The Honourable Mr Justice MacDermott
Royal Courts of Justice
1978 No 516
In the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland,
Office of Care and Protection
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS
This matter was first listed for hearing before Your Lordship on Monday 24 October 1983 pursuant to a Summons which I had issued on 20 September 1983. Upon the conclusion of that hearing an interim Order (the first interim Order) was made incorporating directions given by Your Lordship and directing that a further hearing to review the case be held on Friday 2 December. At the adjourned hearing I submitted a short note informing Your Lordship of steps which had been taken pursuant to the interim Order and copies of that note were circulated to all parties involved in the case - including additional parties upon whom I had served copies of the original Summons in accordance with a further direction which you had given. At the conclusion of the second hearing on 2 December a further interim Order (the second interim Order) was made directing me to assume exclusive responsibility as Committee and, inter alia, directing me to make further enquiries and prepare this comprehensive report for circulation before the next adjourned hearing on Monday 13 February.
2. Initial enquiries.
All parties to the present proceedings have received for reference copies of the first report prepared by Mr John G Drennan (Mr Drennan) when acting as Committee which was submitted to Your Lordship on 15 December 1979. After making that report Mr Drennan and his clerk, Mr Doherty, continued to investigate features of the Patient's affairs in respect of which, from time to time, they made informal reports to and sought authority from the Master (Care and Protection) - then Mr J K Davis. Although additional information from a number of sources was obtained during the year following the submission of his first report it became apparent to Mr Drennan (and to counsel advising him) that further information was required in regard to several transactions which had been undertaken on behalf of the Patient by Messrs Tughan & Co, solicitors of 30 Victoria Street, Belfast BT1 3GS. Mr Drennan ultimately issued a Writ in the Chancery Division (bearing Record No 1981 No 379) against the partners in that firm seeking, inter alia, an account of all monies received and paid, and of all other transactions and dealings effected by the firm, for and on behalf of the Patient in the period between 14 July 1972 and 11 January 1979.
Following service of copies of the Writ upon the partners in the firm Mr Drennan had discussion with Mr T A Burgess, one of the partners, and shortly afterwards received a letter dated 24 June 1981 giving a response to matters which had been discussed and enclosing various documents for reference. Shortly after these exchanges Mr Drennan unfortunately suffered a serious illness which resulted in his effective withdrawal from practice and, incidentally, from active participation in the Patient's affairs. His partner, Mr Peter J Rankin (Mr Rankin), was appointed to deputise for him and remained in charge of the case until relieved of that responsibility by the second interim Order made on 2 December 1983. Mr Rankin prepared a further report, in accordance with paragraph 1(c) of the first interim Order which was delivered to me in early November and which provided a useful source of additional information. I also had access to all Mr Rankin's files and copies documents which he (and Mr Drennan) had obtained in the course of their initial enquiries.
3. Further enquiries.
By 7 November 1983 I had already inspected all correspondence and papers found on the departmental file in the Office of Care and Protection and I had also discussed the case with officials in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions who were, and are still, concerned with features of the Patient's affairs which have been the subject of police investigations. Acting with the authority given to me in the first interim Order (which was confirmed in paragraph 6 of the second interim Order) I addressed specific enquiries successively to Messrs Tughan & Co, Mr Herbert Wright, Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co, Messrs Brian Morton & Co, the Northern Ireland Industrial Bank Limited, Messrs Blessington Fair & Co, the Ulster Bank Trust Company and Mr William John Andrews. In pursuing these extensive enquiries I was, in many cases, covering ground which had already been investigated by Mr Drennan or Mr Rankin. It was also apparent that several of the key transactions about which I raised questions had recently been the subject of separate police enquiries. Nevertheless, taking account of the grave disquiet and searching question expressed in the opening submissions made to Your Lordship by Messrs John Johnson & Son on behalf of Mrs Eileen Wright (dated 17 October 1983) and by Messrs James Boston & Sullivan on behalf of Mr William John Andrews and Mrs Vera Douglas (dated 24 October 1983) I felt it incumbent upon me to pursue an exhaustive list of questions in relation to each facit of the case - many of which I might not otherwise have been inclined to raise at all. In proceeding to deal with the results of my enquiries in this report I do not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of all the questions which I raised or of the answers which were given to me [Why not, especially since this is a "comprehensive report" for the High Court?] but I confirm that all my files are available for reference [This is just not true, Mr. Hall, and you know it is not true. What about the most important file, my brother Freddie's accounts?] and that, upon the next hearing on 13 February, I will be in a position to deal with any points of detail if directed by Your Lordship. I should also state that I addressed extensive list of questions to Mr Rankin and that I had the benefit of a long consultation with him, his counsel and Mr Doherty of his office during which I obtained much helpful information and clarification of points which were recorded in his further report. I have also obtained further information from Mr Rankin in subsequent correspondence.
4. Presentation of this report.
I was given leave, in paragraph 5 of the second interim Order, to obtain the advice of Senior Counsel upon particular features of the case and since the hearing on 2 December have consulted Mr Brian F Kerr QC. In addition to advice given in discussion at consultations Mr Kerr has provided me with a detailed Opinion to which I will refer in this report as necessary. In relation to each feature I will attempt to summarise briefly the position which obtained at 14 July 1972; what happened to particular assets or income after that date; and my own conclusions and recommendations (where appropriate).
5. The Patient's position.
A central feature of this case must, of course, be that of the Patient's capacity to manage his affairs and, in particular, to comprehend any dealings with property or income which had been provided for his benefit and support by his father during the latter's lifetime. I am satisfied, from medical reports provided by 2 consultant psychiatrists in November and December 1978, that the Patient was incapable of managing his affairs at any time since the date of his father's death - on 14 July 1972, and it also appears that he would not have had capacity following the first manifestations of mental illness in 1946 when he was aged 17 years. I am satisfied that this incapacity was known to all the members of the Patient's family at all material times. Mr Herbert Wright explained to me that the possibility that an application might have to be made (following the death of Mr Andrews senior) to have a Committee appointed to manage the Patient's affairs was never considered for the reason that it was known by everyone that any such initiative would cause profound distress to Mrs Minetta Andrews the Patient's mother, who had consistently striven (with her husband) throughout the Patient's lifetime to treat him as a normal member of the family and not to have him "branded" as someone with any handicap or disability. [Why hadn't you the professional courtesy and decency to treat Freddie in a similar manner, Mr. Hall?] The Patient's lack of capacity was obviously known also to Mr Charles E M Gilpin, a long-standing friend [???] of the family, who advised Mrs Andrews and other members of the family in regard to their affairs following Mr Andrews' death and who eventually, in 1973, suggested to them that they might obtain assistance if they placed their affairs, and those of the Patient, in the hands of Messrs Tughan & Co which effectively meant those of Mr. Herbert Wright. [Absolute nonsense, Mr. Hall. Mr. Gilpin confined his 'advice' to my elderly mother. He had no reason to advise Freddie because he knew Freddie would have no understanding of any matters relating to property. Mr. Gilpin was extremely careful NOT to let any other members of our family in on his 'advice' to my elderly and suffering mother simply because he knew he would not have been allowed to interfere in such an underhand manner or be allowed to involve himself in family matters which were absolutely none of his business. We would NEVER have allowed the family legal business to be transferred out of the hands of Boston & Sullivan who were entrusted by my father with good reason and who had done an excellent job for my father. It was part of Mr. Gilpin's plan to have my family's affairs removed from Boston & Sullivan to Herbert Wright for his own selfish ends, and you know that.] Acting on Mr Gilpin's instructions or introduction Mr Wright obtained written authorisations signed by Mrs Andrews and by the Patient, [This was totally criminal for Gilpin and Tughan & Co's employee Herbert Wright to accept a signed statement from my mentally handicapped brother when they both knew he was not capable of making a legal signature, which made a document signed by him meaningless. It was also criminal for these people to conspire to have such a catalogue of property deeds transferred from our family solicitors without the knowledge and consent of all our family members. Of course we all know now why this was done. You know why too, Mr. Hall.] both dated 25 June 1973, which he sent to Miss Sullivan (of Messrs James Boston & Sullivan) with requests for her to hand over the title deeds relating to their respective properties. Miss Sullivan complied with these requests and delivered all the title deeds in accordance with the formal authorisations given. From mid-1973, therefore, until the appointment of Mr Drennan as Committee in January 1979 all the Patient's title deeds relating to properties which have been the subject of this review were with the effective control of Mr Wright and I am satisfied that he was the only member of the firm of Tughan & Co who was actively involved with the Patient's property and affairs [Again, Mr. Hall, what utter nonsense. I cannot understand why the Judge did not stop you there and ask how you know this, and, besides, why would you even venture to make such a statement that Herbert Wright was "the only member of the firm of Tughan & Co who was actively involved with the Patient's property and affairs". You were obviously protecting Tughan & Co's Mr. Burgess who was a senior member of the Law Society. Imagine you are the head of a firm of solicitors and a solicitor employed by you succeeded in wresting such an unusually massive portfolio of property deeds from another firm of solicitors. Are you saying that you would not be interested to the extent that you would not involve yourself personally in, at the very least, checking up on how that portfolio was being managed? Isn't it time you started telling the truth? In fact, Mr. Hall, I am beginning to wonder who really is the patient here. It seems you have even greater mental problems than Freddie.] until he handed over the remaining deeds to Mr Drennan. Mr Wright acknowledged to me that virtually from the outset he was aware of the Patient's incapacity but he declared that he, like Mr Gilpin, did not wish to cause distress to Mrs Andrews by raising any proposal for the appointment of a Committee.[And you believe that, Mr. Hall? You really do have a big problem.]
[We now know, Mr. Hall, that Miss Sullivan, solicitor of Boston & Sullivan, was one of the two Trustees appointed by my father to look after my father's affairs after his death. It is beyond question that Miss Sullivan would have taken her duty very seriously. Given the force which drove Mr. Gilpin and Herbert Wright to have their way in so much of our family's affairs, it can only be imagined what pressure, at least, Miss Sullivan was put under by these two men, to hand over all our family's affairs to Tughan & Co. Examples of their unscrupulous ways can be seen here and here. We also now know that, given the content of, at least, the above two links, that the second Trustee appointed by my father, Mr. Burnside, Accountant, of Jackson, Andrews & Co., did not do his duty as Trustee as he had sworn to do on January 15th 1976. It seems that Miss Sullivan was greatly outnumbered and overpowered, just like the Andrews family themselves.]
