Dear Mrs Wright,
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 NO 516
I write to acknowledge your letter of 18 January 1989 which has been considered by Lord Justice MacDermott, together with the 2 newspaper reports which were enclosed with it. There are 3 features of your letter wbout which I would comment.
First, it is not correct to suggest that the charge brought against Mr Herbert Wright at Belfast Crown Court or his plea to that charge on Monday 9 January 1989 related to allegations of forgery or falsification of documents involving your brother, Mr Frederick Andrews junior. The deception which Mr Wright acknowledged at his trial was perpetrated by him against the Ryland Vehicle Group limited.[This is a most interesting statement by Mr. Millar, which I have emphasised in black, in that it is in direct conflict with what has been stated by the RUC. This is proof, if proof were needed, that no action at all has been taken against anyone involved in the shocking plunder of my mentally-handicapped brother's estate.]
A copy of the indictment is attached. Rylands and their English solicitors had undertaken negotiations to purchase all the assets of Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited and its subsidiary company, Andrews and Company (Belfast) Limited. In fact, as was established by the Official Solicitor and explained in the first report submitted to the Court on 30 January 1984, the 2 properties at Smithfield/Francis Street belonging to the Patient had never at any time of the Rylands takeover been conveyed or assigned to anyone. It followed therefore that the Patient had never been divested of his legal estate in those properties and the loss untimately suffered was that of the Ryland Group.
The second point which I would make is that you are mistaken in supposing that the sums of money referred to in the course of Mr Wright's trial (£1 million and £375,000) have any direct bearing upon the value of your brother's properties. The purchase price offered by Rylands related to the assets of the main company being acquired (Neville Johnston) in which the Patient had no interest whatever and the assets of the subsidiary company (Andrews) in which he had no interest.[Legally, this was still my brother Billy's company. My brother was forced, brow-beaten and harassed into signing papers in the office of Tughan & Co. Solicitors.] As I understand the matter these points have been explained to you on many occasions and if you are still in doubt about them you should seek further legal advice.
Finally, in regard to your complaint about particular transactions undertaken by the Official Solicitor with the approval of the Court, you are aware that you or any other interested person may apply to the Court for a review of any aspect of the case and for such Order as may be considered appropriate by your own legal advisers.
R T MILLAR