The following judgement was made in the High Court by Mr Justice MacDermott. At this moment I have no date for this judgement but it was probably in 1986. Any emphasis is mine for reasons of future reference.
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No. 516
By order dated 11th January 1979 the Lord Chief Justice declared, inter alia, that Frederick Andrews ("the Patient") was a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing his person or property - in fact this unfortunate state of affairs had existed for many years and must have been well known to at least the various members of his family and to friends of the family. The General Solicitor was appointed Committee of the Patient's person and estate and towards the end of last year the Official Solicitor - Mr F Brian Hall - took over the administration of the Patient's affairs and immediately set about finalising the enquiries directed by paragraph 3 of that order.
[The Judge neglected to state that Freddie's family asked that Freddie be taken into the care of the Court because they found out that his property was being stolen and sold off by a dishonest solicitor and businessman. The Judge's statement, quote, "inter alia", included a command from the Lord Chief Justice at the time, 11th January 1979, quote, ["In January 1979 the affairs of Mr Frederick Andrews junior (the Patient), Mrs Wright's brother, were brought within the control of the Court and by an Order of the Lord Chief Justice my predecessor, Mr John G Drennan, was appointed as Committee with general responsibliity for the Patient's needs and charged with the specific task of undertaking an enquiry into transactions affecting the Patient's assets and income during the period since his father's death in July 1972."]
The full letter from Official Solicitor Hall to Peter Robinson MP which includes the above quote can be seen here. This command has been completely ignored and the findings of the inquiries which the Judge called "extensive, exhaustive and expeditious" below, have been set aside completely by this High Court Judge. This is criminal.
The matter came before me on 24th October 1983 on foot of a summons which had been issued on my direction on 20th September 1983. Extensive, exhaustive and expeditious inquiries were made by the Official Solicitor and on 30th January 1984 his report was presented to the Court and circulated to all interested parties who were instructed to notify the Official Solicitor in writing of any additional and relevant factual information in their possession and to identify any specific conclusion in the report which was not accepted and which they wished to challenge.
[Was there a copy of the Official Solicitor's extensive, exhaustive and expeditious inquiries sent to the RUC Fraud Squad? Were there instructions given to the RUC Fraud Squad to notify the Official Solicitor in writing of the findings of their several years of in-depth investigations which revealed factual information which was in their possession? Was the RUC Fraud Squad instructed by the Official Solicitor to identify any specific conclusion in the report which was not accepted and which they wished to challenge? Not on your life! The Official Solicitor even went so far as to demean the findings of the RUC Fraud Squad by calling them, quote, "...notes and jottings...". At the very least the Official Solicitor DID acknowledge that there were, at least, "...notes and jottings...". Why were these "notes and jottings" not presented to the High Court judge especially if the Official Solicitor's inquiries were "extensive, exhaustive and expeditious"?
The absence of the findings of the RUC Fraud Squad makes this judgement of the High Court a meaningless non-event and a gross miscarriage of justice in that future corrupt decisions by Official Solicitors and future corrupt actions by businessmen would be justified by this High Court ruling which was incomplete, totally negligent and without proper basis in law].
By letter dated 17th February 1984 on behalf of Mrs Vera Douglas and Mr. W.J. Andrews (sister and brother of the Patient) Messrs. James Boston and Sullivan raised various matters and especially the sale of 14 Castlehill Road, Belfast. This was the family home and was assigned to the Patient by his father on 17th November 1960. There he lived with his mother Mrs. Minetta Andrews and the property was placed on the market for sale - the selling agents being Messrs. Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co. On 3rd December 1975 a contract to purchase was completed and the sale was concluded on 17th February 1976 at a price of £38,750.
[Again the Judge is mistaken. Messrs. Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co. were NOT the selling agents. As can be seen from this advertisement the selling agents were Ulster Property Sales, but Ulster Property Sales was one of Charles Gilpin's companies and to mention this in a High Court judgement could have had 'implications'. How totally sick is this whole affair going to get?] Thereafter the Patient and his mother moved [No, the Patient and his mother WERE MOVED] to smaller but more manageable premises at Norwood Gardens, Belfast, where both still reside.[Yet again the Judge is mistaken. My mother and Freddie were removed from their own home by Charles Gilpin and Tughan & Co and placed in an almost derelict house at 4 Norwood Gardens BEFORE Gilpin and Tughan & Co 'sold' Tara House. Neither was 4 Norwood Gardens more manageable. For years afterwards, much of Freddie's money had to be spent along with money belonging to my husband and me renovating much of this defective house causing much upset and distress.]