6. Premises: 3-5 Little King Street.
The Patient acquired this property by a Conveyance dated 24 December 1959. I have been informed by Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co that although there is no written record of the source [There never is such a written record, Mr. Hall, in all these transactions. Did you not find this quite unusual, to say the least. How then, under the circumstances of Freddie's inability to make a legally written signature can there be a legal sale without a properly appointed Guardian's or Trustee's signature?] of the original instructions for sale it is recalled [That is not good enough, Mr. Hall, and you know it.]that Mr W J Andrews went with Mr Desmond McConnell and Mr Robin Mairs of that firm to inspect the premises during the summer of 1973 at a time before substantial damage was caused to them by a bomb explosion on 17 September 1973. An advertisement had been placed for the sale of the property in the Belfast Telegraph on 18 August 1973 and a "For Sale" board was erected at the premises on 16 September 1973 - the day before the explosion. When the property was first put on the market during the summer of that year the agents were asking for offers of £14,000 but following the damage caused in the explosion a claim was lodged with the Northern Ireland Office for criminal injury compensation of an aggregate amount representing the cost of essential repairs and fees less an appropriate reduction for betterment which produced a figure, then claimed of £7,640. When an offer to purchase the premises in their damaged condition was received from Mr Thomas Bernard Dobbin for the sum of £7,500 it was unequivocally recommended by Mr Mairs to Messrs Tughan & Co for acceptance. [As tennis player John McEnroe would say, Mr. Hall, "You can't be serious!"] There is no written record available as to who authorised acceptance of Mr Dobbin's offer. [Ha! Ha! Ha! How utterly convenient Mr. Hall! The reason for this could be the fact that Mr. Dobbin never did make such an offer, and you know that too!] In any event a Contract was completed for the sale of the property to Mr Dobbin and a Conveyance to him was executed on 2 April 1974. [Why then has this sale been accepted as legal, when, 1) Mr. Dobbin never did make such an offer to purchase, 2) Freddie was incapable of giving his legal consent to such a sale and 3), and most important of all, according to the fraud squad, Mr. J. Morris, a solicitor, made out two conveyances, one between Dobbin and Freddie and one between Dobbin and himself. According to the RUC Fraud Squad, solicitor Mr. Morris bought this property himself.
In any event, what was solicitor, Mr. J. Morris, up to by making out two conveyances, one between Freddie and Dobbin which was a lie, and one between Dobbin and himself, Morris, which was totally unethical, in order for Morris to purchase 3-5 Little King Street?
This is a shocking example of how Mr. Hall deliberately prevented the High Court Judge from hearing the facts of this case as was contained in the evidence obtained by the RUC Fraud Squad Officers during their three-year investigation. Mr. Hall never mentioned Mr. Morris or his corrupt involvement in this sale in this Comprehensive Report to the High Court Judge! Mr. Hall took it upon himself to discredit the Fraud Squad findings by referring to them as, "notes and jottings". Mr. Hall deliberately covered-up for solicitor Morris's shocking conduct in this so-called sale which was nothing but professional robbery. This is a typical example of how the Office of the Official Solicitor has handled, and assisted in the plunder of, my mentally-handicapped brother's estate.]
It is clear from the evidence available [No, Mr. Hall, only from the evidence you are so economical at presenting. You are very careful NOT to produce the "evidence available", especially the Fraud Squad officer's evidence into this whole sick and sorry mess.] that this was a prudent sale transaction. [The sale was not even legal, in fact it was not a sale in any sense of the word. It was a criminal rip-off and now, Mr. Hall, you have become part of that criminal rip-off, and you know that too.] Mr Drennan made no adverse comment about it in his first report and I do not wish to raise any point at this stage. [Yes, Mr. Hall, it is quite a large club.]
Mr Kerr states in his Opinion: "I ... have no reservation in advising that the Official Solicitor should not seek to challenge the sale". [And a club that is growing all the time. I find it so interesting how you, Mr. Hall, have a habit of including back-up in certain decisions. Here you use as back-up, (1) the former Official Solicitor Mr. Drennan and (2) a Q.C. Mr. Kerr, who, I believe, is now the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland!]
A separate feature of dealings with the property in Little King Street, however, is the delay in resolving the settlement of the criminal injury claim. It appears that an original payable order was issued by the Northern Ireland Office on 6 October 1976 for the sum of £6.100.11. I am making enquiries of the Northern Ireland Office as to the reasons for the delay in settlement of the claim and I also wish to clarify with Messrs Tughan & Co why there was a further delay in the encashment of the payable order which had been issued. Upon the completion of these enquiries I may have a further recommendation to make to the Court.
9. Dwelling house: 14 Castlehill Road.
The Patient acquired the dwelling house at 14 Castlehill Road, Belfast, which had been the family home for many years, by an Assignment dated 17 November 1960 from his father. I have been informed by Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co that although their 'sale file' relating to this property is no longer available [Again! How utterly convenient, Mr. Hall!] (since their original premises at 9 Upper Queen Street were damaged in a bomb explosion on 27 August 1976) their recollection is that verbal instructions to proceed with the sale were received from Mrs Minetta Andrews. [Not good enough, Mr. Hall. You know that my mother had no authority to give instructions to sell 14 Castlehill Road. My mother had the right to live in Castlehill Road for her lifetime, otherwise the house belonged to Freddie during his lifetime and you know that too. But hang on a cotton-pickin'-minute, Mr. Hall! You say that Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co were involved in the sale of 14 Castlehill Road. Have a look here and you will see that it wasn't Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co who had the sale of 14 Castlehill Road, but that man himself, Charles Gilpin, through his company Ulster Property Sales, who had the 'sale' of 14 Castlehill Road. This is yet ANOTHER shocking example of your taking the law into your own hands and covering up for shocking and illegal deeds by effectively keeping Charles Gilpin's involvement from the High Court Judge. The Ulster Property Sales office was not damaged by fire, was it, Mr. Hall? There would have been a sale-file on 14 Castlehill Road in the Ulster Property Sales office but you did not dare allow the High Court Judge to know about that, did you, Mr. Hall? You said above that Messrs. Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co informed you that their recollection of the sale is that verbal instructions to proceed with the sale were given by my mother, Minetta Andrews. Not only did this firm of estate agents not handle the sale and therefore could not have been given such instructions but Charles Gilpin's firm of estate agents who did handle the 'sale' were in no mood to need any instructions from anyone in our family to 'sell' Tara House. Charles Gilpin had to 'sell' Tara House and with that 'sale' there was no need for the city-centre properties to be kept for its upkeep. What an evil set-up both involving estate agents and the Office of the Official Solicitor!] The property was advertised for sale and several offers were received before a price of £38,750 was negotiated with Mr G P Jemphrey which, it is recalled, was accepted by Mrs Minetta Andrews. [Again, Mr. Hall, this is not good enough. My mother had no authority to accept any offer for Freddie's home and you knew that, but of course you do have a habit of using and abusing members of our family when it suits you.]Mr Jemphrey completed a Contract to purchase dated 3 December 1975 and the completion date, originally fixed at 16 February 1976 was delayed, and the sale concluded on 17 February the next day. Mr Drennan raised no point against this transaction in his first report and, once again, I take the same view as he did.
[What a sordid little ring of so-called solicitors!]
Mr Kerr states in his Opinion "One can be unequivocal in stating that [the sale] was undoubtedly in his [the Patient's] best interests. [What utter rubbish. Freddie's father considered that giving Freddie 14 Castlehill Road to live in was in his best interests, so much so that he earned and bought Freddie many other properties to ensure that there would be sufficient funding to not only retain and maintain 14 Castlehill Road, but sufficient funding to enable him to enjoy other comforts he was used to.] A much smaller and more manageable property was purchased with part of the proceeds of sale. Given the personal circumstances of the Patient and of his mother, there can be no doubt that it would have been entirely unsuitable for them to remain living in Castlehill Road. [For whom? It definitely would not have been unsuitable for my mother and Freddie. In fact, this was exactly why my father left Freddie all his property, in order that he could live in the family home and he had more than enough money to manage it. The fact is that it was 'entirely unsuitable' for the gold-digging rogues who conspired to have them removed from the very valuable family home and put into a condemned property which we had to have repaired and for which we had to beg the authorities for Freddie's money to repair.]
The expenses involved in maintaining that property were substantial. [The expenses were far greater in the condemned house Freddie and my mother were put into.] The accommodation was far greater than was reasonably required for the Patient".
[Instructions to sell 14 Castlehill Road, Belfast were given by Tughan & Company and their client the late "Christian" entrepreneur Mr. C. Gilpin. Reports state that the house was sold on March 31st 1976 when in fact it was sold on November 14th 1975. The completion date was February 1976 but Freddie was not credited with the balance until April 4th 1977.
Sir Adam Turner built this house sixty years ago for £37,000. It is stated that 14 Castlehill Road was 'sold' for £38,750. I really do wonder, Mr. Hall, what the real 'selling price' of Freddie's home was!
It has been suggested that £24.893,68 was paid towards settlement of a bridging loan. Where are details of the account recorded or referred to, by the Official Solicitor? Was this bridging loan in respect of 4 Norwood Gardens? How was a mentally-handicapped man able to obtain a bridging loan?]
In connection with this transaction it will be noted that a valuation, prepared by Messrs Macrory & Jefferson, estate agents, was submitted to the Court by Messrs James Boston & Sullivan on behalf of Mr W J Andrews and Mrs Vera Douglas showing a valuation at February 1976 of £50.500. Having received this valuation I was directed, in paragraph 4 of the second interim Order, to obtain the advice of an independent estate agent and I consulted Mr John L Deane (of Messrs Alex Murdoch & Deane of 11 Chichester Street, Belfast BT1 4JA). In Mr Deane's opinion the contract price negotiated with Mr Jemphrey represents the full open market value of the property on the date of its sale. [This was all totally irrelevant since my father's decision in leaving "Tara House" to Freddie was to ensure that it would continue to be his home and the extensive other property he also left Freddie was to pay for its upkeep and Freddie's other needs.]
I will produce for consideration by Your Lordship Mr Deane's detailed report which includes a schedule of 21 houses, sold in the period from 1 September 1975 to 31 August 1976 of which Mr Deane has personal knowledge and which he considers to be broadly comparable in standard and location with the Patient's property at Castlehill Road. I have written to Miss Sullivan and to Mr McCracken (of Messrs John Johnson & Son) furnishing them with copies of Mr Deane's valuation and report, confirming that both I and my Counsel are satisfied that Mr Deane's estimate of value is correct and declaring that I do not propose to make any recommendation to the court in respect of any action which might be taken to have the sale set aside.[Why, Mr. Hall, are you so anxious to give legal correctness to a fraud which stinks to high heaven? How involved are you in this fraud? We will see, won't we?]
11. Premises: 5-21 Winetavern Street.
The Patient acquired this property by Conveyance dated 11 April 1968. Rental collections from the property were received by Messrs Blessington Fair & Co who acted as agents for the Patient but in the mid-1970s the expense borne by the Patient as landlord substantially reduced the rental income of £556.52 per annum which was produced by the property. Discussions took place as early as October 1976 with members of the family and with Mr Gilpin in regard to possible sales of the property but the offer which was ultimately accepted, of £17,000, was eventually made by Mr Joseph Kavanagh who paid a deposit to Messrs Blessington Fair & Co on 24 November 1977. His purchase was due for completion on 7 January 1978. There is no record available as to who authorised the acceptance of the final offer made by Mr Kavanagh but the sale was duly completed on or about 18 January 1978.
From information given in response to other enquiries which I addressed to Messrs Blessington Fair & Co it is clear that the Patient's property at Winetavern Street had been run down for some years before the sale in 1978. Rental statements reveal that substantial sums had been paid for repairs and that the gross rental collection barely covered the outgoings. [Ok, buildings do need repairs from time to time Mr. Hall. If there was much money spent on those repairs then the Patient's property was being looked after and was not at that time in a run-down state, was it?]I am informed that an earlier attempt had been made to sell the premises following telephone instructions received from Mrs Betty Hamilton in early October 1976 but a sale did not proceed at that time. [There you go again, Mr. Hall, involving a member of my family for your convenience. You know as well as I do that my sister had no authority to give instructions for this sale. How did you, or the person who was supposed to receive the call, know it was my sister on the phone?] It is also clear from the information provided that Mr Gilpin played a significant role in the communication of instructions relating to the property and that Messrs Blessington, Fair & Co effectively acted upon the basis of instructions given by him or by Mrs Minetta Andrews through him or Mr Wright. [Did you really give this load of nonsense to the High Court Judge. He was as bad as you for listening to it.] The property was advertised for sale in the Belfast Telegraph in late 1977 - the advertising account having been paid on 6 December 1977. Mr Drennan did not make any critical comment in regard to the circumstances surrounding the eventual sale - nor do I. I am pursuing further enquiries to clarify the circumstances in which the original attempt to effect a sale in 1976 came to be abandoned and, as appears in paragraph 21 below, I am also seeking to identify the precise record of rents received and management expenses incurred for the entire period under review - ie from July 1972 until the date of sale. Finally I have noted that although a payment representing the balance purchase money of approximately £15,300 was received by Mr Wright on 16 January 1978 it was not lodged for investment in the Northern Ireland Industrial Bank Limited until 10 October that year. I refer, in paragraph 28 below, to the question of interest generally and this item must be included in that calculation.
[5 to 21 Winetavern Street, Belfast.
Nine tenanted terraced shops and dwellings.
These properties were sold on February 16th 1979 for £17,000 by Blessington & Fair. Instructions to sell were given by Gilpin & Wright and the main instruction was that the purchaser must pay cash. Why, Mr. Hall, did you not check this out? Two higher bids were given but because they were not cash were not accepted. Freddie received no money for this sale but £15.083 was credited to the Industrial Bank in Bangor on October 12th 1977 to an account in the names of Charles Gilpin and Bertie Wright.
13. Smithfield properties. that I be authorised to institute appropriate proceedings against Messrs Tughan & Co and Mr Herbert Wright in relation to loss arising from the Smithfield transaction [paragraph 18]; [My mother at this time was 87 years of age, three years before her death. What you proposed, Mr. Hall, was monstrous. Not only was my mother removed from the comfortable home my father provided for her to end her days, my mother was put into a dirty, damp building. Now that you have been blinded by the little bit of power bestowed on you, you sought permission to see what she was worth and then take as much of her money as you felt safe to take. This is criminal, and more than criminal because you represented the law.]
Finally I submit that, subject to any application which may be made by other parties and any further directions which may be given by Your Lordship at the next adjourned hearing, I should be permitted to deal with the future management of the Patient's affairs in accordance with the general provisions of the original Order made by the Lord Chief Justice on 11 January 1979 and in accordance with further directions which may be given from time to time by an appropriate statutory officer. [The Official Solicitors and the Supreme High Court Judges in Northern Ireland should read the Introduction to the little 19 page booklet entitled "Committees" the official publication of the Office Of Care And Protection, Royal Courts Of Justice, Belfast. On page one it states, and I quote, The Office of Care and Protection In the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS
The Honourable Mr Justice MacDermott
At the time of his father's death the Patient owned 2 properties at Smithfield - first, freehold premises comprising Nos 62-65 Smithfield Square which he acquired by a conveyance dated 14 February 1961, and second, premises comprising Nos 66-69 Smithfield Square and Nos 1-11 Francis Street which he acquired by an Assignment dated 1 December 1958. In the lifetime of Mr Andrews senior an arrangement had been made whereby the family company, Andrews and Company (Belfast) Limited - (the Company), enjoyed the use of both properties in connection with its motor business subject to an annual rent then established of £1,500. I am not aware of any formal lease or letting agreement confirming the interest then enjoyed by the Company nor do I know when the rent was originally fixed at the figure of £1,500 per annum. There is no doubt that the Patient's father made a thoughtful and far-sighted decision in placing both properties in the name of the Patient during his own lifetime. [My father's only problem was that he was not thoughtful enough nor far-sighted enough to have envisaged my brother having to be put into care and ultimately into your sick custody, Mr. Hall.] When the freehold premises were acquired Mr Andrews senior erected a substantial motor showroom on the site with offices above which represented a key feature of the Company's operation and, incidentally, provided a substantial security for the Patient's rental income.
During the years immediately following the death of Mr Andrews senior consideration was given by the directors of the Company to the possible purchase from the Patient of both properties. I have confirmed that in or about August 1974 Mr Wright of Tughan & co prepared 2 contracts for the sale of the 2 properties which he sent to Messrs James Boston & Sullivan. Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co had written to the Company on 23 July 1974 indicating that the Patient would accept the sum of £35,000 for the sale of his interests in both properties. Mr Wright informed me that when Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co wrote to the Company in July of that year they did so upon instructions given by Mr Gilpin with his (Mr Wright's) knowledge. I have established that Miss Sullivan, acting for the Company, replied to Mr Wright (Tughan & Co) by letter dated 8 August 1974 returning the 2 contracts signed by Mr W J Andrews on behalf of the Company, as purchasers, together with a cheque for £5,000 by way of deposit. It appears that neither of these contracts was accepted by or on behalf of the Patient notwithstanding a number of persistent enquiries addressed to Mr Wright by Miss Sullivan during the next 6 months. I have been unable to establish why 2 offers from a willing purchaser accompanied by a substantial deposit payment were not accepted promptly - having regard to the fact that the initiative to effect the sales appears to have been taken originally by those professing to act on behalf of the vendor - the Patient. In any event the deposit payment of £5,000 was lodged by Messrs Tughan & Co (apparently on behalf of the Patient) in the Investment Bank of Ireland Limited on 25 September 1974 where it remained accumulating interest until that deposit account was closed on 4 August 1975. Mr Wright eventually replied to Miss Sullivan by letter dated 29 August 1975 when he confirmed that the sales would not proceed. With that letter he returned the deposit payment together with the accumulated interest which had accrued on the deposit account mentioned above - amounting to £429.75. [Incidentally a misleading reference to this payment and the interest which accumulated on the deposit account appears in paragraph H on page 4 of Mr Drennan's first report. Although the sum of £5,000 was received by Mr Wright and invested by him with the Investment Bank of Ireland Limited in the name of the Patient he clearly treated it as a sum held on account of a prospective purchaser but did not proceed to complete either transaction.]
Whatever view may be taken of the management of the Patient's Smithfield properties before the summer of 1974 (ie whether it could be said that £1,500 represented a fair rent for the use of the property up to that time) there can be no doubt that after the recommendation made by Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co in July 1974 those responsible for the Patient's interests should have been concerned to obtain a much better income for him - whether or not the properties were to be sold. In the event, although the prospective sales to the Company were abandoned in August 1975, efforts to negotiate new leases in respect of the Company's occupation of the showroom premises and the adjoining yard did not commence until 20 January 1976 when Mr Wright sent Miss Sullivan a draft lease for approval. The substantial terms of 2 leases (the first in respect of the freehold premises reserving a yearly rent of £3,000 with 7 year rent reviews and the second, intended to be a long sub-lease, reserving a rent of £600 per annum) were agreed in an exchange of letters dated 12 and 24 February 1976. At that point, notwithstanding a number of reminders addressed to Messrs James Boston & Sullivan during the next year, no leases were ever executed and, significantly, no payments of the newly-negotiated rents were made by the Company. Mr Wright does not appear to have taken any effective step to conclude the negotiations for granting new leases or for securing a realistic income from the valuable properties owned by his client.
At this stage it appears that Mr Wright would have been aware of discussions taking place between Mr Gilpin and Mr W J Andrews which were directed towards the possible sale of the latter's shares (and those of his wife and son) in the Company. There are conflicting accounts as to whether Mr Andrews was keen to sell or Mr Gilpin was keen to purchase the shareholding in the Company but at all events Mr Wright was retained to act on behalf of Mr Gilpin and his purchasing company, Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited in the prospective takeover. It appears that in July or early August 1977 Mr W J Andrews received direct from Mr Wright a draft Agreement for the sale of his shares (and those of his immediate family) in the Company to Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited upon terms drawn up by Mr Wright. [Was it not blatantly obvious to you, Mr. Hall, that Mr. Gilpin was a man driven to cause the sell-off of all the property owned by the Andrews family. Not only that, but a sell-off at prices which were substantially below the market value of those properties and therefore at prices which could be used, on the re-sale of those properties, to make substantial profits.]In the Fourth Schedule of that draft Agreement reference was made (prospectively) to 2 Agreements "dated the day of August 1977" between [the Patient] and [the Company] whereby the Company "has agreed to purchase" [the Patient's 2 properties at Smithfield]. Mr Wright has acknowledged to me that an integral feature of the negotiations for the purchase of shares in the Company was to be the preliminary acquisition by the Company of a marketable title to both the properties owned by the Patient. Although the takeover Agreement had been prepared and sent to Mr W J Andrews I have established that the 2 Agreements for the sale of the Patient's 2 properties to the Company were not prepared at that time.
