Tuesday, 23 May 2017

DISHONESTY AND CRIMINAL INTENT OF CROWN OFFICE'S MS JANE BENSON IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE



Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

22 May 2017                 


Ms Jane Benson

Response and Information Unit

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

Your ref:    R013356


Dear Ms Benson,

FORMAL COMPLAINT

I refer to your letter dated 18 May 2017 which I received today.

As detailed below I want to submit a formal complaint about your dishonesty and criminal intent.

You state in your letter that by 26 May 2017 you will be destroying all documentation you hold which relates to me in the case involving Scottish Enterprise/Enterprise Ayrshire apart from the minute supposedly outlining the reason why no action was taken in the case.

Firstly, I object to that destruction on the grounds that I have already alleged misconduct by several COPFS employees in this case in collusion with Scottish Enterprise and the police, including the concealment of material evidence and the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice therefore your destruction of documents which contain relevant evidence may reasonably be regarded as designed to cover up that alleged misconduct and obstruct justice.

There are ongoing investigations into this case by the Scottish Police Authority involving allegations that police officers conspired with Scottish Enterprise employees and COPFS employees. The evidence you intend destroying should not be destroyed before those investigations are concluded.

The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner already reported on the Scottish Police Authority’s handling of my complaint against a senior police officer in this case that as insufficient enquiry was carried out and as the response was not adequately reasoned my complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard.

The allegations in that complaint included the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience, clearly including alleged misconduct by senior COPFS employees in respect of which the evidence you intend destroying has significant relevance:


SECTION 5

I obtained important evidence in February 2003 and passed it on to the police.

In July 2003 the police asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.                     

Consequently from a very early stage the police and the Crown Office had no intention of reviewing properly this evidence.  Instead they wanted to cover up the failures revealed in the evidence by having me legally disabled.

The following statement was contained in a copy of a letter sent from the police to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland dated 16 March 2009 which was disclosed to me in 2010 by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998:

‘In July 2003, the Force took out an Action against Mr Cairns to have him declared a Vexatious Litigant in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1878 (sic).’   

However, the police were supposedly reviewing this case until 2008.

The Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales concurred with the Faculty of Advocates’ Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a judge at the Court of Session, who advised me that I had grounds for a formal complaint about the conduct of the Lord Advocate in this case for interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police.

Those same allegations are included in the ongoing complaints against other senior police officers currently being investigated by the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner may assess those investigations in due course. Your destruction of material evidence in these circumstances indicates criminal intent on your part.  

On 28 July 2008 I wrote to the Lord Advocate, including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:


ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE AND SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

In order to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Finucane v United Kingdom, and in the light of the Legal Services Ombudsman’s Opinion dated 31 January 2007, clearly it is impossible for any police force in Scotland to be sufficiently independent from the Lord Advocate to conduct this investigation. As the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman declined to produce an opinion because of such a lack of sufficient independence, so also ought this investigation be taken from Strathclyde Police and arrangements made for it to be carried out by an English police force.

My letter to the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow of 9 July 2003 reminded your department of such requirements where allegations of collusion have been made. Why did you not ensure that the persons responsible for and carrying out this investigation were independent from those implicated in the events?


Along with your letter dated 18 May 2017 you provided another copy of the COPFS letter to me dated 8 April 2005 which gave the following reasons for taking no action in the case, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

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. 


There is no ‘’corroboration‘’ of any of your allegations and accordingly there is an insufficiency in law to allow any proceedings on criminal charges.

  

These reasons were in fact both false when viewed in the light of the available evidence as explained below.

I already provided several objections to these falsehoods including in a letter to the COPFS dated 21 April 2017 which included the following:

‘I have received a letter dated 13 April 2017 from Chief Superintendent Alan Speirs, Professional Standards Department, Police Scotland, on behalf of DCC Livingstone, in which he advises me to raise with the COPFS concerns I brought to the attention of Police Scotland during April 2017.’

‘My letter to DCC Livingstone dated 4 April 2017 contained the following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’


‘In the light of the new evidence arising during 2016 in this case the letter to me from Ms Catherine Dyer of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service dated 8 April 2005 is confirmed not to be in accordance with the evidence now available.’


‘In particular, the following statements in that letter, reproduced here in italics for convenience, are 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.’


