criminality.’

 

This is another false statement from Mr Thomson which further indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Thomson has concealed material evidence and acted corruptly in order to cover for ACC Nicolson’s alleged misconduct relating to this case.

 

Several important documents were submitted to Police Scotland that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously. In particular, the following Items produced recently for Police Scotland confirm that for many years the police failed to collect evidence from me that they had said they would collect in relation to this case:

 

 

52.      Letter to me from DI Robertson, Strathclyde Police, dated 20 February 2004.

 

53.      Letter from me to DI Robertson, Strathclyde Police, dated 21 July 2004.

 

54.      Recorded delivery proof for Item 53 above – side 1.

 

55.      Recorded delivery proof for Item 53 above – side 2.

 

With regard to Mr Thomson’s assertion that these matters have been considered previously, I gave the following information to Police Scotland in January 2016 along with supporting evidence further indicating the falsity of Mr Thomson’s assertion, replicated here in italics for convenience:

 

‘I obtained important evidence in February 2003 and passed it on to the police.’

‘In July 2003 the police asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.’                     

‘Consequently from a very early stage the police and the Crown Office had no intention of reviewing properly this evidence.  Instead they wanted to cover up the failures revealed in the evidence by having me legally disabled.’

 

In his letter to me dated 31 May 2016 Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson ended by asserting:

 

Therefore, I will not be instructing any further Police investigation.’

 

Mr Thomson failed to act in accordance with his responsibilities to ensure that an adequate enquiry was carried out into evidence that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the police previously.

The available evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Thomson, Mr Adams and Ms Stewart conspired with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors to pervert the course of justice in this case, a very grave matter.

 

Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report, referred to by Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson in his letter to me dated 31 May 2016 as contained in the Fifth Inventory of Productions in civil action reference A3641/2003, in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland in 2016 would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart:

(1) the failures of police officers to ensure that an adequate investigation had initially been carried out in this case in 1993, including failures by Detective Superintendent Gordon Ferrie and Detective Sergeant William Watters,

(2) the falsity of subsequent statements by police officers that all the evidence I submitted to the police had already been considered in that initial report, including false statements by Assistant Chief Constable Ruaraidh Nicolson and Detective Inspector Graham Cowley,

(3) that material evidence had been concealed by employees of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise in the context of assisting the police enquiry in this case,

(4) that Scottish Enterprise’s Head of Finance, Mr Tom Woodbridge, had concealed material evidence and misrepresented the Scottish Enterprise report in the context of assisting the police in their initial investigation,

(5) that my allegations about Scottish Enterprise’s original falsehoods and their recent additional falsehoods had been disregarded,

(6) that employees of the Scottish Office had conspired with Scottish Enterprise to pervert the course of justice,

(7) and that my allegation that Scottish Office officials conspired with Scottish Enterprise to pervert the course of justice in this case had been disregarded.

 

In July 2016 I received disclosures from Scottish Enterprise under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which make reference to DC Stewart of Police Scotland.

The disclosures contain several matters of serious concern that I would bring to the attention of Police Scotland but for the notification to me on 23 June 2016 that I will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

I want to add the failure of the Chief Constable to respond to these matters of serious concern, which are detailed below, to my formal complaint against that senior officer.

The following matters of serious concern arise and require to be addressed in the public interest and in the interests of justice:

 

1.          Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘Hi DC Stewart,’

‘As discussed, here is a scan of the court papers from 2004. I have scanned them as 2 separate documents with the first being Productions 4 to 10 (where production 9 is the bank confirmation of the funds being transferred to a ‘’Customer Bid Deposit Account’’ for just over a month.’

‘Kind regards’

‘Iain.’

 

Of course the chumminess reflected in this correspondence is entirely inappropriate in the context of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in a public authority.

The document referred to here as production 9 is the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmation of a £187,000 deposit to account 00151450 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey dated 1 July 1993.

Significantly, Mr Scott culpably omits to mention that the funds in question, £187,000 of public money, were deliberately excluded from the company’s balance sheet for the entire period of its transfer into an account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

If the £187,000 held in the name of Mr Tracey had really been in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, as suggested in Mr Scott’s letter, it would have been included in the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. 

