Emails sent to all Scottish Socialist Party MSPs

I sent the following by email to all Scottish Socialist Party MSPs when I needed protection. No one responded other than Frances Curran MSP who was one of those I most needed protection from. I pulled punches in this correspondence. I did so because I had proven unable to get any senior member of the SSP leadership to do anything about Curran, despite having appealed to SSP national secretary Allan Green, party co-chair Catriona Grant, SSP press secretary Eddie Truman and Frances Curran’s assistant, Barbara Scott to do something. In this correspondence it looks like I am making excuses for Frances Curran, implying this ‘constituency problem’ may simply be far too big and complex for any one MSP to deal with. That was, of course, nothing but spin. I simply wasn’t ready to go public in my real criticisms, which were so serious I already assumed she must be an undercover cop, but (for understandable reasons) an undercover cop who had gone to a lot of trouble to cover her tracks: I simply didn’t have the cast iron evidence I needed to do more than bring others in to help me set a trap to catch her out, which I believe is what any credible SSP leader should have done given her inability to answer any of the questions I wanted to raise about what she had and had not done about the following:

  • threats to my life by those who hospitalised me,
  • cops depriving me of medical attention for 12 hours,
  • an 18 months malicious prosecution by Regional Procurator Fiscal John Miller based on fabrications of two of those who were party to the break-in of my home and a thirty minute brutal assault with a metal bar and razor blade, both of whom long term friends with someone who had gone to jail for sending me a death threat
  • denial of hundreds of pounds of criminal injuries compensation, which Frances Curran blamed on her assistant, Barbara Scott.
  • denial of everything I needed to get the fabricated charges against me dropped, or at least for me to be granted full disclosure about what these charges actually consisted of, which I was denied, and which Frances Curran MSP knew to be entirely illegal on the part of The Crown.

Frances Curran was aware that I had been given seven days to get out of Paisley starting 16th March 2003 (Paisley being the town I was born in and had lived in all my life) or those who slashed me with a razor blade, knocking out one of my teeth and loads of fillings with fists and boots, kicked me in the head and testicles, reducing me to a bloody pulp.

Frances Curran was aware that the two thugs who did this said their actions had the full support of the very same cops who had been under investigation for years by the Strathclyde Police Complaints and Discipline Department for collusion with a Steff Denny who had gone to jail for sending me a death threat. The cops under investigation for corruption had taken revenge against me by telling all my neighbours that I was a paedophile on the sex offenders register! That smear campaign explains why two cops simply sat back and watched what was could legitimately be called a riot of thirty adults threatening to kill me in cold blood. The two cops who witnessed this and let it go ahead then destroyed police reports of any of this happening, notwithstanding there being dozens of witnesses: my neighbours. Frances Curran told me she had had a friendly chat with one of these witnesses, one who believed the cops lie that I was a paedophile on the sex offenders register, and one who would not do anything to protect me from these thugs because she thought I deserved all the death threats, windows being smashed, door being broken down, and reduced to a bloody pulp with the cops offering me no protection. Frances Curran MSP knew that the cops who witnessed it had destroyed police records and were now pretending they had no record of my phoning or any statement given to the cops, who the cops were now claiming had never turned out to my flat which explains why they didn’t arrest any of these thirty adults baying for my blood. Frances Curran MSP knew I was going to tell a court about her role in helping cops bury this, knowing I had an itemised telephone bill with detailed notes of what happened on the day as well as dozens of potential witnesses, one of whom had given evidence to Frances Curran, including evidence that there were cops who witnessed it! Frances Curran knew she risked my calling her as a witness to expose the cops who had effectively sanctioned this riot by those who said they were going to kill me! Frances Curran MSP saw to it that not one of my witnesses were called.

Furthermore, Frances Curran MSP saw to it that I had no lawyer representing me. Frances Curran also saw to it that I had a mere twenty three hours advance notice of the statements of John Miller’s witnesses.

Frances Curran MSP looked white as a ghost when she saw the smile on my face when I read these statements. I told my MSP that I would expose them as fabrications from beginning to end, a fact she knew and I told her she knew they were lies from start to finish, a fact she pretended not to understand. Frances Curran’s response was, as I have explained on innumerable occasions, to stop me having my day in court, to try to work with Regional Procurator Fiscal John Miller to try to trick me into breaking bail conditions in order to trigger a disgusting, utterly illegitimate pre-existing arrest warrant, in the hope of having me arrested, and then presumably giving the cops access to my home to search for incriminating evidence against the cops. When I phoned Frances Curran to get an explanation as to what she had done she refused to answer any of my calls. When I tried to expose her rampant criminality to the entire SSP membership via SSP_Debate, SSP press secretary and co-chair Catriona Grant had me kicked off the list. These bastards (Grant in particular) knew Curran had acted in a seriously criminal manner. Their response was to protect her from exposure in front of the entire SSP membership. That is when I tried to phone Tommy Sheridan to get him to investigation, not just Frances Curran but all the senior SSP members who knew part of this story, including national secretary Allan Green, party co-chair Catriona Grant and Barbara Scott, who Frances Curran told me was responsible for my being deprived of hundreds of pounds of criminal injuries compensation and a whole lot more. But I couldn’t get past his case worker Keith Baldasserra who clearly kept Tommy in the dark, choosing instead to work with Frances Curran to protect her identity as a police spy.

Frances Curran had known about this for years about the daily threats and my windows being smashed by those who she knew were supported by cops at ‘K’ Division, and chose turn a blind eye. She clearly decided I couldn’t go public about why all this was going on. But I have decided that it is necessary for me to address these smears in order to expose Frances Curran, Alan McCombes, Keith Baldasserra, Catriona Grant, Barbara Scott, and Allan Green. Anyway, my emails to the SSP MSPs back in 2004 was, apparently, much too subtle. Every one of the SSP’s MSP did nothing more than ask Frances Curran to get in touch with me. And that made my situation worse, not better. I will, in the days, weeks and months to come, try to explain why that is in as much detail as I can. For now, all I am going to do is add part of the raw data. Make of it what you will. I will comment on it later today, and provide more supplementary material. There is no shortage of this stuff. Most of it has not been made public, some of it has been stolen (by the police, I believe) in all three of the towns I have lived in (undercover) since I sent these emails to all six of the SSP’s MSPs, back in the days before Alan McCombes smashed the SSP to smithereens in order to protect the identity of Frances Curran as a police spy, with the assistance of Rupert Murdoch’s cop-bribing hacks who went on to infiltrate 10 Downing Street and then [allegedly] commit perjury to send others to jail.

—– Forwarded Message —–

Note: forwarded message attached.

ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger – all new features – even more fun!

Dear Tommy, Frances, Carolyn, Rosie, Colin and Rosemary,

I am appealing for all SSP MSPs to help me against a malicious prosecution. I believe that this malicious prosecution, and matters relating to it, are politically motivated. Therefore I believe that my defense is a matter for the entire party, rather than a simple constituency case for Frances. I will in court, in a fortnight’s time, accusing the police and the prosecution of political motives in bringing this case to trial. And I would like all the party’s MSPs to be aware of what I am alleging, and why the entire party should support me.

I am aware how overworked all our MSPs are. That is why I expect most of the support to come from Frances. However, I would ask you and the rest of our MSPs to discuss my case, and see if there is any additional help Frances could be given by some of our overworked staff, and any party member with legal training – such as Nicky McKerrell. Therefore, I am submitting to you all some of the documents that Frances has had in hard copy for some weeks now. I do not expect any of you to go through all these documents with a fine tooth comb. However, I would ask *all* of you to at least skim through them. Please all read the statement that was submitted to the judge on 16th of June this year. And look over my 14 questions to PC Farrelly and PC Findlay (the arresting officers), set out in my letter to Mr Diamond of June 9th 2004.

I would welcome any and all support from any of you, and can be reached at my mobile: ****** *********.

Yours in comradeship,

Tom Delargy

I am going to include a plain text version of a two letters to Ross Harper, my statement to the judge, a list of witnesses (which might strike you all as bizarre, unless you do more than skim the documents supplied here), a letter to the Procurator Fiscal.



Firstly, I intend to withhold a comprehensive legal defence against this charge until after I know what precisely it is I am being accused of. Thus far, I have been denied access to the statements of the prosecuting officers and those of the prosecution witnesses. At my last meeting with my lawyer, I explained that I could not follow the police statements due to the rate of verbal presentation. This was due to a medical condition, which has been diagnosed as ‘autistic spectrum disorder.’ I was told by my lawyer that I had to have these statements read to me for legal reasons. However, had I been deaf, this rule would not be enforced (unless I could lip read). In such circumstances, I would be allowed to read the statements. If I was both deaf and blind, I would have the statements provided in Braille form. My inability to take in certain types of verbal information the way most people can is no less pertinent to my ability to defend myself against these charges. And I would consider it an infringement of my human rights not to have special dispensation due to a recognised disability. I would, therefore, ask Ross Harper to make a judgement call and allow me to read the statements first, without referring this to the judge (so I could take notes and then know what it is I am being accused of) or else appeal for the trial to be postponed until the judge can determine whether or not the rules can be stretched in my case, due to my disability. Additionally, I have been told that, due to the failure of Ross Harper to precognose the witnesses, my trial would have to be postponed anyway. I am not willing to set out my defence in any significant detail until after I have access to the witness statements about the crime I am alleged to have committed. I would ask Ross Harper to complain about the fact that the prosecution mislead you by supplying a false address for these witnesses. The prosecution has to accept responsibility for your inability to precognose these witnesses and should, thus, have no complaint about a delay in the trial.

I would also ask you to draw to the attention of the judge that one of these prosecution witnesses (Louise Guy) has on two separate occasions threatened me. I would call on the judge to investigate this.

I would also ask you to draw to the attention of the judge to the fact that those brief extracts of the police statements that you did read to me (before you gave up, due to my failure to process the information at what my lawyer considered an acceptable speed) are demonstrably false. Although I have thus far had access to only a small part of these statements, I know for a fact that I can provide witnesses to discredit the police statements. I can also demonstrate blatant inconsistencies in these statements. There is also a lack of logic in much of what these statements seem to say, unless the logic was missed by me due to my disability.

I would also ask you to draw to the attention of the judge that I am accusing the arresting officers of seriously hampering my ability to receive timely medical assistance. Due to their malicious actions, medical care was received several hours after it should have been given, and this may have adversely affected the healing of my facial scarring.

I would also ask you to draw to the attention of the judge that the false statements that have been supplied by the officers to the court have also been distributed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Award Panel, leading to their denial of monetary compensation for the brutal assault that lead to my calling out the police in the first place. The arresting officers failed to allow themselves to be cross-examined by me at my CICA appeal hearing, and the officer who did read their statement was not allowed to be questioned about these lies because he was not in a position to defend these officers’ statements! I want the judge to be made aware that I will be appealing the decision of this panel to withhold criminal injuries compensation due to the prejudice against me on the part of the chair of that panel.

I would ask you to draw the attention of the judge to the fact that I am accusing the arresting officers and the witnesses of conspiring to concoct a malicious prosecution against me, and I will attempt to prove that they are motivated by a desire to intimidate me into dropping my complaints against over a dozen serving and former police officers, including Chief Superintendent Kenny Murray, Commander of ‘K’ Division, a former Assistant Chief Constable of Strathclyde Region, who spent five years as Director of Special Branch, who was at the time of the so-called ‘breach of the peace’ incident the Director of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency (Jim Orr) and serving officers at the Strathclyde Police Complaints and Discipline Department. As I explained to the arresting officers when they called to take a statement from me about a brutal assault in my home, the thugs told me that police told them I was a paedophile. The assailants were witnessed by Louise Guy and her boyfriend, and it is clear that they were no mere witnesses but actual accomplices to this assault. The judge needs to be made aware that I wrote to Procurator Fiscal John Miller and Chief Constable Willie Rae to attempt to prove that those behind this assault were the police officers who had been under investigation by the Procurator Fiscal and the Chief Constable since the summer of 1999. Every attempt to get either John Miller or Willie Rae to respond to my letters was ignored. And that brings me to my set of witnesses.

I am calling John Miller and Willie Rae as witnesses. I am calling on them to answer questions about their failure to respond to my attempt to bring these thugs to justice. Consequently, I am accusing them both of attempting to pervert the course of justice, and would welcome the present Procurator Fiscal investigating this allegation in parallel with my trial for breach of the peace. I am also accusing John Miller and Willie Rae of tipping off the thugs who were behind the smear campaign that alleges that I am a paedophile on the sex offenders’ register. I am accusing them both of destroying forensic evidence that would allow the police to prosecute those behind these vile smears. And I am alleging that they are motivated by political pressure from former Director of Special Branch, Jim Orr, who I believe once employed Steff Denny to intercept my mail, including correspondence to me from the Scottish Human Rights Agency, in which he scrawled his boast that he was above the law, forensic evidence that has apparently been destroyed by a previous Procurator Fiscal, John Gilbert. I need to explain something about Steff Denny and his relationship with police officers at ‘K’ Division and about his intimate relationship with Louise Guy and her boyfriend.

Denny was charged with sending me a death threat in response to a letter that I had printed in the Paisley Daily Express. In that letter, I defend gays and blacks against the racists and homophobes of the British National Party. In front of witnesses, Denny subsequently threatened to have me killed if he goes to jail for sending me this death threat. It appears that he did go to jail for this crime, but immediately on his release (the following day) threatened to kill me for my placing him behind bars. The forensic evidence that proved that Denny was behind the second set of death threats was destroyed by his friend, Louise Guy and, alas, by myself – on instruction from the then community constable, PC Christensen.  Christensen told me that I could destroy the death threats that Denny scrawled on my front door: “Delargy’s getting shot. Delargy’s getting stabbed. Delargy’s getting it. Tonight.” I only agreed to paint over these threats because PC Christensen told me he had more than enough evidence to charge Denny with these new death threats. Immediately after I painted over the death threat on my front door, PC Christensen told me that he had decided not to charge Denny after all. When I saw Louise Guy paint over the only piece of forensic evidence that linked Denny to the fifty of so death threats that he had scrawled the day after his release from prison (a large drawing that Denny had made of me with a noose around my neck and a dagger in my back, and another drawing of me being raped), I told her that the constant graffiti that goes up on the building accusing me of being a paedophile on the sex offenders’ register was malicious lies spread by a previous neighbour of mine by the name of Steff Denny, Louise Guy told me that she knew it was lies. I then learned something rather interesting about her background. When I told her about who was behind these smears she told me that she knew him, and knew that he had spread a variety of other malicious rumours about me being a sex offender! I was suspicious that as soon as Denny left the building, an apparently friendly speaking acquaintance of Denny’s moved next door to me, but I did not let on that my suspicions had already begun. I have reasons to be suspicious because I believe the police have put pressure on Renfrewshire Council in order to move many friends of Denny into this building, and even to offer them jobs which they have used to vandalise my home. Now I discovered that yet another of Denny’s friends had been moved next door. However, Louise Guy always (until 10.30am on Sunday 16th March 2003) tried to worm herself into my affections. She told me that Denny told her to keep a close eye on me, because I had used a date rape drug on the woman who lived in her flat before she moved in. I was outraged and protested my innocence. She told me not to worry because she was also a close friend of the woman who was my previous neighbour and asked her about what Denny told her. That woman categorically denied that I did any such thing. I have many other stories about Louise Guy’s relationship with Denny, and her attempts to win my confidence, clearly trying to get me to give her information about my complaints against Denny and those many police officers who have for years been covering up Denny’s frequent crimes against me. I will say more about what I know about Louise Guy and her boyfriend after I have seen her statements about my alleged crime.