‘On 15 April 2011 Ms Michelle Macleod, Head of Policy, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, wrote to me including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’


‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’


‘Since I have alleged that the new evidence arising in 2016 confirms beyond reasonable doubt that employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service concealed material evidence and conspired to pervert the course of justice in this case, Ms Macleod’s assertion about my allegations not amounting to conduct of a criminal nature has no credibility, giving rise to an appearance of unfairness in the handling of this case by named individuals in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that may reasonably be suspected as attributable to their lack of the required independence and impartiality.’


‘To this day employees in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service appear to be deliberately refusing to submit my allegations to independent Crown Counsel not because my allegations did not amount to criminal conduct but rather in order to cover up misconduct by their colleagues.’


‘Copies of relevant documents disclosed by Scottish Enterprise in 2016 are attached.’


The last sentence ends the extracts from my letter to the COPFS dated 21 April 2017 and confirms that the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience, in your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 is disingenuous and misleading:

There is no record of Police Scotland submitting further evidence to COPFS in July 2016 and accordingly COPFS do not hold the documents you refer to in part 2(d) of your letter.

As this correspondence proves, Police Scotland advised me to present the evidence in question directly to the COPFS and I did so again on 20 April 2017 although I had already submitted it to the COPFS on 13 July 2016 in a letter including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

Scottish Enterprise


Thank you for your letter dated 5 July 2016.


Police Scotland notified me on 23 June 2016 that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

Since then I have received disclosures from Scottish Enterprise under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which make reference to DC Stewart of Police Scotland and which contain new evidence relating to several matters of serious concern that I would bring to the attention of Police Scotland but for the notification to me on 23 June 2016 that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

I have written to the Scottish Police Authority to complain about the failure of the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland to respond to these matters of serious concern.


Copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise, which provide new evidence in this case, and a copy of my letter to the SPA detailing the matters of serious concern arising from that new evidence are attached.


I have been advised that these matters may be brought to the attention of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service directly.


In summary, Scottish Enterprise provided significant disclosures to me on 7 July 2016 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to the review of this case carried out by Police Scotland during January to May 2016.

I wrote to the COPFS on 13 July 2016 attaching copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise and my letter to the Scottish Police Authority on 8 July 2016 detailing matters of serious concern arising from that new evidence.

Extracts from my letter to the Scottish Police Authority dated 8 July 2016 are reproduced below in italics for convenience:

The following matters of serious concern arise and require to be addressed in the public interest and in the interests of justice:

1.          Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘Hi DC Stewart,’

‘As discussed, here is a scan of the court papers from 2004. I have scanned them as 2 separate documents with the first being Productions 4 to 10 (where production 9 is the bank confirmation of the funds being transferred to a ‘’Customer Bid Deposit Account’’ for just over a month.’

‘Kind regards’

‘Iain.’

Of course the chumminess reflected in this correspondence is entirely inappropriate in the context of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in a public authority.

The document referred to here as production 9 is the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmation of a £187,000 deposit to account 00151450 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey dated 1 July 1993.

Significantly, Mr Scott culpably omits to mention that the funds in question, £187,000 of public money, were deliberately excluded from the company’s balance sheet for the entire period of its transfer into an account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

If the £187,000 held in the name of Mr Tracey had really been in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, as suggested in Mr Scott’s letter, it would have been included in the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. 


But the Scottish Enterprise report and the extract from my bank reconciliation as at 2 July 1993, which are both included in Mr Scott’s scanned documents sent to DC Stewart, confirm that £187,069 was missing from the company’s balance sheet at 2 July 1993.    


Where was this money at 2 July 1993 and for several weeks thereafter? It was in the hands of Mr Tracey.


This deposit was MATURING at 2 AUG 1993, which was one calendar month and one day after the date of the initial deposit. 


According to the terms of the account this money was actually committed in the name of Mr Tracey until 4 September 1993 because the money was deposited again into the same account on 3 August 1993 which means that it did not mature until 4 September 1993. But the ERDF receipt was to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise during the July 1993 accounting period according to the operating contract. The accounts would normally be finalised around the middle of the following month, in this case around the middle of August 1993.


