Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Tagged under: , ,

Perverting the Course of Justice

Christy Walsh who is currently hunger striking in pursuit of justice has written to the North's First Minister, Peter Robinson, and his deputy, Martin McGuinness. A former prisoner, Christy Walsh blogs at The Fundamental Flaws in the Arrest, Trial & Appeals of Christy Walsh and can be contacted at walsh_christy@yahoo.co.uk.

Messrs’ Robinson & McGuinness

OFMDFM Ministers

GD36 Stormont Castle
Stormont Estate
Belfast
BT4 3TT

23rd March 2015

 
Dear Messrs’ Robinson & McGuinness

 
Today marks my 8th day on hunger strike.

 
Mr Robinson, local media networks have reported your position on crime to be as follows:


"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]" 

 
However, the common law does not afford privileged barristers to pervert the course of justice any more than it would police officers, because: “Unless it is specified in law a lawyer is no more exempt for perverting the course of justice as the average citizen.[3]  The only body with statutory power to investigate criminal conduct within the Prosecution Service is the CJI, which: “By law, CJI is not allowed to investigate individual cases but it can, when asked by the Minister for Justice, undertake specific pieces of work including investigations and reviews.”[4](Here)  The CJI has confirmed to me (Here) that the Minister is fully aware of his statutory powers of referral and provided a list of some cases they had previously investigated at the Minister’s requests.  This is irrefutable evidence that the Minister is knowingly and intentionally covering-up unlawful prosecutorial misconduct by refusing to make the proper referral; and he does so at the expense of the “victim of the unlawful conduct”.

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.

0 comments :