One last thing. Twice each in the last couple of months, Steff Denny and Louise Guy have threatened me. I believe that these threats constitute attempts to pervert the course of justice, and would call on the judge to investigate these allegations before the start of the trial for my alleged ‘breach of the peace.’

50c St Ninians Road

1st June 2004
Mr Diamond
Ross Harper
Dixon Street
G1 4AR

Dear Mr Diamond,
I would ask you to take over from Richard Freeman, who has made it clear that he does not want to defend me against the alleged breach of the peace charge using the defence that I have outlined to him, one he claims to be incapable of understanding. On the very eve of my pre-trial appearance, Mr Freeman told me that he wanted to pursue a completely different defence, one that he had put to me on the only previous occasion that we met, a defence I had already categorically, and indignantly, rejected. Since Mr Freeman seems incapable of defending me according to my wishes, I would ask you to step in. I would ask you to familiarise yourself with the documents that I have provided Ross Harper as quickly as possible, which should not be difficult since your secretary phoned me to arrange an appointment with you after Mr Freeman’s secretary had already set up an appointment with him. But I would also ask you to appeal on my behalf, once again, to the judge to agree to delay the trial date. I draw your attention to the three page document that I supplied Mr Freeman with the day before the pre-trial (26th May 2004). I find it impossible to believe that the judge refused to agree to a delay to the trial, given the facts revealed in that document. And that has to make me wonder if Mr Freeman did not just forget which town my trial was in, but also forget his promise to make the judge aware of the highly pertinent facts provided in my three page document. If Mr Freeman did not supply these facts to the judge, then someone at Ross Harper needs to do that immediately: otherwise, in the event of my being found guilty, I will appeal against the verdict, and submit this document (which I wanted Mr Freeman to give to the judge) as evidence in why I was denied a fair trial.

Ross Harper needs to join me in fighting for a delay in the trial because there is absolutely no one at your firm that comes close to being in a position to defend me adequately, for a whole range of reasons, none of which are my fault.

Secondly, as I have explained three times on the phone to secretaries at Ross Harper, and once in person to Richard Freeman, and in my three page document that I asked Mr Freeman to deliver to the judge, Ross Harper needs to insist on exercising my right to have my lawyers interview the ‘witnesses’, Louise Guy and Kevin Moody. While Mr Freeman seemed to want to throw away this important right of mine, because it was superfluous if I was happy to agree to letting him mount a ‘defence’ based on acceptance that the four so-called witnesses acted in good faith (which causes me to wonder if he ever read any of the documents I supplied Ross Harper, or paid any attention to what I was telling him), my defence rests on exposing all of them as malicious liars, and, in the case of all four of them, someone much, much worse. I relish the prospect of appearing as a witness for the prosecution when the two police officers are tried for perjury. Since I am attempting to expose all four witnesses as malicious liars, I need to call a variety of witnesses to help me build a case that demonstrates the motive all four of these witnesses had to lie in order to bring this malicious prosecution to trial, and to lie in their vindictive bid to frame me. I will send you other letters over the next few days. In these, I will set out most of my most important witnesses. I will supply Ross Harper with a specific line of questioning for each witness in question, and of a very long list of questions for each of my witnesses, with follow-up questions, depending on how they answer the original. I will also supply you with a list of questions you should put to Louise Guy and Kevin Moody after the judge supplies you with their real addresses, rather than fictitious ones that the judge and prosecution team all knew to be fictitious.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Delargy
50c St Ninians Road

9th June 2004
Mr Diamond (Senior Partner)
Ross Harper
Dixon Street
G1 4AR

Dear Mr Diamond,
Ruth Langford, my support worker from Prospects (affiliated to the National Autistic Society), phoned Ross Harper on Monday and asked that a message was passed on to you to ask you to immediately contact the judge in my breach of the peace case, asking for a delay in the trial date – for those reasons spelt out in the three page document that I asked Mr Freeman to hand to the judge before the pre-trial date, and also those supplementary arguments supplied in my letter to you, which you should have received on Monday morning. It appears that the Ross Harper secretary who took Ruth’s call failed to pass that message on to you, but gave it, instead, to Mr Freeman. I have this afternoon received a call from Mr Freeman, informing me that this message was delivered to him by mistake (apparently by mistake), but since he was happy for you to take over as my lawyer, he would personally pass the message on to you. I have a large list of complaints that I could make about Richard Freeman, and if I choose to do that I will ask for Ross Harper to investigate my complaints internally. But my main concern is to help Ross Harper start to mount my defence against this malicious prosecution, and I have no intention of asking the legal aid board to let me move to a third firm of solicitors. I would, therefore, ask you to step in to take over my defence. Only if you tell me that you are unwilling to do that will I contact the legal aid board to ask for permission to go through this transition process all over again, something I am very much want to avoid. I will not, therefore, dwell on my complaints against Mr Freeman, other than as a few (relatively) brief asides in the rest of this letter.

Firstly, it is vital that you fully appreciate the nature of my diagnosed disability of ‘autistic spectrum disorder’, and how this manifests itself in me as an individual. Do please take this disability fully into account in a way that Mr Freeman chose not to. On the only two occasions that I spoke to Mr Freeman at Ross Harper, I brought along Ruth Langford, in order to act as an advocate for me, and have tried to get her to appear at our future meetings. Alas, her diary makes this impossible for either of the two dates that I could have an interview with you prior to the set date for my trial. That is the only reason I will meet you alone tomorrow. I will try to explain my difficulties as best as I can, without taking up too much time.

Secondly, if you have not already done so, please immediately make representations to the judge insisting on my right to have Ross Harper precognose the so-called witnesses, Louise Guy and Kevin Moody, and for the trial date to be postponed until after these so-called witnesses make themselves available for this. Although I will not dwell on this fact, it remains a fact that Ross Harper actually knew that neither of these individuals lived at 52c St Ninians Road when you hired private investigators to call on them at that address. I had explained that the first day I went to Ross Harper’s office in order to sign the legal aid papers transferring me from a client of Robertson Ross to a client of Ross Harper. Due to my disability, I have forgotten the name of the solicitor that I spoke to back in January, but I explained to him that the original bail conditions that I was asked to agree to did not mention Louise Guy and Kevin Moody by name, but they did bar me from approaching the address they lived in at the time of the alleged breach of the peace – 52c St Ninians Road. I explained first to the court appointed lawyer who stepped in to ‘represent’ me (in reality, to disgracefully abuse me), and then to the judge that I could neither enter nor leave my flat without passing within a metre or so of 52c St Ninians Road. I further explained that if the purpose of this bail condition was to stop me seeking any contact with Louise Guy and Kevin Moody, this condition was entirely pointless: these so-called witnesses had vacated that flat within a month or so of the alleged offence, a fact originally drawn to my attention by police officers, suggesting some bizarre relationship between these individuals and the police. On the basis of this information, the judge asked for the bail conditions to be redrafted by eliminating the condition that I could not approach 52c St Ninians Road. I explained this exchange with the judge (via the intermediary of the court appointed solicitor) to the Ross Harper solicitor who helped me fill in the legal aid form. I further explained that I did not know Louise Guy and Kevin Moody’s new address, but it could be obtained from the prosecution. Since the judge and the prosecution knew this address and, apparently, supplied Ross Harper with an address that they knew to be false, and the court records should prove the veracity of that claim, I think the judge has no option but to grant Ross Harper a delay in the trial until my lawyers’ precognose these ‘witnesses.’ If the judge refuses to grant this delay and/or to grant Ross Harper the addresses of the so-called witnesses, then in the event of my being found guilty, I will appeal on the grounds that I was denied a fair trial.

In the event of my being found guilty, I will also appeal on the basis of my being denied a fair trial if the judge refuses to grant a delay in the trial until Ross Harper has managed to subpoena those witnesses that I want to call, and the list I have already supplied Ross Harper is not yet comprehensive. It would not surprise me in the slightest if you do not know the precise line of questioning that I would like you to pursue with all the witnesses that I have already indicated I want to call, listed in my letter of 1st June 2004. If you manage to study all the letters I have supplied you, you should be able to piece together the bare bones of my defence, with plenty meat to flesh out that defence. I am, however, prepared to make your job a lot easier by drawing all the threads together in a much shorter, snappier, more sharply focussed document, supplemented by a list of questions for all my witnesses. However, before supplying you with such a detailed defence, I need reassurance that you will pursue my defence vigorously, rather than insist that I abandon my own defence in deference to one I categorically reject, which is what Mr Freeman insisted that I do. If you can’t agree to this (what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable) condition, then I will have no option but to find a new lawyer, something I do not want to do a few days before my set trial date.

I am prepared to offer you a list of fifty or so questions to put to Louise Guy and Kevin Moody at pre-trial precognosing. I want to withhold many of these questions until after I win reassurance that Ross Harper is prepared to insist on my right to have my lawyers’ precognose these ‘witnesses.’ As I have already made clear, I intend to expose these individuals as malicious liars, people who were involved in the brutal assault on my person that lead directly to this trumped up charge of breach of the peace. I want my lawyer to exploit the precognosing to help me shatter every last shred of credibility of this pair. I want them to have to explain contradictions between the statement they make to you during the precognosing (where you will have an opportunity to ask questions for the purpose of clarifying what they are telling you) and what they end up telling the court under cross-examination. If the judge refuses to agree to my exercising my right to have these witnesses precognosed, then, in the event of a guilty verdict, I will appeal on the basis of my being denied a fair trial. I do not want to offer to you the detailed questions I want you to put to these so-called witnesses at this stage. The reason is because I expect Louise Guy and Kevin Moody to be coached by Special Branch officers to help them frame me. And that means they will want to alert them to what precisely I can prove about their relationship with Steff Denny and those police officers under investigation for covering up crimes committed by him. Special Branch will help them concoct false alibis; they will tell them precisely how much they think it is necessary to concede, because I have proof of some things they would prefer to keep secret. But I would like to keep their Special Branch minders guessing about precisely how much I know. So I intend to hold my cards as close to my chest as possible, until I can be sure that Ross Harper is on side. I will, therefore, supply you with a full list of questions to put to this pair as close as possible to the date of your pre-trial interview with them. That will make it as difficult as possible for Special Branch to adequately coach them at that point. If the judge refuses to grant me a delay in order to give Ross Harper an opportunity to precognose the ‘witnesses’ or to subpoena my witnesses, then I will supply you with a list of the questions to put to Louise Guy and Kevin Moody before the trial date. I will also state my defence and tell the court that I believe that Louise Guy and Kevin Moody, and the two police officers, are pursuing a malicious prosecution, and I will explain as fully as I can why I believe that they are doing this at  the behest of Special Branch. And, if necessary, I will explain why I think I was denied an opportunity to call witnesses in order to fully demonstrate why this theory of mine is not the ravings of a Walter Mitty fantasist.

I believe that the judge has already acted illegally in bringing the pre-trial diet to a close prior to permitting my defence lawyers to precognose the witnesses. If the judge persists in denying me this right, even after Ross Harper has requested a delay to grant me a right illegally withheld by the judge, then I have to question more than his competence. I also want to draw your attention to other instances of the prosecution’s illegal suppression of salient facts to the defence. For this purpose, I am enclosing, as an appendix, a copy of a letter to the Procurator Fiscal. I further draw your attention to the fact that when the Procurator did, eventually, get round to responding to this letter, and offering an apology, he failed to address many questions contained in my letter of complaint. He failed, for instance, to explain why the promise made to me by one of his secretaries (given over the phone) to send me a copy of the court documents that were supposed to be contained in the original threatening letter from the Procurator Fiscal Depute, but which were in fact omitted (by accident?) was broken. The first occasion I received any explanation of what I was supposed to have done to warrant a breach of the peace charge was when Mr Freeman read to me a few fragments of the statements of PC Findlay and PC Farrelly. I received this (entirely inadequate) account of my so-called crime in the first of my two meetings with Mr Freeman. Prior to my first meeting Mr Freeman, he knew full well (and this was backed up on the day by Ruth Langford, who accompanied me to this meeting) that I was incapable of following the long list of disconnected facts contained in the two police statements that were read to me. Nevertheless, Mr Freeman refused to read either of them to me in full, apparently out of exasperation at my slow processing of the verbal information, and my constant need to interrupt him, asking questions and calling for him to repeat certain passages over and over again. It would not be a massive exaggeration to say that he may as well have been reading these statements to me in French, for all the good they did me. Certainly, my short term memory rapidly got overloaded once he started reading, and Mr Freeman was alerted to this problem, but persisted in refusing to make any accommodation, despite my verifiable disability. The accommodation that I requested was my being allowed to read the statements myself, and then being permitted to take notes, so I could reread the statements over and over again at my leisure, until I had established the full picture. Mr Freeman refused to make any concessions during our first meeting, which struck me as completely outrageous. However, the second and last time we met (the day before my pre-trial date), after Mr Freeman read the first few paragraphs of my three page document to him, he agreed to let me read the statements myself, and to take as many notes as I required. However, he broke this promise. He insisted that I read the two statements first before I took any notes, and repeatedly stopped me to ask me questions every time I claimed that there were lies or contradictions in the statements. So much time was wasted in disputes about what I consider to be fairly irrelevant details that Mr Freeman told me that there was no time for me to take any notes from these statements! I then reminded Mr Freeman that he was breaking his promise to give me at least a few hours before my final pre-trail court appearance to have access to the statements of at least a couple of the so-called prosecution witnesses. He told me that he had no alternative, because of time constraints, but he would give me the police statements to read before I appeared in court, and I would be free to take as many notes as I wanted, the same promise he made close to the beginning of that meeting, a promise subsequently broken. He then went on to break this second promise also. Although he promised to meet me at 9.50am outside Paisley Sheriff Court, he failed to show up. Only some time after I was told to enter court 6 immediately by a court usher, did a man dressed in gowns approach me to ask if I was Thomas Delargy. When I told him I was, he beckoned me outside. That man identified himself as Neil Hutchison, telling me that he had been sent by Ross Harper. I found him very helpful and pleasant. However, there is a massive difference between what he told me that day and what Richard Freeman told me earlier this afternoon. (As an aside, I do not at this stage intend to waste time recounting the details of these contradictory accounts, but I would ask Ross Harper at a later date to investigate what happened. I will though say that while I find Neil Hutchison’s account highly credible, Richard Freeman’s conduct remains deeply suspicious.) Only after the judge threw out my appeal for a delay in the trial based on those facts supplied in the three page document I handed to Mr Freeman, was I allowed to take notes of the two police officers’ statements. Because Neil Hutchison was so accommodating towards me, I did cut some corners – by not writing down every single word contained in these statements, forcing me to summarise a little and paraphrase, which I consider dangerous, since I consider a forensic scrutiny of all the facts absolutely crucial. I am sure, however, that I got enough information from these notes to help me start to prepare my defence. Since I now have these statements from these two alleged witnesses, I am prepared to hand to Ross Harper a list of questions to put to PC Findlay and PC Farrelly in court. And, on the basis of these prosecution ‘witness’ statements, I would ask you to ask the judge to supply Ross Harper with some pertinent evidence thus far withheld from Ross Harper.