 

But the Scottish Enterprise report and the extract from my bank reconciliation as at 2 July 1993, which are both included in Mr Scott’s scanned documents sent to DC Stewart, confirm that £187,069 was missing from the company’s balance sheet at 2 July 1993.    

 

Where was this money at 2 July 1993 and for several weeks thereafter? It was in the hands of Mr Tracey.

 

This deposit was MATURING at 2 AUG 1993, which was one calendar month and one day after the date of the initial deposit. 

 

According to the terms of the account this money was actually committed in the name of Mr Tracey until 4 September 1993 because the money was deposited again into the same account on 3 August 1993 which means that it did not mature until 4 September 1993. But the ERDF receipt was to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise during the July 1993 accounting period according to the operating contract. The accounts would normally be finalised around the middle of the following month, in this case around the middle of August 1993.

 

This evidence alone proves that the financial irregularities were fraudulent. Excluding the cash from the accounts was the deception that brought about the practical result of making the cash available to be taken control of without the owners’ consent, in other words without the general public’s consent as laid down in the laws applicable to this public authority, and thereby gaining interest that otherwise would not be gained, at the expense of UK taxpayers.

 

Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Gary Tracey took control of this public money beyond what was lawful. Taxpayers’ cash was indeed effectively stolen thereby.  

 

The money was in the hands of Mr Gary Tracey for the whole time it was deliberately omitted from the company accounts as instructed by Mr Tracey.

 

In the context of a police review Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in respect of these points in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

 

2.          Mr Iain Scott wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘The second document is Production 11, which is the ‘’Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire’’. You will see that page 14 of this document is the same bank statement that he has recently sent to you.’           

 

Firstly, I did not present this document to Scottish Enterprise or to the police in this civil action, which was an action for defamation against a private individual.

 

Mr Scott’s assertion that this evidence was contained in the productions in a case against a private individual is entirely irrelevant and disingenuous in the context of this review.

 

Neither the police nor Scottish Enterprise had any valid involvement in this case. 

 

However, the fact that Scottish Enterprise holds such documentation indicates that Scottish Enterprise, a public authority, was indeed improperly, unfairly and unlawfully involved in assisting my opponent in a civil action which had nothing to do with Scottish Enterprise or the police.

 

Scottish Enterprise was neither the pursuer nor the defender in this case. Why does Scottish Enterprise hold these details about me and why has Scottish Enterprise disclosed such details about me to the police? I believe this is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and another indication that Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

Mr Scott’s scanned documents on this case in his communication with DC Stewart clearly identify it as the case of Edward Edelsten Cairns v Andrew Downie.

The inclusion of this single page in the productions was in any event incidental. It happened to be included in the 36 page Scottish Enterprise report but there was no reference at all to this page in the case record.

Since the police informed me that their copy of this report was destroyed around the year 2000 this document would not have been available to the police for about the last 16 years.

In any event the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland rejected my provision of a copy of this report for consideration in its review of the Police’s handling of my complaints, as recorded in the PCCS report on this case dated August 2010.

As for any recorded consideration of this document by the police, none exists.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that this bank account was in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire and made no mention of the fact that it was plainly shown to be in the name of GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE.

 

‘C/O’ means ‘at the address of’.

 

Therefore this bank account, according to documentary evidence, was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.

 

Further, including the words ‘‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO GARY TRACEYTO ANDREW DOWNIE  NO-ONE ELSE’ on the face of this bank statement was clearly abnormal and gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of financial irregularity but the Scottish Enterprise report completely overlooked this.

 

 

Mr Scott’s inclusions of the Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire and other productions in the scanned documents he sent to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, which report Scottish Enterprise knows was in fact produced by one of their accountants Ms Mandy Dickson and not by the police at all, give rise to some important considerations:

 

     (a)     The police informed me that their copy of this report had been destroyed several years ago, around the year 2000.

 

Its provision to Police Scotland by Scottish Enterprise now permits perusal of its contents in the light of the available evidence.        

 

     (b)     The first matter of concern is the amount of evidence concealed by Scottish Enterprise and the police, including in the recent review, as already detailed above and further detailed below.          

