Mr Eddie Cairns
72 Hillhouse Street
GLASGOW G21 4HP
7 April 2017
Mr or Ms F Shand
Response and Information Unit
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Your ref: R013460
Dear Mr or Ms Shand,
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 and I am preparing a letter detailing the omissions.
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
SECTION 10 NOTICE
Separately, I formally submit another Section 10 Notice under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of damaging inaccuracies about me disclosed in your letter to me dated 6 April 2017 as held and processed by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service which are reproduced below in italics for convenience with my explanatory comments following in normal type:
1. In addition one document dated 8 August 2008 advises that COPFS had received a great deal of recent correspondence from you containing allegations against a number of people and that while you were not classed as a persistent correspondent, it may reach that stage.
In fact at 8 August 2008 I had received no response whatsoever to several recent important letters containing very serious concerns relevant to the alleged fraud in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise. In those circumstances the document stating that I may reach the stage of being classed as a persistent correspondent had no reasonable justification.
2. A further document dated 11 September 2008 advises that it was considered that you had reached the stage of being a persistent complainer and that the correspondence required to be brought to an end.
In fact by 11 September 2008 I had still not received a response to any of my important letters recently submitted other than a brief letter dated 8 August 2008 informing me that a response would be sent in due course.
However the response dated 10 October 2008, another very brief letter, addressed none of my concerns but instead informed me that the case was closed and that no further correspondence would be entered into.
In those circumstances the decision that the case was closed and that no further correspondence would be entered into had no reasonable basis. I had most certainly not done anything to justify being treated as a persistent correspondent.
To this day the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service never addressed any of the concerns detailed in those letters.
3. It was concluded that further explanations would be unlikely to satisfy you as they would be no more than explanations previously provided.
In fact no explanations addressing any of my concerns detailed in the recent correspondence had been provided and still have not been provided.
4. The opinion was that the correspondence be closed and that you would be advised that there was nothing new that could be investigated and that further letters in relation to the same matter would not be responded to.
This opinion was simply unjustified, having been based upon falsehoods, which is of course an additional matter of very grave concern. The COPFS’s persistence in the position notified to me in an earlier letter dated 8 April 2005 was clearly not in accordance with the available evidence. There was indeed significant new information to be investigated as detailed in my recent correspondence.
In particular, the following statements in the COPFS letter to me dated 8 April 2005 were revealed by documentary evidence as 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.’
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 Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell and Ms Alison Norton.
I also provided the name of Ms Valery Spence, who had been instructed by Mr Tracey not to enter the cash into the accounts at the time of its receipt.
As for corroboration there is actually overwhelming documentary evidence supporting the allegations I submitted. In particular, further evidence arising in 2016 has not been adequately addressed or has not been addressed at all.
In truth the COPFS’s reason given for not proceeding had no basis in fact or in law. I was plainly not the only witness and there was substantial corroboration of my allegations. The COPFS’s disgraceful persistence to this day in these obvious lies should be properly investigated in the public interest and in the interests of justice.
My case effectively raises the issue of the fundamental integrity of the Scottish justice system. I have had approaching 50,000 hits on my Scottish Justice blog and public support for me is steadily growing. In fact the general public are very concerned indeed about the ineffectiveness of the Scottish prosecuting authorities, as reported in respect of some highly significant cases.
The COPFS have been grossly negligent in view of the very serious allegations that were detailed in my correspondence. The COPFS 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 police officers and senior employees of the COPFS.
Since the allegations, supported by documentary evidence, included several instances of senior police officers conspiring to pervert the course of justice the COPFS 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 COPFS these ought to have been submitted to independent Crown Counsel for proper assessment.
The COPFS’s holding and processing of inaccurate information about me has caused me unwarranted and substantial damage and unwarranted and substantial distress, and is likely to cause me unwarranted and substantial damage and unwarranted and substantial distress in future if not corrected, by unjustifiably categorising me as a persistent correspondent and a persistent complainer, by rejecting my very serious concerns about this case without investigating them adequately if at all and by falsely portraying me as an incompetent accountant, a false accuser, a time waster and someone who has repeatedly breached professional standards.
Thereby the COPFS have seriously damaged my professional and personal reputation without justification and are continuing to damage my professional and personal reputation without justification.
Consequently I want the inaccurate and damaging information about me to be corrected.
You have 21 days to respond to this Notice.
PERSISTENT CORRESPONDENT AND PERSISTENT COMPLAINER
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
In the light of the available evidence and the information detailed above I formally request a review of the COPFS’s decision to categorise me as a persistent correspondent and a persistent complainer.
Especially in view of the COPFS’s complete failure to address any of my concerns detailed in my letters during July and August 2008 the recorded opinion on 8 August 2008 that I may reach the stage of being classed as a persistent correspondent was unjustified.
Thereafter, in those circumstances the decision recorded on 11 September 2008 that it was considered that I had reached the stage of being a persistent complainer and that the correspondence required to be brought to an end was also unjustified.
I did not meet the published criteria required for these classifications which have resulted in my very important correspondence being disregarded without justification.