The General Solicitor in his report dated 15th December 1979 raised no point against this transaction. [I wonder why? Would the General or Official Solicitor willingly go from "Tara House" to this? Of course he would not, nor would he let any member of his family make such a crazy change, especially when more than enough money was available to avoid such a change. Yet, in the Official Solicitor's opinion such a change was satisfactory and acceptable for a very elderly and sick lady and her mentally handicapped son to be taken out of the comfortable surroundings they had known for many years and literally dumped in a run-down shell of a place.] Subsequent to the Official Solicitor obtaining seisin of the matter Messrs. James Boston and Sullivan on behalf of their clients submitted a valuation from Mr. Murphy of Messrs. Macrory and Jefferson indicating that the true value of the premises in February 1976 was £50,000. [Seisin is a legal term meaning "possession of land under rightful title". This really is serious matter! How could the Official Solicitor obtain "possession of land under rightful title" when that land was no longer under rightful title after the title was fraudulently taken out of my mentally-handicapped brother's name by Charles Gilpin and Herbert Wright of Tughan & Co Solicitors? The Judge could not have been totally unaware of the conduct of Solicitors Tughan & Co but if he was totally unaware, he simply had to refer again to the Order dated 11th January 1979 made by the Lord Chief Justice which Judge MacDermott referred to at the beginning of this judgement. That Order required the Official Solicitor to investigate the events surrounding my mentally-handicapped brother Freddie's estate between 1972 and 1979. In fact, Judge MacDermott was totally remiss in not asking what the Official Solicitor's findings were on the events during that time. Had he done so and had he been told the truth, the Judge would have had to conclude that the only legal title-holder to the land known as 14 Castlehill Road was my brother Freddie Andrews while he lived and that he had been illegally dispossessed and must be reinstated forthwith. That knowledge would have made all this debate about its value of Tara House in 1975 irrelevant.] By my second interim order I directed the Official Solicitor to obtain the advice of an independent estate agent and valuer and he instructed Mr John Deane of Messrs. Alex. Murdoch & Deane. [Mr. Deane was definitely NOT an 'independent' estate agent] Mr. Deane reported on 9th January 1984 and his opinion was that the contract of £38,750 appeared to represent to him the full open market value of 14 Castlehill Road as at December 1975. A copy of this report was sent to Messrs. James Boston and Sullivan and also to Messrs. John Johnson & Son, solicitors for another sister, Mrs. Wright.
[I would ask the reader to now read this.]
The clients of Messrs. James Boston and Sullivan have, as I have indicated, sought to sustain their criticism of the sale price and on Friday last 24th 1984 I directed that the valuers should attend and having heard their evidence, and any other evidence, I would determine this issue. In passing I would add that on the morning of 24th February last Mrs. Wright, for whom Mr. Bentley appeared, was given leave to state her personal views. Put shortly she cannot understand why the family home, which she considers was given to the Patient as an investment, was sold. At this point in time one cannot say what precisely motivated Mrs. Minetta Andrews and her advisers but this does not bear on the point before me - namely was the sale price a fair price as far as the Patient is concerned? [It "does not bear on the point before me" the Judge stated simply because the Official Solicitor, aided and abetted by the RUC and the DPP, deliberately and with malice aforethought, omitted to inform the Judge of the criminal conduct and activity which the RUC Fraud Squad found in the course of their extensive investigations.] In passing, I would add that Mrs. Wright, who now lives with her husband with the Patient and their mother in Norwood Gardens, offered to undertake the duties of Committee of the Patient's person. As the person who is now in fact looking after the Patient's daily needs, and also her mother a lady now in her 90s, this seems a most helpful suggestion and one which the Official Solicitor indicated that he was very willing to accept. [What complete and utter rubbish! This is the last thing that Official Solicitor Brian Hall or any other Official Solicitor would countenance. If it were true, and even the official booklet on Committees states that a member of the Patient's family should be the Committee, why has it not happened since 1979, over 25 years ago? See first letter from Madden & Finucane to Official Solicitor, last paragraph.]