At the same time as some legal formalities were proceeding Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co furnished a valuation of the Patient's 2 Smithfield properties to Mr W J Andrews by letter dated 6 July 1977, in which they advised that the freehold premises were then worth approximately £30,000 and the adjoining leasehold site, approximately £5.000. A separate approach was made by Mr Wright, acting on behalf of the Patient, to Messrs Brian Morton & Co whose valuation dated 25 August 1977 suggested that the market value of the entire premises, subject to the existing leases, was £31,000 and that the rack rental value of the premises was £6,500. It appears that Mr Gilpin was directly involved in obtaining the second valuation, from Messrs Morton & Co, and he received a copy of their letter dated 25 August 1977. Mr W J Andrews, his wife and son completed the Agreement for the sale of their shares in the Company (which comprised the entire shareholding of 7,500 Ordinary Shares issued at that date) on 30 September 1977 and at a meeting with Mr Gilpin in the offices of Tughan & Co all the other formalities of the takeover were completed before Mr Andrews received a payment of £192,000 as provided in the Agreement. No Contracts for the sale of the Patient's 2 properties had been prepared up to that date nor were they available for signature at the time of the takeover. I am informed that it was understood between the parties to the takeover Agreement that the company (under new management) would proceed to purchase the Patient's properties as a related feature of the acquisition of the Company's assets - upon the clear understanding that a sum of £35.000 would be paid to the Patient over and above the sum already paid to Mr W J Andrews and his family. [You must have known, Mr. Hall, that the reason these two properties were not sold was because solicitor Gwen Sullivan wrote to my brother Billy (W.J. Andrews) telling him that these two properties could not be sold because my brother Freddie's incapacity meant that he did not have the legal ability to authorise the sales. Of course you conveniently ignored this fact for your own selfish ends.]
It may be unnecessary for me to suggest that at this stage Mr Wright's professional standing in relation to his client's (the Patient's) interest invites the most critical scrutiny. [That is like telling Winston Churchill that Adolf Hitler was considering the training of boy scouts.] He was already aware of the Patient's manifest incapacity. His efforts to protect the Patient's interests (in relation to the Smithfield properties) over the preceding 3 years may be judged from the preceding paragraphs. Although he had been acting for the Patient during the preceding 4 years and had already completed 2 substantial sales of property on his behalf Mr Wright was also engaged to act in the Smithfield transaction on behalf of Mr Gilpin (or one of his companies) in circumstances where the latter's interests were diametrically opposed to those of the Patient. In the course of a long interview with Mr Wright, at which both Mr Burgess and Mr F D Tughan were present, I established that a payment of £35,000 was made over by Mr Gilpin to the Northern Ireland Industrial Bank Limited in accordance with the "understanding" reached between the parties to the takeover on 30 September 1977. I have confirmed with the Northern Ireland Industrial Bank Limited that an account was opened with them early in October 1977 under the title "Mr Charles Gilpin and Mr Bertie Wright as trustees for Mr Fred Andrews" and that the payment of £35.000 was lodged to credit of that account on 14 October 1977. During my discussion with Mr Wright he could not recall precisely when he had proceeded to prepare 2 Contracts for the sale of the Patient's Smithfield properties. Mr Burgess had discovered 2 such documents (on the morning of the meeting which I had arranged with him and Mr Wright - 17 November 1983) but although the documents each bore the signature of the Patient neither was dated, neither was signed by or on behalf of a proposed purchase, no deposit payment was identified, no completion date was given and neither of the signatures of the Patient was witnessed. In addition Mr Burgess had discovered 2 incomplete engrossments of an Assignment (intended to relate to the sale of the leasehold property) and also an engrossment of a Conveyance of the freehold property which, although it bore the signature of the Patient, was not witnessed, not dated, not stamped and not registered. During my discussion with Mr Wright it was clear that apart from his failure to complete the conveyancing formalities relating to the 2 sales which he professed to have negotiated on behalf of the Patient he had also known of Mr Drennan's concern to obtain accurate information in respect of the Patient's affairs upon which he (Mr Drennan) was required to report to the Court. I had inspected the note of a preliminary meeting with Mr Wright at which both Mr Drennan and Mr Doherty were present in February 1979 when Mr Wright had said that the Smithfield properties had been sold "to Mr Billy Andrews - about 3 years before". Mr Wright acknowledged that the information which he had originally given to Mr Drennan, in relation to the Smithfield properties, was false and misleading and that he (Mr Wright) had failed to take any step since February 1979 to declare the true position either to Mr Drennan, to Mr Rankin or to the partners in Tughan & Co - with whom he continued to serve as an assistant solicitor until August 1981. I have been fully advised by Mr Kerr as to the implications of the failure of Messrs Tughan & Co to protect the Patient's interests. At this point it is sufficient for me to record that in Mr Kerr's view "it is beyond dispute that Mr Wright failed to discharge his duties as a solicitor to the Patient". I therefore recommend that appropriate proceedings be instituted against Messrs Tughan & Co and Mr Herbert Wright to recover compensation for identifiable loss suffered by the Patient - including interest and costs about which I make further comments at paragraph below.
19. Settlement of 9 May 1955.
On 31 December 1954 the late Mr Frederick Andrews senior purchased property at 48a Smithfield Square and the perpetual yearly rent of £55 payable out of adjoining premises at 48 Smithfield Square for the sum of £11,250 and arranged for the conveyance to vest the property and the rent in the Ulster Bank Limited. On 9 May 1955 Mr Andrews executed a Deed of Settlement with the Bank whereby the Bank acknowledged certain trusts imposed upon it by Mr Andrews as settlor. The main provision, which is still in operation, is for the benefit of Mr William John Andrews who enjoys the benefit of the premises and of the perpetual yearly rent subject to his paying to the Patient an annuity of £75 payable half yearly on the first days of May and November. I have received a full account of the administration of the trust from the Ulster Bank Trust Company and I will be pursuing further enquiries to ensure that the Patient's full entitlement had been recovered over the years. I have also obtained information about withdrawals made by Mrs Minetta Andrews from the Patient's accumulated income from this source. It appears that during the year ended 5 April 1978 the Bank, acting on the instructions of Mrs Andrews, applied over £1,700 of the Patient's accumulated income in payment of various domestic accounts. I refer again to this feature of the case in paragraph 33 below.
20. Salary from the Company.
At the time of his father's death the Patient received a salary from the Company in respect of nominal services which he provided from time to time. It is clear that while the true value of those services to the Company may have been very limited the arrangement was one which was intended to recognise some element of the Patient's dependence upon the family business. I have addressed a number of questions relating to this feature of the Patient's resources to Mr W J Andrews and I am pursuing further enquiries with the Patient's Accountants, Messrs Jackson Andrews & Co, to establish when the payment of salary from the Company was discontinued. I am not yet in a position to make any recommendation on this point.
21. Other income.
Apart from rental income from various properties described in preceding paragraphs I am making enquiries of Messrs Jackson Andrews & Co to establish what other sources of income the Patient had, if any, after his father's death.
22. Other assets.
In his first report Mr Drennan noted, in paragraph J on page 4, that Mrs Andrews disposed of furniture, paintings and other household effects, formerly located in 14 Castlehill Road, which belonged to the Patient for the sum of £6,524.02 and that she also sold a dining room suite belonging to the Patient for approximately £1,000. These transactions are referred to in paragraph 33 below.
23. Premises: 21 Francis Street & 116-118 Millfield.
In the course of recent enquiries I learned from Mr Rankin that in March 1979 title deeds relating to these premises were delivered to Mr Drennan for inspection from Messrs Tughan & Co. The deeds have now been passed to me, with the approval of Mr Burgess, and I hold them on an accountable receipt pending clarification of enquiries which I am now pursuing. It appears that the Patient acquired the premises by Conveyance dated 1 November 196? (the last figure is missing at the end of a page which was copied) whereby he purchased the freehold reversions in 2 Leases of 20 August 1873 and 14 November 1890 respectively which reserved rents of £24.30 and £57.88 for which a purchase price of £1,250 was paid (presumable by Mr Andrews senior). Later a Conveyance dated 18 February 1966 was executed by the Patient in favour of his sister Mrs Betty Hamilton to whom the premises were conveyed in consideration of natural love and affection in the sum of 50 pence. Mr. Drennan had reservations about the validity of the second Conveyance and I believe that it is necessary for me to pursue further enquiries to establish the precise circumstances in which the title to the property (and the rental collections) came to be transferred to Mrs Hamilton. I will make a specific recommendation upon the conclusion of those enquiries.
24. Premises: 14-16 King Street and 12-14 Marquis Street.
In his first report Mr Drennan noted, in paragraph B on page 2, that the Patient was entitled to a ground rent of £50 per annum issuing out of premises at 14-16 King Street and 12-14 Marquis Street reserved by a Lease dated 23 January 1964. Following recent inquiries I have been informed by Mr Rankin that he has learned from Messrs McCormick, McGimpsey & Wimpress, estate agents of 28 Donegall Street, Belfast BT1 2GP that they collect this ground rent and account to Mrs Betty Hamilton for it - apparently acting upon instructions received from Mr Frederick Andrews senior in February 1967. I am making further enquiries in regard to this rent and as soon as they are complete I will make a specific recommendation to the Court.
25. Claim against Mrs Betty Hamilton.
In the concluding paragraph (M) of his first report Mr Drennan described enquiries which he had addressed to Mrs Betty Hamilton, a sister of the Patient, who had admitted to him that over the years since the death of her father she had received numerous gifts of money from her mother which she realised had come from the estate of the Patient. At the time of his first report Mr Drennan had already obtained from Mrs Hamilton a formal Agreement to charge property owned by her at Lisleen Road, Comber, Co Down with the sum of £20,000 and interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the Patient. In a list of questions submitted on behalf of Mrs Hamilton by Messrs Alex Stewart & Son on 19 October 1983 prior to the first hearing before Your Lordship, the basis of Mr Drennan's claim against Mrs Hamilton was challenged. In earlier correspondence addressed to me by Mr Charles Stewart of that firm it is alleged that prior to executing a Deed of Charge on 23 June 1980 Mrs Hamilton was not professionally represented, did not receive independent advice and was pressurised into signing a document which she did not fully understand. I have undertaken a comprehensive analysis of correspondence, notes and attendance entries which appear on Mr Drennan's files and I am completely satisfied that Mrs Hamilton knew very well what claim was being made by Mr Drennan on behalf of the Patient, she fully appreciated the significance of the preliminary Agreement which was signed by her on 12 October 1979 (of which a copy was attached to the first report), that she has ample time to reflect upon her preliminary commitment in the interval of 8 months before she was invited to execute the Deed of Charge (which was prepared, as she knew, on the direction of the Master) and that a full explanation of her position was given to her both before and shortly after the Deed was executed on 23 June 1980. I have placed all the relevant correspondence and other papers relating to Mrs Hamilton's claim before Mr Kerr and he has considered the points which are now being made on her behalf. The present position is that after obtaining the Charge duly executed by Mrs Hamilton Mr Drennan registered it as a burden on a freehold registered folio in the Land Registry. A short time later the Northern Bank Limited instituted proceedings against Mrs Hamilton for recover of monies due by her and upon realising its security the Bank duly paid to Mr Drennan, in April 1981, the capital sum of £20,000 secured by the registered Charge together with accumulated interest calculated up to 14 April 1981 amounting to £1,454.79. It appears to me that at every stage during his initial investigation of the Patient's affairs with particular reference to sums which might be recoverable from Mrs Hamilton Mr Drennan kept detailed records of significant discussions with her and Mrs Minetta Andrews, sought and obtained directions and authority of the court in pursuing a remedy for the Patient about which a full account had already been given in his first report. If Mrs Hamilton now seeks to have that completed exercise set aside it is my view that she cannot do so in the context of the present review before Your Lordship. Although I do not anticipate that the allegations made by Mrs Hamilton have to be met at this stage I have nevertheless obtained the advice of Mr Kerr upon the substance of her contentions as they appear from the submission on her behalf and from earlier correspondence. Mr. Kerr comments that Mrs Hamilton's assertion that she was required to sign a document which she did not read and did not realise involved her in acknowledging that she owed a sum of £20,000 to the Patient is, on the evidence available, at best a disingenuous attempt to avoid what she had clearly previously accepted. I am advised by Mr Kerr that any attempt to pursue the claim being made by Mrs Hamilton should be firmly resisted.
26. Premises: 47 Smithfield Square.
In his first report Mr Drennan referred, in paragraph D on page 2, to premises at 47 Smithfield Square, Belfast yielding an annual rent of £40. Upon further enquiry Mr Rankin has informed me that he has been unable to obtain any further information about this property or the rent mentioned in the first report. It is possible that the original information, which was supplied by Mr Wright, may have been inaccurate or that the premises were confused with the adjoining properties in Smithfield Square which were the subject of the Settlement referred to in paragraph 19 above. I am making further enquiries to establish whether the Patient ever had any interest in these premises or in a rent paid in respect of them.
27. Accounts with Northern Bank Limited.
In his first report Mr Drennan referred, in paragraph 1 on page 2, to monies held by the Northern Bank Limited on behalf of the Patient which on 14 July 1972 amounted to £11.000 in a Book Deposit Account and £994.92 in a Current Account - both at the Ballyhackamore Branch. The Deposit Account was exhausted by withdrawals made over the next year and that Account was closed 18 June 1973. The closing balance of £6,811.00 was transferred on that date into the Current Account which, in turn, was reduced by withdrawals over the next 6 months until it was closed by a final withdrawal early in 1974. I will refer to this very rapid disposal of capital standing to credit of the Patient in paragraph 33 below.
28. The Patient's account with Tughan & Co.
Following the initial meeting between Mr Drennan and Mr Burgess of Tughan & Co in June 1981, referred to in paragraph 2 above, Mr Burgess furnished a copy of the account maintained by his firm on behalf of the Patient from the time when Mr Wright assumed responsibility for the Patient's affairs. It is clear from that account that commencing in December 1974 Messrs Tughan & Co effectively acted as bankers for the Patient up to the time of Mr Drennan's appointment as Committee, ie they dealt with an extensive list of bills which were discharged on his behalf - many of which were of a purely domestic nature. Even taking account of monies received to credit of the Patient arising from the sales of property at Little King Street and at Castlehill Road (received in July 1974 and February 1976 respectively) it is clear, however, that at various times after February 1976 substantial sums of money received by Mr Wright on behalf of the Patient in connection with a number of transactions were allowed to remain on current account and were not invested as they should have been. By reason of the Patient's known incapacity no statement of account had been furnished in respect of those transactions and I have discussed with Mr Burgess the need to prepare an account showing all sums due to the Patient at various times after Messrs Tughan & Co assumed responsibility for his affairs. Account has also to be taken of sums which, to Mr Wright's knowledge, did not pass through the books of the firm but were lodged direct into the Northern Ireland Industrial Bank Limited. Finally I have drawn attention to at least one bill of costs which, in my view, was improperly charged against the Patient - in respect of the Smithfield transaction. I am satisfied that a full account of monies due to the Patient by Messrs Tughan & Co will be available before the next review hearing and that it will contain details of interest due and costs refundable to the patient. At this stage it is not necessary for me to make a specific recommendation in relation to any of these items.[Why not, Mr. Hall??? This was supposed to be a Comprehensive Report to the High or Supreme Court.
29. Domestic arrangements.
The Patient now resides at 4 Norwood Gardens, Belfast which was purchased by an Assignment dated 24 November 1975 for the sum of £23,500. I have already indicated, in paragraph 9 above, that the view already taken by Mr Drennan in the course of his preliminary enquiries that it was in the Patient's best interests to move to a smaller and more manageable property is shared by me and by Mr Kerr. [But that back-up is still not enough, is it Mr. Hall? The following file, scraped from the bottom of a very dirty barrel, is added as more back-up to support your nasty scam. Not only was 14 Castlehill Road sold for one third of its value, but 4 Norwood Gardens was bought on behalf of my brother and my mother for many times its value. 4 Norwood Gardens was filthy with damp. The paper was hanging off the walls. The bath was broken and instead of being replaced, the break was patched up. Repairs on walls was left uncovered. Even the garage outside was falling with rot. How can any sane human being and more importantly a professional lawyer, state, that moving an elderly lady and a mentally ill patient into a filthy, damp house, which was the epitome of everything they were not used to, reinforces the conclusion that this deal was in the best interests of my brother and my mother. Are you mad altogether? This house was so bad that you were forced to part with £17,000 of Freddie's money to try to put it into some sort of proper repair.] I am reinforced in this conclusion when I find that on 9 September 1975 Mr Gilpin, it may be supposed acting in the best interests of both Mrs Minetta Andrews and the Patient, obtained from Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co a confirmatory valuation of the house at 4 Norwood Gardens. The property was then being offered for sale by an agent at an asking price of £29,500 but in the opinion of Messrs McConnell a fair market value would then have been in the region of 26,500. In the event the purchase was completed at a substantially lower figure [Little wonder!] and the property now serves the needs not only of the Patient but also of Mrs Andrews who is a very elderly lady requiring constant attention herself. [Would you have made such a change for yourself and your family Mr. Hall if you could afford not to change? I think not. Normal people try to improve their lot. My father did a great job of improving my family's lot. You and your friends have worked only to improve your own lot by destroying my father's work.] Since the summer of 1982 Mrs Eileen Wright and her husband have moved to live at 4 Norwood Gardens and are now responsible for the day-to-day management of all domestic needs and the Patient's personal requirements. I have had useful discussions with the hospital social workers who are directly involved with the Patient's case and I have also had a meeting with members of the family and their respective solicitors at which the present domestic arrangements have been reviewed. Apart from the Patient's general welfare I am also concerned to ensure that proper provision is made for all the domestic outgoings which, at present, are effectively administered by Mrs Wright. I also wish to take account of the contribution which may be made to the overall household budget by Mrs Andrews and this feature is referred to in paragraph 33 below.
30. Income Tax.
By reason of the delay in establishing a coherent and comprehensive account of the Patient's assets and income it has not been possible to prepare accurate tax returns. Although some provisional assessments have been made and paid on behalf of the Patient full returns have to be made for 7 years commencing with that due for 1977-1978. I hope to be in a position to furnish all relevant particulars within the next 2 months but I consider that it would be very desirable to have the assistance of professional accountants in dealing with outstanding tax questions. Subject to Your Lordship's approval at the forthcoming hearing I recommend that Messrs Jackson Andrews & Co, chartered accountants, of River House, 48 High Street, Belfast BT1 2BY be engaged for that purpose - as that firm has a long-standing connection with the Patient's family, the accounts of the Company and the financial history and earlier tax returns of the Patient.
31. The position of Tughan & Co and Mr Herbert Wright.
I have already indicated in preceding paragraphs a number of features of the Patient's affairs in respect of which I am satisfied that Mr Wright failed to discharge his duties as a solicitor to the Patient. I have been advised by Mr Kerr that as soon as a comprehensive claim can be formulated a formal letter should be addressed to Messrs Tughan & Co indicating the steps which will have to be taken to secure full redress on behalf of the Patient. At this stage it is sufficient for me to state that I recommend that the authority of the Court be given to enable me to proceed to recover all losses which have accrued to the Patient as a result of the conduct of his affairs by Messrs Tughan & Co and by Mr Wright.
32. The position of Mr Gilpin.
In addition to the questions which I addressed to Mr Kerr in regard to the position of solicitors engaged on behalf of the Patient I have also sought advice on the role and possible liability of Mr Gilpin. Unfortunately, Mr Gilpin has recently been the victim of a severe illness and it is now impossible to obtain any explanation from him as to his actions in regard to various aspects of the Patient's affairs at material times before Mr Drennan was appointed as Committee. In particular I wished to be advised as to whether Mr Gilpin could be held to have acted as a constructive trustee of any property belonging to the Patient, other than the "trust account" opened by him in the Northern Ireland Industrial Bank Limited in October 1977 in respect of which a full account has already been rendered to Mr Drennan. I have to report to Your Lordship that, at this stage, no features of dealings with the Patient's assets or income have come to my attention in respect of which it is necessary for me to recommend to Your Lordship that proceedings be instituted against Mr Gilpin. In coming to this conclusion I should record that I have had the benefit of a detailed analysis of the legal principles applicable to the duties of a trustee, the distinguishing elements of fraudulent conduct on the part of a trustee which are actionable at the suit of a cestui que trust. There are a few points of detail about which I have to make confirmatory enquiries but I anticipate that before the next hearing I will be in a position to give Your Lordship a final report in regard to Mr Gilpin's role in the case.