This evidence alone proves that the financial irregularities were fraudulent. Excluding the cash from the accounts was the deception that brought about the practical result of making the cash available to be taken control of without the owners’ consent, in other words without the general public’s consent as laid down in the laws applicable to this public authority, and thereby gaining interest that otherwise would not be gained, at the expense of UK taxpayers.


Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Gary Tracey took control of this public money beyond what was lawful. Taxpayers’ cash was indeed effectively stolen thereby.  


The money was in the hands of Mr Gary Tracey for the whole time it was deliberately omitted from the company accounts as instructed by Mr Tracey.


In the context of a police review Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in respect of these points in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.


2.          Mr Iain Scott wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘The second document is Production 11, which is the ‘’Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire’’. You will see that page 14 of this document is the same bank statement that he has recently sent to you.’

Firstly, I did not present this document to Scottish Enterprise or to the police in this civil action, which was an action for defamation against a private individual.


Mr Scott’s assertion that this evidence was contained in the productions in a case against a private individual is entirely irrelevant and disingenuous in the context of this review.


Neither the police nor Scottish Enterprise had any valid involvement in this case. 


However, the fact that Scottish Enterprise holds such documentation indicates that Scottish Enterprise, a public authority, was indeed improperly, unfairly and unlawfully involved in assisting my opponent in a civil action which had nothing to do with Scottish Enterprise or the police.


Scottish Enterprise was neither the pursuer nor the defender in this case. Why does Scottish Enterprise hold these details about me and why has Scottish Enterprise disclosed such details about me to the police? I believe this is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and another indication that Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.


Mr Scott’s scanned documents on this case in his communication with DC Stewart clearly identify it as the case of Edward Edelsten Cairns v Andrew Downie.

The inclusion of this single page in the productions was in any event incidental. It happened to be included in the 36 page Scottish Enterprise report but there was no reference at all to this page in the case record.

Since the police informed me that their copy of this report was destroyed around the year 2000 this document would not have been available to the police for about the last 16 years.

In any event the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland rejected my provision of a copy of this report for consideration in its review of the Police’s handling of my complaints, as recorded in the PCCS report on this case dated August 2010.

As for any recorded consideration of this document by the police, none exists.


The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that this bank account was in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire and made no mention of the fact that it was plainly shown to be in the name of GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE.


‘C/O’ means ‘at the address of’.


Therefore this bank account, according to documentary evidence, was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.


Further, including the words ‘‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO GARY TRACEYTO ANDREW DOWNIE  NO-ONE ELSE’ on the face of this bank statement was clearly abnormal and gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of financial irregularity but the Scottish Enterprise report completely overlooked this.



3.          Mr Scott’s inclusions of the Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire and other productions in the scanned documents he sent to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, which report Scottish Enterprise knows was in fact produced by one of their accountants Ms Mandy Dickson and not by the police at all, give rise to some important considerations:


     (a)     The police informed me that their copy of this report had been destroyed several years ago, around the year 2000.


Its provision to Police Scotland by Scottish Enterprise now permits perusal of its contents in the light of the available evidence.


     (b)     The first matter of concern is the amount of evidence concealed by Scottish Enterprise and the police, including in the recent review, as already detailed above and further detailed below.


Since Scottish Enterprise investigated itself clearly there was a strong motive to conceal material evidence and that is indeed what happened as detailed herein.


There was an unacceptable lack of independence and impartiality that breached my civil right to fair treatment.


     (c)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.


The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.


     (d)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my email to Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which stated the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:


‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’

‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’

‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’

‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’  

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.


     (e)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the extract from the manual cash book showing the following words at the record of £187,069 received on 25 June 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience:


‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G.TRACEY’


The report referred to a later version where the words ‘TO GO THROUGH JULY ACCOUNTS’ had been added.


The report offered no explanation for this note, which corroborated my allegation of having been instructed by Mr Gary Tracey to falsify the accounts in respect of this receipt from the European Regional Development Fund.


Further corroboration is provided by the actions of other finance staff who acted in accordance with Mr Tracey’s fraudulent instructions to falsify the accounts


     (f)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the SE report which concluded the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:



‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’


This conclusion justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.


However, the report provided no plausible explanation for this irregularity.


Neither has Mr Scott provided a plausible explanation.


     (g)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of a press release in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:


‘STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire’

‘Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.’

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.


The fact that Mr Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day, a very grave matter.