I return now to the valuation of 14 Castlehill Road. Mr. Murphy has many years of experience in house agency and valuation but frankly accepted that his practice did not lie in the upper bracket of the private dwelling market. Ah, so by implication, the Judge is accepting that 14 Castlehill Road is in the upper bracket of the private dwelling market. Hadn't we been telling everybody this all along. Why then did people, professional estate agents and valuers like Deane, undervalue this magnificent property by two thirds. Wasn't the idea of Hall's gang to have it bought at the lowest and most shameful price it could be bought or stolen for, and then sold at its full market value in order to get the maximum profit for a collective legal share-out? Thus when the commission reached him he was in some difficulty having no comparable transactions within his office to which he could refer. His solution was to approach the District Valuer and obtain details of transactions in Castlehill Road together with the Net Annual Value and superficial area of the properties concerned.
The N.A.V. of 14 Castlehill Road was £610 and its superficial area about 4,600 square feet, including garages. [This would never have been an issue if the RUC Fraud Squad evidence had been allowed to be presented. Without such evidence this is irrelevant.]
Mr. Murphy then did a ratio based calculation comparing the subject property with especially 12, 16 and 18 Castlehill Road and such comparisons of N.A.V. and superficial area produced a figure for the subject property of about £50,000.
In the absence of personal knowledge of comparable methods this approach is legitimate but potentially unreliable because the value of a house is governed by its general condition, by the state of the kitchen and bathrooms and by the market demand for a particular size of house. Thus on the last point Mr. Murphy accepted that there would be a limited market for a house the size of No. 14 [What utter nonsense, the Judge must have been aware that his fellow Judges and legal eagles and top policemen and businessmen were lining up to grab anything in this Stormont area as it was the place to be and be seen to be.] - also in the course of Mr. Deane's evidence it emerged that at the time of the sale the kitchen regions were poor and not modernised. [There was NOTHING poor about 14 Castlehill Road. If there had been anything 'poor' about it, Charles Gilpin and Herbert Wright would not have been interested. In fact, here is what Charles Gilpin's own company UPS stated about the kitchen in "Tara House" in the advertisement in the Belfast Telegraph mentioned above, quote, "Large well fitted kitchen with door to patio". Just as Official Solicitor Hall continually accepted without question the already questioned evidence and decisions of the first Official Solicitor and Kerr QC, now the High Court Judge is accepting with very little question the evidence of valuers carefully chosen by Hall.] I also accept Mr. Deane's evidence that it is recognised that
(a) the higher the rateable value the lower is the multiplier which should be used to get a true price, and
(b) once property is over 3,500 square feet in superficial area that excess tends to depress the value of the property.
[What a smoke screen! Surely the Judge is taking sides here. If what Mr. Deane stated above is true, why did solicitor Gerald P. Jemphry grab "Tara House" the first day it went up for sale and before any competition was allowed to be involved. Why was it later offered for sale at £475,000 and bought at an even higher price by another member of the legal profession? This magnificent property did not suffer on the open market because it was over 3,500 square feet. My information was that Mr. Deane acted for Official Solicitor Hall in the sale of his, Hall's own house. Mr. Deane had a vested interest in keeping the price of "Tara House" down as low as possible at this stage, amd of course, there was Gerald P. Jemphry, a senior lawyer in the High Court buildings whose signature can be seen here alongside F. Brian Hall's signature who was also one of Hall's gang.]
Another point which clearly emerged was that despite Mr. Murphy's calculations he could not point to a single house sale at the relevant time in the region of £50,000. This is not at all surprising because when one looks at Mr. Deane's table of comparables only 5 Broomhill Park and 4 Rosevale Gardens penetrated the £40,000 barrier. Accustomed to to-day's high, or inflated, figures it is difficult to remember that only 7 or 8 years ago the plateau was at the apparently modest level indicated by Mr. Deane's figures.