33. The position of Mrs Andrews.
One of the difficulties in this case which confronted Mr Drennan when he first embarked upon his investigations was that the person who in the early years following the death of his father was best placed to protect the Patient's interests and who should have been concerned to do so was Mrs Minetta Andrews, his own mother. [How, Mr. Hall, would that present a difficulty? Such a difficulty is a figment of your vivid imagination and probably never occurred to Mr. Drennan. You must have seen my father's Will and if so you knew that my father appointed two profession people as his executors. These two people were given the task of protecting the Patient's interests. My mother was incapable of even starting at almost eighty years to take on a role she had never been accustomed to during her protected lifetime and the appointment of two professionals as executors meant that she didn't have to take on such a role.] It is clear from this report, [Your 'Report', Mr. Hall, is unadulterated filth] and indeed from Mr Drennan's first report, that so far from taking any positive step to protect the patient's property Mrs Andrews never attempted to distinguish between her own assets and income and those of the Patient. [You are totally sick, Mr. Hall! My mother was 75 years of age when my father died, suffering the loss of her husband who had looked after everything for her and was doing her best to look after her mentally-handicapped son, Freddie. Into this unfortunate environment stepped the plundering Charles Gilpin and your solicitors Tughan & Co in the person of Herbert Wright, all of whom were protected by the police and Official Solicitor after Official Solicitor including you, Mr. Hall. These men's criminal actions which have never been acknowledged or punished, further confused my mother, and you, in your calculated and totally sick manner chose to pick on my mother, an almost helpless human being who could not defend herself. How low and mean can the legal profession get? You are more mentally-handicapped than my brother Freddie. You were a lot younger than my mother, Mr. Hall, and entrusted with the very serious responsibility of looking after a large estate. How did YOU distinguish between my mother's assets and income and those of my brother? Where is my father's Will which was taken by Charles Gilpin without my family's permission which stated what my mother's assets and income were and what Freddie's assets and income were? Do you now have that Will? If you don't, then you have no way of knowing what was my mother's and what was Freddie's. You have refused to even let our family view Freddie's assets and accounts. Why? Why are you so afraid of what we might see there? More plunder? Of course that is what we would see. In my father's Will the responsibility for managing Freddie's estate was given to the real trustees, namely James Gardner Burnside, Chartered accountant of Messrs. Jackson Andrews & Co., River House, 48, High Street, Belfast, and Gwendoline Sullivan, Solicitor, of 40, Victoria Square, Belfast. Had these two people carried out my father's wishes there would have been no need for my family to call in the Office of Care and Protection - so-called - but it seems that where there is money there is also muck. Not only was Gwendoline Sullivan, my late father's chosen solicitor and chosen executor of his last Will and Testament prevented from do her duty to Freddie by the conduct of Charles Gilpin, members of the RUC actually demanded from her, my father's private papers and refused to return them. The actions of James Gardner Burnside deserve serious scrutiny and some of that scrutiny can be satisfied as the reader goes through this site.
You haven't even spelt out for the Judge in this 'Comprehensive Report' what my mother's or Freddie's assets and income were.] I have referred in paragraph 22 above to the sale of furniture and other household effects; in paragraph 27 above, to the withdrawals made from bank accounts in the name of the Patient; and in paragraph 29 above to the problem of assessing a reasonable contribution which might be made to the household budget at 4 Norwood Gardens by Mrs Andrews. Ah, so you, Mr. Hall, did not take any notice of my father's Will, the second stipulation of which states "2. I leave my personal effects to my wife Minetta Andrews". [Did you really expect Freddie to make withdrawals from a bank, Mr. Hall, with his mental age and do you think the members of my family especially my mother are filthy thieves like you?]
I have discussed with Mr Kerr [So you feel you have to bring in the man who has become our Lord Chief Justice? You are feeling the need of some support in your yellow-spined little scheme and we are slowly getting to it aren't we, Mr. Hall?] the difficult choice which now faces me as Committee (and which hitherto faced Mr Drennan and Mr Rankin) in contemplating the prospect of taking proceedings against Mrs Andrews [Well now, Mr. Hall, that would be no problem for such as you, strong with the weak and weak with the strong.] who is now very elderly and in poor health. Mr Kerr has advised that the Court should be informed that the available evidence suggests that Mrs Andrews was responsible for dissipating a substantial sum of the Patient's money and that some step should be taken to seek to recoup this loss. I am aware of the fact that Mrs Andrews enjoys a life interest in the estate of her deceased husband and that she has other assets from which appropriate recovery could be made. At this stage it is sufficient for me to conclude that Mrs Andrews' personal financial position should be examined [Ah, yes, and you needed the power of the Court to do that, Mr. Hall, didn't you? You needed to find out just how much more money the Andrews family still had that you and your cohorts did not know about. Absolutely contemptible.] and that an estimate be made of the loss which may have been suffered [May have been suffered? You mean you are not sure Mr. Hall if what you are stating is true even with the support of Kerr yet you are prepared to take action against against a widow who is "very elderly and in poor health"?] by the Patient as a result of her management of his assets and income. [I have already told you, Mr. Hall, my mother was NOT in charge of the management of Freddie's assets and income. I have already told you that two professional people had been appointed with the knowledge of the High Court, see here.I recommend that the authority of the Court be given to enable me to undertake these enquiries and to take appropriate steps to recover any loss which may be identified. The day will come, Mr. Hall, when you will have to face a much higher court to answer for such sordid actions. It should also be noted that Mrs Andrews is not represented for the purposes of the present review proceedings [So that is what you call them, review proceedings - although addressed enquiries in that regard to the solicitors acting for other members of the family. I believe, however, that as all the other members of the family are represented in connection with the present review the recommendation which I have expressed above can be considered by Your Lordship at the next adjourned hearing without formal notice being given to Mrs Andrews.
[But you didn't even have the guts to leave it even at that sick level, did you, Mr. Hall? We will see the depth of one aspect of your sickness at paragraph 12 in your second 'Report' to the High Court lower down this page.
My mother was 75 years of age when my father died suddenly. She never got over the shock of his death. She led a very sheltered life as a result of my father's industry and love. Her concern for Freddie was now an even more terrible burden on her. In the remaining twelve years of her life when she should have had peace to enjoy the fruits of my father's life's work and be reasonably content that Freddie was being properly cared for, she was subjected to an agony of despair forced upon her by a group of professional people whose greed and avarice took over from their sworn duty to act legally and correctly. You, sir, have not protected my brother's interests despite your access to the highest powers in this land, how did you expect a frail old lady whose life had been shattered by bereavement to do what you have miserably failed to do? Not only that, but you were prepared to use the force of the highest power in this land to prosecute this frail old lady after getting permission to spy on her finances. Oh yes, THAT is what is important. How much money had she? How much can we get off her? And of course, all the time you take spying on her finances will be charged by you and paid for. You will just take the money out of my brother's bank account. You have the legal power and that gives you the legal right.]
34. Examination of Committee's Accounts.
In paragraph 3 of the note which I circulated before the hearing on 2 December I drew attention to submissions made by Messrs James Boston & Sullivan and Messrs John Johnson & Son on behalf of their respective clients giving details of alleged inaccuracies and discrepancies found in the first 2 committee's Accounts filed successively by Mr Drennan and Mr Rankin. A direction was accordingly given in paragraph 3 of the second interim Order referring those 2 Accounts and third Account covering the period up to 7 December 1983 to the Master (Chancery) for examination. In addition to points set out in the submissions mentioned above I prepared a list of further questions in respect of the first 2 Accounts and attended upon a review hearing in chambers before the Master on Friday 6 January at which Mr Alastair J Rankin provided a full explanation of the accounting system operated by Messrs Cleaver, Fulton & Rankin and Mr Doherty gave evidence in regard to particular receipts and payments. The Master will submit his own report to Your Lordship but I wish to record that I am satisfied that a thorough review was completed of all the questions which had been raised in respect of these Accounts - the first of which had already been considered and approved by the former Master (Care and Protection), Mr Davis. All moneys due to the Patient by Mr Drennan or Mr Rankin while acting as Committee have been accounted for.
35. General conclusions.
Although during the initial period after his appointment Mr Drennan appears to have enjoyed the confidence and co-operation of members the family it is quite clear that after 1980 some of them, especially Mrs Wright, entertained serious doubts as to the effective progress which was being made by him and also that they resented a number of enquiries (however justified) which were being made by him and by Mr Doherty. Whatever may have been the reason for this antipathy it is certain that from the beginning of 1981 members of the family were consistently critical of the conduct to the investigation and expressed grave concern for the Patient's interests - as they saw them. It is, in my view, particularly unfortunate that better and more effective communications were not established and maintained between the family and their representatives, the Office of Care and Protection and the Committee (originally Mr Drennan and subsequently Mr Rankin). Very many questions which have arisen within the last 3 years and which have been submitted to Your Lordship for consideration during this review could easily have been resolved and further suspicion dispelled if there had been a simple exchange of information and an explanation of working methods and professional practice - of which the family has no clear understanding. As a result of this continuing antipathy and suspicion it has been necessary for me to pursue many trivial issues which would not otherwise have concerned me, to duplicate investigations already made by Mr Drennan and Mr Rankin (not to mention the Police) and to spend much time in establishing details of transactions about which I had few, if any, misgivings from the outset. Sadly I believe that the suspicions entertained by members of the family are now so deep-seated that even after these extensive investigations they may still be dissatisfied with the outcome. Before setting out below a summary of my specific recommendations I wish to record, as a general conclusion, my view that it will not be in the Patient's interests for criticism, speculative allegations and suspicions of a general nature to be ventilated indefinitely. I will be concerned at the forthcoming hearing to achieve finality in regard to substantial issues and to be given general authority to pursue minor points of which I am well seized.
[People are not stupid, Mr. Hall!]
36. Summary of recommendations.
The specific recommendations which I have made in preceding paragraphs are:
that Messrs Jackson Andrews & Co be engaged as accountants to deal with outstanding tax questions [paragraph 30];
that I be authorised to proceed to recover other losses suffered by the Patient attributable to the actions of Messrs Tughan & Co and Mr Herbert Wright [paragraph 31];
that I be authorised to enquire into the financial affairs of Mrs Minetta Andrews and take appropriate steps to recover from her any identifiable loss suffered by the Patient as a result of her management of his assets and income [paragraph 33].
'A "Committee" is the person who is appointed under Order issuing out of the Office of Care and Protection (hereinafter called "the Office") to manage the affairs of a patient who is considered incapable of managing his affairs by reason of mental disorder. The Committee is normally one person closely related to the patient and he or she must be ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. A Committee may consist of more than one person but in the following notes the appointee to the office of Committee is referred to in the masculine singular.'
Why was I not appointed Committee by the High Court to my brother and later to my mother when I was looking after both full-time. My mother, in my care, was made a patient without my being told. This is outrageous.]
F Brian Hall
30 January 1984
Copies of this report will be sent for reference to -
J K Davis Esq OBE FCA
Peter J Rankin Esq, the Deputy Official Solicitor
The Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions
The Royal Ulster Constabulary Fraud Squad
Messrs John Johnson & Son, solicitors for Mrs Eileen Wright
Messrs James Boston & Sullivan, solicitors for Mr William J Andrews and Mrs Vera Douglas
Messrs Alex Stewart & Son, solicitors for Mrs Betty Hamilton
Messrs Tughan & Co
Charles E M Gilpin Esq [You really were very unprofessional as usual, Mr. Hall. Didn't you know that Charles Gilpin died in 1983! Isn't this one of the reasons you were in such a hurry to get your "comprehensive" Report to the High Court, the fact that it was no longer necessary for you to take on a multi-millionaire for the shocking deeds he had done against Freddie?]
Messrs McCartan, Turkington, Breen & Co, solicitors for Mr Herbert Wright
Messrs Jackson Andrews & Co, chartered accountants.
Office of Care and Protection
1978 NO 516
SECOND REPORT OF THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR
2 DECEMBER 1985
Royal Courts of Justice
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516
My first report to Your Lordship in this matter, dated 30 January 1984, was considered at a review hearing on 24 February 1984.
