I sent the following letter to Mr. Millar in the Office of the Lord Chief Justice dated February 16th 1989.
Dear Mr. Millar,
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS 1978 No. 516.
I acknowledge receipt of you letter dated 3rd Feb. 1989.
In the absence of a judgement propounded, promulgated and signed by Lord Justice MacDermott I must treat, as suspect, your comments upon features of my letter dated 18th Jan. 1989.
On the surface, and in content, they would appear to have been prompted, compiled and dictated by the ex-Official Solicitor, Mr Brian Hall.
The latter is impervious to evidence and argument which impinges upon the honesty, integrity and credibility of Messrs Tughan & co. and Cleaver, Fulton and Rankin. He appears to want to ingratiate himself with those companies of Solicitors even in the face of incontrovertible evidence and to the detriment of a mentally handicapped "Patient in Care">
It is correct to suggest that the charge brought against Mr Herbert Wright related to allegations of forgery and falsification of documents involving my mentally handicapped brother. The Late Det. M. Patterson, whose diligence and dedication were highly commended by the trial Judge, Lord Justice O'Donnell, exposed in his in-depth investigations, Forgery of Sale Agreements and Forgery of Deeds of Conveyance in relation to the two properties of Smithfield/ Frances St. belonging to the Patient. I know that the deception perpetrated by Mr H Wright was against the Ryland Vehicle Group Ltd. But the indictment expressly states that Mr Wright obtained £375,000 which went into Messrs Tughan & Co, account, from the Ryland Vehicle Group by falsely representing that Neville Johnston (Garages) Ltd, had a good and marketable title to properties in Smithfield Square and Francis St. My mentally handicapped brother was the only one with a good and marketable title to the aforementioned properties.
I have a document in my possession, dated 26th Nov. 1985 and signed by P.W. Whale, Director of the Ryland Vehicle Group, stating that "the disputed purchase of the 'Andrews property' took place some years before our purchase of the Neville Group." Who is trying to pull the wool over whose eyes? Who is right? Which is the more acceptable statement, the unambiguous statement of Mr Whale or the equivocal and devious statement by Mr Hall that "the 2 properties at Smithfield/ Frances St, belonging to the Patient had never, at the time of Ryland's takeover, been conveyed or assigned to anyone". These two statements refer to two different transactions which took place at different times. It follows therefore, contrary to Mr Hall's deduction, that the patient had been divested of his legal estate in those properties and thus suffered loss.
If, as Mr. Hall, (through you) suggests that the charge against Mr H Wright did not involve my brother, why was Dr. A. Lyons, Consultant Psychiatrist present in the Court and his statement accepted, concerning the legal inadmissibility (accepted by Lord Justice O'Donnell) of my brother's signature on documents because of his mental incapacity?
This interpretation of the validity of my brother's signature is at variance with that of Mr Hall who, on the 7th June, 1984 wrote, "In regard to the legal effect of the signature on a document of a person subsequently found to be ( and to have been at the time of the signing ) incapable of managing his own affairs I have explained that the Court is bound to enquire whether the transaction in question was undertaken in the patient's best interests whether it was for full value (at the date of the transaction) and whether the purchaser was acting in good faith and without notice of the Patient's disability." Such an interpretation provides a blank cheque for criminals, business tycoons, "Christian" entrepreneurs, manipulators and con men. This is exactly what happened to Freddie and his various properties. He was the victim of fraud, forgery, misappropriation and malpractice and, even worse, the connivance of successive Official Solicitors.
A criminal and a con man were accepted and described as "trustees" of Freddie's estate by Mr Hall. My father never knew Herbert Wright and Gilpin was the last man on earth my father would have made a "trustee". If Mr Hall had been interested in the truth he would have consulted the family before he compiled his infamous Report but he preferred the word of proven criminals in order to cover up the latter's nefarious actions.
Mr Dowling of Central Merchants admitted to me verbally that he had bought a piece of ground from Neville Johnston to accommodate his lorries. Neville Johnston never owned any of the Smithfield ground. The large yard at the rear of the showrooms (61/65 Smithfield) was the property of my mentally handicapped brother. Mr Dowling further informed me that he had sold the piece of ground to Laing when he found out that it was going to be vested. Can Mr Hall give a rational and defensible explanation with appropriate detail to this illegal disposal of a mental patient's property?
I have a document dated 8th Feb. 1989 and signed by W.McGivern Regional Director Belfast, of the Housing Executive re. 66-68 Smithfield (Francis St), which states:
"I can confirm that the Executive leased the above site from the 15th Dec. 1982 to July 1985 at a rental of £1,500 per annum from Andrews & Co. Ltd through McConnell Martin & Co, estate agents. The agreement was signed on behalf of Andrews & Co. Ltd by Mr R Mairs of McConnell Martin & Co."
Andrews & Co, did not own this property. It was owned by my mentally handicapped brother. What happened to the proceeds, £3,750, of this leasing?
What explanation has Mr Hall for this illegal disposal of a mental patient's property? It occurred during his stewardship as Official Solicitor, so he must be able to give a detailed and explicit account of it, in particular on whose authority Mr. R. Mairs signed this agreement.
Conspicuous by its absence from you letter is Mr. Hall's refusal to acknowledge there was a "cover up" (Lord Justice O'Donnell's description), when £35,000 was lodged in the Industrial Bank in Bangor in the names of Gilpin & Wright, the so called "trustees". Mr Hall on the 6th of March 1986 described this sum of money as "the price originally 'tendered' to the patient on October 1977". It is the duty of the Court to highlight such a perversion of the truth, not the responsibility of the Patient's relatives. In view of the way in which Mr Hall concocted and contrived previous Hearings with the approval of the Court the family consider it would be a futile and pointless exercise on their part to seek a Review of my brother's case.
We hope and trust that Lord Justice MacDermott will be given the opportunity to read this correspondence and pronounce upon it.
Copies of this letter will be sent to the R U C Fraud Squad, my Member of Parliament and the Media.