Dear Mr Davey
In reply to your letter of the 2.12.88, I fail to understand why, when Mr H Wright, late of Messrs Tughan & Company was suspended from practice for 3 years in January 1987, it took the Disciplinary Committee 21 months to come to the conclusion that no action should be taken against the firm of Tughan & Company.
Was it not the duty of Messrs Tughan & Company to inform the R.U.C. ten years ago, that their employee Mr H Wright sold property stolen from my mentally handicapped brother to the Ryland Vehicle Group and others when he had no good or legal title? Why was it left to me to write to the Ryland Group to inform them of this illegal sale? Who got the £375,000? How was it disposed of? Where was this large amount of money lodged? How could Messrs Tughan & Company not be aware of such a large sum of money passing through their office? Who is in possession of this property now?
Why did Culbert & Martin, solicitors acting for the Disciplinary Committee state that the ex-Official Solicitor Mr Brian Hall was the only one with direct evidence when all he passed to these solicitors were his own opinions and spurious evidence?
We spent over three years working with fraud officers with over 20 years experience in the R.U.C. before Mr Hall was appointed. I informed your office that the R.U.C. had exposed forgery, malpractice, misappropriation and fraud. What right had Mr Hall to use his unlimited powers to cast aside these facts as "notes and jottings"? Mr Hall stated in writing that he got the "true facts" in an afternoon in Tughan & Company's office when Mr H Wright was present. This is an utter impossibility. Why did Mr Hall take it upon himself to treat Freddie's case as a civil one, when, to any normal human being it is criminal, and to interfere in the findings of the R.U.C. and D.P.P? We understood the D.P.P. to be an independent body and are only supposed to act on evidence presented to them by the R.U.C. By abusing his powers he has denied Freddie justice. We are not interested in Mr Hall's opinions but factual evidence. Must every door, including yours, be shut in our faces.
Up to date we have been given no reasons why Mr H Wright permitted the late Mr C Gilpin access to Freddie's affairs and to direct, in collusion with him, the disposal of my brother's entire estate including his home for the benefit of others.
According to the fraud squad, the late Mr C Gilpin took one million pounds to Jersey to his son and daughter-in-law, widow of the late Neville Johnston of the firm of Messrs Neville Johnston in which Mr Gilpin was the main shareholder. Who paid one million pounds to Mr Gilpin and what was it for? Did Mr H Wright act for Mr C Gilpin? None of these matters have been investigated except by the R.U.C. who were subsequently denied the right to proceed further by the interference of Mr Hall in his attempt to make a criminal case a civil one, thus perverting the course of justice.
If we had not had the expertise of diligent experienced and honest fraud officers, my brother would have ended up in a Hostel - penniless. Mr C Gilpin and his solicitor Mr H Wright had the audacity to open a bank account in their names with the remaining money, after they had plundered his estate which left Freddie not only deprived of his inheritance but without a penny in his name. How can Culbert & Martin and the Disciplinary Committee overlook this information and treat it as of no consequence. In what way could the Committee absolve Messrs Tughan & Company from blame?
It appears to us and many members of the public, with whom we have discussed our case, that dealing with complaints against solicitors is always a "difficult" task. It is a futile exercise and a depressing one. Do you, Mr Davey, think I would spend 10 years fighting against injustice if I did not know I was right? We trusted the legal profession and that trust was betrayed by every member of the legal profession involved, consequently we no longer have any faith in the process of law with regard to mental patients. It is unbelievable the depths the legal profession will stoop to, to protect their colleagues.
If the House of Lords were made conversant with the facts of how a mental patient was divested of his estate, given to him by his father long before he died, as gilt-edged security, and the cover up that those in authority can command and which persists to this day they would not only agree that the tactics of those involved was not only disgraceful and dishonourable but criminal as well.
We provided your office with concrete evidence gathered over a period of three years, what happened to this evidence? The fraud officers had access to a top accountant who scrutinised bank statements, accounts and non-accounts. They also contacted solicitors' offices and had access to their so-called "accounts", visited estate agents and yet Culbert & Martin state that the ex-Official Solicitor was the only on with direct evidence - they must be joking!
Mr Brian Hall had no right to deny Freddie justice in the Courts by engaging a Q.C. to act in a most inhuman and cruel manner against my brother's interest. It may surprise you to know that Mr Hall's Q.C. is chairman of the new Mental Health Commission. We can understand now why we were denied a meeting with this Commission.
Did Culbert & Martin conduct any investigation into how Mr H Wright was able to complete the sale of Freddie's property to the Ryland Vehicle Group "between August 1979 and January 1980". Who permitted Mr H Wright access to the deeds of this property when we made Freddie a patient in care in January 1979 and why did the first Official Solicitor, the late Mr J Drennan of Cleaver Fulton & Rankin, allow his name to be on the ledger cards in the Industrial Bank in Bangor in 1977, two years before Freddie was in care? We put Freddie in care to protect his interests not to protect the legal profession.
All these facts should have been presented to Culbert & Martin in order to give them the sequence of events and a full and open picture of how a mental patient was deprived of his inheritance.
We assert that it is imperative and necessary for us to have an urgent meeting with Culbert & Martin so as to enlighten them to the true facts. They have obviously been grossly misinformed. This case must be properly investigated.
I read recently in the press that the record in N. Ireland on human rights is "severely flawed". If justice is not seen to be done in Freddie's care we will put our complaints directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
A copy of this letter and yours to me will be sent to the Rt Hon John Taylor MP for his consideration and other interested parties including my brother's consultant psychiatrist Dr A Lyons, who was good enough to give a statement to the fraud squad regarding my brother's mental incapacity.
Eileen Wright (Mrs)