Also from the letter dated 23-06-04 sent by the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd to John's MP.
...the first charge relates to a period when Mr Lamberton had Power of Attorney over his elderly (now late) aunt's affairs".
This was a lie, pure and simple intended to implicate John and to justify the extradition. The Power of Attorney was given to John after the period to which the first charge related and more to the point had to be deleted from the charge.
In relation to the extradition itself he comments that "He chose to contest it. Some 2 months later, Mr Lamberton finally consented to his extradition..." He didn't explain however that the Scottish authorities had initially failed to provide the correct information to the Spanish authorities which denied John access to the Simplified Procedure.
E-mail dated 08-11-04 sent by Aled Williams, British Liaison official in Madrid to Natalie Barclay-Stewart of the Crown Office.
"There is no suggestion that there was any bad faith involved in stating the maximum penalty to be 3 years".
That may very well be so but to then hand down a sentence of some 7 years subsequently reduced to 5 following appeal makes a mockery of the whole judicial system and liars of those involved.
Letter dated 12-04-05 sent by Lorna Harris, Crown Office to John. Refers to John's Freedom of Information request for a copy of the extradition file.
"The correspondence has been reviewed and copied with the exemption of certain internal correspondence...it is not in the public interest to disclose this information..."
What she means is that it wouldn't be in their (Crown Office's) interest to show what exactly went on in the run up to this case. We have consistently claimed the contrary and will continue to demand that all the files in the case held by the Crown Office are turned over to us as justice requires.
Letter dated 21-03-05 sent by Lynda Clark, Advocate General for Scotland, to John.
"With regard to the point you raise concerning the instruction of a public enquiry, the Advocate General has no power to instruct such an enquiry about these issues".
Letter dated 14-12-04 sent by the Chief Constable of Lothian & Borders Police to John re his complaint against Crown officials.
"In view of our position it would not be prudent or desirable for officers of Lothian and Borders Police to initiate enquiry into the points raised in your letter".
So Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service officials are above the law when it suits them?
Letter dated 01-02-05 sent by the Chief Constable of Lothian & Borders Police to John re his complaint against Crown officials.
"In the absence of a direct instruction from the Area Procurator Fiscal to investigate your concerns I am unable to progress your enquiry".
Rather convenient to refuse to investigate one's own officials in relation to a complaint which could amount to a charge of perverting the course of justice.
Letter dated 24-12-04 sent by Elizabeth Munro, Crown Office to John in relation to a complaint he had made to the Home Secretary.
"As the English Home Secretary has absolutely no jurisdiction in respect of criminal matters in Scotland, your letter was accordingly passed to the Scottish Executive...There is absolutely no basis for any of the allegations made by you in your letter and accordingly I intend to take no further action".
Yet another instance of a Crown Office official investigating herself, so much for independence! Seems such isn't appropriate when it comes to the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service. We should also point out that extradition within the UK is a Reserved Matter and as such is very much the domain of the English Home office! Maybe it is about time that the English Home Secretary did have jurisdiction in Scotland!
Letter dated 29-03-05 sent by Ian Ward, Assistant Director, Special Compliance Office (Professional Standards) Inland Revenue to John, re his complaint against Revenue officials.
"Messrs Henderson and Sundstrem have been informed of the allegations you have made against them but do not wish to comment in response to them at this time. You ask that they be suspended. As the allegations you have made are unsubstantiated, there can be no justification for this".
The allegations were in fact substantiated by several witnesses during John's trial. We all know that Revenue officials manufactured the plot and embellished the facts against John, there can be no doubt about this.
Letter dated 23-08-06 sent by Katrina Parkes, Procurator Fiscal Depute, Appeals Unit, Crown Office to John's solicitors.
"I write to confirm that in the absence of the clarification which we sought, we will not be providing you with the witness statements and Inland Revenue files".
Further letter dated 05-04-07 sent by Katrina Parkes to John's solicitors concerning their refusal to make disclosure of documents in the case.
"The requested documents will not be disclosed to the appellant. I would be obliged if any future requests for disclosure be made by your firm and not the appellant. I have sent a copy of this letter to Justiciary Office asking for a procedural hearing to be fixed to deal with the issue of disclosure in this appeal".
Seems they are a law onto themselves and will not be dictated to by the House of Lords who have made their position very clear in relation to such disclosures. More than one year on, we still await the procedural hearing referred to!