 

     (c)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.

 

The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

     (d)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my email to Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which 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.’  

 

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.

 

    (e)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the extract from the 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 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 my 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

 

(f)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the SE report which concluded the following, 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 justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.

 

In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of a press release in the following terms, 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.’

 

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

 

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

Mr Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart. Clearly, Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day, a very grave matter.

 

 

Separately, there were several other new items of evidence submitted recently to Police Scotland which have either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by Scottish Enterprise, or by the police or by the Crown Office.

 

These appear to have been completely disregarded, which indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the police have colluded with Scottish Enterprise in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

In his communication with DC Stewart dated 15 April 2016 Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, indicated in the following terms that he would shortly be providing a statement on this case for Police Scotland:

 

 

‘I look forward to hearing from you next week regarding you coming in to our office to take a statement.’

 

 

Mr Scott’s statement did not lead to any report from Police Scotland to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which raises a reasonable suspicion that in his statement Mr Scott misrepresented the evidence he had attached to his email to DC Stewart on 15 April 2016.

Mr Scott had provided a copy of the original Scottish Enterprise report and other scanned documents that are rather obviously incompatible with that manifestly defective report, without qualification, comment or explanation, indicating that important evidence had been concealed by Scottish Enterprise in 1993 and again in April 2016.

Why then was no report submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service following on from the review by Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart which was completed in May 2016?

In these circumstances the fact that no report from Police Scotland has been submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service cannot be relied upon to mean that there was no reasonable suspicion of criminality that ought to have been reported by the Police.   

 

The Chief Constable has not provided a reason for failing to respond to my communications in this case which included the presentation of new evidence and evidence that has not been adequately considered or has not been considered at all by the police.

 

If he is relying upon the recommendation from the PCCS to Strathclyde Police in 2010 I submit that the recommendation was directed at police complaints. It was not intended, nor could it lawfully be intended, to apply to the presentation of new evidence or evidence that has not been adequately considered or has not been considered at all by the police.

 

The application of the PCCS’s recommendation to nullify the consideration of evidence of criminality that has not been adequately considered or has not been considered at all by the police may reasonably be regarded as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

The PCCS did not have the authority to nullify proper policing by means of any such recommendation and if the Chief Constable is indeed relying upon the PCCS recommendation to disregard evidence of criminality that has not been properly considered he is failing to act in accordance with professional standards.

 

Such conduct amounts to no less than the deliberate concealment of material evidence in this case by the Chief Constable, a very serious matter.

 

If the Chief Constable is refusing to respond to my correspondence for some other reason I believe I ought to have been informed accordingly.

 

Failure to inform me either way is a breach of professional standards by the senior officer.

 

If you think the officer ought to be given an opportunity to change his mind please notify me. As things stand, however, I believe that it is reasonable for me to proceed in accordance with the existing stated position by the Police that I will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

The details provided above and in my previous correspondence indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the police, under the direction of the Chief Constable, have colluded with Scottish Enterprise in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

Consequently I want to raise a formal complaint against the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Mr Philip Gormley, in respect of these failures.

 

I will shortly provide further supporting evidence in subsequent emails.

Please inform me if you prefer the allegations and evidence incorporated above brevitatis causa into this complaint to be provided again in detail separately.

Yours faithfully,

                                Eddie Cairns. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.     Lastly, I can advise that as the matters you have raised in relation to the case, the complaint against the police and the complaints against Ms Wallace, Ms Benson and Ms Shand have now all been dealt with, COPFS will not enter further correspondence with you on these matters.

 

Since you have processed my complaints altogether you have not acted in accordance with the COPFS’s published procedure for complaints handling.

 

In addition, by failing to notify me of my rights to a review of your handling of my complaints and by stating that COPFS will not enter further correspondence with me on these matters, you have further breached the COPFS’s published procedure for complaints handling.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

                               Eddie Cairns    

 

 

 

 

 



 
 
[1]       The investigating accountant made no contact with me whatsoever in order to ensure that all the facts were obtained, and most significantly she falsely held that there was no evidence that the reconciliation to the financial ledger had been carried out.
 