As part of any appeal (in the event of my being found guilty), I will draw attention to the incompetence of Richard Freeman, whose handling of my case was absolutely atrocious. On the day before the pre-trial date, I asked him when the two police statements had been drawn up. He told me that he had no idea, but assumed they were written a few hours after the police officers returned to Mill Street Police Station, i.e., in the afternoon or evening of the 16th March 2003. No thanks to Mr Freeman, I managed to discover, when Neil Hutchison granted me access to these statements after the judge threw out my appeal for the trial to be delayed (delayed for eminently sensible reasons!) that these two police statements were not written on the day of the so-called breach of the peace, as was claimed by Richard Freeman. Not only were they not written that day, they were not written in the same week, month or even year of the alleged crime!!! They were both written ELEVEN MONTHS afterwards, within TWO MINUTES of each other (Friday 13th February 2004, 1.25pm and 1.27pm), raising further questions about possible collusion between the two officers (and, in my mind, other police officers in Special Branch and the alleged ‘victims’ of my so-called disorderly conduct). I have not the slightest doubt that these two officers conspired with those serving and ex-police officers who were, at the time, under investigation by the Procurator Fiscal Miller and the Chief Constable Willie Rae, under investigation for covering up crimes committed by Steff Denny, a close personal friend of Louise Guy and Kevin Moody. From the witness stand, I will accuse both officers of acting as they did in a blatant attempt to frame me for this so-called breach of the peace. Both police officers claim to have, later that day, written up crime reports of the incidents described to them by myself, Louise Guy, Kevin Moody and my third witness to the brutal assault that lead to the two police officers’ being drawn to the scene of the alleged breach of the peace, the third witness being Louise Guy’s friend of ** St Ninians Road, whose name remains unknown to me. Why do these crime reports remain suppressed? Why have the contemporaneous notes of the two police officers not been supplied to Ross Harper? Will the judge now agree to instruct the prosecution lawyers to hand over these documents, and if not, why not? If the judge refuses to make these documents available to my defence lawyer, then, in the event of my being found guilty, this behaviour of the judge will constitute one further ground for my appeal against any guilty verdict.

Since I do now have statements from the two police officers, who (amazingly to me) are claiming to be ‘witnesses’ to this fantasy breach of the peace, I will supply Ross Harper with some questions raised by these statements:
It was not until the day before my pre-trial court appearance that I was allowed to read the two police statements, and even then not under conditions appropriate to someone with my variant of ‘autistic spectrum disorder.’ Only then did I discover that neither police officer was pretending that they appeared on the scene of the alleged crime due to a telephone call from Louise Guy or Kevin Moody. When I discovered that they both police officers accept that they only turned up to the scene of the alleged crime because I called them out, I expected Richard Freeman to appreciate the significance of this fact, but he claims that this significance had completely passed him by. I ask you to dwell on this fact. I want you to ask the court to ponder over the credibility of what PC Farrelly and PC Findlay are claiming. According to their account, I called the police, knew they were on their way, was waiting outside my flat looking out for their arrival, was in a position to hear and see every vehicle as it approached the building, heard the police car arrive, watched the car pull up outside the building, saw the two officers step out of the car, waved them up into the building, and … committed a crime!!! If I had been guilty of ‘disorderly conduct’ prior to the arrival of the police, then surely I would have had the common sense to have modified my behaviour as I saw the two officers approach the building, and certainly before I saw them step out of their vehicle. Their account is pure fantasy. There was no breach of the peace, and both officers know that. They are simply lying. The above should be read as context. Now I will list a few questions based upon the police statements.

1) Why did the police officers claim that they could hear me shouting but forget to specify what precisely I was supposed to have been shouting about? Did neither of these so-called witnesses manage to make out any actual words? Are they accusing me of grunting, perhaps?
2) What about Louise Guy and Kevin Moody? According to PC Farrelly, they claimed that I frightened them by shouting at them, but it seems that this police officer took no note of what I am supposed to have shouted at them either. Did they ask them what I was supposed to have been shouting? And if not, why not?
3) When I was charged with a breach of the peace, I challenged the lies apparently told to PC Farrelly by these so-called witnesses, Louise Guy and Kevin Moody. Why was my side of the story entirely eliminated from PC Farrelly’s statement, and was equally absent from the statement provided by PC Findlay, who also heard my side of the story? I told these officers what I was shouting, and I told them that the shouting was started, not by me but by Louise Guy, and Kevin Moody. I am happy to relate to the court the details of the shouting at my hearing.
4) Why did neither officer take note of my acknowledgement that I started shouting prior to seeing and speaking to (certainly not shouting at) Louise Guy, and why I have nothing to feel guilty about for shouting, given the specific circumstances? For the record, I told these officers that after the two thugs left my flat for the third time while I was waiting for the police to arrive, I decided not to wait in my flat one second longer for the thugs to return for a fourth, fifth, sixth etc time, since these assaults were getting progressively more violent, and could lead to my being killed before the police turned up, if they bothered to turn up at all. On the contrary, I chose to step outside my flat and holler at the top of my voice. I shouted “HELP, POLICE!” I shouted this over and over again. I did so with the express purpose of attracting as many neighbours as possible from across the street to go to their windows and catch sight of the two thugs who were at the time making their way down the path outside my front door. I took the risk that they would not run back towards me to shut me up, but would, instead, scarper in the opposite direction. I hoped they would beat a hasty retreat, just in case one of my neighbours had sufficient balls to agree to testify against them in a court of law. By the time I took this step, I was pretty sure that police officers had organised this violent assault, meaning that I would be waiting forever for the police to arrive. Therefore, my best bet was to try to get my neighbours involved, in the hope that one of them might see the state that I was in, and any possible further assault from these two thugs and call the police, a call the police would be unable to ignore as easily as when I called them that morning or on any of the hundreds of other occasions since November 1999. The two thugs did not run back towards me. Neither did they run away. They simply kept on walking down the path at leading to the building perpendicular to St Ninians Road Flats. As they walked away from my flat, I noticed that Louise Guy’s friend at ** St Ninians Road was watching myself and the two thugs from his upstairs window. I started to walk down the path towards the thugs, again shouting “HELP, POLICE!!!” as I did this. When I passed Louise Guy’s kitchen window, I noted that she was standing at the window, with her boyfriend, whom I now know is named Kevin Moody, but had only spoken to on one previous occasion. When I saw Louise Guy there, I asked her for help. Since I could not get the council’s so-called 24 hour Emergency Repair Team to answer the phone (which I suspected was because those who manned the phone recognised my phone number and chose to ignore it, since, I suspect, these council workers had prior warning of the assault, being heavily involved in it, which is why I want to call several council workers as witnesses, to ask them about their response (or lack of response) to my complaints about council workers collusion in constant vandalism to my flat and Housing Officers utter indifference to constant death threats issued to me by my neighbours. This is where the shouting started. But it was started by Louise Guy and her boyfriend, and not by me. When I asked Louise if I could use her phone, she told me to ‘fuck off!” She said she did not want to have anything to do with me anymore, which begs the question “why?” Why did she reject my request to use her phone to call the council’s 24hour Emergency Repair Team? I needed this to fix my door which had been smashed in by one of these thugs, making my home in utterly vulnerable to attack after attack from these thugs and several other members of Steff Denny’s extended gang of thugs. Louise Guy’s attitude towards me when I asked for her help was in stark contrast to every conversation we had ever had. Never had the pair of us exchanged cross words. I can supply the court with witnesses who will testify that Louise Guy presented herself to third parties as my friend. So, if we were on very friendly terms at some point, when precisely did that friendship come to a halt? I would be interested in how Louise Guy is supposed to have described her relationship with me prior to the so-called breach of the peace. So, did PC Farrelly or PC Findlay not bother to ask her about our relationship? Did they ‘forget’ to ask her if the behaviour that she alleges I engaged in to frighten her on the morning (and her kick-boxing boyfriend) of 16th March 2003 was typical or not? I told PC Farrelly and PC Findlay about my very friendly relationship with Louise Guy – one initiated by Louise Guy on the very day she moved into 52 St Ninians Road, one carefully cultivated by her from time to time ever since, a friendship I was always highly suspicious of, suspicions that I chose to keep to myself, until Louise Guy exposed her real allegiances on 16th March 2003? And did PC Farrelly and PC Findlay ‘forget’ to put to Louise Guy and Kevin Moody my theory about why Louise Guy initiated a friendship with me while she and her boyfriend seems to have maintained their prior friendship with Steff Denny, who they knew to have been jailed for sending me a death threat? Strange behaviour indeed.
5) Did it slip PC Farrelly and PC Findlay’s mind to ask Louise Guy and Kevin Moody about my citing the pair of them as witnesses to the alleged breach of the peace? Why was this fact omitted from both of the police statements? Did it make an appearance in their so far secret contemporaneous notes, or in the two mysterious crime reports? If not, why not?
6) Can either of these officers remember what Louise Guy and Kevin Moody said when asked to describe the two thugs who walked passed their kitchen window a few second before I did?
7) If they both denied catching sight of either of these thugs, did the police officers ask them why they thought I would cite them as witnesses if they had seen nothing? If the police ‘forgot’ to ask this question, then why did they forget? If they did put this question, how did Louise Guy and Kevin Moody respond?
8) Did either officer ask Louise Guy and Kevin Moody about their relationship with the third neighbour that I cited as a witness to the assault? Did they ask them if they knew that this third witness (who lives at ** St Ninians Road) had thrown stones at my window repeatedly for years, and that I had constantly reported this to the police along with reports of his shouting out that I was a “paedophile?” As I have mentioned in my letter to you of 1st June 2004, after the joiners had been called to my home and had repaired my front door, I stood outside my flat, waiting for the ambulance to turn up and take me to hospital. While I was waiting, I saw Louise Guy and the thug at ** St Ninians Road talking together outside his front door, and they both watched me watching them. As stated in my previous letter, this thug tried to assault me as I was escorted into the ambulance by the two paramedics. A few days after I was released from hospital, I asked Assistant Housing Officer Evone Herkes to start an investigation into this incident, and to set up an inquiry into the long list of neighbours that were constantly vandalising my flat and threatening to kill me, denouncing me as a paedophile etc. Despite these incidents having been witnessed by literally dozens of neighbours, and by the two paramedics, Assistant Housing Manager Evone Herkes refused to investigate this or any other incident. Not for the first time, a Housing Official refused to mount any investigation into gross breach of tenancy regulations (violence and threats of violence against neighbours), citing pressure from the police to stop the council investigating crimes committed against me. I draw your attention to the many letters that I have written to Housing Officers and Renfrewshire Council’s lawyers. I also draw your attention to the following promise by the council in its literature:
“The first point of contact with any dispute is the local neighbourhood housing office. Staff have been trained to deal with complaints of anti-social behaviour and will carry out an investigation into the complaint. If they are unable to resolve the complaint, they will refer it to A.S.I’S.T. for further investigation. Where the complaint is of a serious nature, for example, acts or threats of violence or racial harassment, then the neighbourhood office will advise A.S.I’S.T., who will conduct an investigation immediately.”
As stated in a variety of correspondence, council workers claim that the police are refusing to let them enforce their own rules, a claim which the police categorically deny. One or both of these institutions is responsible for leaving me at the mercy of these thugs, and I hold them both responsible. Ask PC Farrelly and PC Findlay if they took any part in pressurising Assistant Housing Officer Evone Herkes into refusing to launch an investigation into the attempted assault on me by Louise Guy’s friend of ** St Ninians Road, an assault with an endless stream of witnesses. I suspect that the officers who placed this pressure on Assistant Housing Manager Evone Herkes was of a higher rank, but ask them nonetheless.
9) Ask PC Findlay what Louise Guy’s thuggish mate at ** St Ninians Road said when he interviewed him, asking him to provide a witness statement about those who assaulted me. If he denied catching sight of these thugs, then was he asked why I would cite him as a witness? Was he asked about his relationship with me, about my reporting his constant stoning of my windows, and accusing me, in broad daylight, of being a paedophile? In the light of his attempted assault on me as I was escorted into the ambulance, and of Louise Guy’s prolonged conversation with this thug prior to his attempted assault, any witness statements provided by either one of this pair has to be carefully scrutinised, and I trust that the judge will take these facts into consideration. The judge might also be interested in the fact that I have reported Louise Guy’s thuggish mate at ** St Ninians Road as having shouted out at 2.50pm on Friday, 4th June this year that I “had signed my own death certificate” and that I was “going to be burned out of my flat.” He also shouted out that I was a “pedo” and a “beast.” In addition to interviewing neighbours at the St Ninians Road block of flats and those who live in the houses across the road, there was a cable guy from NTL, who was joking with this thug a few seconds before his latest death threats. I have informed the police about this witness. I expect the judge to allow me to call this thuggish friend of Louise Guy, and the two paramedics who protected me from this thug, as witnesses at my trial. And I expect the judge to allow me to call Assistant Housing Officer Evone Herkes about which specific police officers are supposed to have prevented Renfrewshire Council from investigating any of the events of 16th March 2003, or any of the many other crimes committed against me by a variety of council tenants, including those who are employed by the council.
10) While we are lining up paramedics to cross-examine, I expect the judge to allow me to call the two paramedics who were called out by PC Findlay. I will be calling on them to offer testimony that contradicts PC Findlay’s ludicrous claim that I did not want medical attention!
11) From the witness box, I will suggest to PC Findlay and PC Farrelly that they had been instructed by their superiors to stop me getting my front door repaired, in order for their superiors to enter my home to search it for (and then destroy) forensic evidence of the guilt of those police officers who had, for several years, been under investigation by the Procurator Fiscal and Chief Constable for covering up crimes committed by Steff Denny, a close personal friend of Louise Guy and Kevin Moody. I will expect you to ask PC Findlay why he refused to call the council’s 24 Hour Emergency Repair Team, telling me that he would only agree to do this after I had received medical attention. He told me that I urgently needed medical attention (which was true), and I should not worry about the insecure state of my flat, since he would look after it while I was taken to hospital. When I reminded him that I had already explained to him that I was blaming the police for instigating the assault, including the break-in in the first place, he told me that he could call for paramedics to treat me at my doorstep or in my living room, while the police kept watch outside. When he promised me that I would not be dragged to hospital prior to my having my front door repaired, and when he told me that he would not call the joiners at all unless I agreed to his calling paramedics first, I caved in. As he was making the call, I listened out for his telling the desk sergeant that I was only going to accept medical treatment at my home, and was not prepared to go to the hospital. When he seemed to be drawing the call to a close, without having explained the circumstances whereby I would accept medical attention, I told him, in a loud voice (so I could be heard by the person at the other end) that he had to explain that I was not prepared to go to hospital, PC Findlay got angry and told me to be quiet! That got me very suspicious that I had been tricked. The paramedics arrived within a few minutes. They tried to take me to the ambulance, but I explained that I told PC Findlay that I was not prepared to leave my flat until after the police had contacted the council to have my door repaired. Once again, PC Findlay told me that I had nothing to worry about, since he personally would look after my flat for me. This made me extremely angry, because we had already had this conversation. I tried to plead with the paramedics, not to stop them leaving me in the lurch, but simply to listen to my side of the story, rather than to fall for PC Findlay’s lies. They both completely ignored me, seeming to be on very friendly terms with PC Findlay. PC Findlay told them that I was lying, and that he had never promised that I was going to be treated at my home. If these had been real paramedics, I would at least have expected them to negotiate with me, to listen to my side of the story. However, they refused to listen to a word I said. I never got angry with these paramedics, because the chances are they simply assumed that my story was less plausible than the one put to them by PC Findlay, and, if they genuinely did believe him, they would have been justified in being annoyed at me for sending them on a wild goose chase. Either way, they did hear my side of the story, even if they seemed reluctant to listen to me, even if they did not believe a word of it. So, I intend to call them to ask them to back up my claim that I did tell them why I refused to go to the hospital at that stage, leaving and leaving my flat entirely at the mercy of two police officers I believed to be implicated (however indirectly) in the assault, and the destruction of my front door. If nothing else, given all the correspondence I have supplied Ross Harper, my account of this incident has a credibility that is totally lacking from the account of PC Findlay.
12)  I told both PC Findlay and PC Farrelly that the two thugs (whose vicious assault lead to their turning up in the first place) told me that they had committed the assault because they knew me to be a paedophile on the sex offenders’ register, and that everyone in Paisley knew this to be the case, because the police have been spreading this rumour as widely as possible. Why was this highly pertinent fact omitted from the statements of the two PC Findlay and PC Farrelly?
13) I told both police officers that I had reported to the Procurator Fiscal and Chief Constable that neighbours of mine had told me that police officers had been spreading it around that I was a paedophile on the sex offenders’ register, but neither the Procurator Fiscal nor the Chief Constable seems to have stepped in to interview these witnesses nor to vet those officers who could be identified as those who are spreading this malicious rumour about me. Why was this fact omitted from the two police statements?
14) I told PC Farrelly and PC Findlay that there were over a dozen serving and ex-police officers at ‘K’ Division and the Strathclyde Police Complaints and Discipline Department who were under investigation, by the Procurator Fiscal and Chief Constable, for covering up crimes committed by Steff Denny, a close personal friend of Louise Guy and Kevin Moody. Did either PC Farrelly or PC Findlay know about my being responsible for their fellow officers being placed under investigation prior to their turning up at my flat at 10.35am that morning? If so, did they personally know any of the officers under investigation? Did they consider any of these officers as personal friends? Even if they were not friends, was their attitude towards me coloured in any sense by the revelation that I had made so many complaints against their colleagues at ‘K’ Division? Were they in any sense prejudiced against me for my daring to complain against the police on so frequent a basis? Did they concoct a false charge of breach of the peace against me simply to punish me for complaining against their colleagues? Did PC Findlay promise me that he could see to it that I receive medical treatment at my flat, only to tell the paramedics that he had made no such promise, in the full knowledge that by his calling out an ambulance knowing that I would not attend the hospital (until my front door was repaired), I would be punished by the emergency services? In other words, was PC Findlay being nothing short of malicious in calling out paramedics? Did he know that because of his doing this, I would have my status as a priority case removed, resulting in my having to wait several hours to get an ambulance, when I eventually called one myself after my door was eventually repaired by the joiners? Why did PC Findlay refuse to call the council’s 24 hour Emergency Repair Team to send joiners to repair my front door until after he called out the paramedics? Given his point blank refusal to call them out when I asked him to, why did he immediately cave in and agree to call them as soon as the ambulance service called out the paramedics? Why did he insist on this bizarre chronology? I was never in any doubt that the ambulance service would call out when I phoned them. So there was no necessity for either PC Findlay or PC Farrelly to call for paramedics on my behalf. It was only the council’s Emergency 24 hour Repair Team that I needed the police to call on my behalf. Was there any coincidence of motivation that prevented my supposed friend, Louise Guy, and the two police officers from using their phones to call the council’s joiners? In my opinion, such a coincidence of motivation does exist, and I will seek to prove what that motive was, whether or not the judge allows me to call my witnesses.
Yours sincerely,

