In Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

R v John Christopher Walsh

Earliest possible date for new hearing will be September 2008

I was abducted at gun point on 5th June 1991 and held incommunicado for several days. Despite the overwhelming forensic evidence in my favour I was convicted upon the conflicting and contradictory evidence of two British Soldiers. One Soldier retracted his trial testimony in 1998 in a fresh statement to Sir Jeff Hunt, Chief Superintendent of the London Metropol Police. Having been notified that the Court of Appeal would like him to come before it and explain why he has retracted his trial testimony, this man has refused to comply. Perhaps he is free to do so but it should be at his peril and not mine. It is also worth noting that his original claim to have seen me in possession of the coffee jar was only made known some nine months after I had been charged with the alleged offense.

There have been major discoveries made in the forensic evidence tendered by the Crown that reveal it to have been completely false and without foundation. Although it is uncontested that my fingerprints were not on the glass jar’s surface new evidence now exists that someone else’s fingerprint may have been recovered
from the jar. Not least because, I have since discovered that the fingerprint expert who testified at my Trial was not the same man who had carried out the examination of the jar and that that man’s report has been destroyed to conceal the truth. It is now without question that the evidence given at Trial was completely false. 

Another astonishing discovery was that an alleged trace of explosive residue said to have been detected on my left hand never existed. There are no data records detailing forensic results or forensic samples allowing for independent verification. From June 2001 and January 2002 Lord Carswell, and Lord Justices Nicholson and Coughlin, undercover of a reserved judgment, conspired to pervert the course of justice. On the 12th January 2002 they knowingly and willfully upheld a conviction they believed to be unsafe.

•Having previously dismissed himself from my Appeal, because I accused him of attempting to railroad me,Lord Carswell should not have re-involved himself in my case.
•The Criminal Appeal Act 1995 empowered the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and I was legally entitled to rely upon the Act.
•The CCRC were not my Solicitors and the Court of Appeal would have been aware of that and thus legally obliged to consider a CCRC referral.
•In declaring the Trial Judge as ‘unjustified’ for his ‘main criticism’ of my case it was not proper for the Appeal Court to revive a dead conviction.
•The Appeal Court acted in bad faith when stating that ‘even if’ my trial was unfair that my ‘conviction would be regarded as safe’.
•The Appeal Court falsely alleged that a witness had attempted to shift the blame from me onto another person.
•The Appeal transcripts are documentary evidence that this was a concoction of the three judges