Please note that text in red denotes my comments

A letter from Official Solicitor Brian Hall to Peter Robinson MP dated 9/4/1984.

Dear Mr Robinson,

Your constituent: Mrs Eileen Wright
4 Norwood Gardens, Belfast 4

Thank you for your letter of 28 March which I received last Friday, 6 April, after it had been forwarded to my new office whose address is shown above. In regard to the letter dated 19 March addressed to you by Mrs Eileen Wright of 4 Norwood Gardens, Belfast (which I now return) I am satisfied that she has already received detailed replies to her previous enquiries about the case during recent months although it is apparent that she is unwilling to accept the explanations which have been given to her. The brief history of the case which I set out below for our reference is already well known to you constituent.

In January 1979 the affairs of Mr Frederick Andrews junior (the Patient), Mrs Wright's brother, were brought within the control of the Court and by an Order of the Lord Chief Justice my predecessor, Mr John G Drennan, was appointed as Committee with general responsibliity for the Patient's needs and charged with the specific task of undertaking an enquiry into transactions affecting the Patient's assets and income during the period since his father's death in July 1972.
[Now that is something I did not know. That is very important news - even to me. This puts a whole additional responsibility on the office of the Official Solicitor to enquire into the interference in our family's affairs and property by, especially, Charles Gilpin and solicitor Herbert Wright of Tughan & Co during the period July 1972 until January 1979. This will be referred to again.]
That task proved to be complicated [That is just not true, Mr. Hall. That task proved time consuming, yes, even to the RUC Fraud Squad officers who undertook the task at my family's request when we realised Mr. Drennan was not dealing properly with Freddie's affairs. Complicated? Definitely not, Mr. Hall, not to the professional Fraud Squad officers experienced in matters of fraud. These officers found fraud and more. They found criminal activity and even more. They even found fault with your predecessor as Official Solicitor, confirming my family's fears as to what was going on in the Office of the Official Solicitor.]
and involved extensive enquiries covering various transactions which had been undertaken on behalf of the Patient by a firm of solicitors engaged in 1973 to represent the interests both of the Patient and of his mother, Mrs Minetta Andrews. [Ah, now, Mr. Hall, don't leave this part of the real story incomplete. You have forgotten to mention the Fraud Squad investigations, three years of them. You have also neglected to mention that the firm of solicitors was NOT engaged in 1973 to represent the interests of the Patient, my brother, and my mother. This firm of solicitors Tughan & Co, the biggest in Belfast, were acting for Charles Gilpin who had even the private family safe removed from my elderly and grieving mother's keeping without the family's knowledge or permission. That is criminal theft, Mr. Hall.]
My own involvement in the case, following my appointment as Official Solicitor, commenced effectively last September when I issued a Summons which led to a general review of the Patient's affairs at sittings before the assigned Judge in the Family Division, The Honourable Mr Justice MacDermott, from whom I took directions [Only very inadequate directions, Mr. Hall. Those directions were inadequate simply you managed to manipulate the proceedings by omitting to inform the Judge of the Fraud Squad investigation and more importantly kept the investigation findings deliberately from the Judge.]
as to all steps required in the Patient's interests. After 2 preliminary hearings, on 24 October and 2 December last, at which Mrs Wright was herself represented by solicitor and counsel the Judge granted a further adjournment to enable me to present a comprehensive report incorporating the results of enquiries already made by my predecessor [In fact, Mr. Hall the Fraud Squad actually made enquiries into, among other things, the conduct of your predecessor. Why are you so frightened to mention this?]
and of further investigations and enquiries which I had undertaken commencing last November.
[The proper enquiries had already been made, Mr. Hall, by the RUC Fraud Squad, and you, Mr. Hall, kept the results of those enquiries from everybody. Whatever did you think you were playing at? The Lord Chief Justice himself, as you state above, charged the Office of the Official Solicitor with "...the specific task of undertaking an enquiry into transactions affectimg the Patient's assets and income during the period since his father's death in July 1972." When the first Official Solicitor in the case disobeyed that highest of commands, the Fraud Squad took over and did the job for your Office, and what did you do, you buried the results of those enquiries. This is a criminal act, and you know it.]
That report was delivered to the Court on 30 January and copies of it were circulated to all interested parties, including Mrs Wright, other members of her family and, incidentally, the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It contains a full statement [Absolute nonsense, Mr. Hall, and you know that too.] of the position in regard to all the Patient's known assets and income over the period from July 1972 to date, the conclusions [No, Mr. Hall, not conclusions, personal statements tailored to permit criminal activity.] which I formed in regard to particular sales of properties (about which Mrs Wright now complains) [Little wonder!] and a list of specific recommendations upon which I sought the further directions of the Court. [Yes, I agree totally with that, Mr. Hall, you even got the power of the High Court behind your criminal scheme.]

At a subsequent hearing before the Judge on Friday 24 February all parties declaring an interest in the Patient's affairs were given an opportunity to submit further argument or make specific aplications before an Order was made giving me definitive directions as to the steps to be taken in the Patient's interests. Once again, Mrs Wright was present at that hearing and was represented by solicitor and counsel. At the Judge's invitation she was given an opportunity to state her personal views to the Court.
[If what you have stated above, Mr. Hall, was true, the Judge would have been very well informed as I would not have missed an opportunity to put the record straight. As it is the Judge remained disinformed and I am still protesting against the injustice you stand for after many years.]
Upon the conclusion of that hearing and after considering the evidence of professional valuers[More corrupt businessmen tied into your scheme, Mr. Hall.] as to one disputed sale (of the Patient's former dwellinghouse in 1975) [Now that is going to take some telling, Mr. Hall. Have a look at this and this] the Judge delivered a reserved judgment on Tuesday 28 February in which he pronounced his conclusions as to the matters which had been in dispute and in which he also indicated his concern not to allow the Patient's estate to be dissipated in the costs of speculative litigation. [Ah, but that did not stop the dissipation, to say the least, did it, Mr. Hall?]

It is against this background that I am now proceeding with 2 specific steps about which Mrs Wright is already aware - the first involving proceedings against the solicitors who formerly dealt with the Patient's property [But you didn't proceed against those solicitors for the benefit of my brother, did you, Mr. Hall? You NEVER took action to protect my brother's affairs and property.] and the second involving an enquiry into the financial affairs of Mrs Minetta Andrews. [Yes, Mr. Hall, you did flex your legal muscles, didn't you? You used them against a defenceless, sick, elderly and bereaved lady whose husband had left her around 70,000 in cash and ALL his effects and the use of the family home during her lifetime. She gave some of that money to one of her daughters, Betty Hamilton. You decided to accuse my mother of giving away Freddie's money when it was not Freddie's money in order to give yourself the excuse to enquire into my mother's financial affairs. You went even further. Just before my mother died, you engineered the appointment of solicitor Ciaran McAteer as Committee for my mother when it was totally unnecessary and without our knowledge. You did this to enable you to take control of her remaining money. You should know, Mr. Hall that a Committee should be a member of the Patient's family, but no, this was a rich patient, this was to be a hands-on job for you.]
If there are any other matters about which Mrs Wright wishes to make formal submissions she should take further advice from her own professional representatives.

I enclose a copy of this letter which you may wish to forward to your constituent.

Yours sincerely,