Christy Walsh ✍ On 25th November 2024, the Families of Brian Frizzell, Alan Lundy, Katrina Rennie, and Eileen Duffy filed into the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast hoping for truth, accountability, and justice — only to be asked to leave again, because the proceedings were to be held in secret from them.
What they got instead was a heavily redacted process, one riddled with secrecy, concealment, and judicial maneuvering. The trial is now over. The judge, Mr Justice Humphreys, has reserved his judgment. This case wasn’t lost at trial, it was lost when the first unlawful CMP was issued without objection. This was, in substance, a mistrial — a process so fundamentally compromised at the structural level that any judgment it produces will be tainted by secrecy and procedural distortion.
The Frizzell and Lundy Families are not alone. Their cases are part of the wider Mid-Ulster series of legacy proceedings, involving allegations that the British State helped Loyalists to import weapons used in over 70 murders. These cases represent a critical test of whether the State will ever be held accountable for collusion in sectarian killings.
At the heart of the case is an allegation that UK authorities allowed, enabled and assisted Loyalists to obtain and distribute weapons among Loyalist murder gangs. But the legal process designed to uncover the truth has instead ensured it remains buried.
Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) let important relevant evidence of collusion be hidden from the Families. CMPs were introduced under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to protect national security. But under section 6(11) of that Act, CMPs are expressly barred in cases involving a “criminal cause or matter.” The Frizzell and Lundy cases are civil in form, but fundamentally criminal in nature — allegations of murder, conspiracy, and collusion. Despite this, CMPs were unlawfully used to withhold key evidence from the Families.
After I tried to warn the judge that he had made a mistake, the Judge responded on 31st July 2024, declaring he was not. The Judge revealed, [at para.3] that he had made the CMP declarations on his own motions. Even that was highly irregular, no state agency, the police, army or government department applied for the CMPs. Relevant evidence of collusion was otherwise available to the Families but for the Judge's improper obstruction.
The grounds for mistrial first occurred when the CMP declarations were issued by the judge on his own motion, and without:
If the CMPs were not lawfully invoked, then the apportionment of Special Advocates was defective. Further, the Special Advocates assigned to represent the Families in the secret trial had been denied access to important documents and to a key unnamed witness. The judge’s assurance he would preserve the Families' Article 6 rights [Para. 14] was legal fiction. There has been no equality of arms. There was no meaningful adversarial testing. There was only choreography. The Secret Trial was not a fair hearing. It was a managed process designed to neutralise legal exposure.
Because Mr Justice Humphreys disregarded section 6(11) of the JSA, he now sits on a legal powder keg. Nine months have passed and the judge should have birthed a judgment by now. But whatever shape that takes, it should be a stillbirth. But whatever he decides, the legal legitimacy of the process is already compromised.
The Frizzell and Lundy Families are not alone. Their cases are part of the wider Mid-Ulster series of legacy proceedings, involving allegations that the British State helped Loyalists to import weapons used in over 70 murders. These cases represent a critical test of whether the State will ever be held accountable for collusion in sectarian killings.
At the heart of the case is an allegation that UK authorities allowed, enabled and assisted Loyalists to obtain and distribute weapons among Loyalist murder gangs. But the legal process designed to uncover the truth has instead ensured it remains buried.
Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) let important relevant evidence of collusion be hidden from the Families. CMPs were introduced under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to protect national security. But under section 6(11) of that Act, CMPs are expressly barred in cases involving a “criminal cause or matter.” The Frizzell and Lundy cases are civil in form, but fundamentally criminal in nature — allegations of murder, conspiracy, and collusion. Despite this, CMPs were unlawfully used to withhold key evidence from the Families.
After I tried to warn the judge that he had made a mistake, the Judge responded on 31st July 2024, declaring he was not. The Judge revealed, [at para.3] that he had made the CMP declarations on his own motions. Even that was highly irregular, no state agency, the police, army or government department applied for the CMPs. Relevant evidence of collusion was otherwise available to the Families but for the Judge's improper obstruction.
The grounds for mistrial first occurred when the CMP declarations were issued by the judge on his own motion, and without:
- Proper adversarial notice
- Consideration of the alternative of Public Interest Immunity (PII)
- A legitimate finding that the proceedings did not involve a criminal cause or matter
If the CMPs were not lawfully invoked, then the apportionment of Special Advocates was defective. Further, the Special Advocates assigned to represent the Families in the secret trial had been denied access to important documents and to a key unnamed witness. The judge’s assurance he would preserve the Families' Article 6 rights [Para. 14] was legal fiction. There has been no equality of arms. There was no meaningful adversarial testing. There was only choreography. The Secret Trial was not a fair hearing. It was a managed process designed to neutralise legal exposure.
Because Mr Justice Humphreys disregarded section 6(11) of the JSA, he now sits on a legal powder keg. Nine months have passed and the judge should have birthed a judgment by now. But whatever shape that takes, it should be a stillbirth. But whatever he decides, the legal legitimacy of the process is already compromised.
The trial of Frizzell and Lundy was procedurally corrupted before it even began. It should never have moved forward under CMP restrictions. The Families should never have been denied access to evidence of collusion that goes to the heart of their cases.
This isn’t justice. It isn’t even a flawed hearing. It is a mistrial — and everyone inside the secrecy courtroom knew it. The Families wait for a an inherently defective judgment. But the public should not wait to recognise what this was: a secret trial, a compromised process, and a verdict undermined and defective long before the the secret trial hearing started on the 25th November 2024.
If KRW Law are correct, the outcome could affect “scores, if not hundreds of” other victims and their Families.
⏩ 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.
This is not getting the coverage it deserves.
ReplyDeleteFamilies are about to be shafted again by the British judicial system.
Keep plugging Christy.
Thanks AM for publishing.
ReplyDeleteIt is not so much the coverage but the concern it deserves. Some lawyers have confirmed my assessment -but professional ethics inhibits them from commenting. I have discussed it with the Pat Finucane Centre -they are pulling a Brit trick -neither confirm nor deny --if they think I'm wrong then they should says and we all move on --but if they know I am right --who does their silence protect? And what potential damage are Families facing from the consequences of the mistrial and unlawful use of CMPs? The Ancient Order of Hibernians is full of lawyers who have a lot to say on collusion --why are they silent on the unlawful use of CMPs? I think there is a moral and ethical imperative on PFC and AOH to speak the truth.
It's submissive, it's differential, it's covering one's ass, it's an absence of integrity and of authenticity, Christy. It's the behaviour of sick and dysfunctional organisations, like that of dysfunctional families whose rules are don't feel, don't tell and don't trust. Unfortunately, this stuff is both rampant and pervasive.
Delete