At that hearing the only feature of the report which was challenged was my conclusion in regard to the sale in December 1975 of the Patient's home at 14 Castlehill Road, Belfast for the sum of £38,750. After the trial of that single issue Your Lordship's reserved judgment was delivered on 28 February 1984.
2. Resolution of outstanding issues. In presenting this further submission for consideration for Your Lordship (and by all interested parties) in respect of matters which remained unresolved in my first report I propose, where appropriate, to deal with each topic by reference to the relevant paragraph set out in that report [with the number shown in square brackets].
Since the last hearings the principal questions requiring my attention were the determination of what might best be done with the Patient's properties at Smithfield/Francis Street in the light of the conclusions set out in paragraph  of my first report and the formulation of the claim which was to be made against Messrs Tughan & Co for recovery of losses suffered by the Patient by reason of the actions or neglect of Mr Wright while serving as an assistant solicitor in that firm. It was soon apparent that I could not hope to achieve any conclusion on the claim until a decision was reached in regard to the Smithfield properties. Although the premises were (and are) still occupied by Andrews and Company (Belfast) Limited it was for consideration whether the interests of the Patient would be better served by granting a lease subject to a realistic rent or by negotiating an outright sale. This choice, about which I sought the preliminary advice of my estate agent, Mr John L Deane (of Messrs Alex Murdoch & Deane), was further complicated in the Spring of last year by widespread speculation that a major re-development scheme was in prospect in the Royal Avenue/North Street/Smithfield area. At that stage it would have been impossible to attract realistic offers for purchase of the properties on the open market and unwise to commit the Patient to any extended lease of the premises. In the event the plans for the re-development scheme were duly announced and negotiation for the sale of the properties began in September 1985 as described in paragraph 32 below. Subject to the completion of the sale upon terms approved by the Court the claim to be made against Messrs Tughan & Co will comprise the several elements described in paragraph 11 below.
3. Proposed sale of Smithfield properties. [13-18] The disclosures made to me in the course of my investigation of transactions relating to the Patient's properties at 62-65 Smithfield and at 66-69 Smithfield and 1-11 Francis Street Belfast undoubtedly revealed the most grave aspect of the mismanagement of the Patient's affairs but also, incidentally, served to establish that he still held a secure title to both properties. When the negotiations mentioned in paragraph 2 ....(word not understood) were first mooted it was possible for me to collect the title deeds from Messrs Tughan & Co, on a final receipt, and offer them for inspection by Mr J Christopher Napier, the solicitor now representing Andrews and Company (Belfast) Limited. [You are also a magician, are you, Mr. Hall? How could you collect the title deeds from Messrs. Tughan & Co when Messrs Tughan & Co had already passed those title deeds over to the Ryland Vehicle Group for a consideration of £375,000. According to the Belfast County Court, "Herbert Wright (of Messrs. Tughan & Co) between the 1st day of August 1979 and the 31st day of January 1980, in the County Court Division of Belfast, dishonestly obtained from Ryland Vehicle Group Limited £375,000 with the intention of permanently depriving the said Ryland Vehicle Group Limited thereof by deception, namely by falsely representing Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited had a good and marketable title to premises known as 60/65 Smithfield Square, Belfast".] The history of the subsequent negotiations, Mr Deane's report and recommendations regarding the proposed sale and my own application for an Order approving the sale are fully set out in the papers placed before Your Lordship at the hearing last Friday, 29 November.["Fully set out, Mr. Hall? What nonsense! This massive website is not yet finished and hasn't yet been able to 'fully set out' all the corrupt goings-on which you have clumsily controlled.]
Consideration of my application has been adjourned until Friday 20 December next at 2.00 pm upon terms stipulated in Your Lordship's interim Order and no further submission by me is needed in this report. I should mention in passing that I received a letter dated 15 January 1985 from Mr Fearon, the solicitor now acting for Mrs Eileen Wright stating that she had informed him that the Patient owned other properties in Francis Street apart from numbers 1-11 mentioned above. In my reply dated 18 January 1985 I declared that I had no knowledge of premises owned (or formerly owned) by the Patient in Francis Street other than those already mentioned in this paragraph and premises at number 21 Francis Street from which a ground rent is payable as described in paragraph  of my report - and in paragraph 7 below. I asked Mr Fearon to obtain further details from his client as to the location of the other properties, the extent of the Patient's estate or interest, the amount of rent or other income produced from them, the name of any managing agent, the location of title deeds or any other relevant information which would assist me or the Court. Although I have addressed further reminders to Mr Fearon on 1 August and on 3 October asking for any relevant details he has been unable to assist me and I am driven to the conclusion that Mrs Wright's original assertion was based upon very vague or imprecise information rather than upon any reliable first-hand knowledge.
4. Settlement of 9 May 1955.  I have confirmed that the full entitlement of the Patient to benefit from the annuity described in my first report has been discharged by the Ulster Bank Trust Company. The sums received or expended by Mrs Minetta Andrews from this source have been taken into account by me (as they were originally by Mr Drennan) when considering the position of Mrs Andrews referred to in paragraph 12 below.
5. Salary from the Company.  From information provided by Mr William J Andrews and by Messrs Jackson Andrews & Co I have established that after the death of Mr Andrews senior the payment of a salary from the family Company to the Patient for the purely nominal services provided by him was discontinued. I am satisfied that at that time it was no longer realistic (or in the Patient's interests) to seek to preserve his personal connection with the Company and that no submission need be made in regard to the suspension of the salary payments.
6. Other income.  My enquiries have not disclosed any other source of income to which the Patient was entitled. Subject to the settlement of Income Tax payable in respect of all income already received by the Patient or recoverable as part of the claims described in paragraph 11 below the future management of the Patient's personal resources should be quite straightforward.
7. Premises: 21 Francis Street & 116-118 Millfield.  My further enquiries have not elicited any satisfactory explanation as to why these premises originally acquired by the Patient's father as an investment property and purchased in the name of the Patient on 1 November 1960 were subsequently transferred into the name of Mrs Betty Hamilton pursuant to a Conveyance which the Patient was persuaded to execute on 18 February 1966. I have been informed that Mrs Hamilton has no knowledge or recollection of the latter transaction and I have been unable to discover whether at the time when the Patient was divested of the property (obviously by reason of a decision made by the late Mr Andrews senior who instructed his solicitors, Messrs James Boston & Sullivan to prepare the deed) any alternative payment of security was provided for the Patient to compensate him for that loss. It is unnecessary for me to make any recommendation on this feature of the case since the question as to who may be entitled to receive the rents payable out of the premises may conveniently be determined in the context of the Chancery proceedings recently instituted by Mrs Hamilton which are referred to in paragraph 9 below.
8. Premises: 14-16 King Street & 12-14 Marquis Street.  I have obtained a full explanation of the history of rental payments made in respect of these premises and have established that no formal assurance of the reversionary interest in the Lease of 23 January 1964 in favour Mrs Hamilton was ever prepared nor were any instructions ever given by the late Mr Andrews senior to his solicitors to prepare such a deed as was the case in relation to the Francis Street/Millfield rents described in paragraph 7 above. I am satisfied therefore that Mrs Hamilton does not have any entitlement to the rent of £50 per annum produced from the premises and I will pursue the Patient's claim against her for an appropriate account in the context of the Chancery action already mentioned.
9. Chancery action instituted by Mrs Hamilton.  In my first report I described the circumstances in which Mr Drennan sought and obtained first a preliminary Agreement dated 12 October 1979 signed by Mrs Hamilton and then on 23 June 1980 a Deed of Charge in favour of the Patient to secure a capital sum of £20,000 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. As long ago as 24 October 1980 Mrs Hamilton had sought to disclaim her original acknowledgment of indebtedness to the Patient and her formal commitments to account for sums received by her from his assets or income. She subsequently engaged Messrs Alex Stewart & Son as solicitors to present her claim for repayment of the capital sum and interest (amounting in total to £21,454.79) recovered by Mr Drennan and now invested in the Court Funds Office on behalf of the Patient. Eventually, on 16 August this year, I received accepted service of a Writ of Summons, issued in the Chancery Division on behalf of Mrs Hamilton, to which I have entered an Appearance as Guardian ad litem for the Patient. After reviewing the case once more with Mr Kerr I have been advised to defend the action and I have served a Third Party Notice upon solicitors now representing Messrs Tughan & Co and Mrs Minetta Andrews. All issues arising between the Patient and Mrs Hamilton may therefore be resolved in the context of those proceedings.
10. Premises: 47 Smithfield Square.  The reference to the premises which first appeared in paragraph D (on page 2) of Mr Drennan's report may, I believe, have been founded upon mistaken or inaccurate information given to him by Mr Wright.
My own enquiries have failed to reveal any documentary evidence that the Patient ever had an interest in the premises or that he ever derived a rental income from them. I consider therefore that no further action is required on this point.
11. Claims against Tughan & Co. [28 & 31] Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the sale of the Smithfield properties referred to in paragraph 3 above, it is possible to state the separate headings under which, in my submission, the Patient is entitled to recover compensation from Messrs Tughan & Co. I have presented this analysis to Messrs Tughan & Co and their solicitors and I will be in a position to report upon the resolution of these headings of claim at the next review hearing before Your Lordship on Friday 20 December. It is my contention that the Patient should be compensated for:
(a) loss of income. By reason of Mr Wright's neglect did not receive a full market rent from the Company during the years prior to the attempted sale of the Smithfield properties on 30 September 1977 and no rent at all from then up to date.
(b) loss of investment income. During the period when Mr Wright was engaged to sell other properties belonging to the Patient he undertook the management of surplus funds by discharging a wide range of domestic accounts but he failed to place substantial credit balances on deposit or take any other step to secure a proper investment return for the benefit of the Patient.
(c) deductions from the Patient's account. I have identified an item in the Patient's account for costs which were improperly debited by Mr Wright and which will be refunded. I have also made enquiries about a small number of payments for which I wish to obtain receipts or vouchers.
