2015 No.

115714
AMENDED

WRIT OF SUMMONS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN
NORTHERN IRELAND

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

Between

JOHN CHRISTOPHER WALSH

Claimant

And

1st: MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

2nd: DR TONY MCGLEENAN, QC
3rd: MS KAREN QUINLIVAN, QC
4th: MR SEAN DEVINE, BL
5th: MR KEVIN R WINTERS, SOLICITOR
Defendants

30th JANUARY 2017

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other realms and territories Queen, Head of
the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith:

To Ms Allison Bell, Departmental Solicitors Office, Centre House, 79 Chichester

Street, Belfast, BT1 4JE.

To Mr Fearghal Shiels, Madden & Finucane Solicitors, 88 Castle Street, Belfast, BT1
1HE.

To Mr Shane Moorehead, KRW Law, 3rd Floor, The Sturgen Building , 9-15 Queen
Street, in the City of Belfast BT1 6EA.

We command you that within 14 days after the service of this writ on you, inclusive
of the day of service, you do cause an appearance to be entered for you in an action
at the suit of John Christopher Walsh; and take notice that in default of your so
doing the Claimant may proceed therein, and judgment may be given in your
absence.

Witness Sir Declan Morgan, Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland the day of 2017
1
Note:-This writ may not be served later than 12 calendar months beginning
with the above date unless renewed by order of the Court.

DIRECTIONS FOR ENTERING APPEARANCE The defendant may enter an

appearance in person or by a solicitor either (1) by handing in the appropriate forms,
duly completed, at the Central Office or Chancery Office [as appropriate], Royal
Courts of Justice, Chichester Street, Belfast BT1 3JF, or (2) by sending them to that
Office by post. The appropriate forms may be purchased from HM Stationery Office.

Endorsements to be made on writ before issue Indorsement of claim

The Claimant’s claim is for a Judgment in error by Mr Justice Weatherup on

18th June 2012 to be declared a nullity, appropriate sanctions against the
defendants, restoration of Article 6 Convention rights, aggravated damages and
costs.

Against the 1st Defendant, the Minister for Justice has knowingly and/or
negligently;

1. used deceit and misrepresentation to mislead the Court with demonstrably

false and unreliable evidence and matters res judicata resulting in a judgment
in error and denial of the Claimant’s access to justice on, and, subsequent to
the 30th May 2012 Hearing;
2. acted unlawfully by refusing to exercise statutory powers of referral to the
Criminal Justice Inspectorate (CJI) under section 46 Justice (Northern Ireland)
Act 2002 which would have assisted the Minister’s decision-making
consistent with section 133(4)(b), of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which
requires that “(b) the conduct of the investigation and prosecution of the offence;” is
part of the matrix to be considered;
3. used demonstrably irrational and perverse decision-making, outside of
ministerial jurisdiction, to maintain the Claimant’s unjust punishment;
4. acted irregularly by giving manifestly disproportionate, unreasonable and
unbalanced weight to demonstrably false, unreliable and discredited evidence
while ignoring evidence of the Claimant’s demonstrable innocence;
5. defied Weatherup J’s directions that the Minister “look at all the facts as they
now stand revealed … The Court of Appeal is determining the safety of the
conviction. The Minister is determining whether the applicant could possibly have
been convicted on the evidence now revealed.” [2012] NIQB 55 at [24-26].
6. defied Weatherup J’s directions to have regard to the Claimant’s Article 6
Convention rights where “outside pressures” diminished the Minister’s ability
to make unbiased decisions -as per Gürkan v Turkey (App. No 10987/10) see
para. [13], referred to by Weatherup J in [2012] NIQB 82 at para. [13];
7. acted with oppression and actual bias against the Claimant;
8. possibly inhibited, by fear or intimidation, the 5th Defendant’s ability to
properly represent the Claimant;

2
 9. participated in an administrative practice as per the Government’s own
successful definition of an administrative practice in Donnelly & Others v UK
[1974] App Nos. 5577-5583/72 at pages 39-40;
10. inflicted continued unjust punishment of the Claimant violating the
Claimant’s reputation and dignity as a human being;
11. caused excessively prolonged economic and personal hardships resulting
from aggravation of a recognised and medically diagnosed psychiatric
condition caused by the Minister’s actions;
12. aggravated the recognised medically diagnosed psychiatric condition causing
severe distress, anxiety and pain, thus causing further economic and personal
hardships;
13. breached the Claimant’s Article 6 and Article 3 Convention rights;
14. failed to take positive measures where the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants were
publically funded but manifestly failed to act in the best interest of the
Claimant or had rendered legal representation ineffective contrary to Article
6(3)(c) of the ECHR , as per Kamasinski v Austria A 168 (1986) 13 EHRR 36
para [65], see also (Rutvowski v Poland No. 44995 Hudoc (2000) para [3].

