He also refers to his previous (mistaken) suggestions that we regard him as guilty ... If Walsh's application succeeds it may gain a higher profile and raise questions over other convictions.
"
Departmental advice to the Minister of Justice, 14 June 2011
... if a defendant has been denied a fair trial it will almost be inevitable that the conviction will be regarded unsafe, the present case in our view constitutes an exception to the general rule. ... the conviction is to be regarded as safe, even if a breach of Article 6(1)* were held to have occurred in the present case.
"
Per Lord Carswell, concluding that the Trial Judge was not lawfully justified for his "main criticism".
*Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (right to a fair trial).



12th February 2015


Dear Messrs’ Robinson & McGuinness

On behalf of the Executive, Mr David Ford, MLA, has used false evidence against me for the purpose of covering up serious corruption and malfeasances within the NI legal system. I refuse to be criminalised by the Executive as a means of covering up the criminal conduct of others.

Specifically, the Minister has used the dishonesty of Crown Counsel, Mr Gary McCrudden; Ms Karen Quinlivan, QC; and Dr Tony McGleenan, QC in order to continue to falsely criminalise me. In turn, each of these 3 barristers have acted under cover of their status as barristers and have used means placed at their disposal on account of that status to pervert the course of justice undermining the GFA and the administration of justice generally.

Mr Justice Weatherup had granted me a judicial review to challenge the Minister’s refusal to exercise his statutory powers to refer prosecutorial misconduct to the Criminal Justice Inspectorate (see appendage). The Hearing scheduled for the 31st May 2012 was ultimately sabotaged with co-operation from 1, or all, of my own lawyers: Ms Karen Quinlivan, Mr Sean Devine and Mr Kevin Winters.

On 31st May 2012, under direct instruction from the Minister, Dr McGleenan falsely informed His Honour that the Minister had incriminating forensic evidence indicating that I was guilty of possession of an explosive device. The Minister had no such evidence and no such evidence exists. My Lawyers did nothing to challenge the Minister on his false assertions.

Forensic examination of the device was completed on 8th November 1991 and there was no forensic evidence connecting me to the jar or from the jar to me. The rubbing and friction while being allegedly carried in my pocket provided perfect conditions for transfer of Semtex residues and fibres from the jar had it been in my pocket; the smooth surface of the glass jar was said to have been the perfect surface for fingerprint evidence. I was not wearing gloves when I was allegedly instructed by the main prosecution witness to take the jar from my pocket and place it on a nearby wall. Forensic Experts confirmed that whoever was responsible for the jar had made no attempt to clean it. The Experts also confirmed that it would have been “inevitable” that I would have been contaminated with forensic evidence had I had the jar in my pocket.

The Minister is fully aware that the Trial Judge has stated in his Judgment that the absence of “forensic evidence did not assist the Crown in relation to the crucial issue as to whether the device was in the possession of the defendant”. Further, the Minister is also aware that the Prosecution case revolved around my word against the word of two Military Witnesses and that there was ‘no forensic evidence’, I quote:

“The essential matter in this case is that if the Crown case is correct, as I say it is, and if your honour accepts the evidence of the Crown witnesses then the jar was in his pocket; he had possession of it, and there was no forensic evidence. If there was no forensic evidence then it must be for the reasons explained by the forensic witnesses who gave evidence. But the contrary version of that is that if the accused is right then very serious misdeeds have taken place.” (Emphasis added)

Claims made by the Minister to Weatherup J, on 31st May 2012, that the Executive had incriminating forensic evidence against me were false and unfounded.

The Minister is also aware that of the 4 Soldiers involved in my conviction, one disclosed that they had all been “coached” in preparation for the Trial; a 2nd retracted his trial testimony under P.A.C.E. caution after it was discovered to be false; and, a 3rd was ‘ordered’ to ‘change’ his Statement prior to Trial to eliminate exculpatory evidence of demonstrable innocence.

Discovery of the original ‘changed’ Statement reveals that the patrol had originally detained an alleged known IRA man along with two associates. Police records reveal that these 3 men were detained 15 minutes before my arrival at the scene. Police records further identify one of these 3 men as having been caught in “possession of an explosive device, namely a blast bomb”. The Minister has repeatedly proclaimed that, despite all of the above facts, the Soldiers accounts “remain intact”; to do otherwise would be to acknowledge the truth as summed up by the Prosecutor at Trial, as follows:

“This case so far as the essential facts are concerned is black and white, either there is a concoction and a fabrication, a series of dastardly lies being told by the military witnesses in this case or there is not. Mistake does not enter into it in my respectful submission.”