[This is just blatantly untrue. Have a look again at this advertisement The asking price for the property at 111 Trossachs Drive, Upper Malone Road which was only one third of the size of 14 Castlehill Road was practically £70,000 and was probably sold for much more on the open market, and this was not 7 or 8 years before MacDermott's judgement, but a massive 12 (twelve) years before the his judgement.]
After hearing Mr. Murphy's evidence I felt it was founded on theory rather than on accurate knowledge of this particular market. Mr. Deane's evidence fully confirmed this view. His comparables did not lie on the Castlehill Road but in my judgment were properties of the same general quality and in comparable areas in and around Belfast. [What about the foregoing comparables such as 111 Trossaghs Drive, Upper Malone Road, Belfast? Just as the RUC Fraud Squad evidence was deliberately kept out of the High Court, so this information, which even I knew about, must have been known to Mr. Deane and his professional friends.] I shall not consider each in turn because the general impact of his evidence clearly confirmed the firm statement of opinion set out in his report - namely that £38,000 represented the full market value for the property. I have reached this conclusion after reminding myself of two points explained by Mr. Markey, Q.C. who with Mr. Weatherup appeared for Mrs. Douglas and Mr. Andrews.
1. The sale price included carpets and curtains. No details of these items was laid before me but experience, confirmed by Mr. Deane's opinion, satisfy me that such items rarely change hands at anything like market value.
2. That Mr. Deane's judgment may have been clouded by his having in his possession the valuation made by Messrs. Desmond McConnell and Martin dated 1st August 1975 which put a figure of £37,500 on the property. I am satisfied that Mr. Deane's valuation is his own valuation and an entirely genuine one. To suggest otherwise would be to deny the careful, objective and expert nature both of his report and his evidence.
[This house was built sixty years previously for £37,000. My father did much work to it during the time he lived in it and the gardens were a delight to see. The solicitor, Mr. Jemphrey, who 'bought' our beautiful home was given first refusal and the house never went on the open market to find out what it would fetch. This is the most damning indictment of this whole affair and this judgement makes a mockery of justice. A High Court judge later 'bought' 14 Castlehill Road for just under half a million pounds.]
In conclusion having heard all the evidence [No! You only heard a criminally selected version of the evidence.] and counsel's submissions thereon, I am satisfied that the price received by the Patient was a fair and reasonable one. Consequently I do not require the Official Solicitor to inquire further into this aspect of the matter or to embark upon any proceedings: no factual foundation exists for such action which would simply burden the Patient's estate with quite unjustified costs. [In fact and in practice, this 'judgement' assisted criminals in the plunder of my brother's home.]
As to the costs of these proceedings on this issue I do not propose to award Mrs. Douglas and Mr. Andrews their costs out of the estate of the Patient. The only question is whether or not having raised the issue and failed they should be responsible for the Official Solicitor's costs of the hearing. With some hesitation I do not propose on this occasion to make such an order. Mrs. Douglas and Mr. Andrews will bear their own costs and the Official Solicitor's costs will be part of his general costs out of the estate of the Patient [How utterly convenient. Mr. Hall must have slept well that night - or did his conscience allow him to?] - and the nature of the issue permitted the briefing of Senior and Junior counsel. I would add that I have taken this rather lenient course because this is the first contested issue to have required my resolution [No, it was the first contested issue that Hall allowed into the High Court] - if other issues are contested then without in any way action "in terrorem" I must warn that the normal rule that costs follow the event will usually prevail. [That is corrupt blackmail.] I would only say finally what I have said before - it is important that all issues be resolved and resolved with expedition but consistent with that ambition I will not willingly see the patient's estate dissipated in the costs of litigation. [No! Better to have it dissipated 'on the quiet'. I have to state that I am utterly shocked and frightened by Judge MacDermott's ineptitude, ignorance, yes, ignorance in the fullest sense of the word, and total lack of insight into what he was being fed. In fact, I have to ask myself if Judge MacDermott was now part of the 'Gang'? The evidence of this Judgement actually points in that direction.]