Justice did not suddenly begin when the Conflict ended. There has been a significant disparity between those seeking justice and fair play in comparison to those who are seen as the beneficiaries of the past. Delays and obstacles to inquests, investigations, and fair trials continue to take their toll on peoples’ lives. Beneficiaries of the Past should not be permitted to perpetuate the injustices of the past.
In a democracy only a properly constituted court of law, independent from the executive, can determine guilt or authorise someone’s prolonged detention. Sadly, in Northern Ireland, politicians’ can, and have, defied court judgments and undermined the integrity of the judiciary in doing so. The Secretary of State, or Justice Minister, cannot be permitted to elude responsibility from perpetuating the greatest abuses of the past.
Recently, the media inaccurately reported on a court directive to the Justice Minister, David Ford. The emphasis in the reports was that David Ford has refused to pay compensation in my own case and that the court has merely asked Ford to reconsider his decision. That is not a true representation of the facts. In fact David Ford and his Dept do not think me to be guilty at all as part of their submission to the Court reveals, I quote, “He also refers to his previous (mistaken) suggestions that we regard him as guilty…”
The current legal action against David Ford involves, I quote from Court submissions, “...constitutional and Convention rights and Not compensation entitlements.”
Instead David Ford has asked that the Court reject the application against him because, I quote, "If Walsh's application succeeds it may gain a higher profile and raise questions over other convictions." David Ford and his Dept’s concerns are not about compensation, but instead, in trying to cover-up serious misconduct within the Prosecution Service. Any emphasis on compensation is misguided or intended as a red herring.
Mr Justice Weatherup has expressed his dissatisfaction with David Ford and thus ‘directed’ that Ford should properly consider the evidence in his possession. Below is a sample of the evidence put before the Court and which compellingly demonstrates serious PPS misconduct.
• In 2008 it was discovered that the PPS had concealed the fact that a ‘known’ member of the IRA had been arrested 15 minutes before my arrival at the scene. RUC records reveal that this man was arrested “in possession of an (the) explosive device”. If nothing else it clearly establishes that the ‘device’ was at the scene long before I ever was and so I could not have carried it there.
• The PPS concealed that shortly after my arrest on 5th June 1991 RUC officer, Adrian Smith (extension 25761) telephoned the NI Forensic Labs and asked that my coat pockets be measured to see if the device would “fit” in any? Only after it was confirmed that it would fit, was it then first alleged that the device was ever in my pocket.
• The PPS put an unrelated murder file before the Trial Judge in 1992 with intention to prejudice the outcome. It was not until 8th June 2009 that the PPS first admitted that, “FSNI File 1942/91 contains no material relating to your client…”. The Trial Judge never knew that.
• The following is an extract of my Testimony while being cross-examination by the Prosecutor, Gary McCrudden at my Trial in December 1992:
Q668. With the wires coming out at the top. I want to suggest to you that the only photographs that you were shown was the album which is exhibit 5? A. Your honour, I was shown two photographs with this object on the wall. One was at closer range than the other. That was down at that corner where Corporal Blacklock stopped me.( Page 617 of Trial Transcripts.)
• The Prosecutor, Gary McCrudden, had the following two Photographs among his files which I managed to get hold off without his consent or knowledge at the close of my last Appeal in March 2010.
Q303. And then what did you say?
A. To my mind I recollect that he put it down where I have marked, your honour. (Page 117 of Trial Transcripts)
• Six years after my Trial one of the two main Military Witnesses against me completely retracted his trial testimony and disclosed that he had been “coached” prior to my trial in 1992.
• The Court of Appeal instructed the PPS to bring their Witness before the Court to explain himself. After a convincing time lapse the Prosecution falsely informed the Court of Appeal that their Witness could no longer be traced. The former RUC Detective tasked to trace the Witness provided my lawyers with written confirmation that he had located the soldier contrary to what the PPS informed the Court. Prosecutors are as liable for perverting the course of justice as anyone else.
• The PPS have belatedly attempted to explain the discovery of the photographic evidence by alleging that the same Detective above had only handed them over to them in 2008. No longer can it be denied that I was shown them during interrogations and that both Soldiers knowingly marked a false location of the jar while testifying under oath at the Trial.
The following are brief extracts and summary of current submissions to the Court against David Ford which demonstrate the fundamental issues at stake.
In his capacity as Justice Minister, David Ford, holds a level of responsibility to ensure proper supervision and due diligence on the part of the PPS and PSNI. The PPS and PSNI are sufficiently amenable to investigation by the Justice Minster through the Criminal Justice Inspectorate (CJI). Despite being provided with sufficient evidence which points to illegality, bad faith or serious misconduct amounting to an abuse of process and unethical conduct the Justice Minister has chosen to avoid his responsibility on how he should treat the evidence which I have supplied him with. In so doing David Ford’s actions should be at his peril and not mine. ...
The nature of the Justice Minister’s personal involvement in my case now suggests that the violations have become so severe that the Executive is guilty of Administrative Practice. In Donnelly v UK [1974] , Administrative Practice can be established if there is evidence of illegality or violation and that the conviction had been authorised or tolerated at the level of the state itself, namely at the level of the Executive or an agency thereof specially entrusted by it with the authority to order or promote the practice.
David Ford cannot succeed in continuing to deny the facts that the Prosecution Service has always been closer to the object of crime than I ever was. In fact David Ford’s obstruction to due process is not shared by the First Minister Peter Robinson who has spelt out his position regarding another case and which is along Mr Justice Weatherup’s directive to Ford:
We take the position that if people have committed crimes then they’re answerable, no matter what their position, and if there’s evidence and it’s brought forward then it’s up to due process to determine. UTV 26th April 2012
And Barraboy Mc Grory is director of the pps.he above all should be ashamed of himself,Ford is just a wanker...
ReplyDeleteWhen Kate Carroll expressed concern about the sentances handed down to the two people convicted of her husband'd murder,PSNI const Carroll, the media, politicians and judiciary including Barra boy himself, fell over themselves to obtain 'justice' for her. Contrast that with some catholic/nationalist who are having to fight for over 30yrs to get as much as an inquest into their loved ones killing's. Keep on going Christy you are winning battles for all of us in true David and Goliath style
ReplyDeleteIt Seems to me that powers higher than ford were involved in this, ie, MI5 and they they are still involved to this very day, these manipulative people will stop at nothing, they would sell there own mother to get what they want, The very same ones who coached those soldiers after the Ballymurpy assassinations , Bloody sunday, Mc Gurks Bar, Loughgal, Gibraltar, etc. Planting of materials to implicate innocent people, these are the very people who are believed by diplock judges, its on these peoples word that many are still incarcerated today, they are advisers as well as back stabbers to the secretary of state, yet, the are faceless.
ReplyDeleteI cant see why ones are complaing
ReplyDeleteabout Mc Gory getting those two who were found guilty of killing
Caroll into the Court of appeal so quick-in the past people had to wait years on the appeal Court-
Kate Caroll opened her big mouth and it got those two lads another opportunity to be free- she knows she made a mistake and has now pulled out of talking to the mother of one of those convicted of her husbands killing-
McGrory is a spineless wee creature.
ReplyDeleteThe judicial system is as nasty and corrupt as always. Instead of trying to fix this SF are supporting and maintaining it. Regardless of individual cases and the arguments for and against those, the judicial system is evil.
ReplyDeletemichaelhenry
ReplyDeleteare you taking the proverbial?
Kate Corroll was easily able to whip up a storm of indignation at the conclusion of the Trial and the life sentencing of the two men(In my opinion, she realised that with the Trial over she was about to fall off the media radar)
The two men are automatically entitiled to make an Appeal application by virtue of the fact that they were convicted in a non jury Diplock Court.
Christy's article points up the difficulties that people are up against in trying to Appeal non jury Diplock court decisions
Barra Mc Grory is it seems trying to outdo Martyboy is his quest to be the best of british, its a hard act to follow but Barra is making a hell of a job at it.while nailing anyone even slightly remotely linked to republicanism you can bet those who murdered at will on behalf of the crown will not be hounded by the poison dwarf with the same eagerness,the lad who was battered on the black mountain by the loyalist mob will probably face charges of inciting a riot and attacking a peaceful demo while disguised as a tent,and if the tent was green then he really will be fucked...
ReplyDeleteFrom Christy Walsh:
ReplyDeleteAnthony
Thank you for posting my article.
Eddie
I appreciate your observations and vote of confidence.
Marty
It is fair to berate the Diplock System and Prosecution Service. Unfortunately, many wrong or false convictions came about because of the poor or shody standard of legal representation of defence lawyers. The abuses and lack of safe guards within the Diplock System have long been flagged since it inception. Many local defence lawyers mouthed their concern and feigned opposition. During my time on remand, 1991-1992, Solicitors and barristers took the unusal action of going on strike. Not because of legal or illtreatment abuses of suspects but because Derry Lawyers got fed up having to commute between Derry and Limavady. Apparently repair work on the Derry courthouse was not progressing fast enough for the Lawyers comfort. My lawyer at that time squirmed when I pointed up the stark reality of their priorities. A year later he recounted another act of defiance he and his colleagues were daringly enaging in with the legal aid board. Apparently, legal aid had changed its way of operating by paying lawyers after legal work done and that court papers had to be paid for up front.
My lawyer thought that I would support him and understand that I would not get my appeal papers (ultimately delaying my appeal and chance of release) because of these acts of bravado from defence lawyers. Defence Lawyers grew fat on the missery that all too often they had a part in. While we might complain about the PPS but then they had a job to do and did it all too effectively. Unfortunately defense lawyers were less efficient and effective.
Christy,
ReplyDeleteall round a very effective piece that must make people seriously question what is happening in Justice.