     (h)     The report contained no witness statements whatsoever. This was beyond reasonable doubt an indication that the report writer concealed material evidence and Mr Scott has condoned this fundamental failure.


The last sentence ends the extracts from the pursuer’s letter to the Scottish Police Authority dated 8 July 2016 and copied to the COPFS on 13 July 2016.


The disclosures from Scottish Enterprise in July 2016 indicate that, contrary to the fake reasons provided by the COPFS for taking no action, there were several other witnesses, including documentary sources, to the financial irregularities alleged and there was substantial documentary evidence corroborating my allegations.

Other witnesses named in this documentary evidence include Mr Thomas Woodbridge, Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Ms Mandie Dickson, Mr John Langlands, Ms Averil MacLachlan, Mr William Watters, Mr Iain Scott and Ms Yuanne (sic) Stewart.

The disclosures included a copy of the original Scottish Enterprise report on its investigation into my allegations of financial irregularities in August 1993 and included copies of several significant documents that ought to have been addressed in that report but were not addressed, indicating that material evidence had been concealed.

The disclosures contain substantial evidence that the COPFS’s earlier assertions about me being the only witness and about there being no corroboration of any of my allegations are false.


The concealed items to which reference is made above are listed below along with explanatory notes:



     (a)     My reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.


The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

  


     (b)     My email to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which stated the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:


For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.

Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.

I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.

I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.



     (c)     An extract from the Enterprise Ayrshire manual cash book showing the following words at the record of £187,069 cash received by electronic transfer directly into an Enterprise Ayrshire bank account on 25 June 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience:


NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G.TRACEY


The report referred to a later version where the words ‘TO GO THROUGH JULY ACCOUNTS’ had been added after the pursuer put his objection into writing.


The report offered no explanation for this note, which corroborated my allegation of there having been an instruction by Mr Gary Tracey to falsify the accounts in respect of this receipt from the European Regional Development Fund.


Further corroboration is provided by the actions of other finance employees who carried out Mr Tracey’s fraudulent instructions to falsify the accounts



     (d)     The report contained no witness statements whatsoever. This was beyond reasonable doubt an indication that the report writer concealed material evidence.



The last sentence ends the list of excluded items.



The Scottish Enterprise report contained the following conclusion, reproduced here in italics for convenience:


The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.


This conclusion justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.


However, the report provided no plausible explanation for this financial irregularity.


The report had copies of several documents attached to it including a copy of a bank statement dated 24 August 1993 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.


By 3 August 1993 the interest on the misappropriated Scottish Enterprise cash amounted to £919.31 which is shown in the disclosed document to have been paid into this account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey, confirming that on 3 August 1993 £187,919.31 of public money was at the disposal of Mr Tracey personally while it was completely excluded from the company’s balance sheet.


A press release from Scottish Enterprise was also attached to the report in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:


STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire

Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.

Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise

September 1, 1993

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities of almost two months’ duration, plainly the press release was false.


The assertions in the press release about there being no substance to any of the allegations and about there being no grounds for taking any action were incompatible with the evidence and with the report, which although defective in several respects at least confirmed that the £187,069 cash that had been received on 25 June 1993 had not been entered into the accounts until 18 August 1993, the day after I wrote my email objecting to having been incited to enter into a criminal conspiracy to falsify the accounts.


In your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 you refer to my complaint about the police dated 4 June 2016 but you culpably omit to mention that my letter contained the following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience, which clearly allege misconduct by COPFS employees in respect of which you intend destroying evidence:

The combination of public authorities involved in assisting my opponents in this civil action included the police, Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and the Crown Office, the same authorities that appear to have colluded with one another and concealed material evidence since 1993 in the case of the alleged fraud in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.

Strathclyde Police’s relatively recent assertions that all the documentary evidence submitted by me in recent years had been available to the police in 1993 indicates that the police did not handle that evidence properly because that evidence was not passed on to the Procurator Fiscal according to clarifications provided to me.

Clarifications obtained from the Procurator Fiscal in 2005 included an assertion that I was the only witness to the alleged financial irregularities in 1993.

Documentary evidence available to the police since 1993 according to the new evidence detailed above contains references to Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Ms Alison Norton.

Since the Procurator Fiscal has maintained since 2005 that I was the only witness to the financial irregularities in 1993 the police appear not to have passed on this evidence to the Procurator Fiscal. Alternatively, employees in the COPFS acted improperly by concealing relevant evidence.

