After ten years of hostile silence the NIHRC has finally put on record that it does not support or acknowledge my case because there are "no human rights elements involved". Specifically referring to my right to a fair trial the Commission has defended the Diplock Courts as follows,


“...Carswell made no statement indicating that "exceptions apply to the fair trial guarantee in Northern Ireland". He said nothing that, as a lawyer, you could interpret in that way; no exceptions apply. ... Thus, Carswell was not saying that there are exceptions to the right to a fair trial; he was certainly not saying that Mr Walsh was an exception. In Carswell's opinion, Christy Walsh was given the fair trial to which he had a right.” (NIHRC, 27 January 2011)


divider


For quick reference, Lord Carswell stated;

“ ... if a defendant has been denied a fair trial it will almost be inevitable that the conviction will be regarded unsafe, the present case in our view constitutes an exception to the general rule. ... the conviction is to be regarded as safe, even if a breach of Article 6(1) were held to have occurred in the present case.” R v Walsh (2002) NICA 1


divider



Commissiongate

And The Undermining Of The Good Friday Agreement

10th December 2009

Download Document

 

 

    “It is always likely however that even when things do go well that ultimately Christy will remain very angry at the Commission and may well be vocal. Damage limitations might be what we're facing here...”

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, 26th September 2008

 

Was the intention of establishing the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) a fraud for votes for the Good Friday Agreement?

Introduction:

The NIHRC operates and discriminates in ways that were not intended by the parties involved in the NI Peace Process. For cases originating from the Northern Ireland conflict the NIHRC has a negative impact in regard to human rights violations.

The arguments that will be made here are supported by various forms of documentation particularly where Commissioners have been prepared to disregard, if not a readiness, to violate human rights rather than defend them. The evidence provided will reveal that the NIHRC has not only been prepared to turn a blind eye to violations of human rights, but also, is redolent of the same injustices that were prevalent during the Troubles. It is alarming that Commissioners believe that some people in Northern Ireland do not have the same Convention Rights as others.

The NIHRC is not only prepared to endorse violations of human rights against selected individuals, but it has in fact violated human rights in its own capacity. In that regard the NIHRC, and its practices, should be investigated as a matter of necessity.

By its own admittance the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission claims that recommendations to Government on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland have been its greatest achievement in its ten years of existence. It could take another ten, or twenty, years before these recommendations could be implemented, if ever they are. The NIHRC compiled these recommendations at the expense of human rights violations in NI, past and present in the interests of human right protections at some unknown future date.

In compiling the recommendations for a Bill of Rights the NIHRC generated much PR and hype in attempt to appear relevant, while in reality, it shut its eyes to the details, the problems, and the implications of human rights violations originating from the Northern Ireland Troubles and which still impact upon lives today. While South Africa got a Truth Commission, Northern Ireland got a Human Rights Commission that has failed, or refused, to address a single breach of human rights arising from the conflict. A Human Rights Commission which fails to protect and deliver equality and justice for all the citizens of Northern Ireland holds no reliable value for anyone and is in breach of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

The Origins of the NIHRC:

After many years of conflict, thousands of lost lives and many more irreparably scarred, Diplock Courts and supergrass trials, unaccountability and abuse, people wanted a Human Rights Commission not to dish out more hurdles to justice and more technicalities but so that they might be able to defend themselves and their families against such excesses. To date the NIHRC has not meaningfully or effectively supported, defended or acknowledged a single case originating from the Troubles.

Although a general doctrine for transitional justice in post conflict regions has yet to be agreed, and, in Northern Ireland the debate on the suitability of a Truth, or Legacy, Commission continues; what this document will confirm is that the NIHRC is an example of how not to do it. Despite people’s desires and aspirations in voting for the GFA the NIHRC has turned a reality into rhetoric.

An Affront to Fair Trial Principles:

On the 11 January 2002 former Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell (now Lord) handed down a verdict that dissolved the right to a fair trial in Northern Ireland. Disregarding a House of Lords ruling on the integral relationship between the safety of a conviction and fundamental fair trial principles, the 2002 NI Appeal Court set a precedent removing the guarantee to the right of a fair trial, as follows;

  • …if a defendant has been denied a fair trial it will almost be inevitable that the conviction will be regarded as unsafe, the present case in our view constitutes an exception to the general rule.
  • ...
  • the conviction is to be regarded as safe, even if a breach of Article 6(1) were held to occurred in the present case.