That was a major blunder which rendered her investigation and report fundamentally defective.
 
 
[2]       Unsurprisingly since Ms Dickson did not contact me at all this is not an accurate description of what I had alleged.
 
I alleged that I had been instructed to overlook in my account reconciliation work the deliberate omission from the accounts of a cash grant for £187,069 received on 25 June 1993 by electronic transfer from the European Regional Development Fund.
 
I alleged that the reason for doing so was to gain interest that would otherwise not be gained.
 
I also alleged that I was threatened with dismissal when I declined to comply.
 
 
[3]       But the cash had been received in June 1993 and ought to have been entered into the accounts in that month.  The accounts for July 1993 that had been presented to me for reconciliation still excluded the cash.
 
 
[4]       Actually, one of the accounts, as disclosures from the Scottish Government verify, was not in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire but was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey, one of my supervisors. This is the person that the evidence shows had instructed the falsifications.
 
 
[5]       This was a handwritten entry in the manual cash book which then required to be journalised into the computer financial ledger. It was this journalising of the cash in question into the computer financial ledger that was not carried out and which resulted in £187,069 of taxpayers’ cash being fraudulently claimed by Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.  
 
[6]       Clearly, such a note supported my allegation that the omission was deliberate, not an oversight. 
As disclosures from the Scottish Government confirm, the original note here did not include the words ‘To go through July accounts’.
 
Since the £187,069 was re-deposited in a high interest bank account on 3 August 1993 while still omitted from the computer financial ledger whereas it ought to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise in the month following receipt, there was no intention of handling this money in accordance with correct procedure until I raised my objection in writing on 17 August 1993.
 
 
[7]       My specific allegations were true but were covered up and in the morning after my written objection to the financial irregularities the correction was made.
This was a very significant correction to the accounts, amounting to £187,069 of taxpayers’ money.
Scottish Enterprise’s press release stating that there had been no grounds for taking any action was a deliberate lie that the police did not challenge.
Clearly the correction to the accounts was forced by my crucial email dated 17 August 1993 to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell but the report makes no mention of this email which stated:
‘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.’  
There was no mention in the investigating accountant’s report that I had been questioning the omission in my reconciliation work and had objected in writing to the instruction to comply.
 
However, contrary to what had appeared in the press, the report did at least confirm my allegation that the money had been received in June 1993 and should have been entered in that month but had not been entered into the accounts until 18 August 1993.
But no plausible explanation was given in the report for this delay. One could justifiably ask why there was no reason elicited by the investigator. Why had staff who routinely made the entries for cash receipts and payments omitted to do so in this case? Documentary evidence and even the report’s confirmation that there was a note blocking the journal entry support my allegation that it was because they had been instructed to do so by one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey. He had also tried to incite me to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in respect of this money.
The Scottish Enterprise report had either entirely excluded reference to important documents and witness statements or had disregarded important details contained in the available documents.
The email dated 17 August 1993 supported my version of events. Further evidence supporting my version of events included a copy of an extract from the cash book containing the written instruction ‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G. TRACEY’ for the £187,069 in question and copies of documents recording transfers of this cash through a succession of high interest bank accounts with bank statements including the abnormal comments ‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO GARY TRACEYTO ANDREW DOWNIE  NO-ONE ELSE’.
The cash came to rest in a bank account in the name of ‘GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE’, which means it was held in the name of my supervisor Mr Gary Tracey personally, at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.
The significance of these important details was disregarded in the Scottish Enterprise report, which instead had falsely implied in its text, but did not specifically state in its conclusion, that the omission of the £187,069 may have been an oversight due to a reconciliation not having been carried out.   
 
[8]       The police knew that this statement was false.
 
My letter dated 19 August 1993 to Detective Superintendent Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, began as follows:
‘Dear Mr Ferrie,’
‘A set of documents is enclosed showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
The investigating accountant was mistaken on this point, having apparently only sought evidence of reconciliations in the cash section at Enterprise Ayrshire, having neglected to contact me for relevant information and having disregarded the evidence that I gave to the police, possibly because I posted the evidence first class on 19 August 1993 and Ms Dickson’s report was dated 20 August 1993.
 
