Christy Walsh Hunger Strike: Day 14

By AM Sunday, March 29, 2015

Share Tweet Share Share Email

Christy Walsh on Day 14 of his hunger strike with a copy of an email he sent this morning to Stormont First Minister Peter Robinson and his deputy, Martin McGuinness.

Dear Mr Robinson & Mr McGuinness

Today marks my 14th day on Hunger-strike.

In his Judgment dated 18th June 2012 His Honour directed David Ford to reconsider the evidence which 1) he was relying on, and 2) the fresh evidence that emerged of prosecutorial misconduct.  Accordingly the Judge directed the Minister as follows:

[24] The exercise that the Minister is undertaking is to look at all the facts as they now stand revealed. The current known facts include the further facts that are available from the decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the conviction and any other new facts that have emerged from the earlier appeals. Overall it is necessary to take account of all the remaining evidence so that a comprehensive assessment of all current facts is completed. (Judgment Here)

There have been other judgments which reaffirm what Weatherup J has directed that the Minister is to consider all evidence available and not be restricted only to "the Court of Appeal quashing the conviction".  The reason the Court takes this position is because the Court of Appeal only looks at so much evidence as to be satisfied that a conviction is unsafe, all other outstanding evidence is surplus to requirement.    

Despite at least one court directive in 2012; the Minister is still do what he was directed to do.  In fact the Minister and his staff wilfully misled the NI Committee for Justice in 2013 when Raymond McCartney asked how the Minister assesses miscarriage of justice cases.  Mr Johnson, on behalf of the Minister, replied: "Our assessment on miscarriage of justice compensation is based on the reasons that were given by the Court of Appeal." See Hansard, 18 April 2013 at page 5. Here   

Evidently the Minister has been acting in defiance of at least one Court directive in order to further punish me and possibly anyone else in similar position as me.  The knows the evidence he is using against me is false as an internal communications confirms:  "He also refers to his previous (mistaken) suggestions that we regard him as guilty ..."  If I am not guilty that only leaves one alternative! 

Have either one of you directed David Ford to refer the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct to the Criminal Justice Inspectorate as he is legally obliged?

 

Yours sincerely

Christy Walsh