Legal points challenging section 75 of NI Act 1998

Section 75, Northern I reland Act 1998

This submission seeks to address some legal issues that it is felt have been raised by the inclusion of various pieces of legislation within funding policies. It must be stressed from the outset that this submission does not deal with many of the wider issues around funding policy; instead it focuses solely on the issue of section 75 legislation, and the legality of its inclusion within any public authority funding policy. This legislation is particularly relevant to bonfire groups as Councils and OFMDFM have consistently tried to make compliance with section 75 a funding grant condition.

Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 came into force on 01 January 2000 and is summarised in the following terms (source, OFMDFM);

Section 75 and Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 came into force on the 01 January 2000 and placed a statutory obligation on public authorities in carrying out their various functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity –

between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; 

between men and women generally; 

between persons with a disability and persons without; and 

between persons with dependants and persons without.

Even in the overview of this piece of legislation it makes clear that Section 75 placed a “statutory obligation on public authorities”. There is no reference to non-public bodies such as community groups, flute bands or other constituted groups. It refers solely to public bodies. In section 3 sub sections a-c those designated as public authorities are listed and sub section 3d provides the avenue for a body to be added to the list by virtue of an order made by the Secretary of State. For ease of reference I have included the legislative text below: 

3) In this section “public authority” means—

(a)any department, corporation or body listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments, corporations and bodies subject to investigation) and designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State;

(b)any body (other than the Equality Commission) listed in Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (bodies subject to investigation);

(c)any department or other authority listed in Schedule 2 to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (departments and other authorities subject to investigation);

(cc)the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland;]

(cd)the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;]

(ce)the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland;

(cf)the Northern Ireland Law Commission;]

(d)any other person designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State

The above extracts from the legislation make no reference to community groups being bound by section 75. 

One must remember that Section 75 was part of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and much of this was more akin to emergency legislation that was rushed through following the Belfast Agreement. Quite a lot of this legislation is riddled with ambiguity and is effectively bad law. It is ambiguous and without clearly defined parameters in a number of areas. It is only now that we are beginning to see the grey areas in various pieces of legislation- rushed through post 1998- coming under judicial scrutiny. Section 75 as of yet has not been the subject to judicial clarity in relation to the matter which I am addressing. 

The grey area of this legislation is that if the Council, OFMDFM or any public body for that matter are providing funding to a community group then does the Section 75 obligation stretch itself to placing an obligation upon the group in receipt of the funding or, as I contend, is any attempt to stretch section 75 to place an obligation on funding recipients an abuse of legislation? A number of funders and councils have attempted to place the section 75 duty upon funding recipients or community groups and I believe they have no grounds for doing so. 

As previously highlighted there is no judicial clarity on this matter, therefore I submit that any public body that attempts to place a duty upon funding recipients are materially misdirecting themselves and in a legal sense any policy that makes reference to section 75 as a condition of receiving funding is not worth the paper it is written on. 

The legal burden to establish judicial clarity on the legislation therefore rests upon the public authority rather than the non public authority such as a community group. The flip side of this is that if a public authority withholds funding on the basis of a community groups refusal to agree to a section 75 obligation then the logical process would be for the community group to take a judicial challenge against the legality of withholding funding. It would be somewhat foolish for a public authority to withhold on the basis of a refusal to accept a section 75 obligation without clear judicial clarity therefore it is somewhat unclear as to how the circumstances for a judicial challenge will arise. 

It is my contention that until there is judicial clarity, which I believe will re-affirm my submission that section 75 does not stretch to community groups, then no community group should be bound by this legislation and subsequently no funding should be withheld on the basis of a community groups refusal to accept the section 75 obligation. 

Section 75 is a dangerous piece of legislation for single identity community groups therefore it is imperative that it is nullified. The legislation does not, in any section or sub section, make reference to the stretching of section 75 to place an obligation on a group that is receiving funding from a public authority. In this regard the burden rests upon Parliament to legislate around this. I submit that even for the judiciary to interpret section 75 as placing an obligation on a non public authority would be akin to subverting the will of Parliament and therefore in itself unlawful. There is no reference or hint of a reference to non public authorities within the legislation therefore there are no grounds for interpreting section 75 as placing an obligation on those recipients of funding from public authorities. 

It is vital that all PUL community groups are aware of the dangers of ambiguous legislation being included within funding policies etc. and I urge all groups to go through all funding agreements or letters of offer line by line before agreeing to anything. Quite often these policies act as the thin edge of the wedge. 

Jamie Bryson


Political case against YCV a warning to us all

The ongoing case against the Young Conway Volunteers Flute Band stands as a stark example of the corrupt and pro Republican political cabal that runs through our systems of policing and justice. It also is a giant flashing warning light for the rest of the Protestant community, one which I feel has yet to be fully heeded. 

This case is just one example of how policing and justice has been used as a political tool in the ongoing cultural war against the Protestant community. I have heard little from any of our elected politicians in terms of speaking out in support of the band, perhaps some of them are wise enough to realise that these problems within our justice system stem from one place and that is the Hillsborough agreement, therefore perhaps they don’t want to highlight this fact and expose their own faults! 

The case against this band has been malicious and contrived from day one; the draconian and outrageous bail conditions placed upon the band members had a very clear and distinct agenda and that was to utterly destroy the YCV FB. It is the YCB FB this time, but it could be any band next. The political cabal waging the war of criminalisation against the Protestant community have time on their side and make no mistake about it, once they have finished persecuting the YCV band they will move onto their next target as they relentlessly pursue their ultimate aim- the total and complete destruction of every vestige of Ulster Protestant culture from this Country. It is another one of those Republican Trojan horses and this time the horse is actively supported by the PSNI and PPS. 

In the case against the YCV flute band one only had to look how JJ Magee, a Sinn Fein/IRA member, was brought into court by a PSNI officer and treated as the hero of the hour as a Crown witness for the Public Prosecution Service- whether it pained the PPS or JJ Magee more to hear the term ‘Crown witness’ used remains to be seen. 

I have raised very serious concerns about the impartiality and perceived bias within the PPS for a long time. One only has to look at the prosecutions mounted since the appointment of the former solicitor of choice for the IRA Army council, