Sitemap

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

Mr. Roy Beggs MP asks questions in Parliament on Thursday 25th February 1988.

1. Mr Roy Beggs (East Antrim): To ask the Attorney General why fraud squad investigations into the case of Freddie Andrews were re-opened in 1987; and on whose instruction there has been further investigations.

The Attorney General: Investigations into this matter were not re-opened in 1987. An investigation by an officer of the Fraud Squad of the Royal Ulster Constabulary commenced in August 1981. A preliminary report was submitted by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland on 26 February 1982. Since that date, thorough and complex police investigations have continued and a number of further reports have been received in the Office of the Director from the Chief Constable. On 10 June 1987, a direction to prosecute an individual for an offence contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 issued to the Chief Constable. [As you can see from clicking the above link at "individual", this charge had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the criminal plundering of my brother's estate.
In fact, this one and only prosecution brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions against solicitor Herbert Wright, an employee of Tughan & Co, is a selective action with shocking criminal and legal implications for the RUC, the legal profession in Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the British Government. Tughan & Co were millionaire Charles Gilpin's legal representatives. Herbert Wright was their front man dealing directly with Charles Gilpin. After Gilpin and Wright managed to have my mother's and Freddie's affairs taken out of the hand's of my father's solicitors Boston & Sullivan, they then, within months of my father's death, had Gilpin installed as the sole executor of my mother's Will with Wright as one of two signatories to that Will. Their next step was to have my mother and brother removed from their beautiful home and into a slum dwelling in order to further their gainful plunder. As their daring increased, Gilpin and Wright took steps to sell off my brother's valuable property but by now our family were aware of what was happening and, unfortunately, put Freddie and his estate in the Care of the Courts.

The charge, quote, "On 10 June 1987, a direction to prosecute an individual for an offence contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 issued to the Chief Constable" was for an offence committed by, quote, "Herbert Wright, between the 1st day of August 1979 and the 31st day of January 1980". This was after my brother Freddie was put into the care of the Courts in January 1979. If this was a case relevant to the plunder of my brother Freddie's estate, why is there ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of this case in either of the Official Solicitor Hall's Reports to the High Court of January 30th 1984 and December 2nd 1985?

The fact is that there is absolutely no direct connection between the two cases as the Attorney General has obviously implied in his Parliamentary Answer. This action was taken against solicitor Herbert Wright in a case of fraud which was IN ADDITION TO his fraudulent assistance in the plunder of my brother's estate. The question is, why was similar action not taken with regard to the confirmed plunder of my brother's estate?

The Ryland Group was not going to be a soft touch to plunder as my unfortunate brother was and in taking action against Wright on behalf of the Ryland Group, it was good PR for the policing authorities. It also gave the Attorney General the chance to try to cover for the selective activities of the authorities here. In that, he has failed miserably.]


2. Mr Roy Beggs (East Antrim): To ask Mr Attorney General, if he will publish details of all properties inherited by Freddie Andrews: (a) on the death of his father and (b) still in his ownership when the Official Solicitor assumed responsibility for his affairs (No. 515 1978); if he will publish dates of transfer of each property transaction and the value of each transaction; and if he will provide a copy of each audited annual account for the affairs of Freddie Andrews since his affairs became the sponsibility [should read "responsibility"] of the Office of Care and Protection, with details of the use to which monies raised were put.

The Attorney-General: It is not appropriate to publish details of the affairs of any patient without leave of the court, as such matters must be treated in the same confidence as that enjoyed by any other person. An application may be made to the court by any person concerned about a particular case for disclosure of any information in respect of which the applicant can demonstrate a legitimate interest. [This is not ANY patient. This is my mentally-handicapped brother whose case has been the subject of many enquiries by prominent journalists over many years. There would be no problem but for the fact that my mentally-handicapped brother was left extremely well-off by his caring father whose instructions have been trampled upon by businessmen, solicitors, Official Solicitors, barristers especially one who has become a High Court Judge and now the Attorney General. This is not about protecting the confidence of the patient, my mentally-handicapped brother, this is all about protecting the corruption in the Office of Care and Protection and the Office of Care and Protection in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of justice that where a very large amount of money is concerned, the details of the management of that money MUST be made available for EVERYBODY to see, but such is the shocking conduct withing the Office of Care and Protection and the Office of the Official Solicitor even the Attorney General has to lie publicly in order to prevent the can of worms from being opened. The facts of what has happened to my brother's assets must be made public in the interest of justice. That alone is a legitimate interest.]


