Saturday, 4 February 2017

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST TEMPORARY SUPERINTENDENT JOHN LAING, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DEPARTMENT, POLICE SCOTLAND, FOR MISCONDUCT IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

1 February 2017                 

 

 

Mr John Laing

Temporary Superintendent

Professional Standards Department

Police Scotland

PO Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

 

Reference MI/00476/16 West D/SH

 

Dear Mr Laing,

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 SECTION 10 NOTICE

Thank you for your letter dated 18 January 2017.

In your letter you included the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

To conclude, the Police Service of Scotland do not hold the information referred to in Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 and are not able to determine if it is accurate or not.

 

I find this unconvincing in particular with reference to point 3 which is reproduced below and my comments follow in normal type:

 

Between 2001 to 2009 you had written some 82 letters to Strathclyde Police in which you made both criminal and non-criminal complaints about police.

Police Scotland will have had access to the records of my complaints against Strathclyde Police especially since these were reviewed by the PCCS in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

In addition, Strathclyde Police wrote to me in 2010 specifically stating that they had not claimed that I had written some 82 letters of complaint to the police. In that letter Strathclyde Police directed me to take the matter up with the PCCS.

Therefore the Police Service of Scotland are indeed able to determine whether or not this point is accurate and your denial of that can reasonably be regarded as deliberately false.

 

In your letter dated 18 January 2017 you also included the following statements on point 7, reproduced here in italics for convenience, and I have added my comments in normal type:

 

1.     Superintendent Boyd’s (now retired) letter of 5 July 2012 is written in response to your letters of 26 June 2012 and 1 July 2012 ......

My letters dated 26 June 2012 and 1 July 2012 were very serious letters indeed alleging culpable inaction by the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police regardless of significant documentary evidence that I had provided giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of police involvement in a conspiracy to cover up financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.

My letter dated 26 June 2012 contained the following important points:

‘I raised a formal complaint about the conduct of DI Graham Cowley on 1 April 2010 and added to that complaint in a letter dated 30 April 2010.’

‘Subsequently, Strathclyde Police were advised by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland not to address any of my complaints.’

‘I have been advised that Strathclyde Police are not bound by that decision and that the Commissioner may have exceeded his powers in that regard.’

‘Consequently, unless a formal response from Strathclyde Police is issued in respect of this important complaint in a reasonable time I will write to the Strathclyde Police Authority.’

‘Copies of the original letter of complaint dated 1 April 2010 and the addition to that complaint dated 30 April 2010 are attached.’

 

Having referred to many of my earlier important letters my letter dated 1 July 2012 then contained the following statements:

‘Since I appear to have had no response at all from the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police I want to raise a formal complaint about that. In particular, serious allegations of criminality involving senior members of Crown Office staff and others were included in my letters therefore prompt, appropriate and effective action ought to have been taken.’

‘If an appropriate response is not produced in a reasonable time I will write to the Strathclyde Police Authority.’

Superintendent Boyd’s letter dated 5 July 2012 contained several falsehoods and contradicted available documentary evidence as detailed below.

A reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that your own concurrence with Superintendent Boyd’s misstatements and inaction is designed to cover up police failures, corrupt conduct on your part.

 

2.     Further, and taking account of the reference numbers detailed within Superintendent Boyd’s letter, it is the case that he may be referring to previous complaints made by you which had been fully investigated and concluded, and externally scrutinised.

Since the records show that Strathclyde Police took action to have me categorised as a vexatious litigant in July 2003 before carrying out any investigation at all into the very significant evidence of criminality that I had obtained in February 2003 and immediately passed on to the police, Superintendent Boyd’s assertion that my complaints had been fully investigated has no credibility.

By external scrutiny if Superintendent Boyd was referring to the PCCS’s involvement the available evidence proves that the PCCS’s report in August 2010 was a disgraceful pack of lies.

On the other hand the external scrutiny by the Faculty of Advocates and the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales both held that I had grounds for a formal complaint about the Lord Advocate’s misconduct in this case for misdirecting the police and interfering in live civil actions.

I presented the documents containing those external expert opinions to the police so Superintendent Boyd’s and your own deliberate disregard of that evidence is inexcusable and indeed corrupt. You may have forgotten but in the context of a criminal investigation the concealment of material evidence constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

3.     I do not agree that the information is inaccurate, and will not take any action.

Since I have provided much documentary evidence exposing persistent failures by the police in this case in collusion with Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and the Crown Office, your view contradicts that evidence and is therefore deliberately dishonest.  

The evidence proves that your agreement with Superintendent Boyd’s assertion that previous complaints made by me had been fully investigated and concluded, and externally scrutinised is misleading particularly in view of the external expert opinions identified above.

Superintendent Boyd’s and your own abject refusal to take any action in the light of this evidence and other overwhelming documentary evidence supporting my position is revealed to be untenable, irresponsible and corrupt. You both appear to have concealed material evidence and misrepresented the facts in this case.

 

4.     I do not intend to have a retired officer interviewed in relation to this matter.

I alleged and provided documentary evidence proving that my career had been destroyed by police involvement in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in this case by failing to carry out any investigation at all into my allegations of blatant fraud in a public agency, by adopting the manifestly defective Scottish Enterprise report and by concealing material evidence.

Your cavalier disregard for the available evidence and your concern about possibly disturbing the retirement of an officer by obtaining relevant evidence in these circumstances is disproportionate and disgraceful.   

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Consequently, I want to raise a formal complaint against you for your misconduct as detailed above.

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SUBJECT ACCESS DISCLOSURES  

Separately, I request subject access disclosures under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Yours sincerely,

                                   Eddie Cairns.

No comments: