Christy Walsh ✍ Four legacy mechanisms:
- Closed Material Procedures (CMPs),
- the ‘secret Legacy Act working group’
- the Victims’ Payments Board
- the ‘absurd lawful force’ exemption
These are framed in neutral legal language. However, the mask slips when you look at who is harmed, who is targeted and who is protected.
All four operate in areas where nationalist victims and Families are overwhelmingly represented.
All four restrict accountability for State conduct.
All four protect and reduce accountability of the security forces.
All four systematically block nationalist victims from truth, remedy, or justice.
The question is not whether this is the intention. The question is how long will it be allowed to continue?
CMPs in Collusion Cases
In civil proceedings where security forces are alleged to have colluded with loyalist murder gangs, CMPs are used to hide evidence of collusion. Only a judge and lawyers appointed by the State can see the secret evidence. One of the government appointed lawyers, called ‘special advocates’ will liaise with victims’ Families and their legal representatives - as a substitute for being excluded from access to the evidence and the courtroom.
On 25 November 2024, CMPs were used in a secret trial in the cases of Brian Frizzell, Katrina Rennie, Eileen Duffy, and Alan Lundy. On arrival, the Families and their lawyers were instructed to leave the secret hearing. The Families are seeking damages for alleged security force collusion in the murders of their relatives. The excluded lawyers representing the victims’ Families predict the outcome will affect “scores, if not hundreds”[1] of legacy cases involving collusion. Over 18 months later, judgment is still pending.
Section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 is being used unlawfully against the Families. Unlawfully is not rhetorical but statutory interpretation. Section 6(11) “relevant civil proceedings means any proceedings (other than proceedings in a criminal cause or matter).” No Government Department; i.e. Department of Justice (DoJ) or Ministry of Defence; or State agencies - Prosecution or Police Services, could apply for CMPs in the mid-Ulster series of murder cases because they all involve ‘criminal cause’ allegations of collusion in murder. The judge improperly issued the CMPs on his own motion revealed at para.3 of his judgment.[2]
CMPs are not lawfully available in civil cases because they concern alleged collusion in murder, they have criminal-law issues at their core. A two part test establishes if a civil case involves criminal cause:
1) could the underlying civil proceedings afterwards place any person in jeopardy of criminal proceedings or accountability?
2) is an investigation and potential prosecution a possible and foreseeable outcome?
Even a civil finding of collusion could:
Note: The Legacy Act’s prohibition on prosecutions is under challenge as a violation of Article 2 ECHR (the State’s duty to investigate suspicious deaths). So CMPs can still not be lawfully issued based on a statute that may be struck down.
Before the Frizzell and Lundy trials took place on 25 November 2024, the judge ruled out any possibility of any respondent being held criminally liable for collusion in the murders - declared a mistrial: the outcome was effectively decided before the trial. The 18-month pending judgment is predicted to affect “scores, if not hundreds of cases” - that means evidence of collusion could be kept hidden from scores or hundreds of other murder cases.
The Secret Legacy Act Working Group: The Culprits Write the Law
In 2020, a secret Northern Ireland Office working group[3] met to shape the legacy framework. Documents were marked “Official Secret” and “not for circulation to membership.”
Who was in the room
Victims’ Families and NGOs were excluded. The media was excluded. The public was excluded.
What they produced
Their recommendations shaped the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. The Act closed over 1,100 cases brought by bereaved Families. Minutes show a plan to close cases where “securing a criminal justice outcome isn’t possible” and move Families to “information recovery”. not investigation, not accountability.
The law was written by the very people who may have helped with or participated in alleged collusion. At minimum, security forces protected security forces. Nationalist Families seeking truth about collusion were offered a process designed to divert them and shut down access to accountability.
The Victims’ Payments Board: Structurally a Front for the State
The Victims’ Payments Board (VPB) is presented as an independent body. That is a lie masquerading as an impartial body.
The VPB is not independent. It is a rigged adjudicative arm of the DoJ.
State Violence Is Exempt From the Victims’ Pension Scheme
On 19 May 2026, the Court ruled anyone accidentally injured by the security forces was not injured in “a “Troubles-related incident” for the purposes of the scheme”.
Victims of security force violence are only victims if they can prove the security forces were acting unlawfully.
The Court laid it out in paragraph 36 of its judgment:
“A contrary interpretation would lead to the absurd consequence that any person injured as a result of the use of lawful force or even the accidental use of force during the period of the Troubles could potentially be eligible for a victims’ payment.” [4]
What is absurd
Security forces have broad legal powers. Most of their actions can be called ‘lawful’. The ‘unlawful force’ rule is an almost complete exemption for State violence. Nationalist victims have been disproportionately subjected to security force operations and systematically excluded
The Pattern Is Not A Coincidence; It Is Anti-Nationalist
Four mechanisms. Different institutions. Different decision-makers. Different legal texts.
Yet the same outcomes:
Nationalist Families seeking truth about security force involvement in alleged collusion in murder of their loved ones face the unlawful use of CMPs.
Bereaved Families seeking investigation face the security forces writing their own immunity.
Nationalist victims of injuries caused by the security forces are dismissed as “absurd” because security force accidents causing serious injuries are not “Troubles-related” incidents.
The Court’s “absurd” rule, anyone injured by lawful security force operations do not count as a “Troubles-related incident”.
The four mechanisms are tightly linked: CMPs hide evidence of collusion; the secret Legacy Act working group wrote immunity into law; the DoJ controls the VPB; the VPB embeds State lawyers as gatekeepers to protect against accountability; and the pension scheme ‘absurd’ exemption completes the circle by denying State violence causes Troubles‑related injuries. Each reinforces the others, and the common personnel (security veterans, prosecutors, government lawyers) suggests networked impunity rather than four isolated defects.
Nationalists are kept out of justice. This is not coincidence. It is not institutional culture. It is not groupthink. The Courts are instrumentally at the heart of it.
It is anti-nationalist justice, a system designed not to discover truth or provide remedy, but to protect the security forces and State institutions from accountability.
What You Can Do
1. Share this article.
2. Ask elected officials why CMPs are being unlawfully used in civil cases that may involve members of the security forces colluding in murder?
3. Demand the full publication of the secret Legacy Act working group minutes.
4. Demand the VPB be made independent from the DoJ.
5. Call for the courts to reverse its ‘absurd unlawful force’ requirement for Nationalist victims of injuries caused by the security forces in ‘Troubles-related incidents’.
References
[1] KRW Press Release.
[2] Judgement On Frizzell Intervention.
[3] The secret group linked to security services that helped shape the Legacy Act.
All four operate in areas where nationalist victims and Families are overwhelmingly represented.
All four restrict accountability for State conduct.
All four protect and reduce accountability of the security forces.
All four systematically block nationalist victims from truth, remedy, or justice.
The question is not whether this is the intention. The question is how long will it be allowed to continue?
CMPs in Collusion Cases
In civil proceedings where security forces are alleged to have colluded with loyalist murder gangs, CMPs are used to hide evidence of collusion. Only a judge and lawyers appointed by the State can see the secret evidence. One of the government appointed lawyers, called ‘special advocates’ will liaise with victims’ Families and their legal representatives - as a substitute for being excluded from access to the evidence and the courtroom.
On 25 November 2024, CMPs were used in a secret trial in the cases of Brian Frizzell, Katrina Rennie, Eileen Duffy, and Alan Lundy. On arrival, the Families and their lawyers were instructed to leave the secret hearing. The Families are seeking damages for alleged security force collusion in the murders of their relatives. The excluded lawyers representing the victims’ Families predict the outcome will affect “scores, if not hundreds”[1] of legacy cases involving collusion. Over 18 months later, judgment is still pending.
Section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 is being used unlawfully against the Families. Unlawfully is not rhetorical but statutory interpretation. Section 6(11) “relevant civil proceedings means any proceedings (other than proceedings in a criminal cause or matter).” No Government Department; i.e. Department of Justice (DoJ) or Ministry of Defence; or State agencies - Prosecution or Police Services, could apply for CMPs in the mid-Ulster series of murder cases because they all involve ‘criminal cause’ allegations of collusion in murder. The judge improperly issued the CMPs on his own motion revealed at para.3 of his judgment.[2]
CMPs are not lawfully available in civil cases because they concern alleged collusion in murder, they have criminal-law issues at their core. A two part test establishes if a civil case involves criminal cause:
1) could the underlying civil proceedings afterwards place any person in jeopardy of criminal proceedings or accountability?
2) is an investigation and potential prosecution a possible and foreseeable outcome?
Even a civil finding of collusion could:
- trigger disciplinary proceedings against security force members,
- support a referral to the United Nations or European Court of Human Rights, or
- inform a future application to quash the Legacy Act as incompatible with Article 2 ECHR (right to life).
Note: The Legacy Act’s prohibition on prosecutions is under challenge as a violation of Article 2 ECHR (the State’s duty to investigate suspicious deaths). So CMPs can still not be lawfully issued based on a statute that may be struck down.
Before the Frizzell and Lundy trials took place on 25 November 2024, the judge ruled out any possibility of any respondent being held criminally liable for collusion in the murders - declared a mistrial: the outcome was effectively decided before the trial. The 18-month pending judgment is predicted to affect “scores, if not hundreds of cases” - that means evidence of collusion could be kept hidden from scores or hundreds of other murder cases.
The Secret Legacy Act Working Group: The Culprits Write the Law
In 2020, a secret Northern Ireland Office working group[3] met to shape the legacy framework. Documents were marked “Official Secret” and “not for circulation to membership.”
Who was in the room
- George Hamilton: former Detective Chief Inspector and Detective Superintendent of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).
- Madeleine Alessandri: UK Deputy National Security Advisor.
- Chloe Squire: Home Office Director of National Security.
- And other national security officials drawn from institutions alleged to have colluded with loyalist murder gangs.
What they produced
Their recommendations shaped the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. The Act closed over 1,100 cases brought by bereaved Families. Minutes show a plan to close cases where “securing a criminal justice outcome isn’t possible” and move Families to “information recovery”. not investigation, not accountability.
The law was written by the very people who may have helped with or participated in alleged collusion. At minimum, security forces protected security forces. Nationalist Families seeking truth about collusion were offered a process designed to divert them and shut down access to accountability.
The Victims’ Payments Board: Structurally a Front for the State
The Victims’ Payments Board (VPB) is presented as an independent body. That is a lie masquerading as an impartial body.
- The DoJ controls applications, staffing, investigations, and all administration and infrastructure of the VPB.
- Lawyers on VPB investigative panels deciding cases of security force abuse are government lawyers and/or prosecutors and are not impartial decision-makers.
- The State has positioned its own lawyers to sit as adjudicators deciding whether nationalist victims of conflict-related injuries caused by the security forces qualify for payments.
- The VPB (part-time) lawyers are quasi-anonymous: identified only by a first initial and surname, with no Mr/Ms titles and no indication of their true status as (full-time) Crown prosecutors or government lawyers in the Departmental Solicitors Office. This deprives applicants of the ability to raise conflict-of-interest challenges.
- The VPB is a DoJ tribunal
The VPB is not independent. It is a rigged adjudicative arm of the DoJ.
State Violence Is Exempt From the Victims’ Pension Scheme
On 19 May 2026, the Court ruled anyone accidentally injured by the security forces was not injured in “a “Troubles-related incident” for the purposes of the scheme”.
Victims of security force violence are only victims if they can prove the security forces were acting unlawfully.
The Court laid it out in paragraph 36 of its judgment:
“A contrary interpretation would lead to the absurd consequence that any person injured as a result of the use of lawful force or even the accidental use of force during the period of the Troubles could potentially be eligible for a victims’ payment.” [4]
What is absurd
- A civilian accidentally shot by a soldier during crossfire → not a “Troubles-related incident”.
- A bystander struck by a plastic bullet during a lawful public order operation → not a “Troubles-related incident”.
- Psychological disablement caused by the security forces → not a “Troubles-related incident”.
Security forces have broad legal powers. Most of their actions can be called ‘lawful’. The ‘unlawful force’ rule is an almost complete exemption for State violence. Nationalist victims have been disproportionately subjected to security force operations and systematically excluded
The Pattern Is Not A Coincidence; It Is Anti-Nationalist
Four mechanisms. Different institutions. Different decision-makers. Different legal texts.
Yet the same outcomes:
Nationalist Families seeking truth about security force involvement in alleged collusion in murder of their loved ones face the unlawful use of CMPs.
Bereaved Families seeking investigation face the security forces writing their own immunity.
Nationalist victims of injuries caused by the security forces are dismissed as “absurd” because security force accidents causing serious injuries are not “Troubles-related” incidents.
The Court’s “absurd” rule, anyone injured by lawful security force operations do not count as a “Troubles-related incident”.
The four mechanisms are tightly linked: CMPs hide evidence of collusion; the secret Legacy Act working group wrote immunity into law; the DoJ controls the VPB; the VPB embeds State lawyers as gatekeepers to protect against accountability; and the pension scheme ‘absurd’ exemption completes the circle by denying State violence causes Troubles‑related injuries. Each reinforces the others, and the common personnel (security veterans, prosecutors, government lawyers) suggests networked impunity rather than four isolated defects.
Nationalists are kept out of justice. This is not coincidence. It is not institutional culture. It is not groupthink. The Courts are instrumentally at the heart of it.
It is anti-nationalist justice, a system designed not to discover truth or provide remedy, but to protect the security forces and State institutions from accountability.
What You Can Do
1. Share this article.
2. Ask elected officials why CMPs are being unlawfully used in civil cases that may involve members of the security forces colluding in murder?
3. Demand the full publication of the secret Legacy Act working group minutes.
4. Demand the VPB be made independent from the DoJ.
5. Call for the courts to reverse its ‘absurd unlawful force’ requirement for Nationalist victims of injuries caused by the security forces in ‘Troubles-related incidents’.
References
[1] KRW Press Release.
[2] Judgement On Frizzell Intervention.
[3] The secret group linked to security services that helped shape the Legacy Act.
⏩ 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.
, the ‘secret Legacy Act working group’ the Victims’ Payments B...&p[url]=https://www.thepensivequill.com/2026/06/anti-nationalist-justice-nationalist.html&p[images][0]=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkyxhKMq1laZ41s6U3HrNlE-TFroPziv_rmEzRmb58lHDYpmj4gK-ezsALp9ar21NICsiRq67OmKvcHbDQ9Btu12MAP77i-eA7uAKiva_xMZ6OAac0joAlnSpMPcIyNkVJ2TL7JPZZN6OMkpNK8-LOvQ_sZRgY_u2ux0VQoOwxc6_8G3nnRFoFVUV5khk/s1600/01%20Quill%20Hand.png){kind=link}
No comments