Mr Eddie Cairns
72 Hillhouse Street
GLASGOW G21 4HP
8 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.
The omissions are listed below:
1. Witness statements I provided, including to DS Watters, Strathclyde Police, on 7 September 1993.
2. Evidence I provided, including:
(a) my initial letter to DS Gordon Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, dated 19 August 1993 with enclosures ‘showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire’.
(b) extensive documentary evidence that I obtained from the Scottish Government in February 2003 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that I immediately submitted to Strathclyde Police.
(c) evidence that I obtained in 2004 and immediately submitted to the police that the Lord Advocate had raised a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant in circumstances indicating that the Lord Advocate had misdirected the police and interfered with related live civil actions, which the Faculty of Advocates and the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales (involved because the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman was not sufficiently impartial) confirmed provided grounds for a formal complaint against the Lord Advocate.
(d) evidence that I obtained from Scottish Enterprise in July 2016 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that I immediately submitted to Police Scotland.
(e) evidence and information relevant to this case that was forwarded to the COPFS by the PIRC in November 2016.
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.
4. Omissions from the specific requested disclosures that I notified to you in my letter dated 4 January 2017, reproduced below in italics for convenience:
1. I do require copies of the information I sent to you in respect of file R013460.
2. Additional information that I believe should be disclosed to me under the Data Protection Act would be full disclosures of personal information.
This would include information relating to me that has been communicated both internally and with third parties, for example the Information Commissioner’s Office. It would also include the contents of files relating to my formal complaints against COPFS employees, which number around a dozen, and which the Information Commissioner’s Office has already confirmed to me to be personal information in respect of which I am entitled to subject access disclosures. It would further include copies of letters I have sent to the COPFS, including requests for clarifications and requests for reasons for not proceeding, and any responses, related internal COPFS communications or notes and related communications with third parties.
5. The report mentioned in the disclosure to which reference is made in point 3 of the section below headed CONCERNS ABOUT RECENT DISCLOSURES and REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION.
YOUR STATED REASONS FOR WITHHOLDING DISCLOSURES
Your letter to me dated 6 April 2017 includes the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
‘While we do hold further documents and correspondence in relation to the complaints you have made, these documents contain the personal information of others and it is not possible to redact these documents in a manner which would allow them to be released, however I can advise that the personal information they contain in relation to you are your name, address and details of your complaints.’
I do not accept as valid your reason for withholding this information about me. Any names of other individuals could be redacted in such disclosures in the same way as for other documents.
In the circumstances, a reasonable suspicion of impropriety could arise in the mind of an independent observer, that information about me in relation to the alleged fraud in Scottish Enterprise is being withheld by you not for the reasons stated by you but in order to cover up wrongdoing by your colleagues.
If this is found to be the case you have beyond reasonable doubt entered into a conspiracy to conceal material evidence and pervert the course of justice in this case, a very serious matter.
CONCERNS ABOUT RECENT DISCLOSURES
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Separately, I am seriously concerned about the inadequate handling of this case revealed by disparaging comments about me and about my case by COPFS employees which are contained in the recent disclosures, including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience, with my comments added in normal type:
1. 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 my letters the decision to terminate correspondence had no legally valid basis.
2. I am sure that it will be no surprise to you that Mr Cairns has been writing to the Deputy Crown Agent for the past few weeks. I have attached the numerous letters he has sent.
Again, my letters are clearly not being taken seriously and the opinion of me recorded by this person here is unjustifiably dismissive and derogatory.
3. 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? Plainly my treatment by COPFS employees as revealed in this evidence has been blatantly unfair and unlawful.
4. yet another one to discuss!
Again, my letters are clearly not being taken seriously and I am regarded as a crank.
5. 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 COPFS employees have point blank refused to address any of my serious concerns.
In fact I had not complained about everyone a lot and the Ombudsman simply decided not to investigate. Referring to me falsely as having complained about everyone a lot and of having been bounced by the Ombudsman are clearly derogatory.
In addition, this person 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 frank 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 hiding the identity of the author. This is not the conduct of an honest person.
6. 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. I formally call upon you to provide any response to me from the COPFS that addressed any of my concerns.
Again, references to me and my concerns here are dismissive and disrespectful.
And this person’s statements give rise to further concerns about a lack of sufficient independence and impartiality to handle the matter.
Since I had raised allegations of criminal conduct by COPFS employees the matter ought to have been submitted to independent Crown Counsel.
In the circumstances, the matter of the handling of this whole case should in fact be submitted to Crown Counsel for proper consideration without any further delay.
7. To see attached – let me know if you wish me to acknowledge as I am not sure where we are with Mr Cairns!
This further confirms unfair treatment towards me by COPFS employees who have in these disclosures consistently revealed themselves to regard me and my concerns as unworthy of serious consideration but merely as a source of amusement.
8. 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 another disgraceful indication that for years my case has not been taken seriously at all.
Undoubtedly, this document confirms that my case has been generally ignored and regarded more as a joke than as a serious concern about an injustice perpetrated by COPFS employees conspiring to conceal material evidence and pervert the course of justice in a case of alleged fraud and theft of some £187,000 of taxpayers’ cash in a public agency, Scottish Enterprise.
This is an important case that ought to have been adequately investigated by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The figures in the monthly management accounts at Enterprise Ayrshire were the basis for obtaining public money. Evidence available to the COPFS 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.
The recent disclosures reveal that the COPFS have never handled this case properly. Instead, COPFS employees appear to have regarded my efforts to obtain justice as merely futile and funny. The disclosures reveal that paperwork about my case was found in a bundle in a cupboard. I want such outrageous failures by COPFS employees to be properly investigated by persons who are sufficiently independent, impartial and professional as a matter of urgency.
Since this case is a matter of very serious concern to the general public I have published this letter on the internet.