One reason why the Soldiers might have been coached and ordered to change their Statements to conceal the existence of the 3 original ‘suspects’ would be because it would be easier to make false allegations against a single Nationalist than it would have been against 3 of them.
At a minimum, this new evidence proves that the device was already at the scene before my arrival; hence, I could not have been carrying it. On 31st May 2012 the Minister falsely informed Weatherup J that only 1, and not 3, other men had been detained and that this man was detained several hours after my arrest in a follow up operation. My Lawyers did nothing to challenge the Minister on his reliance of the demonstrably ‘coached’ and perjured evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses.

The Minister is aware that the main prosecution witness did not make any Statement implicating me until 2 days after my arrest (7th June 1991); and, that was after RUC officer Adrian Smith (at extension: 25761) had asked that my coat pockets first be measured to ensure that the device would fit in one of them. Furthermore, it was not until 8 months after my arrest that a 2nd Soldier claimed to have seen me with the device; his Statement was dated 5th June 1991. However, Police Depositions taken during my 5 days of interrogation confirm that the Police had no knowledge of the 2nd Soldier’s Statement; which they allegedly took on the 5th June 1991. Even in the face of retracted false Trial Testimony the Minister maliciously insists that it still “remains intact” against me.

Notwithstanding the level of coaching, manipulation and fabrication of evidence by the Crown Prosecutor; Mr Gary McCrudden also alleged that I was trying to discredit the security forces by falsely alleging that I was shown Photographs that did not exist. The absence of the Photographs from the Exhibit File at my Trial allowed the Soldiers to falsely Testify that the jar was sitting in a more readily visible position making their false Testimony seem more plausible. In March 2010, 18 years after my Trial, I recovered the crucial Photographic evidence while in the courtroom and from among Mr McCrudden’s own files.

The Minister is aware that in 1992 the Prosecutor had improperly overwhelmed and prejudiced the Trial Judge’s mind by putting details of an unrelated murder file before him and explaining that: “As your Honour will know, these matters can never be evidence in themselves in any event unless they are accepted expressly or implicitly by the accused.” The Trial Judge refused to recuse himself and was never to know from the Prosecutor that I was not actually a suspect in the investigation of the murder. On the 8th June 2008, 16 years late, the Prosecution Service finally confirmed that the file referring to the murder “contains nothing relating to your client”.

The Minister has been unwavering in his attempts to cover-up prosecutorial misconduct. He has repeatedly refused to exercise his statutory powers of referral of prosecutorial misconduct to the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. The Criminal Justice Inspectorate is the only statutory body empowered to investigate the prosecution service and only at the request of the Justice Minister. The whole purpose of my judicial review was because of the Minister’s reliance on false evidence originating out of prosecutorial misconduct and his refusal to make the proper referral.
The Minister, acting on behalf of the Executive, has also resorted to other verifiable falsehoods and perjured evidence. But as a final stroke to cover-up prosecutorial misconduct the Minister attacked my credibility and 50+ years of good character because of his concerns that: “If Walsh's application succeeds it may gain a higher profile and raise questions over other convictions.” I have not falsely convicted anyone and will not be punished by the Executive as a means to protect those who might have.

During the Hearing on 31st May 2012, Ms Karen Quinlivan QC refused to challenge, object or complain about the Minister’s malicious case against me. Ms Quinlivan also facilitated previously discredited evidence, and matters res judicata, going unchallenged. Instead, Ms Quinlivan unexpectedly represented to Weatherup J that her own client was no longer as innocent as she, Mr Winters, and junior counsel, Mr Sean Devine, had made out in ALL of their written submissions lodged with the Court prior to the Hearing. I append one sample document to demonstrate the extent of how far my own lawyers had betrayed me; albeit, Mr Winters has suggested that he may have been acting under duress for fear for his safety.

Mr Winters has claimed, in writing, that Ms Quinlivan did not act on his instructions during the 31st May 2012 Hearing. Mr Winters has also stated, in writing, that “downsizing or diluting your case” would require “a level of connivance with” the Minister. Mr Devine’s view was that: “Christy deserves to be heard on the other aspects of his JR challenge”. On 11th June 2012, Ms Quinlivan wrote to Mr Winters informing, or reminding him, that “all parties before the Court were of the view” that none of the grounds for the judicial review were to be raised. I was completely unaware of any agreement made between my lawyers and the Minister’s legal representatives’ to ‘downsize and dilute’ my case to ensure the MoJ won. Mr Winters wrote to me afterwards complaining about how not even costs had been awarded.

My whole case fell into abeyance on account of Dr McGleenan and Ms Quinlivan’s “connivance”. On 30th October 2012 Weatherup J stated that: “Any impropriety by Counsel for the Department will be dealt with by the complaints and discipline procedures applicable to members of the Bar.” (See paras. 12 & 15, Judgment [2012 NIQB )

The Bar Council complaint procedures require completion of a pro forma application so that it can distinguish between mere criticisms of barristers or formal complaints made against them. I requested a copy of the pro forma but was denied a copy; the Bar Council preferred to jump directly to a finding in favour of Dr McGleenan even though no formal complaint had been made against him. The Bar also found that Ms Quinlivan had followed her instructing solicitor’s instructions. That would mean that Mr Winters, in his own words, had ‘downsized and diluted’ his own client’s case in “connivance” with the Minister.

On 13th December 2012, the Bar Council concluded that I should not be afforded the opportunity to know what explanation, if any; either barrister gave in their defence. The Bar used the secrecy involved in its own process to further unreasonably conclude that my inability to respond to whatever the barristers mysteriously had to say in their defence was evidence that the barristers had done no wrong.

Mr Winters has been clear that Ms Quinlivan did not follow his instructions and I do not know why he would lie about that. Nor do I know if Mr Winters conduct has been voluntary or involuntary because he has informed me that he was concerned for his personal safety. On 24th January 2012, Mr Winters initially informed me that David Ford had made a malicious complaint against him to the Law Society. Mr Winters explained that Mr Ford’s complaint was “just an attempt to intimidate him and to undermine client confidence in him”. The Law Society ultimately rejected Mr Ford’s complaint. However, Mr Winters later informed me that the level of intimidation had become more extreme causing him to be concerned for his personal safety specifically because he ‘represented me and cases like mine’. Mr Winters reported his concerns to the Dept. of Foreign Affairs in Dublin because he feared, or fears, that his life will not “be adequately safeguarded by the authorities” in NI (as per The United Nations, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers which “protect lawyers and ensure conditions under which justice can be maintained”). Mr Winters has only ever named David Ford in relation to any acts to intimidate him from representing his clients. I understand that other lawyers have publically complained of being subject to increasing threats and intimidation because they too represent controversial cases against the State.

After Mr Winters informed me that he had contacted the Irish Dept of Foreign Affairs out of fear for his safety the Minister paid Mr Winters £49,000 for his services (this money was not from legal aid funds). Although Mr Winters never informed me of this payment he later sent me £1,200 (September 2013) to go some way to cover my personal costs; but that was only after I learned of the payment and was questioning the level of “connivance” involved with the Minister. For the record Mr Justice Weatherup never made any order for costs against the Minister (see Judgment [2012] NIQB 55). Why would the Minister pay so much money when no court order for him to pay any costs was ever made against him? Was the payment from the Minister compensation for any threats or intimidation used to ensure that I lost the judicial review against the Minister and written off as ‘costs’?

If David Ford, or the Security Forces, have been involved in inhibiting any of my lawyers by fear then the Executive should ensure a safe environment for Mr Winters, Mr Devine, and Ms Quinlivan to give their account as to how the Minister and his lawyers were facilitated in putting forward a wholly false and malicious case before His Honour, Mr Justice Weatherup on 31st May 2012. My lawyers should be safe to give their accounts why the main grounds for the judicial review were not raised by them during the Hearing? While the State is the prime suspect in the murder of 2 lawyers in NI what my case exposes is the injustice the power sharing executive can get away with if it is acceptable for lawyers to be inhibited by fear from representing their clients in controversial cases against the State.

 
Yours Sincerely

Christy Walsh
R v Walsh (2002) NICA 1
The Fundamental Flaws in the Arrest, Trial & Appeals of Christy Walsh
Of all the abuses of the Diplock System the worst abuses maybe the excuses made for it.