Under the Diplock Legal System any detriment suffered by a defendant caused by the removal of jury trial was in some way said to be circumvented by an automatic right of appeal and written judgment. In 2002 the Court of Appeal gave no explanation why an exception should be made in this case distinct from any other? The above Judgment implies that due process of common law, fair trial principles, and the criminal standard of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is purely discretionary. If a Court need merely determine that any conviction “is to be regarded as safe,” then a much lower threshold has been set to secure a conviction in Northern Ireland. The last Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian Kerr, saw the dangers with this verdict and put transitional justice into action by overturning the earlier judgment and re-opened my appeal.

Silent Hostility from the NIHRC:

Nowhere in modern civilization is it found acceptable that an exception can be made excluding some people from reliance on both international and common law fair trial principles. However, the NIHRC has not only endorsed the abuse of my human rights but has participated as a silent witness which itself has resulted in detrimental consequences.

For many years I have asked the NIHRC for an explanation why it has refused to acknowledge, support or defend my Convention right to a fair trial. The NIHRC has been steadfast in its refusal to give me an answer.

In more recent years I have repeatedly appealed to the NIHRC to give some regard to my human dignity by at least providing me with the reason why it believes that I have not got the same Convention rights as the rest of the population of Northern Ireland. The NIHRC has been steadfast in its refusal to give me an answer.

Eliminating Doubt:

To ensure I was not misreading the NIHRC’s hostile silence toward the human rights violations involved in my case, on 18th July 2009, I delivered letters addressed to each individual Commissioner, the start of which read as follows;

    Please note that your failure to respond to this letter will be considered as an acknowledgment that I have made no mistake about you. After 14 days any published or broadcast material identifying you as supporting the denial to my Convention right to a fair trial will not be liable for defamation proceedings.

On the 27th September 2009, after a generous extension of time, I wrote one last letter to each of the Commissioners;

     As you have taken no reasonable measure to correct any misconception that I may have had about you, you have thus removed all and any doubts that I may have had about you and your role in supporting the abuse to my human rights.

In my letters dated 18th July I informed the Commissioners that, to highlight their abusive treatment of me, I intended to take some kind of action coinciding with the 10th December 2009 (Human Rights Day). I wrote the following, “I inform you of this well in advance to give the NIHRC the opportunity to properly address my grievances.” I thought this would allow the NIHRC time to address the violations of my human rights if it were inclined to do so.

The Persuasion of Prestige:

After a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly forwarded a letter to the Chief Commissioner on my behalf, his prestige, and not the merits of my case got a begrudging acknowledgement that, “he cannot be in any real doubt that the Commission acknowledges his Article 6 right to a fair trial.” The MLA was kind enough to forward this letter to me where the NIHRC had not got the courtesy to address a copy to me.

The overall content of the Chief Commissioner’s letter made repeated false claims in deliberate attempt to discredit me and which may explain their motives for not sending me a copy. The Chief Commissioner wrote several letters to this same MLA and in each of them they informed him that a copy was also being forwarded to me, on no occasion were any of these letters forwarded to me. Only for the fact that this MLA was kind enough to forward them to me, I would have otherwise been blind to the false claims made in them. This raises the possibility that letters of similar false content have been sent to others without my knowledge.

Revelations under the Data Protection Act:

Continuing to ensure that I am not making any mistake about the nature of the NIHRC I requested copies of all data in relation to my case covering letters, emails, internal memos, and minutes of meetings. In the same letter addressed to the MLA the Chief Commissioner remarks that;

    The Commission has devoted a vast amount of staff time to his case, has observed relevant Court hearings and recently responded to a Data Protection Act request that required staff to collate, copy and disclose a file of over 420 documents running to over 1,290 pages.

The volume of data is a result of my industry rather than the NIHRC holding any interest in justice or human rights that may motivate it to investigate the violations involved in my case. I have been persistent with the NIHRC insisting that it make a determination one way or the other that, either, my case raises some cause for concern or it does not.

Since my first contact with the NIHRC in 2001, until 4th October 2006, 137 e-mails or letters concerning my case have been exchanged, the following internal memo reveals how seriously the NIHRC took my appeals for help or the denial of the right to a fair trial in NI;

  • Internal Memo: 4 October 2006
  • From: [Case Worker]
  • To: Monica McWilliams
  • “.... to my knowledge, we have never investigated the soundness of this conviction ourselves or made public that we have concerns, or what those concerns are.”

The Chief Commissioner’s assertion of “vast amount of staff time” spent on my case goes to the core of its functions and legitimacy. For almost ten years the NIHRC humoured me in a futile exchange of correspondence while they refused to address the seriousness that the facts supported. The NIHRC could, and should, have at least tested the legitimacy of my case but to date it continues to refuse. It is accurate to say that the NIHRC, as a silent witness, is a participant in the violations to my human rights. How many other people have been treated in this same way by the NIHRC?

The NIHRC has taken advantage of my naivety in seeking help from it and its conduct is inexcusable. The NI Assembly must also take into regard the waste of public funds if the NIHRC was not intended to take seriously, and treat with respect, anyone who approaches it believing their human rights may have been violated. By the Chief Commissioner’s own admission “vast amount of staff time” have been expended on my case, but, doing what?

In response to the Chief Commissioner’s dismissive tone that, “he cannot be in any real doubt that the Commission acknowledges his Article 6 right to a fair trial” I have asked that the NIHRC produce one piece of supporting evidence that would indicate that my doubts were ill-founded, but apparently there are none. Despite the Chief Commissioner’s begrudging acknowledgment, the NIHRC has not reconsidered its hostile silence toward me and it is safe to assume that the remark was intended as more self serving.

Northern Ireland Act 1998:

Unlike nongovernmental Human Rights Organisations, which are free to determine the type of cases they prefer, the NIHRC is legally obliged to treat seriously any case where reasonable grounds that human rights abuse exist. Where such reasonable grounds exist then the NIHRC has been legislated to act as per the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and specifically under section 70(2) which reads as follows;

  • 70 Assistance by Commission
  • .....
  • (2) ..., the Commission may grant the application on any of the following grounds—
  • (a) that the case raises a question of principle;
  • (b) ..., that it would be unreasonable to expect the person to deal with the case without assistance because of its complexity, ...
  • (c) that there are other special circumstances which make it appropriate for the Commission to provide assistance.

The NIHRC avoids its legal obligation by refusing to give due regard and effect to any part of Section 70(2) in cases which, presumably, might be politically sensitive and arise from the conflict. With particular attention to my case the NIHRC has “ never investigated the soundness of this conviction ourselves or made public that we have concerns” despite repeated requests that it do so since 2001. Considering my dogged persistence at continuing to challenge the NIHRC’s conduct and motives in refusing to ‘investigate the soundness of my conviction’ one can only conclude that the reason is a political one decided by the Commissioners themselves or it has been a condition on taking office.

Time Wasting:

At the beginning of 2002 the NIHRC refused to provide me with an application form because I had temporarily crossed the border into the south and thereby forfeited any right to the NIHRC’s assistance. The NIHRC informed me, “This is not to say that the Commission has no interest in human rights outside of this jurisdiction, indeed we undertake a number of international projects.” After intervention by Jane Winter the NIHRC finally sent me an application form 6 months later, and with greater speed, turned it down when I returned it. NIO Minister with responsibility for the NIHRC, Shaun Woodward, MP instructed the NIHRC that my crossing the border did not sever my ‘substantial link’ with my city of birth. This also raises the NIHRC’s respect for both traditions on this island in regard to the south being a foreign country.

NIHRC Violations of Human Rights:

The NIHRC then frustrated my application when the then Chief Commissioner, Brice Dickson, insisted that I forfeit my Article 10 rights under the Convention, or else, no assistance would be given. After a series of disingenuous and evasive ramblings about the necessity for me to forfeit my Convention right I put it to the Law Professor that, “I cannot agree to the Commission’s terms until I have been given a legal justification for them.” The Law Professor never gave me any because none exist. However, that did not deter him from continuing to insist that no assistance would be given unless I was prepared to forfeit my Article 10 rights.

Resentment for my refusing to allow the NIHRC to coerce me into signing away my human rights, by the very organisation supposedly intended to defend them, has never been far from the surface; Only recently the current Chief Commissioner has written of this in less than understanding terms, “Mr Walsh then declined the funding as he took exception to our then standard terms of offer.” One wonders why she does not continue to demand them as ‘standard’ given that I, apparently, was the only person to have taken an ‘exception’ to them. I find it astonishing that the current Chief Commissioner appears to regard unconscionable terms and conditions as having no consequence to warrant my ‘exception’ to them.