Tom Delargy


50c St Ninians Road

5 December 2003
Procurator Fiscal Gordon Williams
Ref: PA03004180
Dear Mr Williams,
I write this letter in response to one sent me by a Procurator Fiscal Depute (signature illegible), dated 3 December, and received by me the following day. I write for several reasons.

Firstly, the letter begins “I have tried to serve upon you a complaint (copy enclosed) but have been unsuccessful. Because of this the court has granted a warrant for your arrest”. However, no copy was enclosed. Therefore, I have had to phone your office to get any information as to what was the pretext for the granting of an arrest warrant against me. I have been promised that a copy will, belatedly, be sent, but have not seen one yet. The woman who promised to send me this written complaint did tell me that the arrest warrant was granted due to my failure to appear in court to answer a charge of breach of the peace. I would like to ask why an arrest warrant was granted for my failing to turn up to a court appearance that the court was aware I knew absolutely nothing about. Do you consider this sensible behaviour? The only attempt to inform me about this court appearance was made by means of something sent to me by registered post (I have now been informed), but was returned to your office unopened, due to reasons that I am happy to explain in detail to the court. Why was the court hearing not cancelled until it was clear that I knew that it was taking place?

Secondly, your Depute’s letter Continues: “I am prepared not to have you arrested meantime but this is on condition that you appear PERSONALLY at:


On Tuesday, the 17th day of December, 2003 at 02:00PM

If you do not appear voluntarily on that date I will have no alternative but to have you arrested and brought to court without further notice.

The problem I have is attending on a day that does not exist. I am dyslexic, and am lucky to remember the day of the week, never mind the date, almost never knowing both simultaneously. It was only good luck that I managed to discover that Tuesday of that week is the 17th, while the 17th is a Wednesday. This kind of inaccuracy could very easily have lead to my being arrested for turning up on the wrong day. Luckily, if I turned up on the day specified rather than the date, I would have been told to come back the next day, although I might have problems rescheduling my diary at one day’s notice. However, when I drew the attention to this error to a second worker at your office, she threw a fit, blaming me for complaining about such carelessness in so serious a document. The first woman I spoke to was helpful and polite, the second one was offensive. I can only assume that this woman was being defensive because she was responsible for this typo and for failing to include the promised copy of the complaint that was returned to your office undelivered. I am asking for a written acknowledgement of these mistakes, an apology and a promise that such carelessness will not take place in the future.