(d) costs. I intend to recover all costs relating to work which I have undertaken on behalf of the Patient which may be attributed to the actions or neglect of Mr Wright. In addition Mr Rankin (acting in succession to Mr Drennan) will be entitled to recovering costs for all nugatory work involved in the extensive enquiries first made by either of them to identify the Patient's total assets and income - including the costs of the Chancery proceedings instituted by Mr Drennan against Messrs Tughan & Co in June 198-. (this last digit is cut off by the edge of the page)
12. The position of Mrs Andrews.  In my first report I stated that it was clear to me, [No, Mr. Hall, I did show at paragraph 33 of your first 'Report' that you were preparing the Judge and everybody else who would listen, for some other 'angle' in your nasty scheme and we are very close to hearing the rest of that nasty scheme] as it had been to Mr Drennan, that following the death of her husband on 14 July 1972 Mrs Minetta Andrews made no attempt to distinguish between her own assets and income and those of the Patient [Ok Mr. Hall, give us the details. What were the amounts? and that in consequence the Patient suffered the loss of a substantial sum of money [How much of a loss, Mr. Hall, how much? for which she was primarily accountable. [Aren't you getting so brave now, Mr. Hall? I bet you were sweating, just a little, as you read this pack of lies out in the Court]> Following the review hearing before Your Lordship on 24 February 1984 I completed my own analysis of financial transactions affecting the Patient and came to the conclusion that during the period from July 1972 until Mr Drennan's appointment in January 1979 Mrs Andrews had access to at least £35,000 belonging to the Patient. [At last, we are beginning to see the light. Now where have I read about that £35,000 before. Yes of course, that is the £35,000 Charles Gilpin and Herbert Wright of Tughan & Co pretended to pay my depressed brother for the Smithfield properties on the occasion that they and others ganged up on my brother Billy and forced Billy to sign away his shares in his business. These gangsters knew well that Billy and his company, Andrews & Company DID NOT OWN those Smithfield properties. I say 'pretended to pay' £35,000 because these gangsters put this money into a bank account in their own names pretending to be trustees of my mentally-handicapped brother Freddie Andrews. In other words they pretended to buy Freddie's property from Billy who didn't own that property and held on to their money. This was accomplished "during the period from July 1972 until Mr Drennan's appointment in January 1979", and you were well aware of that, Mr. Hall. In other words, Mr. Hall, Freddie did not have any money of his own except the pocket money given to him by his father and Billy simply because as you also well know, Freddie had no understanding of the value of money which is why my mother had to handle any money on his behalf. I also established that during Mr Drennan's initial enquiries about this aspect of the case Mrs Betty Hamilton had identified herself with her mother's interest [Exactly, Mr. Hall, "her mother's interest". My mother was left a wealthy woman but you and your sick gang could not bear to see my mother helping out a member of her own family and conspired to stop it. and had ultimately agreed to provide security for the sum of £20,000 mentioned in paragraph 9 above which was intended to represent an acceptable settlement of the Patient's claim against Mrs Andrews. [So, Mr. Hall, if as you stated, my mother owed Freddie £35,000, why did you settle for only £20.000. Why was £20,000 "an acceptable settlement of the Patient's claim against Mrs Andrews"? Was this in keeping with your duty in protecting Freddie's estate as Committee for that estate?]
Since Mrs Hamilton has decided to repudiate her original agreement [An 'agreement' forced out of my gentle sister by members of your gang and institute proceedings [And rightly so.] to have it set aside almost 6 years after signing her original commitment in October 1979 it has been necessary for me to join Mrs Andrews as a Third Party so that the Patient's interests may be fully protected. I am glad to be able to report that after a number of unsuccessful efforts by me to persuade members of the family to arrange for separate legal advice and professional representation to be provided for Mrs Andrews [Oh, yes, Mr. Hall, you always preferred to deal with legal representatives you could lean your legal weight on. You didn't get things so easy with me or my sister Vera. We were fit for you because we knew what you were up to and we did not like it one little bit. steps have at last been taken to engage Messrs McAteer & Co to represent her separate interests. [As usual, Mr. Hall, you were very careful not to tell the High Court Judge what steps you had in mind. Yes, you 'engaged' Mr. McAteer, but not to represent and defend my elderly and ill mother. No, you colluded with Mr. McAteer to 'legally' steal all her assets from her by having him literally appoint himself my mother's Committee thereby taking over ALL my mother's assets while leaving me to take care of my mother as best as I could. This was done less than six months after you made this 'Report' to the Judge. What utterly corrupt, mean and cruel bullies you people are! This is what you were planning when you told the High Court Judge what you were glad to report.]
It is unnecessary for me to make any further recommendation to Your Lordship in regard to this aspect of the Patient's affairs. [Why, Mr. Hall, was it unnecessary for you to make any further recommendation to His Lordship? Surely His Lordship wasn't 'in' on your devious scheme? Was he? Had he already agreed to your scheme?]
13. Requests for additional information. At the first review hearing on 24 October 1983 and at each subsequent hearing Your Lordship reminded all interested parties of the need to furnish relevant information regarding the Patient's affairs to me in writing accompanied where possible with documentary material. Since the hearings in February 1984, apart from prompt replies to questions which I have addressed to solicitors involved in the case and other professional offices, I have not received any additional information of any significance and I have therefore concluded that the details of Patient's assets and income which have now been revealed represent virtually all that need be of concern to the Court. [You totally silly little man. Did you not realise that a cover-up is only that, a cover. It can be removed and as you can see the cover is being taken off. How does it make you feel to have to face the reality of your stupid actions? How does it make you feel to have made our family suffer all these years as you are probably suffering now? How does your conscience cope with the fact that you caused my elderly mother mental pain and suffering by depriving her of her husband's life's work by causing her to beg for her family's money and watch her handicapped son deprived of all that his father left him by a gang of thieves which makes Dick Turpin look like a amateur?]
14. General complaints In paragraph  of my first report I averted to deep-seated suspicions still entertained by members of the Patient's family [Did you think we were stupid? Our parents gave us a wonderful education especially in the art of being honest] but I expressed the hope that in future general criticism and speculative allegations might be avoided. Sadly that hope has not been realised. No wonder!] In the interval since hearings in February 1984 apart from correspondence addressed to me by solicitors and others with a formal standing in the case I have been obliged to consider over 40 letters [If you had done the job you were highly paid to do, Mr. Hall, you would not have received ONE letter] addressed by members of the Patient's family to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, a Member of Parliament, the director of Public Prosecutions, senior officers at RUC Headquarters, representatives of the National Association for Mental Health and of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and a senior consultant psychiatrist as well as the Lord Chief Justice's Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Office of Care and Protection of which copies have been sent to me for reference or comment. Many of the complaints and demands expressed in that correspondence relate to matters which have already been fully examined and accepted by the Court. [That is no recommendation for the Court] Others are clearly based under a complete misunderstanding of the procedure involved in the administration of a patient's affairs under the control of the Court and of the legal principles which apply to such cases. [What rot, Mr. Hall! You operated a LACK-OF-PROTECTION-RACKET.]
Following the short hearing before Your Lordship last Friday morning 29 November, however, it should be possible to identify once and for all those matters about which any member of the family now wish to present any substantial, relevant and documented issue for consideration by the Court. [How could the Judge not know what was going on?]
15. Future objectives. [This should be interesting] Subject to the disposal of the Smithfield properties, the recovery of compensation from Messrs Tughan & Co and the resolution of any other issues which may be raised at the hearing on Friday 20 December next the objectives for the future management of the Patient's affairs may be summarised concisely as follows:
(1) to bring the Chancery proceedings with Mrs Hamilton and the related Third Party proceedings to a conclusion without further delay;
(2) to discharge all outstanding Income Tax and prospective Capital Gains Tax which may be due by the Patient;
(3) to undertake a review of the domestic and personal welfare needs of the Patient - if possible with the constructive participation of Mrs Eileen Wright and her advisers; and
(4) to secure a portfolio of investments of surplus capital to provide for the future needs of the Patient. [It is now (August 2007) over twenty-one years since you wrote this 'Report' to the High Court Judge, Mr. Hall, and I have just sent a letter to the present Official Solicitor demanding that Freddie be provided with a full-time carer at his own expense which, as I stated in my letter, he can well afford. Freddie has been doubly incontinent for some time now and at eighty-five years of age, I am just no longer able to keep up with all the washing involved in his care. This, Mr. Hall, is the result of "the objectives for the future management of the Patient's affairs", you sick little man.
Upon the completion of the current review I do not consider that there is any feature of the routine administration of the Patient's affairs or the management of his remaining assets which need involve Your Lordship or any other Judge and accordingly I respectfully suggest that Your Lordship may wish to direct that future supervision of the case be assigned to an appropriate statutory officer. [Like you, Mr. Hall? You know there was absolutely nothing routine about the administration of this Patient's affairs or the management of his 'remaining assets'. Of course you would have wished that His Lordship or "any other Judge" would never be involved now that you had had your say and wrapped all Freddie's affairs up, but there is One Judge you cannot escape and He will know not only what you did but He will know every thought behind everything you did. Did you never consider that?
F. Brian Hall
2 December 1985
Copies of this report will be sent for reference to -
The Lord Chief Justice's Office
The Office of Care and Protection
Peter J Rankin Esq, the Deputy Official Solicitor
The Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions
The Criminal Investigation Department, RUC Headquarters
The Royal Ulster Constabulary Fraud Squad
Messrs McCloskey & Co, solicitors for Tughan & Co
Messrs McCartan, Turkington, Breen & Co, solicitors for Mr Herbert Wright
Messrs J Christopher Napier & Co, solicitors for Andrews & Company (Belfast) Limited
Messrs McAteer & Co, solicitors for Mrs Minetta Andrews
Messrs James Boston & Sullivan, solicitors for Mr William J Andrews and Mrs Vera Douglas
Messrs Alex Stewart & Son, solicitors for Mrs Betty Hamilton
Michael J Fearon Esq, solicitor for Mrs Eileen Wright
Messrs John Johnson & Son, solicitors
Messrs Jackson, Andrews & Co, chartered accountants
J K Davis Esq OBE FCA
Peter D Robinson Esq MP
H A Lyons Esq MB FRCPI FRCPsych DPM
The National Association for Mental Health
The National Schizophrenia Fellowship
that I be authorised to institute appropriate proceedings against Messrs Tughan & Co and Mr Herbert Wright in relation to loss arising from the Smithfield transaction [paragraph 18];
[My mother at this time was 87 years of age, three years before her death. What you proposed, Mr. Hall, was monstrous. Not only was my mother removed from the comfortable home my father provided for her to end her days, my mother was put into a dirty, damp building. Now that you have been blinded by the little bit of power bestowed on you, you sought permission to see what she was worth and then take as much of her money as you felt safe to take. This is criminal, and more than criminal because you represented the law.]
Finally I submit that, subject to any application which may be made by other parties and any further directions which may be given by Your Lordship at the next adjourned hearing, I should be permitted to deal with the future management of the Patient's affairs in accordance with the general provisions of the original Order made by the Lord Chief Justice on 11 January 1979 and in accordance with further directions which may be given from time to time by an appropriate statutory officer.
[The Official Solicitors and the Supreme High Court Judges in Northern Ireland should read the Introduction to the little 19 page booklet entitled "Committees" the official publication of the Office Of Care And Protection, Royal Courts Of Justice, Belfast. On page one it states, and I quote,
The Office of Care and Protection
In the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland,
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS
The Honourable Mr Justice MacDermott