IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516
Points raised in Mrs Wright's letter
of 5 May 1987 to Dr H A Lyons
1. The unequivocal medical opinions as to the Patient's incapacity expressed both by Dr Lyons and by his colleague Dr James F Perry are a matter of record.
The point was clearly acknowledged in paragraph 5 (on page 3) of the Official Solicitor's report dated 30 January 1984 in the following terms:
"A central feature of this case must, of course, be that of the Patient's capacity to manage his affairs and, in particular, to comprehend any dealings with property or income which had been provided for his benefit and support by his father during the latter's lifetime. I am satisfied, from medical reports provided by 2 consultant psychiatrists in November and December 1978, that the Patient was incapable of managing his affairs at any time since the date of his father's death on 14 July 1972, and it also appears that he would never had had [should have read "have had"] capacity following the first manifestations of mental illness in 1946 when he was aged 17 years.[This is absolute nonsense. As is well-known now, a person hearing voices in his head is a curable condition and the lobotomy performed at that time was totally wrong. It was the lobotomy which made Freddie mentally handicapped, not the symptom of hearing voices.] I am satisfied that this incapacity was known to all the members of the Patient's family at all material times."
2. It is also known that in the years following the death of his father members of the Patient's family chose to ignore the clear advice given by their experienced solicitors, supported by the opinion of counsel, and did not apply to the Court for the appointment of a Committee (now Controller) to act for him. [That is a blatant lie] One of the reasons which led to the decision to appoint the Official Solicitor (then Mr Drennan) as Committee in January 1979 rather than a member of the family was that it was quite apparent that individual members were highly critical of the actions (or inactivity) of other members during the preceding 7 years. [That is totally untrue. There was never any need after my father died to be concerned about Freddie's well-being until we, his sisters and brother, discovered that "Tara House" was actually sold. We did not know at that time that Freddie's property in Little King Street had already been sold. It was our helplessness in failing to undo the shocking plunder perpetrated by Charles Gilpin and solicitors Tughan & Co that forced us to seek the assistance of the Court. We did not know that the officers of the Court were equally corrupt and criminal which is why we then had to seek the help of the RUC Fraud Squad and the results of their investigations were hidden from the Court especially by you, Mr. Hall.
3. It is incorrect to suggest that the Court is not concerned to protect the interests of Mr Andrews (or other patients). [The evidence now available not only suggests but confirms a calculated, organised and criminally conducted campaign of institutionalised violence against Patients in Care with assets, being conducted by professional people directed and supervised from the High Court buildings in Belfast.] At the end of an extensive and comprehensive review of this case the Judge indicated at the last (ninth) formal hearing that any party with an interest is at liberty to make a further application to the Court if so advised. [If that was true, why have I and other members of my family been forced to write hundreds of letters over many years, pleading with all the relevant authorities to do their duty and have justice not only done but seen to be done?]
4. The final report submitted to the Judge indicated the extent of compensation (together with interest and costs) which had been recovered on behalf of the Patient. It was accepted both by the Judge and by the professional representatives of all the members of the family at that hearing that the amount recovered represented the full entitlement of the Patient and the settlement was duly approved. [You know, Mr. Hall, that the reason the Patient was entitled to compensation was because his estate was abused. Our family members recognised this abuse over twelve years earlier which is why we sought help from the Court in the first place. Even after Mr. Drennan was appointed Committee of Freddie's affairs our family members recognised that the abuse was actually continued by the Office of the Official Solicitor which was why we then sought the help of the RUC Fraud Squad. This is why you personally took it upon yourself to hide the results of the Fraud Squad's three-year investigation in order for you to prevent those results being brought to the attention of the High Court Judge. You, Mr. Hall, have actually made the High Court complicit in a most serious crime.]
5. So far from the affairs of the Patient being conducted in secret all application affecting any of his assets, including the recent sale of his properties at Smithfield/Francis Street, have been considered at formal sittings in Court before the assigned Judge upon notice to all interested parties who have had independent advice and representation. [Then why are the members of Freddie's family denied the right to see the Official Court Accounts of all the dealings in his properties carried out in his name. You are fooling nobody, Mr. Hall, especially the members of my family and all the "independent representation" who acted on our behalf. Actually the word 'acted' is very appropriate. After our expensive 'independent representatives' were continually briefed by you, they had no option but to toe your line. They were never independent and you know that. Otherwise my brother would be sitting in his own home "Tara House".]
6. It is not clear from the last paragraph of Mrs Wright's letter who would [still] try to take the Patient's last property (presumably a reference to 4 Norwood Gardens) from him or for what reason. As to the question of the maintenance of that property Mrs Wright is fully aware of the responsibility of Mrs Deirdre S Bowers, the present Official Solicitor, as Controller for the Patient to provide for his personal and domestic needs out of the current resources which are available. It is open to Mrs Wright at any time to communicate direct with Mrs Bowers and it is, therefore, both unnecessary and inappropriate for any other person or agency to become involved in matters of domestic detail.
There is no signature.
15 May 1987