I was given the following very important advice by the COPFS for the first time in a letter dated 15 April 2011:

‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’

My letters raised the very important new substantive issue that the COPFS appear to have dishonestly refused to handle my allegations against COPFS employees properly and that this has been perpetrated by COPFS employees falsely pretending that the criminal allegations submitted were not criminal allegations. The general public already know that the alleged actions listed in my letters do amount to allegations of criminality.

Your effective concurrence with the COPFS’s abject failure to address my genuine concerns indicates that you have effectively entered into the existing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in this case.

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 Andrew Downie, Gary Tracey, Janie Maxwell and Alison Norton.

I also provided the name of Valery Spence, who had been instructed by Gary Tracey not to enter the cash into the accounts at the time of its receipt.

In truth the COPFS’s reason given for not proceeding has no basis in fact or in law. I was plainly not the only witness and the COPFS’s disgraceful persistence in this obvious lie should be properly investigated in the public interest and in the interests of justice.

The police have in reality wasted an enormous amount of public money in this case trying to suppress the truth and cover for the wrongdoers.

You seem to have 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 Strathclyde Police officers and senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Since the allegations, supported by documentary evidence, included several instances of senior Strathclyde Police officers conspiring to pervert the course of justice you 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 Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service the force that you should have approached to investigate that matter ought to have been from another jurisdiction.


In your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 you also refer to my complaint about the police dated 8 June 2016 but culpably fail to address any of the important information provided therein, indicating further concealment of material evidence by COPFS employees, now including you.

In your letter to me dated 18 May 2017 you make the following further assertions, reproduced here in italics for convenience, and I have added my comments in normal type:

I also note your concerns regarding the disclosures you have received. COPFS do not accept that the comments you have referred to indicate that your correspondence was not taken seriously or dealt with appropriately.

This response from you is clearly dishonest, evasive and inadequate in the light of documentary evidence available.

My letter to the COPFS dated 17 April 2017 already detailed how the comments in question indicate that my correspondence was not taken seriously or dealt with appropriately in the following terms:

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SECTION 10 NOTICE

I formally submit another Section 10 Notice under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of damaging inaccuracies about me held and processed by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, contained in disclosures attached to your letter to me dated 6 April 2017 which are reproduced and numbered below in italics for convenience with my explanatory comments following in normal type and which in addition expose as inaccurate all statements by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service pretending that my correspondence has been properly handled and that the Scottish Enterprise fraud case has been adequately investigated:


1.     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.

The recorded statements reproduced above are inaccurate and damaging towards me.   

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.

Thereby you have caused me unwarranted and substantial damage and distress by concealing material evidence likely to be contained in the information you hold about me which I am legally entitled to have disclosed to me.    


2.     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. 

Consequently the recorded statements reproduced above are inaccurate and damaging towards me by giving a false and damaging negative impression of my conduct.   


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?

The recorded statements reproduced above are self-evidently inaccurate and damaging towards me.   

There was no reasonable basis for treating me as a persistent complainer and disregarding my correspondence.

I do not believe that I was in fact formally categorised as a persistent complainer at that time.


4.     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 recorded statements reproduced above are inaccurate and damaging towards me, falsely portraying me as an unreasonable person.   

The reason this has a long history is that employees in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have point blank refused to address any of my serious concerns, not because of any unreasonable conduct on my part, contrary to the impression conveyed in the disclosures.

In fact I had not complained about everyone a lot and the Ombudsman simply decided not to investigate. I was not ‘bounced’.

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.  

Consequently these disclosures undermine the reliability and accuracy of any correspondence sent to me by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.


5.     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? 

The recorded statements reproduced above are inaccurate and damaging towards me, again falsely portraying me as an unreasonable person.   

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 Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that addressed any of my concerns.

References to me and my concerns here are inaccurate, 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.


6.     To see attached – let me know if you wish me to acknowledge as I am not sure where we are with Mr Cairns!   

The recorded statement reproduced above is inaccurate and damaging towards me.   

The true position was plainly recorded in the correspondence but this person appears not to have examined the existing correspondence with sufficient care to comprehend it and respond appropriately.

The alleged confusion was not because of any unreasonable conduct on my part, contrary to the impression conveyed in this inaccurate statement.


