Wednesday, 12 April 2017

MORE INACCURACIES FROM THE PIRC IN THE SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr Eddie Cairns
72 Hillhouse Street
GLASGOW G21 4HP
12 April 2017
 
Mr Ilya Zharov
Head of Reviews & Policy
The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Hamilton House
Hamilton Business Park
Caird Park
Hamilton ML3 0QA
 
Dear Mr Zharov,
I refer to your letter dated 7 April 2017.
 
Your letter makes no mention of my important letter to you dated 11 February 2017. Did that letter also get lost in your system? A copy is attached.
 
In your letter dated 7 April 2017 you assert that your letter dated 8 February 2017 was ‘not intended as an invitation to discuss merits of your case again’.
 
But my letter dated 9 February 2017 was responding directly to the wider issues you yourself had raised. Your pretence that I had raised those issues is false and insulting. At the beginning of my letter I clearly linked my comments to the issues that you had already raised, in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
Your letter is reproduced below and I have added my comments as footnotes.
 
The following extracts from your letter, reproduced here in italics for convenience, confirm that fact:
 
In order to give you a full explanation for my decision, I would like to draw your attention to certain aspects in relation to the information you are seeking to correct.
 
As you are aware, you asked PCCS to review how Strathclyde Police had handled your complaints about what you perceived to be an incomplete investigation into allegations you made back in 1993. In order to do that, PCCS had to request all relevant paperwork from Strathclyde Police. That information was thereafter carefully assessed before a CHR report was published stating whether, in the Commissioner’s view, the handling of your complaint was to a reasonable standard.
 
The specific CHR report in question, PCCS/00448/08, was published in August 2010.
 
The only electronic copy of that report is retained on PIRC’s internal archive. The original source of this information is the paperwork provided by Strathclyde Police to PCCS during the CHR process.
 
Whilst you remain of the view that the initial investigation was incomplete, there is nothing in the documentation provided to suggest that the information is factually inaccurate.
 
The original source of this information is the paperwork provided by Strathclyde Police to PCCS during the CHR process. As previously stated, all papers and electronic records in relation to that process have now been destroyed. However, it is a matter of fact that you made more than one attempt to raise legal proceedings against Strathclyde Police. It is also a matter of fact that Strathclyde Police successfully raised an action against you in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898. Accordingly, the information referred to is factually correct.
 
The original source of this information is the paperwork provided by Strathclyde Police to PCCS during the CHR process. As previously stated, all papers and electronic records in relation to that process have now been destroyed. It is not in dispute that you wrote 82 letters. However, I note that you are disputing that they were all letters of complaint. Your communication with Strathclyde Police was in relation to allegations you made back in 1993, and the investigation (or lack of it) into those allegations. In addition you made further allegations against police officers involved in the investigation. You also wrote to Strathclyde Police offering what you perceived to be additional evidence as, in your view, the police did not investigate your allegations thoroughly. I fully accept that only 8 of those letters were recorded formally as complaints about police. The extract above does not state that you have made 82 separate complaints.
 


The definition of a complaint can be summarised as a statement expressing dissatisfaction about an act or omission. It is accurate to say that all of your correspondence stems from your dissatisfaction with how the police dealt with allegations you made in 1993. Accordingly, I do not consider the information contained in our report as inaccurate.

 

In addition, since the publishing of our CHR report in August 2010, you have continued to write to Strathclyde Police, now Police Scotland, and made a number of new allegations and complaints. Accordingly, the up-to-date number of letters sent by you to Police Scotland is significantly higher. On this basis, it is unclear why you consider that the information in our CHR report, which is no longer readily accessible to the public, is causing you substantial unwarranted damage or distress.

 

The original source of these extracts is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April 2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you. This letter was a response to your complaint to the SPA. You thereafter asked the PIRC to review the handling of that complaint. Accordingly, this letter came to our attention at your request. This part of Mr Milne’s letter was copied into our CHR report PIRC/00111/16 within the “SPA Handling of Complaint” section for reference purpose only. In so far as the recommendation made by PCCS is concerned, the extract in question is factually correct. Thereafter Mr Milne expressed his assessment on whether ACC Nicolson’s actions (not responding to your correspondence) were indeed justified in his opinion. There is nothing in this extract that I can identify as factually incorrect and, in any event, you will appreciate that we cannot correct the letter sent to you by Mr Milne.

 

To conclude, points 1, 2 and 3 are considered reliable and factually correct information. In relation to points 4, 5 and 6 – these are extracts from the letter sent to you by the SPA in response to your complaint to the SPA. That letter formed the basis of your application to the PIRC for a CHR and was quoted in our CHR report for reference only. In so far as quotes from that letter which refer to the recommendation made by PCCS back in August 2010, I consider that there are no factual inaccuracies.

 

The last sentence completes the extracts.

 

Every wider issue that you raised in your letter dated 8 February 2017 added to the inaccuracies about me unlawfully held and processed by the PIRC as detailed in my letter to you dated 9 February 2017.

 

Consequently, I want to submit formally a new Section 10 Notice under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of the additional inaccuracies about me held and processed by the PIRC that I already identified in my letters dated 9 February 2017 and 11 February 2017.

 

The PIRC’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 rejecting my very serious concerns about this case without investigating them adequately if at all in the light of all the evidence available 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 PIRC 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.

Yours sincerely,

                                   Eddie Cairns.

No comments: