Social Items

TPQ
Christy Walsh ✍ I’ve taken the extraordinary step and lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) flagging the unlawful conduct of the Court in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases.  

Rule 39 of the ECtHR Rules of Court is only available in the most exceptional cases, often used to prevent someone being extradited to a country where they would be at risk of being tortured. But it is also available where the very administration of justice is at risk and the Convention rights of many people could collectively be violated. KRW Law estimate that the outcome of proceedings on 25th November: “will therefore impact scores, if not hundreds of cases”. Mr Justice Humphreys\ handling of the Frizzell and Lundy Cases satisfies the ‘imminent risk of irreparable harm’ requirements. Here is summary of the application:

The Applicant makes this request as ‘any other person concerned’ under Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court. Those whose Convention rights are in imminent risk of irreparable harm after 25th November, 2024, are not Applicants in this application. But neither is the European Court of Human Rights being asked to make a finding against the United Kingdom on their behalf. The outcome of 25th-30th November Hearings, in Northern Ireland, will be on a scale that could pervert the course of justice for hundreds of Families, causing imminent risk of irreparable harm to their rights under Articles 2 (right to life); 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment); 6 (right to a fair trial); and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court is asked to exercise its discretionary power, on its own motion under Rule 39(1), and, as an interim measure, remind the United Kingdom to observe the Convention rights of the Plaintiffs by following its own national laws, specifically, sections 6, 7, and 9 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, and Order 126 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI) 1980. Without lawful jurisdiction to do so, the domestic court has effectively afforded immunity to suspected killers as a necessary precursor for the removal of collusion as a probable verdict against the State for its involvement in the murders of its own citizens. 
However, the Applicant's article 6 Convention rights have been violated, and he has exhausted all necessary domestic remedies under Articles 34 (Individual applications) and 35 (Admissibility criteria) of the Convention for this application. 

I had the right to a proper response to the points of law I put before Mr Justice Humphreys in an application to intervene in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases. The Families also had the right to know the answers on the points of law. As intervener, I have no right to appeal or review of Humphreys J’s failure to answer the issues put before him. That meant I had exhausted all domestic remedies and I had a direct path to the ECtHR. The ECtHR cannot make findings on behalf of anyone who is not an applicant (the Families at risk of being victims of the perversion of justice on massive scale). But, under Rule 39(1), the ECtHR can act on its own motion (copied below) and caution the UK to be careful lest these cases apply to the ECtHR after the damage has been done if the NI Courts continue to act unlawfully toward Legacy Families. On 22nd July 2024, I made an application to intervene in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases. Closed Material Procedures are not lawfully available in Legacy Cases. Even though Mr Justice Humphreys arbitrarily refused my application, my attempted intervention resulted in His Honour disclosing 2 valuable pieces of information on 31st July 2024:

  1. Humphreys J revealed that he issued CMPs declarations on his own unsolicited motions. Despite not being lawfully entitled to do so, His Honour did not give the required statutory notice under Section 6(10) of the JSA and Rule 126, Order 21(1)(a) of the RsCJ 1980 (SF, p.15) so the Families could have challenged the impropriety.
  2. Collusion in murder is a criminal act that ought to result in prosecution. For example, Alan Oliver is considered a prolific serial killer of many innocent Nationalists and is not participating in the proceedings, as is his right, to protect himself from self-incrimination. The evidence of his involvment in at least 3 murders is overwhelming but Humphreys J, figuratively speaking, has his back. On 26th April 2021, default judgment was entered against Oliver for his part in the murders of; Brian Frizzell, Katrina Rennie and Eileen Duffy. Without lawful jurisdiction to do so, His Honour has prejudged the outcome of the Hearings by effectively giving Oliver and the other Defendants immunity from criminal liability in the future: “No such jeopardy exists as the direct effect of these civil actions.” Oliver has already been found liable for 3 murders in ‘these civil actions’ and Humphreys J has no lawful basis to guarantee he will not be prosecuted afterwards. And whatever word formulae Humphreys J comes up with could then affect hundreds of other Legacy Cases. Logically, a verdict of collusion has been removed as a possible outcome of the Hearings with probable intention that it will apply to hundreds of other Legacy Cases.

Without getting bogged down in the legal technicalities and complexities that about sums up my Rule 39 application to the ECtHR. The following is the text of Rule 39(1):

Rule 39(1). The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, whether at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted. Such measures, applicable in cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right, which, on account of its nature, would not be susceptible to reparation, restoration or adequate compensation, may be adopted where necessary in the interests of the parties or the proper conduct of the proceedings. (emphasis added)

See.
 
⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Urgent 🪶 Hundreds Of Legacy Families Could Be Cheated Out Of Justice

Christy Walsh ✍ I’ve taken the extraordinary step and lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) flagging the unlawful conduct of the Court in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases.  

Rule 39 of the ECtHR Rules of Court is only available in the most exceptional cases, often used to prevent someone being extradited to a country where they would be at risk of being tortured. But it is also available where the very administration of justice is at risk and the Convention rights of many people could collectively be violated. KRW Law estimate that the outcome of proceedings on 25th November: “will therefore impact scores, if not hundreds of cases”. Mr Justice Humphreys\ handling of the Frizzell and Lundy Cases satisfies the ‘imminent risk of irreparable harm’ requirements. Here is summary of the application:

The Applicant makes this request as ‘any other person concerned’ under Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court. Those whose Convention rights are in imminent risk of irreparable harm after 25th November, 2024, are not Applicants in this application. But neither is the European Court of Human Rights being asked to make a finding against the United Kingdom on their behalf. The outcome of 25th-30th November Hearings, in Northern Ireland, will be on a scale that could pervert the course of justice for hundreds of Families, causing imminent risk of irreparable harm to their rights under Articles 2 (right to life); 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment); 6 (right to a fair trial); and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court is asked to exercise its discretionary power, on its own motion under Rule 39(1), and, as an interim measure, remind the United Kingdom to observe the Convention rights of the Plaintiffs by following its own national laws, specifically, sections 6, 7, and 9 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, and Order 126 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI) 1980. Without lawful jurisdiction to do so, the domestic court has effectively afforded immunity to suspected killers as a necessary precursor for the removal of collusion as a probable verdict against the State for its involvement in the murders of its own citizens. 
However, the Applicant's article 6 Convention rights have been violated, and he has exhausted all necessary domestic remedies under Articles 34 (Individual applications) and 35 (Admissibility criteria) of the Convention for this application. 

I had the right to a proper response to the points of law I put before Mr Justice Humphreys in an application to intervene in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases. The Families also had the right to know the answers on the points of law. As intervener, I have no right to appeal or review of Humphreys J’s failure to answer the issues put before him. That meant I had exhausted all domestic remedies and I had a direct path to the ECtHR. The ECtHR cannot make findings on behalf of anyone who is not an applicant (the Families at risk of being victims of the perversion of justice on massive scale). But, under Rule 39(1), the ECtHR can act on its own motion (copied below) and caution the UK to be careful lest these cases apply to the ECtHR after the damage has been done if the NI Courts continue to act unlawfully toward Legacy Families. On 22nd July 2024, I made an application to intervene in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases. Closed Material Procedures are not lawfully available in Legacy Cases. Even though Mr Justice Humphreys arbitrarily refused my application, my attempted intervention resulted in His Honour disclosing 2 valuable pieces of information on 31st July 2024:

  1. Humphreys J revealed that he issued CMPs declarations on his own unsolicited motions. Despite not being lawfully entitled to do so, His Honour did not give the required statutory notice under Section 6(10) of the JSA and Rule 126, Order 21(1)(a) of the RsCJ 1980 (SF, p.15) so the Families could have challenged the impropriety.
  2. Collusion in murder is a criminal act that ought to result in prosecution. For example, Alan Oliver is considered a prolific serial killer of many innocent Nationalists and is not participating in the proceedings, as is his right, to protect himself from self-incrimination. The evidence of his involvment in at least 3 murders is overwhelming but Humphreys J, figuratively speaking, has his back. On 26th April 2021, default judgment was entered against Oliver for his part in the murders of; Brian Frizzell, Katrina Rennie and Eileen Duffy. Without lawful jurisdiction to do so, His Honour has prejudged the outcome of the Hearings by effectively giving Oliver and the other Defendants immunity from criminal liability in the future: “No such jeopardy exists as the direct effect of these civil actions.” Oliver has already been found liable for 3 murders in ‘these civil actions’ and Humphreys J has no lawful basis to guarantee he will not be prosecuted afterwards. And whatever word formulae Humphreys J comes up with could then affect hundreds of other Legacy Cases. Logically, a verdict of collusion has been removed as a possible outcome of the Hearings with probable intention that it will apply to hundreds of other Legacy Cases.

Without getting bogged down in the legal technicalities and complexities that about sums up my Rule 39 application to the ECtHR. The following is the text of Rule 39(1):

Rule 39(1). The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, whether at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted. Such measures, applicable in cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right, which, on account of its nature, would not be susceptible to reparation, restoration or adequate compensation, may be adopted where necessary in the interests of the parties or the proper conduct of the proceedings. (emphasis added)

See.
 
⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.
Christy Walsh Closed Material Procedure Collusion Northern Conflict Legacy Issues

1 comment:

  1. Christy Walsh11:50 AM, November 21, 2024

    I think it might be too late already. Humphreys J will issue a closed judgment the Families cannot appeal. And the contents of the closed judgment will be designed to cover all substituent legacy cases.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)