7.     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. 

The recorded statements reproduced above indicate that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s pretences about my correspondence having been properly dealt with have consistently been inaccurate and damaging towards me.   

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 Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employees conspiring to conceal material evidence and pervert the course of justice in the case of alleged fraud and theft of some £187,000 of taxpayers’ cash in a public agency, Scottish Enterprise. 

The disclosures reveal that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have never handled this case properly. Instead, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service 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 wee bundle’ in a cupboard. I want such outrageous failures by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employees to be properly investigated by persons who are sufficiently independent, impartial and professional as a matter of urgency.    

  


The damaging inaccuracies about me held and processed by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, contained in disclosures attached to your letter to me dated 6 April 2017 and which in addition expose as inaccurate all statements by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service pretending that my correspondence has been properly handled and that the Scottish Enterprise fraud case has been adequately investigated have caused me unwarranted and substantial damage and unwarranted and substantial distress, and are likely to cause me further unwarranted and substantial damage and unwarranted and substantial distress in future, by falsely pretending that my correspondence has been properly handled, by treating me as a persistent correspondent and a persistent complainer without reasonable justification, by culpably concealing and disregarding material evidence, by failing to investigate adequately the matters I raised and by falsely portraying me as an incompetent accountant, a false accuser, a time waster and someone who has repeatedly breached professional standards.


The last sentence ends the extracts from my letter to the COPFS dated 17 April 2017.


Similarly, my letter to the COPFS dated 18 April 2017 already further detailed how the comments in question indicate that my correspondence was not taken seriously or dealt with appropriately in the following terms:

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SECTION 10 NOTICE

In support of my Section 10 Notice dated 17 April 2017 I have identified the following statements by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service from the same source which expose as inaccurate all statements by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service pretending that my correspondence has been properly handled and that the Scottish Enterprise fraud case has been adequately investigated, and these are reproduced and numbered below in italics for convenience with my explanatory comments following in normal type:


1.     (redacted) is saying we have earlier papers on this – can you check and put them together if so with the bundle?

These statements further indicate that this case and my correspondence have not been properly handled. Instead it indicates that the handling of my correspondence and the Scottish Enterprise fraud case by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has been shambolic.


2.     Annex A

        Date                        Sender                  Recipient               Subject

    10 October 2008    Lesley Thomson     Eddie Cairns        Enterprise Ayrshire

                                                                                               and Scottish Enterprise

                                                                                               intimating case

                                                                                               now closed and no

                                                                                               further correspondence      

                                                                                               will be entered into


This is the response to me from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service after several important letters are recorded as having been received from me requesting clarifications, as listed in Annex A.

The record of the Subject confirms that no substantive response was sent to me and no clarifications were provided. The correspondence was just terminated despite my serious concerns being entirely unaddressed.

   

3.     We would only have to deal with correspondence that raises new substantive issues that have not previously been addressed.

This confirms that the substantive issues raised in my letters ought to have been addressed but Annex A shows that they were not addressed at all.

The false impression conveyed in this statement is that my letters did not raise substantive issues that had not previously been addressed. In fact, as Annex A records, none of the issues raised in my letters had been addressed although they alleged grave failures including the concealment of material evidence and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.


4.     As you will see, I have decided that we will not proceed with an investigation of Mr Cairns’ complaint. Under the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, I am required to notify you of my decision. 

This statement confirms that the disclosure stating that I had been ‘bounced’ by the Ombudsman was inaccurate and damaging, giving the false impression that my concerns were inconsequential.


The last sentence ends the extracts from my letter to the COPFS dated 18 April 2017.


In the circumstances your decision to destroy documentation can reasonably be regarded as inappropriate in the circumstances, being an attempt to conceal further material evidence and pervert the course of justice, a criminal matter.

Consequently I have copied this letter to the Lord Advocate and the Justice Secretary.

I have already approached an MP who has requested and obtained a mandate to act on my behalf in this case.

Since these are plainly matters of very serious concern to the general public I have also published this letter on the internet in my Scottish Justice blog which has attracted about 50,000 views to date.

Separately, I intend submitting a formal complaint to your professional body about your dishonest conduct as detailed above.

Therefore I request the identification of your professional body.

Yours sincerely,

Eddie Cairns.

No comments: