Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

A letter from Hall to Vera Douglas dated 28/4/1986.

Dear Mrs Douglas,

IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS

Thank you for your letter of yesterday's date which I received this morning. It contains many comments and assertions with which I am already familiar and which I have dealt with in previous replies to you. There are only 3 points about which I feel I should make any further comment at this stage.

1. At the bottom of the first page of your letter you have suggested that I should have "allowed the Fraud officer a voice when he was in [my] office" so that I could have been given "valuable information ... and evidence of fraud and malpractice". I am not aware of any meeting, whether in my office or elsewhere [Come, come, Mr. Hall, don't you remember stating this. Detective Constable Patterson was with me in the High Court and he was prepared to give all the evidence of fraud, malpractice, misappropriation etc, that he had found during the three-year-long official Fraud Squad investigation he had been assigned to carry out, to the Judge but you prevented DC Patterson from giving that evidence. Because the Judge had to make decisions in ignorance of that evidence renders those decisions and judgments irrelevant.], about which that comment is made nor am I aware of any significant information which could be provided to assist the Court at this stage. [You are, in fact, saying, Mr. Hall, that the three-year official Fraud Squad investigation findings had no place in the High Court hearings into the plunder of Freddie's estate. You, Mr. Hall, are very, very wrong. Even Mr. Roy Beggs MP wrote this about your involvement with discredited solicitor Herbert Wright.]

2. I readily acknowledge the confusion which may have been caused by my reference at the end of paragraph 3 of my letter to you of 21 April to rental income for the short period of 4 months up to 28 February 1986 "based upon the rental value of the property recommended to the Court by the District Valuer" when read in conjunction with the statement made in paragraph 3 of my earlier letter of 3 April when I stated that "it is not the function of the district Valuer to undertake negotiations on behalf of parties to private commercial lettings". The explanation is simple. The District Valuer may not be approached in relation to private negotiations generally. For that reason it is not possible for any party to seek his views in regard to rental values which might have been appropriate in 1975 or 1980. When dealing with the value of the Smithfield properties for the purposes of the proposed sale transaction which was being negotiated on behalf of the Patient last November, however, the Court was made aware of the rental value then assessed by the District Valuer as a feature of his calculation of the recommended minimum sale price. The views of the District Valuer were therefore available (for a separate reason entirely) and I was entitled to rely upon them when concluding my negotiations with the solicitors representing Messrs Tughan & Co. [This page makes interesting reading, Mr. Hall.]

3. In the third paragraph on page 4 of your letter you ask why the Patient was denied the right to be protected by the Office of Care and Protection and why Mr Chambers of that Office was not kept informed of what was happening in the case. I have explained to you, other members of your family and solicitors involved in the review that since my initial engagement to undertake the review in August 1983 I have reported direct to the Judge and have taken my instructions exclusively from him. [Why has the statutory legal procedure so often be set aside in the conducting of my handicapped brother's affairs, Mr. Hall? As Official Solicitor, you were required to report to a Master and not directly to the Judge. Has there been any other occasion when such statutory legal procedure has been set aside or was it only in the case of my handicapped brother Freddie who had a most unusually large estate and its plunder required that fewer than usual officials be used in case there might, just might, have been an honest one around to oppose you?] It was unnecessary in those circumstances for me to communicate with the Master or with other officials in the Office of Care and Protection - unless that became necessary in relation to particular Court hearings. [You are joking of course, aren't you, Mr. Hall? No, I didn't really think you were. What a waste of your education!]

I have noted that you wish to have the Patient's affairs removed from the jurisdiction of the Court and I will inform the Judge of your concern to make a submission on that point to him at the next review hearing which has been listed for Freiday 9 May at 2.00 pm. [Did you remember to do that?]

Yours sincerely,

F BRIAN HALL.
Master

[Here is an interesting situation, Mr. Hall. Now that you were Master, you were not prepared to step aside and allow the Official Solicitor at that time to deal directly with the Judge, were you???????????? SEE BELOW!
Just how did you manage all this, Mr. Hall?]