However, the same evidence was of course also available on the premises of Enterprise Ayrshire. My regular monthly reconciliations to the financial ledger were held in the Enterprise Ayrshire Excel files at my workstation and the reconciliation in question had been forwarded to Mr Gary Tracey by email showing the discrepancy in the first accounting month in which it had arisen, June 1993.
 
A reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that the managers and finance staff involved concealed material evidence from investigators, a very serious matter in the context of a criminal investigation.
 
[9]       Again, the police knew that this statement was false.
 
My letter dated 19 August 1993 to Detective Superintendent Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, began as follows:
‘Dear Mr Ferrie,
A set of documents is enclosed showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
A discrepancy of £187,069 had indeed arisen and had been questioned by me in respect of accounting months June (verbally) and July 1993 (verbally and by email).
 
[10]       Again, the police knew that this statement was false.
 
My letter dated 19 August 1993 to Detective Superintendent Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, began as follows:
‘Dear Mr Ferrie,
A set of documents is enclosed showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
 
[11]       Again, the police knew that this statement was false.
 
There was indeed evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.
My letter dated 19 August 1993 to Detective Superintendent Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, began as follows:
‘Dear Mr Ferrie,
A set of documents is enclosed showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
I had of course taken copies of relevant documents to protect my position since I had encountered manifest criminality in Enterprise Ayrshire and had been threatened with dismissal for objecting to the malpractice.
 
 
[12]        This conclusion justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.
 
Attached to the 1993 report were several documents one of which was a press release in the following terms:
 
 
‘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.’
 
‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’
‘September 1, 1993’
 
Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 and the public funds that were required reduced accordingly within hours of my written objections, plainly the press release was false.
 
 
 
 
 
[13]          The available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
 
[14]          Again, the available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
The Procurator Fiscal’s Office, Kilmarnock, informed me by letter on 6 February 2003, in response to my request for information dated 5 January 2003, that they did not appear to have received a report relative to this case.
 
 
[15]          In a letter to me dated 20 February 2004 Strathclyde Police’s DI Robertson had undertaken to contact me to arrange a further meeting at my home address, to go over certain points and to arrange copies of documents.
Although I reminded Strathclyde Police of this by telephone and in writing on 21 July 2004 no such contact was ever made and no copies of documents were taken.
The investigation that was live at that time was abruptly terminated in 2005 and was clearly defective as a result of this and other failures.
 
[16]       By mid 2003 the police had already asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.  Any notion that the police intended reviewing the evidence properly in 2004 in those circumstances is not credible.
     
 
[17]          On the contrary the available evidence indicates that Strathclyde Police did not conduct a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993. 
 
 
 
[18]          The available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
 
[19]          Again, the available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
The Procurator Fiscal’s Office, Kilmarnock, informed me by letter on 6 February 2003, in response to my request for information dated 5 January 2003, that they did not appear to have received a report relative to this case.
 
 
[20]          In a letter to me dated 20 February 2004 Strathclyde Police’s DI Robertson had undertaken to contact me to arrange a further meeting at my home address, to go over certain points and to arrange copies of documents.
Although I reminded Strathclyde Police of this by telephone and in writing on 21 July 2004 no such contact was ever made and no copies of documents were taken.
The investigation that was live at that time was abruptly terminated in 2005 and was clearly defective as a result of this and other failures.
 
[21]       By mid 2003 the police had already asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.  Any notion that the police intended reviewing the evidence properly in 2004 in those circumstances is not credible.
    
 
[22]          On the contrary the available evidence indicates that Strathclyde Police did not conduct a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993. 
 
 
[23]     In fact the civil action in question contained no reference whatsoever to DS Tom Forrest.
 
As I stated in my letter dated 4 August 2001 to DI John Riggans of Strathclyde Police the Maclay, Murray and Spens solicitor appears to have lied about that in order to get the compliance he sought from DS Forrest.
[24]       This appears to be an error. The reference to the Pursuers here ought to be to the Defenders.
 
Logically, Maclay Murray and Spens would not be writing to the Procurator Fiscal on my behalf.
 