Thirdly, this letter from one of your Deputes states that the arrest warrant will be suspended – provided I agree to appear before the court on 17 December. In other words, I will be given only one week to prepare my legal defence, provided, that is, the written complaint that was omitted from your Depute’s letter reaches me by Tuesday, when I will be able to discover some details about the case for the prosecution. So, I am given a mere week to mount my legal defence with the aid of a lawyer, despite the fact that the incident in question took place on 16 March this year. I draw your attention to the fact that I contacted a lawyer about this charge of breach of the peace when I was released from hospital on the Monday following the charge of breach of the peace. My lawyer told me that her firm would not be able to deal with mounting my legal defence against this charge until it was clear that the procurator fiscal was going ahead with the prosecution, which, in the circumstances, both of us suspected would not be the case. In my legal defence, I will be submitting to the court a three-part written statement of the incident, one that takes the form of three letters sent to the Procurator Fiscal at the time (John Miller) and the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police (Willie Rae). This written statement, which comes to many tens of thousands of words, has been read by the lawyer who is dealing with my attempt to claim criminal injuries compensation for the assault that lead to me calling out the officers who charged me with breach of the peace. However, that lawyer does not deal with criminal law. I am, therefore, forced to start afresh with a different lawyer, who may or may not be one of his colleagues. One week will prove entirely insufficient for him/her to familiarise himself/herself with the contents of this document, or with a very large number of others that I intend to submit in my defence. Additionally, I insist on the court allowing me to call a large number of witnesses to back up my defence. That list will include the recipients of my three-part written statement: former Procurator Fiscal John Miller and serving Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, Willie Rae. Although my list will include these two individuals, it will not be limited to them. It will include a large number of those referred to in my written statement. It will be impossible for my list of witnesses to be informed about the necessity for them appearing in court in the outlandishly limited time so far allotted. I also want to submit evidence that will call into question the integrity of the two individuals who accused me of a breach of the peace. I will draw the court’s attention to their relationship with a Steff Denny. Denny was, in December 1999, charged (by a Sergeant Johnston) with having sent me a written death threat. Steff Denny, apparently, was imprisoned for his threat to kill me, and went on to write on the front of the building in which I live “You are lucky I was in jail or you would be dead by now. I got out yesterday, so prepare to die you black bastard.” I intend to call on him to appear as a witness to answer questions, under oath, about his relationship with Louise Guy and her boyfriend, and about his relationship with serving and former senior police officers – including one who spent five years as Director of Special Branch, Jim Orr – currently Director of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency. All these officers are referred to in my written statement to the then Procurator Fiscal and the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, and in many other written statements sent to the pair of them, and their predecessors as Chief Constable over the last five years.

My last point is that I consider this charge of breach of the peace pursued by the police to constitute a malicious prosecution, one deliberately designed to intimidate me into dropping my complaint against senior police officers who, I am alleging, were behind the criminal assault that was witnessed by Louise Guy and her boyfriend, both of whom having a verifiable, and deeply suspicious, relationship with someone charged with sending me a death threat. Nevertheless, I am not calling on you to drop this prosecution. That is because I consider this malicious act by the police to be a spectacular own goal, one they will regret as soon as they discover the nature of my legal defence. At last, I will get the opportunity to submit my case publicly in a court of law, and have investigative journalists take a closer look at what I have to say about the culpability of senior police officers in a series of crimes committed against my person on a daily basis for the last five years.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Delargy


Firstly, I will call all those serving and former police officers that were under investigation by Procurator Fiscal Miller (and, in some cases, by his predecessor, Procurator Fiscal Gilbert) for covering up crimes committed by Steff Denny, a close personal friend of ‘witnesses’ Louise Guy and Kevin Moody. These officers include the following:
PC David Patterson of ‘K’ Division
Sgt Ogilvie of ‘K’ Division
Former Chief Superintendent Campbell O’Connell (Commander of ‘K’ Division) presently Operations Director of Reliance Security Group PLC
Inspector Munn of ‘K’ Division
Detective Inspector Newlands of the Strathclyde Police Complaints and Discipline Department
Former Assistant Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police Jim Orr/former Director of Special Branch/at the time of the alleged breach of the peace Director of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency (since retired)
Former Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police John Orr
Sgt Johnson – Division unknown
Superintendent Robertson of ‘K’ Division
PC Christensen of ‘K’ Division
Chief Superintendent Kenny Murray, Commander of ‘K’ Division
DC Hatfield of CID (Strathclyde)
Sgt Stewart of ‘K’ Division

I will also call as witnesses the following police officers who were not under investigation by Procurator Fiscal Miller:
Chief Constable Rae of Strathclyde Police
Superintendent Pretswell of Strathclyde Police Complaints and Discipline Department
Detective Inspector Drummond of CID (Fife)
Detective Inspector Patterson of CID (Fife)
Inspector Armour of ‘K’ Division
DC Feargus of CID (Strathclyde)

In addition to the aforementioned police officers, I will call the following as witnesses:
Evone Herkess, Assistant Housing Manager of Renfrewshire Council
Alec Bell, former Renfrewshire Council Housing Officer
Mrs Laird, former Renfrewshire Council Housing Officer
Lorraine Burns, lawyer for Renfrewshire Council
Maureen Murray, Renfrewshire Council Support and Resettlement Officer
Rebecca Scully, lawyer at Pattison and Sims
David Howatt, lawyer at Pattison and Sims
Steff Denny, employee at Renfrew Dairy
Andrew Renfrew, owner of Renfrew Dairy
David Rigg, Registrar of Paisley University
John Potter, Head of CLT Department at Paisley University
Louise Guy’s friend (name unknown) who lives at ** St Ninians Road, and who was interviewed by the police as the third witness to the brutal assault that lead to PC Findlay and PC Farrelly arriving at the scene of the alleged ‘breach of the peace’, the friend of Louise Guy who attempted to assault me as the paramedics escorted me into the ambulance, the friend of Louise Guy whom she was seen talking with shortly before he attempted to assault me before dozens of witnesses, including the two paramedics.
The two paramedics who protected me from Louise Guy’s friend at ** St Ninians Road
The two paramedics who were called out by PC Findlay, despite his absurd claim that I did not want medical attention!
The person who took PC Findlay’s call for these paramedics to come to remove me to hospital to allow him and PC Farrelly to gain unrestricted access to my home, presumably to collect and destroy forensic evidence incriminating his fellow officers at ‘K’ Division, the same ones that I am alleging as responsible for the brutal assault on me on the morning of 16th March 2003.
The person who took my call to have an ambulance come to take me to hospital (after the joiners had replaced my front door), the one who told me that because of the call previously made by PC Findlay against my will, I could no longer be considered a priority, meaning that I would have to wait several hours for an ambulance to take me to hospital.
Procurator Fiscal at the time of the alleged breach of the peace, John Miller
Former Procurator Fiscal Gilbert, who, as far back as the summer of 1999, started the investigation into senior officers at ‘K’ Division (beginning with Chief Superintendent Campbell O’Connell), for covering up crimes committed by close personal friend of the ‘witnesses’, Louise Guy and Kevin Moody
Assistant Procurator Fiscal Dysart
The police photographers sent by Assistant Procurator Fiscal Dysart to photograph forensic evidence which no Sgt Johnson (the officer who charged Steff Denny with sending me a death threat) refused to have photographed

I suspect that other witnesses will come to mind between now and the start of the trial. That trial will have to be delayed though, well past the set date of 16th June, in order for Ross Harper to trace the addresses of the above witnesses, and in some cases even their names. You will also have to take advantage of whatever delay we win to get up to speed on the role these witnesses can play in my defence. As soon as Ross Harper can reassure me that you are prepared to defend me, as I want to be defended, then I will supply you with all the relevant questions for each and every witness.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Emails sent to all Scottish Socialist Party MSPs

  1. Pingback: See you in court, Eddie | WORKERS UNITED

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s