The Fundamental Flaws in the Arrest, Trial, and Appeals

of Christy Walsh


Quick Chronology

Arrested 5th June 1991 and denied access to lawyer for two days.

Convicted in December 1992 by a Diplock Judge sitting without a jury.  The Conviction was later found to have been unlawful.

A main Prosecution Witness retracted his trial testimony in 1998.

In January 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld my unlawful conviction on new grounds (contrary to the Criminal Appeal Act)

In January 2007 the Lord Chief Justice re-opened my appeal.

In March 2010 the Court of Appeal reversed my unlawful conviction.  

Before leaving the court room I took one of the Prosecutor's files containing incriminating evidence against the Prosecution Service.


It is a question of a conspiracy of lies, a deliberate attempt to have this man convicted of an offence for which he should not have been convicted....  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. 


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 possesion of it, and there was no forensic evidence. ... But the contrary version of that is that if the accused is right then very serious misdeeds have taken place."

Submissions of the Crown Prosecutor, Gary McCrudden, December 1992

... 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, R v Walsh (2002) NICA 1

For those reasons we are left with a significant sense of unease about the safety of this verdict. We bear in mind that the appellant is a person of previous good character.

Per Sir Declan Morgan, Lord Chief Justice, R v Walsh[2010]NICA7

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    

I concluded that the evidence now available renders the conviction unsafe, but a jury might or might not have convicted on that evidence.

Minister of Justice, Davide Ford, MLA, 9 May 2013