Christy Walsh ✍ Step 1: Arrest a man in possession of a bomb at 1:35pm. Use the Parachute Regiment to keep custody of the bomb.
Step 2: Wait 15 minute.
Step 3: Arrest a second man at 1:50pm for possession of the same bomb.
Step 4: Secretly release Mr F and convict the second man. (Mr F was identified in undisclosed police files as a "known top IRA man").
Step 5: When the second man discovers undisclosed police files revealing the truth, construct a new version 35 years later: "joint enterprise and sequential possession".
This is not a how-to guide. It is the account that a High Court judgment, delivered in Belfast on 19th May 2026, asks us to accept as having occurred on Suffolk Road in 1991.
The Facts
At 1:35pm on 5th June 1991 a man identified as Mr F was arrested in possession of a coffee-jar bomb on Suffolk Road, Belfast. The Jar was placed on a wall, and soldiers took up cover positions.
I arrived at the scene at 1:50pm and was arrested by the soldiers. I testified under oath in 1992 that the bomb was already sitting on a nearby wall when I was stopped. The soldiers denied being in crouched cover positions when I arrived.
In 2008, I recovered undisclosed police and forensic files that Mr F had been caught in “possession of an explosive device (namely a blast bomb)”, signed by Detective Superintendent, Derek Martindale on 5th June 1991.
In March 2010, with no evidential basis, the Court accepted Mr F was arrested at 3:35pm in a follow-up operation. The prosecution told the Court that the time of Mr F's arrest, hours later, made no difference to my alleged possession.
In a Judgment in December 2025, the Court finally acknowledged the truth - contemporaneous police files confirmed Mr F was caught in possession of the coffee-jar bomb at 1:35pm, 15 minutes before I arrived at the scene.
On 19th May 2026, the Court reaffirmed that Mr F had possession of the bomb at 1:35pm on 5th June 1991. But the narrative about me has now changed after 35 years. The Court concluded in its judgment that Mr F and I were in "joint enterprise and sequential possession".
Because it is raised in the judgment for the first time, I was not given any opportunity to put up a defence. I did not, and do not, know Mr F. I only discovered his existence while going through files in the NI Forensic Science Laboratory on 2nd February 2008.
The Judgment fails to answer a crucial detail - how did Mr F transfer the bomb to me while he and the bomb were already in custody for a full 15 minutes before I arrived at the scene?
The Court’s solution: "Joint enterprise and sequential possession". But that requires Mr F and I knew each other and came into contact to make the exchange.
The Judgment creates this absurdity, for the bomb in Mr F's possession to 'sequentially' pass into my possession 15 minutes later - members of the Parachute Regiment were the conduit.
Paradoxically, the Court’s reasoning now corroborates my own evidence in 1992: that the device was already sitting on the wall when I arrived at the scene.
One Man, One Bomb
The Crown prosecution's case from 1991 until 19th May 2026 was that I acted alone. No prosecutor, no respondent, and no court in thirty-five years of proceedings ever advanced a case of "joint enterprise and sequential possession" between me and anyone else.
I had no opportunity to answer a case I did not know was being constructed against me, because it was created in my absence for the first time in the Judgment itself, after the hearing had closed.
On 7th December 1992, I was wrongfully convicted of possession of an explosive device. On 16th March 2010, the Court of Appeal found my conviction unsafe. On 19th May 2026, the Court denied me victim status by finding me implicitly guilty of two entirely different charges that were never prosecuted, namely, 1) joint enterprise and 2) sequential possession of an explosive device - involving a 'top IRA man' who was never charged, tried or convicted, despite his identity and possession being known at least 15 minutes before I arrived at the scene.
Step 2: Wait 15 minute.
Step 3: Arrest a second man at 1:50pm for possession of the same bomb.
Step 4: Secretly release Mr F and convict the second man. (Mr F was identified in undisclosed police files as a "known top IRA man").
Step 5: When the second man discovers undisclosed police files revealing the truth, construct a new version 35 years later: "joint enterprise and sequential possession".
This is not a how-to guide. It is the account that a High Court judgment, delivered in Belfast on 19th May 2026, asks us to accept as having occurred on Suffolk Road in 1991.
The Facts
At 1:35pm on 5th June 1991 a man identified as Mr F was arrested in possession of a coffee-jar bomb on Suffolk Road, Belfast. The Jar was placed on a wall, and soldiers took up cover positions.
I arrived at the scene at 1:50pm and was arrested by the soldiers. I testified under oath in 1992 that the bomb was already sitting on a nearby wall when I was stopped. The soldiers denied being in crouched cover positions when I arrived.
In 2008, I recovered undisclosed police and forensic files that Mr F had been caught in “possession of an explosive device (namely a blast bomb)”, signed by Detective Superintendent, Derek Martindale on 5th June 1991.
In March 2010, with no evidential basis, the Court accepted Mr F was arrested at 3:35pm in a follow-up operation. The prosecution told the Court that the time of Mr F's arrest, hours later, made no difference to my alleged possession.
In a Judgment in December 2025, the Court finally acknowledged the truth - contemporaneous police files confirmed Mr F was caught in possession of the coffee-jar bomb at 1:35pm, 15 minutes before I arrived at the scene.
On 19th May 2026, the Court reaffirmed that Mr F had possession of the bomb at 1:35pm on 5th June 1991. But the narrative about me has now changed after 35 years. The Court concluded in its judgment that Mr F and I were in "joint enterprise and sequential possession".
Because it is raised in the judgment for the first time, I was not given any opportunity to put up a defence. I did not, and do not, know Mr F. I only discovered his existence while going through files in the NI Forensic Science Laboratory on 2nd February 2008.
The Judgment fails to answer a crucial detail - how did Mr F transfer the bomb to me while he and the bomb were already in custody for a full 15 minutes before I arrived at the scene?
The Court’s solution: "Joint enterprise and sequential possession". But that requires Mr F and I knew each other and came into contact to make the exchange.
The Judgment creates this absurdity, for the bomb in Mr F's possession to 'sequentially' pass into my possession 15 minutes later - members of the Parachute Regiment were the conduit.
Paradoxically, the Court’s reasoning now corroborates my own evidence in 1992: that the device was already sitting on the wall when I arrived at the scene.
One Man, One Bomb
The Crown prosecution's case from 1991 until 19th May 2026 was that I acted alone. No prosecutor, no respondent, and no court in thirty-five years of proceedings ever advanced a case of "joint enterprise and sequential possession" between me and anyone else.
I had no opportunity to answer a case I did not know was being constructed against me, because it was created in my absence for the first time in the Judgment itself, after the hearing had closed.
On 7th December 1992, I was wrongfully convicted of possession of an explosive device. On 16th March 2010, the Court of Appeal found my conviction unsafe. On 19th May 2026, the Court denied me victim status by finding me implicitly guilty of two entirely different charges that were never prosecuted, namely, 1) joint enterprise and 2) sequential possession of an explosive device - involving a 'top IRA man' who was never charged, tried or convicted, despite his identity and possession being known at least 15 minutes before I arrived at the scene.
⏩ 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.
We were all guilty.
ReplyDeleteGuilty of being Irish Patriots in occupied Ireland.
Welcome to the Westminster Injustice System.
Miscarriage of justice piled on to miscarriage of justice, Christy.
ReplyDeleteDisappointing that you did not get the outcome you sought but the British judiciary have done you no favours from the get go.
Good that you set out a record otherwise we would never hear about it.
AM Thanks for publishing the article .
DeleteSimon
Re: the disparity of treatment between Nationalists and Loyalists - I have documented a discrete way Nationalists are more likely to be unfairly treated than Loyalists in legacy cases -- it's not exactly anti-Nationalist bias --its through the inherent structure of the system and the types of legal cases. For example, through the use of CMPs -or the Victims' Payments Board assigns prosecutors and government lawyers to investigate applications involving conflict-related injuries caused by the security forces.
Simon comments
ReplyDeleteCan't comment categorically on your case Christy although it certainly sounds full of holes and a likely miscarriage of justice particularly if the person caught in possession of the bomb was a known suspect, was never charged but you were.
One thing that I learnt from "Use and Abuse of Emergency Legislation in Northern Ireland" by Dermot Walsh is that the authorities had a much greater tendency to arrest non-actors on the nationalist side than the unionist side. Other members of the household, neighbours and passers-by on the Nationalist side were in a greater danger of arrest and conviction than those on the periphery on the unionist side.
This only partly explains your scenario as these arrests tended to happen in conjunction with the arrest of the main suspect. But it demonstrates they wouldn't have been adverse to doing so.
Simon
DeleteThe conviction rate was - 95 to 98% Nationalists were convicted depending on the judge --Carswell is credited with the 98% -- around 70% of Loyalists were convicted --apparently 70% is the expected conviction rate in a normal unbiased legal system.
What I noticed myself --nationalist householders storing weapons were sentenced from 14 -18 years --4 year suspended sentences was common place for Loyalist householders.
Simon comments:
DeleteHi Christy,
I know you're aware of much, if not all of this, but the general reader might get something from it.
One thing rarely mentioned is the conviction rate for Republicans was about the same pre- and post-Diplock. Protestant/unionist-heavy juries had about the same level of time for Republicans as a Diplock judge.
The Loyalist conviction rate went up when the Diplock Court system was introduced. Pre-Diplock, the unionist heavy juries were friendlier to the Loyalist suspects, they tended to be more favourable and more likely to lead to.an acquittal. However, the Diplock Judge was more likely to convict.
Of course the numbers of both Republicans and Loyalists before the courts went up overall due to the changes in the rules of evidence that came with Diplock. Confession only evidence that could be beaten out of you and didn't need to be signed. There was at least one death during these physical interrogations. They were cruel and violent.
Nationalists were more likely to be stopped, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged, more likely to go to court, more likely to be found guilty and then more likely to have a heavier sentence. If you were a Republican this likelihood increased again. Every step of the way.
This disparity continues today (between 2016 and 2020 Catholics we're almost twice as likely as Protestants to be arrested and charged according to a report by The Detail). However, there are other factors in the mix as well as sectarianism.