Against the 2nd Defendant, Dr Tony McGleenan, QC, that he has knowingly
and/or negligently;

1. failed to observe his over-riding duty to the court to ensure the proper
administration of justice –as per code 4.1 of the Code of Conduct for the Bar of
Northern Ireland;
2. improperly accepted instructions from the Minister, PPS and PSNI (contrary
to code 4.9 of the Code of Conduct for the Bar of Northern Ireland) which
created a conflict of interest undermining the Minister’s independence as a
decision-maker as is required by section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
and Article 6 of the Convention –as per codes 13.5 and 13.7 of the Code of
Conduct for the Bar of Northern Ireland;
3. made himself party to the proceedings by putting forward demonstrably false
and unreliable evidence, and matters res judicata on behalf of all 3 of his
clients. –as per Code 4.9 of the Code of Conduct for the Bar of Northern
Ireland and Myers v Elman [1940] at page 12;
4. used deceit and misrepresentation to obtain a judgment in error on 18th June
2012 and continued denials of access to justice subsequent to that judgment –
as per codes 4.9 and 9.2 of the Code of Conduct for the Bar of Northern
Ireland and see code 4.4 (False or misleading information) of the Charter of
Core Principles of the European Legal Profession and Code of Conduct for
European Lawyers as appended to the Bar Council’s rules and codes at page
120;
5. defied Weatherup J’s directions by failing to heed or advise the Minister that
he ought “to look at all the facts as they now stand revealed”.
6. defied Weatherup J’s directions with regard to Article 6 of the Claimant’s
Convention rights and the 2nd Defendant’s own influence, or interference, on
the Minister’s independence and ability to make unbiased decisions -as per
Gürkan v Turkey (App. No 10987/10) see para. [13], referred to by Weatherup
J in [2012] NIQB 82 at para. [13];
3
 7. contributed to or assisted in the infliction of continued unjust punishment
violating the Claimant’s reputation and dignity as a human being;
8. contributed to or assisted in the excessively prolonged economic and personal
hardships resulting from aggravation of a recognised and medically
diagnosed psychiatric condition caused by the Minister’s actions;
9. contributed to or assisted in aggravating the recognised medically diagnosed
psychiatric condition causing severe distress, anxiety and pain, thus causing
further economic and personal hardships;
10. contributed to or assisted in the Minister’s continued breaches of the
Claimant’s Article 6 and Article 3 Convention rights.

Against the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants who have knowingly and/or negligently;

1. used deceit and misrepresentation preventing or denying the Claimant access

to justice contrary to Bristol & West Building Society v Matthew (1998)
Chancery 1 at 18; wherein, a fiduciary must not act “without the informed
consent of his principal”;
2. if the 3rd and 4th Defendants do not owe the Claimant the same fiduciary duty
then they are liable for breach of trust in dishonest assistance of the 5th
Defendant;
3. acted without the Claimant’s informed consent and dropped ALL grounds for
judicial review as listed in the Amended Notice of Motion and Amended
Order 53 Statement (where leave had been granted) -re: regulation 10 of the
Solicitors Practice Regulations 1987; Article 40A(4) of the Solicitors (Northern
Ireland) Order 1976; and, Rule 62, order 11(1) of the Rules of the Court of
Judicature (NI) 1980; the Claimant’s Article 6(3)(c) Convention rights were
violated;
4. failed to seek leave of the court to raise , at future proceedings the grounds
listed in the Amended Notice of Motion and the Amended Order 53
Statement for which leave for judicial review had already been granted, hence
the Claimant’s Article 6(3)(c) Convention rights were violated;
5. acquiesced to the use of demonstrably false and unreliable evidence and
matters res judicata such that the Claimant’s Article 6(3)(c) Convention rights
were violated;
6. refused to defend the Claimant’s credibility and good character thus violating
the Claimant’s Article 6(3)(c) Convention rights;
7. abused the provisions of legal aid –as per codes 17.1 to 17.3 of the Code of
Conduct for the Bar of Northern Ireland;
8. contributed to or assisted in the infliction of continued unjust punishment
violating the Claimant’s reputation and dignity as a human being;
9. contributed to or assisted in the excessively prolonged economic and personal
hardships resulting from aggravation of a recognised and medically
diagnosed psychiatric condition caused by the Minister’s actions;
10. contributed to or assisted in aggravating the recognised medically diagnosed
psychiatric condition causing severe distress, anxiety and pain, thus causing
further economic and personal hardships;
11. contributed to or assisted in the Minister’s continued breaches of the
Claimant’s Article 6 and Article 3 Convention rights.
4
Against the 3rd Defendant who has:

1. falsely claimed that Weatherup J, without hearing any evidence, had already
ruled out the inclusion of Category 1 evidence;
2. misrepresented Weatherup J’s, 15th November 2011, directions that section
133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 be added to the other grounds for judicial
review.

Against the 5th Defendant who has:

1. alleged that his freedom to act on the Claimant’s behalf has been subject to
improper State interference by way of acts, or attempts, of intimidation,
entrapment and threats to his personal security;
2. reported the alleged acts of intimidation and threats to the Claimant, the Irish
Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin, and possibly the United Nations,
safely in the knowledge that none of these avenues have the power, or
jurisdiction, to investigate his claims if they are false;
3. specifically alleged that the former Justice Minister was attempting to
intimidate him and undermine client confidence in him;
4. denied costs had been awarded in the Claimant’s favour on 14th September
2012 and made demonstrably false and scandalous claims that Mr Justice
Weatherup was only attempting to entrap him and have him struck-off if he
advanced any of the costs to the Claimant;
5. unlawfully withheld the Claimant’s property;
6. acted contrary to regulation 12 of the Solicitors Practice Regulations 1987 with
regard to his (a) integrity; and (b) his duty to act in the best interests of his
client; and (c) the good repute of his profession; and (d) his proper standard
of work.

[If the Claimant sues, or the defendant is sued, in a representative capacity, this must
be stated in the indorsement of claim?]

This writ was issued by the said Claimant who resides at c/o Mariano, Curraheen
Road, Bishopstown, Cork and is student and whose address for service is c/o
Mariano, Curraheen Road, Bishopstown, Cork.

John Christopher Walsh

30th January 2017