Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

My letter to Hall dated 10/9/1988.

Dear Mr Hall

I note with interest that you state in your letter of 30/8/1988 in reply to mine of the 29/8/1988, that you studied carefully all questions raised in my letter regarding Freddie's affairs.
With whom did you raise these questions? Was it with the Official Solicitor? Could we now have the result of your study and answers to all questions asked as soon as possible?

Would you please let me have the information you say "was furnished" to me and the names of the "several solicitors" whom you say "sought to advise me over the years"? I deny this emphatically and I hope this will be the last time I will have to answer these untruths. I was never given any useful information by you or any member of the legal profession. We gave plenty of useful information to yourself and to solicitors by letter but it was never acted upon. Why do you keep repeating these fabrications? What do you hope to gain by attacking me and the family?

Would it not be more beneficial to Freddie if you reserved your energy to attack the guilty?

You worked both inside and outside the Court to the detriment of the patient. Neither you nor your predecessor ever worked in Freddie's interest.

We were brought into Court under false pretences, treated as spectators and ignored. You never took into consideration the concern we had to protect my father's wishes for his son.

You made your Reports out on your own opinions and findings. You gave us no opportunity to correct your Reports or assist in any way to compile them. Our valuable information would have helped to give the true picture to the Judge but you preferred to put forward your own interpretations and distortions of the truth to sway the Courts. May I repeat, the Judge was never given the facts, so how could he "direct you at all times exclusively" as you stated?

It is now obvious to us why all had to be dealt with behind closed doors and the family kept ignorant of what deals you were doing. Your tactics had to be secret.

Why do you persist in putting down in writing that we "ignored the advice of solicitors and counsel during the time the late Mr Drennan was in charge of Freddie's affairs" and that we "refused to sit on a committee"? I am again asking you to name these solicitors and counsel. You have persistently ignored these questions. You even denied that you put this down in writing at the meeting in your office on the 24th June 1988.

Can you let me know what all the above has got to do with the mismanagement, misappropriation and theft of Freddie's entire estate, both before and after the time we put Freddie in the 'Care' of the Court?

Would it not be simpler to answer all questions asked instead of going off at a tangent and using the proverbial red-herring in order to confuse the issue? You appear to be more absorbed in me than the patient. I am not on trial.

You cast aside over three years work and many hours in overtime spent by the fraud squad in our case. Their direct evidence was in your opinion "notes and jottings". You refused to give the fraud officer a hearing although he went to see you twice. Your mind was made up as to what course of action you would take. The fraud officers' evidence was dismissed out of hand by you. You were only four months on Freddie's case when you stated that you "got the true facts in an afternoon in the office of Messrs Tughan & Company when Mr H Wright was present".
The fraud officer had already visited these offices and got vital evidence. Why did you not pass this evidence over to the Judge who could then have handed all back to the D.P.P. for further investigation? For some reason you preferred to act on your own opinions. You refused to listen to the fraud officers or the family.

Would you please give us the names of the senior officers in the R.U.C. and D.P.P. with whom you said you were in constant touch and in close contact at all times? By your interference and abuse of your powers you have denied Freddie the right to justice.

We were brought into Court under false pretences. You made sure no one got the opportunity to speak on our behalf. We were not only stopped when making our one and only submission but from swearing affidavits. You had everything "signed and sealed" before going into Court. Your plan of campaign was not to be hindered in any way by a fraud officer or the family.

You directed and interfered with every solicitor we hoped would speak on our behalf. They appeared to be afraid of your position and stayed silent. The fact that you led them to believe you had "an ear to the Judge" was enough to let them know their presence in Court was a useless task.

Why did you put us through Court Hearings when everything had been settled behind closed doors and before going into Court? It appears to us that there was blatant collusion to obstruct the Court of justice and deny a mental patient his basic human rights.

Now that it has become clear to us what tactics can be used in a Court of Law, we will never again be inveigled into any Court that can so barefacedly act against the interests of the patient. Freddie was treated in a disgraceful manner. We will never forget the injustices meted out to a patient who cannot speak for himself.

You ignored the fact that two eminent Senior Consultants gave statements to the fraud squad stating that Freddie would have "no knowledge or understanding of what he was signing". Was the Judge ever given this information?

It is horrendous that I had to ask the help of Dr A Lyons, Senior Consultant, to put forward questions on my behalf, for you to answer. These questions have never been answered. I also had to ask the help of Dr A Lyons and his Social Worker, Mrs. Moisiewitsch, to inspect the state of this house and how it was allowed to fall into further disrepair. Never at any time was any Official Solicitor concerned with the domestic or personal needs of the patient.

Why did you allow the accounts set out by the late Mr J G Drennan to be passed by the Accountant General's Office in the Law Courts when they were presented in the name of John Drennan in 1977, two years before we put Freddie in the care of the Court? Was this information given to the Judge? How could these accounts be passed as correct when they were misleading and false? Can I again ask you is this the reason why you have denied us the right to see Mr Drennan's Report?

You keep repeating that we had "numerous meetings" when you know this is untrue. I hope I won't have to answer this again.

I know I have to work in the capacity of home help etc., without payment or rights. I don't object to being a home help, but I refuse to be treated as a domestic by the Courts or anyone else and without rights as Freddie's sister and guardian.

If everything was open and above board as requested by the Judge there should be no reason to withhold all relevant information. We have made many submissions in writing but you have not been particularly forthcoming with answers.

I will continue to insist that accounts must be made available to the family.

Yours faithfully,

Eileen Wright (Mrs)


Site map and contents