The following refers to data taken from 10th December 2002 until 9th December 2003. During that 12 month period approximately 500 people approached the NIHRC, of these; only 12 were approved for assistance. Of the 12, five were not required to sign the NIHRC’s ‘terms of offer’ but the remaining seven were. Of the seven required to forfeit their Article 10 rights only three were prepared to do so. The NIHRC has directly breached the Article 10 rights of at least three applicants and possibly indirectly violated the rights of at least four others by withholding assistance from them for refusing to co-operate in the forfeiture of their Article 10 rights. This is a complete abuse of process and authority, were human rights, according to Dickson’s Diplock Standards, are no rights at all. Although this is only the data covering a one year period it is sufficient to demonstrate that further investigation of the NIHRC’s practices are necessary.

I should point out that my case was one of the 12 above and only because of the intervention of Shaun Woodward, MP who instructed the NIHRC that my case held merit.

Some People Are Not Entitled To A Fair Trial In The Eyes Of Commissioners:

On Saturday 17th May, 2008, I attended a human rights seminar at Queens University. During this seminar a person identified his/her self as a Commissioner with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission before launching an attack on an elected MLA of the NI Assembly, wherein, this Commissioner alleged that the MLA in question had spent one and half days ‘personally’ torturing a man before finally murdering him. Fellow Commissioner, and Professor of Human Rights Law, Colin Harvey was chairing this seminar and at no time did he attempt to interrupt his colleague or suggest that the ‘views’ being expressed were out of order. In addition, the Chief Commissioner, Monica McWilliams, was also present and likewise made no attempt to interrupt or to clarify that the “views” being expressed were not those held by the NIHRC.

The Commissioner in question informed the seminar that the source of the information was the wife of the murdered man. No regard was given that this woman may have been both distraught and emotional about her husband’s death. It did not seem to matter that this woman was not witness to her husband’s murder as the whole purpose of the allegation was to discredit the named elected MLA.

I telephoned Monica McWilliams a few days later to tell her I felt disturbed by the allegations and how Commissioners did not seem to understand the concept of having the right to a fair trial which is a difficulty I have had with the NIHRC for many years. Mrs McWilliams hung up on me.

In an email I sent to Monica McWilliams on 22nd September 2008, reminding her of this Commissioner’s allegations, I pointed out to her that human rights Commissioner’s show no understanding of fair trial principles as guaranteed under Article 6 ECHR. I also pointed out that, “It is apparent that some of us, for whatever reason, are not entitled to the right of a fair trial and the Commission in my case has endorsed the Diplock Courts unjust treatment of me.” Mrs McWilliams did not dispute this (email dated 25th September) but responded as follows;

    “I was also concerned about some of the remarks at the seminar but this seminar was also addressed by both Colin Harvey and myself and both of us are very much concerned about ensuring that we deal with the wrongs of the past and in particular, state abuses of human rights – so the woman who spoke was hardly representative of the whole Commission.”

  • Internal Email: 25 September 2008
  • From: Monica McWilliams
  • To: [Case Worker]
  • CC: [NIHRC Chief Executive]
  • “Well [Case Worker] it seems like we are back fire fighting. I raised his concerns at the legal committee and mentioned to (name of Commissioner in question) that her views had been picked up in this way. I sent an email to Christy to remind him that both Colin Harvey and I addressed this seminar which had focused on the state violations of human rights in relation to the past which was the official position of the NIHRC.” (Bracketed editing applied)
  • Internal Email: 26 September 2008
  • From: [Case Worker]
  • To: Monica McWilliams
  • "It is always likely however that even when things do go well that ultimately Christy will remain very angry at the Commission and may well be vocal. Damage limitations might be what we're facing here regardless, but it is probably useful for me to try to attend when the case is listed and test the water."

Sinister Manipulation:

Since 2007 the NIHRC has attended a number of Court hearings connected to my case. I had genuinely thought the NIHRC had come around to appreciating the merits of my case but I was being manipulated. The NIHRC continued to refuse to change its position of hostile silence toward me and as such I could not understand their presence. However, the true reason for the NIHRC attending the Court I have now discovered appear to have more sinister motives due to my discontent rather than regard to any violations to my human rights;

    Damage limitations might be what we're facing here regardless, but it is probably useful for me to try to attend when the case is listed and test the water.

In another revealing internal email between the Chief Commissioner and her Chief Executive dated 3rd June 2009 they are suggesting my case be discussed at the Legal Committee, unfortunately not with a view of looking at the violations of my human rights, but instead to discuss ways to counteract any valid complaints that I might make which are referred to by the Chief Executive as “specific threats” to the NIHRC.

Consequences of NIHRC Abuses:

After my Appeal failed in 2002 I had been without any legal representation and could not find any lawyers to take my case on. I had asked the NIHRC to look at the facts of my case in the hope that it would find some cause for concern. Had it done so that could have gone some way to validate me and may have assisted me in finding a lawyer to represent me. Giving up on finding a lawyer in 2005 I approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) without legal representation. Aware of my vulnerability I also appealed to the NIHRC to communicate to the CCRC that there was cause for concern in the hope that my case would not be so easily dismissed due any evaluation made by the NIHRC. Had the NIHRC investigated my case in the first years when I approached them for help my case could have been resolved long before now. In participating as a silent witness the NIHRC has contributed to the length of time it is taking in having my case resolved.

In 2006 the CCRC finally closed its file on my case. Monica McWilliams has recently made a number of references to the CCRC’s decision of closing my file as if suggesting that if it had not then the NIHRC would have expressed concern for my case. There has never been anything preventing her or the NIHRC from expressing concern for my case then or now. The following email from me to the NIHRC sums up all that I have really asked of the NIHRC for almost 10 years;

  • Sent: 20 December 2006 21:35
  • To: [NIHRC Head of Legal Services]
  • Cc: [Chief Commissioner’s Secretary]
  • Victims of judicial abuse not only have their lives destroyed but in the process they in some ways are no longer legitimate persons --one word of concern from the Commission could have great influence upon the public/officials in validating their reasons for complaint. How difficult and unreasonable a request has that been for five years, in real terms that was mostly all that I had ever asked of the Commission??

Repeating as it had done with my CCRC Application in 2005:

Without access to any legal advice the NIHRC would not provide me with support, assistance or advice prior to representing myself before the Appeal Court in front of the Lord Chief Justice and two other senior judges who, in a decision that was reported in the media as having "made legal history", overturned the 2002 appeal judgment. Despite the Court’s apparent concern regarding the safety of my conviction and reason for reopening my case this was still insufficient to cause a re-think on the NIHRC's part on how it viewed my conviction.

As was done with my application to the CCRC in 2005 the NIHRC again attempted to excuse its refusal to support my case by falsely claiming that a Court date, set for January 2007, allowed insufficient time for the NIHRC to make a decision on whether or not my case was valid. The NIHRC protested that I had only informed it in December 2006 that I was trying to get my case back into Court and so had only myself to blame. That was not true as the following extract of an internal email, dated 4th October 2006, proves;

    Mr Walsh is now asking us to make representations to the Court to say we have concerns about his conviction.”

At no time did the NIHRC offer me advice, suggest a lawyer I could have approached or in any way attempt to be helpful in accordance with Section 70(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which reads as follows; “(b) ..., that it would be unreasonable to expect the person to deal with the case without assistance because of its complexity, ...”

Standing Alone:

Despite having no legal representation the Court of Appeal re-opened my case on grounds of concern for safety of the conviction. The then Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian Kerr, stressed the importance of the case “for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland” and duly overturned the 2002 judgment. For a period afterwards the NIHRC led me to believe that it now felt some concern in the violation to my human rights but it would still not acknowledge, support, or defend my human rights. The sudden interest and attendances in Court gave me hope at first until I began to question the NIHRC’s continued refusal to express any concern for my case. When I realised that the NIHRC had not actually changed its position things again became strained between me and the NIHRC. The reason for the interest appears to have been no more that a ruse in order to spy on me and learn of any discontent I might have for all the years of the NIHRC’s silent hostility toward me, the following remarks reveal this;

    It is always likely however that even when things do go well that ultimately Christy will remain very angry at the Commission and may well be vocal. Damage limitations might be what we're facing here regardless, but it is probably useful for me to try to attend when the case is listed and test the water.

Deliberately Frustrating:

Above all I have only ever asked the NIHRC to investigate my case in the hope that it may find some cause for concern. It has consistently refused to do so and on occasion it has dismissed me claiming that I am not ‘specific’ enough. Over the years I have re-written in various word arrangements the same request and which always fail to satisfy the NIHRC’s exacting word formulae, I eventually gave up trying to guess, and asked the NIHRC to clarify its functions in hope that that might assist me in how to word an appeal for help. The NIHRC refused to do even that much for me, as follows;

    When you talk about it being hard to understand how the Commission functions, this might be one of the internal rules that could account for a seeming lack of transparency, but it is there for everyone's benefit.

In a letter dated 16th November 2009 the NIHRC contradicts its previous refusal to explain anything to me, in the following conflicting terms;

    In addition, anyone at any stage of the process who asks for clarification or guidance about the Commission’s criteria or procedures would be provided with that.

Both of these replies are mutually exclusive but one, or other, maybe used when thought to best suit the NIHRC’s purposes of the moment.