[25]          As detailed herein the available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
Why did the police not challenge the Scottish Enterprise report which obviously concealed material evidence? Why did the police send a copy of that report to the government without correcting or commenting on its many defects?
 
On 11 June 2010 I received an email from Strathclyde Police with an attached letter dated 30 April 2010 in response to a complaint I had raised against Detective Inspector Graham Cowley on 1 April 2010.
That response from Strathclyde Police indicated that I was correct to state that Strathclyde Police had informed me that the 1993 police report had already been destroyed around 2000. 
Therefore Detective Chief Superintendent Ruaraidh Nicolson could not have had the 1993 police report available to him in 2008 to enable him to assert with any validity that Strathclyde Police had conducted a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993.
My letter of complaint to Strathclyde Police dated 23 September 2008 had included the following point in that regard:
‘Mr Nicolson falsely states that Strathclyde Police conducted a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993.’
 
[26]          Again, as detailed herein the available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
Evidence to which reference is made in section 4 above suggests that the Procurator Fiscal had not been adequately informed in this case even by 1999.
 
The Procurator Fiscal’s Office, Kilmarnock, informed me by letter on 6 February 2003, in response to my request for information dated 5 January 2003, that they did not appear to have received a report relative to this case.
 
 
[27]          In a letter to me dated 20 February 2004 Strathclyde Police’s DI Robertson had undertaken to contact me to arrange a further meeting at my home address, to go over certain points and to arrange copies of documents.
Although I reminded Strathclyde Police of this by telephone and in writing on 21 July 2004 no such contact was ever made and no copies of documents were taken.
The investigation that was live at that time was abruptly terminated in 2005 and was clearly defective as a result of this and other failures.
 
[28]       By mid 2003 the police had already asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.  Any notion that the police intended reviewing the evidence properly in 2004 in those circumstances is not credible.
 
And again, the police already informed me that the 1993 police report had already been destroyed around 2000. 
 
Therefore Detective Chief Superintendent Ruaraidh Nicolson could not have had the 1993 police report available to him in 2008 to enable him to assert with any validity that it was established that all the evidential factors I had identified were known to the Police and the Procurator Fiscal in 1994 and informed the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to progress the enquiry.    
 
[29]          On the contrary the available evidence indicates that Strathclyde Police did not conduct a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993. 
 
 
[30]          Perusal of the 1993 report reveals these statements to be false. All the documentary evidence and witness statements that I had provided to the police in 1993 were completely omitted from the report as detailed further on below.
And the report itself had been prepared hurriedly and carelessly by Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise instead of by the police.
In any event Strathclyde Police have already admitted that DI Cowley could not have had the 1993 police report available to him because it was already destroyed.
 
This proves that my allegation was correct that DI Cowley had falsely stated with reference to my letters in May 2009 that ‘none of these contain any information not previously considered during the initial Police investigation in 1993’. No such comparison could have been made by DI Cowley.
 
 
[31]          The police had already asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant in July 2003. Any notion that the police intended reviewing the evidence properly in 2004 and 2008 in those circumstances is not credible.
 
 
 
 
[32]       The investigating accountant made no contact with me whatsoever in order to ensure that all the facts were obtained, and most significantly she falsely held that there was no evidence that the reconciliation to the financial ledger had been carried out.
 
That was a major blunder which rendered her investigation and report fundamentally defective.
 
 
[33]         Unsurprisingly since Ms Dickson did not contact me at all this is not an accurate description of what I had alleged.
 
I alleged that I had been instructed to overlook in my account reconciliation work the deliberate omission from the accounts of a cash grant for £187,069 received on 25 June 1993 by electronic transfer from the European Regional Development Fund.
 
I alleged that the reason for doing so was to gain interest that would otherwise not be gained.
 
I also alleged that I was threatened with dismissal when I declined to comply.
 
 
[34]              But the cash had been received in June 1993 and ought to have been entered into the accounts in that month.  The accounts for July 1993 that had been presented to me for reconciliation still excluded the cash.
 
 
[35]          Actually, one of the accounts, as disclosures from the Scottish Government verify, was not in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire but was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey, one of my supervisors. This is the person that the evidence shows had instructed the falsifications.
 
 
[36] &n