3. Mr Roy Beggs (East Antrim): To ask Mr Attorney General, why the Director of Public Prosecutions for (Northern Ireland) originally directed no prosecution in regard of all matters raised by the late Detective Constable Patterson which included information on Freddie Andrews' case; and why investigation papers in the Andrews case were subsequently submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland).

The Attorney-General: A direction to prosecute an individual for an offence contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 was issued on 10 June 1987. [As I stated above, this prosecution has absolutely nothing to do with the gross mismanagement of my mentally-handicapped brother's very valuable estate, but even the Attorney-General finds it necessary to continue to lie publicly in order to cover up a massive government scandal.] An investigation by an officer of the fraud squad of the Royal Ulster Constabulary commenced in August 1981. A preliminary report was submitted by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the office of the Director of public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland on 26 February 1982. Since that date thorough and complex police investigations have continued and a number of further reports have been received in the office of the Director from the Chief Constable. The direction of 10 June 1987 was issued having regard to the various reports made by police, the last of which was submitted on 13 May 1987. [Why, why, why, why, why, after years of police investigations were no proceedings taken by the police and DPP against the same solicitor for his misconduct while handling my mentally-handicapped brother's estate, yet proceedings were taken against that solicitor for his misconduct while handling the affairs of the Ryland Vehicle Group which the Attorney-General is comfortable with and keeps referring to?]


4. Mr Roy Beggs (East Antrim): To ask Mr Attorney General, what discussions there have been between the relatives of Freddie Andrews and the office of the Official Solicitor on the handling of his affairs, since he was placed under the Office of Care and Protection at his relatives request.

The Attorney-General: Following the appointment of the Official Solicitor on 11 January 1979 to assume responsibility for the affairs of Mr. Frederick Andrews there were mumerous meetings between him and the individual members of the patient's family and their legal representatives. [Please identify the dates of these "numerous" meetings. There was never a proper meeting between an Official Solicitor and members of the Andrews family and their legal representatives. The members of the Andrews family were literally bullied when they dared to turn up for such a 'meeting' and were neither listened to nor treated with the respect that a citizen of Her Majesty is entitled to. In fact they had occasion to feel it necessary to leave such 'meetings' in disgust at the Official Solicitor's shocking conduct. In the course of a review directed by the court in September 1983 the newly appointed Official Solicitor and counsel engaged by her had further discussions with the legal representatives of members of Mr. Andrews family. At the conclusion of the review the judge directed that the Official Solicitor should discontinue investigations unless new or additional evidence was forthcoming. [Even a former Member of Parliament stated that the Judge was misinformed.]


5. Mr Roy Beggs (East Antrim): To ask Mr Attorney General, if he will publish details of the steps to be followed where relatives wish to have a mentally handicapped person returned wholly to the care of his relatives from the Office of the Care and Protection.

The Attorney General: Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 provides that where person is found to be incapable, by reason of mental disorder, of managing and administering his property and affairs the High Court may exercise general powers and make specific orders in respect of such a persons property and affairs. Such a person is referred to as a patient. A patient may be restored to management of his own affairs where the court is satisfied that the patient has become capable of managing and administering his property and affairs.
[In other words, the British Government's Attorney-General has put in writing that, despite massive efforts of talented, caring and very intelligent journalists and members of my mentally-handicapped brother's family to have their concerns about the corrupt conduct of senior members of the police and senior members of the legal profession and civil servants here in Northern Ireland, my mentall-handicapped brother Freddie's person and property must remain in the 'care' of these gangsters. The Attorney-General knows Freddie will never be able to look after his affairs or himself. These gangsters are very happy to have me, at 83 years of age, to attend to Freddie's needs including his incontinence, but his property? Never!!!

[Why is even the Mother of Parliaments - generally accepted as the Western World's Seat of Democracy - silent on this massive fraud which has been professionally organised and covered up by members of the legal system, politicians, British civil servants in many different government departments and aided and abetted by the police?]