Dickson’s Diplock Standards:

Professor Brice Dickson, NIHRC’s former Chief Commissioner has defended the Diplock System in the following terms;

    It seems unlikely, for political reasons, that non-jury courts will be established, although in Northern Ireland these seem to have worked rather satisfactorily during the past 30 years (if the rate of alleged miscarriages of justice is any measure of satisfaction).

In light of the Law Professor’s opinion on the apparent adequacy of the Diplock System, and his personal treatment of my case, one cannot be surprised that the NIHRC have not found a single case originating from the Diplock Courts giving rise to any cause for concern.

Diplock Courts did not operate in isolation from pre-trial measures where emergency legislation provided for seven day periods of interrogation, the removal of the right to silence, ill-treatment and the reliance upon self incrimination as the only incriminating evidence against an accused, and were all employed to secure convictions in Diplock Courts. If one were to accept the Law Professor’s observations then it is reasonable to conclude that injustices and violations of human rights in Northern Ireland during the Troubles have perversely resulted in fewer miscarriage of justice cases here in comparison to Great Britain were the same restrictions on civil liberties did not exist.

Human rights according to Dickson’s Diplock Standards are no rights at all. The fact that the Law Professor found no cause for concern when the 2002 Appeal Court denied me the right to a fair trial as protected under both common law and the Convention suggests he is prepared to tolerate human rights violations (see sections 3 & 10 above). Certainly in 2003 the NIO Minister, Shaun Woodward, MP objected to the NIHRC grounds for rejecting my case. One cannot, therefore, help but question by what values and standards the Law Professor uses to measure violations of human rights?

Even after being informed that his insistence that I forfeit my Article 10 rights were unconscionable, the Law Professor, still continued to insist that I must forfeit them, or else, the NIHRC would not provide me with assistance. As detailed at section 10 above, during his term of office, the NIHRC directly violated the human rights of at least three applicants by having them agree to forfeit their Article 10 rights. Any attempts to bribe others with the offer of assistance if they were prepared to forfeit their Article 10 rights is probably an indirect violation of the same rights. This was attempted with at least 4 applicants. Although these facts only relate to a 12 month period they are sufficient to show that possible systematic abuse went on during Professor Dickson’s term of office.

The Preferential Few:

As one last observation regarding the same 12 month period above, the NIHRC spent £17,000 on travel and accommodation expenses for Commissioners, staff, and invited guests, this excludes the expenses of any lavish luncheons or other extravagant events organised by the NIHRC, which rarely would involve members of the public. It is disturbing that in its full ten years of existence the NIHRC has not given a single human rights abuse victim, so-much-as, the bus fare to attend Court, even where the victim can evidentially show that they have not got the resources to get to there, and, if travelling from outside Belfast they may have no place to sleep. This distinction in preferential treatment certainly highlights the NIHRC’s priorities.

Fresh Discovery:

In relation to my own conviction, it was discovered on 2nd February 2009 that another man had been arrested in connection to the same coffee jar device I was alleged to have been carrying. This man was arrested 15 minutes before I arrived at the scene establishing that the device was already at the scene before my arrival.

In addition, shortly after my arrest, and before allegations that I had had the jar in my coat pocket, an RUC officer (Adrian Smith, extension 25761) asked Dr Griffin to measure my coat pockets to see if the jar would fit in any? Dr Griffin confirmed that it would. The other man was discretely released and concealed from me for almost 18 years.

After learning of this indelible new evidence the NIHRC continues to refuse to find my case cause for concern.

Concluding Facts:

  • Internal Memo: 4 October 2006
  • From: [Case Worker]
  • To: Monica McWilliams
  • It could be assumed from the fact that we held a Watching Brief in his case in the past, that we do have concerns about his conviction, but to my knowledge, we have never investigated the soundness of this conviction ourselves or made public that we have concerns, or what those concerns are.

The NIHRC has participated in the violations to my human rights as an active silent witness. Despite fresh discovery in February 2009 the NIHRC has still refused to express that there is cause for concern. The combined participants of the Peace Process and Good Friday Agreement intended that the NIHRC was to be real and meaningful therefore the NIHRC need account for;

  • Why would the NIHRC not defend, support or acknowledge my Article 6 Convention right to a fair trial?
  • Why, for almost 10 years, does the NIHRC refuse to state that, either, there is cause for concern regarding my wrongful conviction, or, there is not?
  • Why will the NIHRC not give written reasons for silently endorsing the abuses to my rights?