Sunday, 16 April 2017

SCOTTISH POLICE AUTHORITY FAILURES AND DISHONESTY IN THE SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE





 
Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

16 April 2017

 

SPA Information Management

Scottish Police Authority

1 Pacific Quay

GLASGOW G51 1DZ

 

Reference DP 009-2016

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

NEW DPA SECTION 10 NOTICE

In support of my new DPA Section 10 Notice the following extracts from the PIRC’s letter to me dated 8 February 2017 have relevance:

 

‘All of these points have been identified by Superintendent Laing as extracts from the letter dated 21st April 2016 to you from the SPA’s Stuart Milne in which he responds to a complaint made previously by you to the SPA.’

 

‘Point 1’

 

‘ “You initially contacted Strathclyde Police in 1993 to report allegations of fraudulent accountancy practices by employees within Scottish Enterprise. These allegations were investigated at the time and a report was sent to the Procurator Fiscal who determined that no proceedings would be taken, you then repeated your allegations of fraud and made criminal allegations against the police officer who investigated the matter. These allegations were also considered by the Procurator Fiscal and the Area Procurator Fiscal on more than one occasion resulting in no proceedings being taken in relation to the alleged fraud or the actions of any police officer.” ‘

 

;The original source of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April 2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you.’

 

‘Point 2’

 

‘ “As a result of your continued attempts to take legal action against Strathclyde Police you were declared a “vexatious litigant” under the terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898”.’

 

‘The original source of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April 2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you.’

 

‘Point 3’

 

‘ “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”.’

 

‘The original source of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April 2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you.’

 

‘Point 4’

 

‘ “The fact that the PCCS made a single recommendation that Strathclyde Police no longer consider or respond to any complaint raised by you that is directly related to your complaint “that Strathclyde Police did not conduct an independent investigation into allegations of fraud”, it was wholly appropriate that ACC Nicolson did not contact you”.’

 

‘Point 5’

 

‘ “While you remain personally dissatisfied with the manner in which your letter was handled, it is not possible to infer misconduct allegations on the part of ACC Nicolson who was following the recommendations of the PCCS”.’

 

‘Point 6’

 

‘ “The reason why ACC Nicolson did not respond was because Strathclyde Police had received the PCCS recommendation that they need not respond to you”.’

 

‘I intend to deal with points 4, 5, and 6 together as they are all direct quotes from correspondence sent to you by the SPA.’

 

‘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.’

‘Thereafter Mr Milne expressed his assessment on whether ACC Nicolson’s actions (not responding to your correspondence) were indeed justified in his opinion.’

‘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.’

The last sentence ends the extracts from the PIRC letter.

You were fully aware of the contents of that letter when in your letter to me dated 11 April 2017 you contradicted every quoted statement in it since you had already requested a copy which I promptly provided for you.    

Similarly, in a letter to me dated 18 January 2017, written in response to a DPA Section 10 Notice to Police Scotland, Temporary Superintendent John Laing, the Professional Standards Department, stated the following in respect of the same points, 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.

All these extracts further confirm the following statements about me in your letter dated 11 April 2017, reproduced here in italics for convenience, to be inaccurate:

As per our previous response, we are unable to amend or alter any of the information you are stating as inaccurate, as we are not the originators of the information in dispute. Should you wish to challenge this information, this would have to be directed to Police Scotland to investigate.

In any event do you have a reference to an authority that you are relying upon to apply this restriction on the SPA’s ability to ensure that information held and processed is accurate? It is certainly incompatible with the SPA’s published procedures as detailed further on below in the FORMAL COMPLAINT section.

As for your assertion about Police Scotland being correct to apply to Police Scotland the recommendation from the PCCS to Strathclyde Police, you are already aware of the basis for that recommendation recently having been admitted by the PIRC to be inaccurate.

Knowingly communicating inaccuracies about me, for example as reproduced below in italics for convenience, is unlawful, damaging and fundamentally dishonest:

Police Scotland are correct in viewing the PCCS recommendation to Strathclyde Police as now vesting in Police Scotland.

How can Police Scotland be correct to rely upon what has effectively been admitted to be a defective recommendation? Your persistence in citing this recommendation knowing that it has been fabricated and that the SPA is currently being investigated for alleged misleading, irregular, improper and unfair conduct, including corrupt practice in respect of this matter, is deceptive, dishonest and disgraceful.     

Strathclyde Police already 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.

Having done so and having obtained the admission from the PIRC that there were in fact not 82 letters of complaint, I am very concerned indeed that the SPA is persisting in falsely pretending that the recommendation has any validity at all.

Does the SPA really regard such blatant deception and dishonesty as acceptable?

 

DEFAMATION

Knowingly holding and processing inaccurate and harmful information about me is not only unlawful under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. It may also be grounds for a defamation action.

Twice in recent years I have been granted authority by the Court of Session to raise actions despite a vexatious actions order against me, (which in any case had been procured by the Lord Advocate’s corrupt conduct in misleading the police and interfering with live civil actions, providing grounds for a formal complaint against the Lord Advocate, as confirmed to be the case by the Faculty of Advocate’s Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a judge at the Court of Session, and the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales, as already notified to you in my complaint against ACC Nicolson.)

You ought to retract the damaging falsehoods about me which the evidence available to you proves to be false.  

 

Any defence of qualified privilege that you may present in defence of a defamation action would easily be countered because of the malice I could prove you to have acted upon by knowingly asserting damaging falsehoods about me.

 

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Separately, you have completely ignored the following important information that I sent to you on 15 March 2017, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

To: SPA Information Management
Subject: Re: DPA Section 10 Notice

Dear Sir or Madam,

Further to my recent email, I want to point out that my DPA Section 10 Notice to the SPA dated 26 August 2016 has never been properly addressed. The SPA's angle that the inaccuracies could not be amended because they did not originate in the SPA was both false in several respects and in any event not a valid argument since the inaccuracies were communicated to me by the SPA in response to my complaint against ACC Nicolson. The SPA's published complaints handling procedures include the SPA's responsibility to establish the facts with reference to the available evidence.

I submitted many proofs to the SPA all of which were disregarded in direct breach of SPA formal complaints handling procedures.

Important additional evidence disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise in July 2016 and submitted to the SPA on 26 August 2016 in support of my Section 10 Notice was also disregarded.

The published Scottish Police Authority Complaints Handling Procedures includes the following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Gathering supporting evidence and information relating to the complaint(s) is crucial to establishing the facts upon which a decision will be based.

 

Evidence is the information on which to base proof or to establish a truth or falsehood. Evidence gathering relates to the identification, capture and recording of data relevant to the complaint being investigated.

 

This further indicates that the statements in your letter to me dated 11 April 2017 about the SPA supposedly being unable to amend or alter any of the information I had stated to be inaccurate, as you are not the originators of the information in dispute, were themselves inaccurate, not being in accordance with the SPA Complaints Handling Procedures.

Clearly, during the handling of my complaint against ACC Nicolson the SPA ought to have already checked the alleged inaccuracies against the evidence that I had provided in support of my complaint in order to establish truth or falsehood in each case.

The SPA’s performance in handling my complaint against ACC Nicolson has already been formally assessed by the PIRC as not having been dealt with to a reasonable standard since insufficient enquiry had been carried out and the SPA’s response had not been adequately reasoned.

 

If you continue to fail to address this breach of your formal procedures in a reasonable time I will submit a formal complaint to the PIRC.

Since this is a matter of very serious concern to the general public I have published this letter, and my last letter, on the internet. 

 

Yours faithfully,

                              Eddie Cairns.

 

 

 

 

No comments: