Messrs’
Robinson & McGuinness
OFMDFM
Ministers
GD36 Stormont Castle
Stormont Estate
Belfast
BT4 3TT
Stormont Estate
Belfast
BT4 3TT
23rd March 2015
Today marks
my 8th day on hunger strike.
"We take the position that if people have committed crimes then they’re answerable, no matter what their position, and if there’s evidence and it’s brought forward then it’s up to due process to determine."[1]
Why then, Mr Robinson, with due respect to you, would you believe that the
Deputy First Minister, Mr McGuinness, might be subject to scrutiny of the law
but Mr Ford or the Crown Prosecutor, Mr McCrudden, are not, despite the compelling
prima facie evidence against them? Do you believe the unethical conduct of both the
Justice Minister and Prosecutor to be above the law as if immune from
culpability because of their privileged positions? If that is true then why do you draw a distinction
with Mr McGuinness who, it stands to reason, is privileged with even higher public
position?
David Ford is aware that one of the RUC’s most senior intelligence
figures throughout the whole Conflict could have testified to my innocence at
my trial had the Prosecutor not withheld crucial evidence. In 2009, I gained rare access to Northern Ireland
Forensic Science Laboratories to examine their files for myself. While I was at NIFSL I discovered that a
report signed by Detective Superintendent John Derek Martindale details how
another man had originally been caught in possession of the coffee-jar for
which I was convicted.
David Ford is also aware that when the former Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian
Kerr, requested that the Prosecutor bring one of his military witnesses before
the court to explain why he had retracted his Trial Testimony under PACE
caution, the Prosecutor soon afterwards informed the court that his witness
could no longer be traced. Police Detective
Gary McMurran, who was present in court, told me that the Prosecutor was lying
to the court and he knew this because he had been the person tasked to locate
the Soldier. The Detective confirmed to
me that he had successfully located the witness contrary to what the Prosecutor
had just told the Court. I asked the Detective
if he would confirm to my lawyers what he had told me. The Detective agreed to do so and later
provided my lawyers with a two page written account of the steps he had taken to
locate the military witness. The
Detective’s written account concludes that the military witness’s reason for refusing
to appear before the Court was because he wanted “the past to stay in the past”.
The
reliance by the Justice Minister on the proven discredited word, changed
statements, coached evidence, and retracted trial testimony of members of the
Parachute Regiment against my 24 year consistent and unshakable account says
more about the Minister’s religious or political prejudices than all the
fabricated evidence he claims he has against me. Furthermore, refusal of the Justice Minister
to refer prosecutorial misconduct to the Criminal Justice Inspectorate sends a
clear message to barristers, that, their perverting the course of justice is acceptable
because they hold privileged position. Barristers
do not view corrupt Police Officers as they would view themselves, as this
media report tends to indicate:
“Karen Quinlivan QC said (Here):
"The entire conspiracy was designed to ensure police were immune from prosecution." … “It's
difficult to imagine a more fundamental abuse of process of the court, to allow
police to manipulate proceedings in order to ensure police officers are
protected from criminal sanctions, and to use the same investigation in order
to secure the conviction of the victim of the unlawful conduct.[2]"
Furthermore, we have seen with regard to Loyalists or Republicans, the
Police, sparing no resource, will swim the length and breadth of the Atlantic
Ocean on the whiff of a rumour or speculation that an audio tape might contain
a nugget of evidence. Yet, evidently,
when clobbered over the head with real, relevant and available indelible
evidence they will do nothing because of the privileged position of the
perpetrators’. As a victim of serious
crime I have a right for my complaints to be investigated regardless of the political
or professional positions of the perpetrators.
I had engaged lawyers to present an array of evidence in open Court,
but, at the last minute they ambushed me for reasons only known to them and
instead undermined my case on 31st May 2012. During the hearing, Ms Karen Quinlivan, QC,
did an extraordinary thing, acting contrary to the best interests of her own
client she asked the Court to refrain from considering my case and instead
afford the Justice Minister the honours of doing it…again. Did my lawyers fail me because they were in “connivance” with the Minister or
because their lives had been threatened by the Minister as Kevin Winters claims? These are serious matters pertaining to the
administration of justice that need be addressed as a matter of urgency.
As a man of
law, the law has always been on my side even when its human element has not. While the 'law' means whatever those in political power want it to mean in places like Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia,
Burma, Syria, or many similar states, NI is supposed to be a democratic
society.
Yours Sincerely
Christy Walsh
PP:
Minister for Foreign Affairs
and Trade, Charlie Flanagan, TD.
Prime Minister, David Cameron,
MP.
[1] Martin McGuinness should talk to
Smithwick Tribunal: Peter Robinson, By Noel McAdam, Belfast
Telegraph, 27th April 2012. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/martin-mcguinness-should-talk-to-smithwick-tribunal-peter-robinson-28742659.html.
[2] Court rules weapons verdict 'unsafe', UTV, 30th
May 2014. http://www.u.tv/News/Court-rules-weapons-verdict-unsafe/0e459467-76d6-4a73-b493-a46173eedd54.
[3] Incorporated Law Institute of New
South Wales v R D Meagher (1909) 9 CLR 655 at 681.
[4] Our Remit, CJI Website: http://www.cjini.org/AboutUs/Our-Remit.aspx.
No comments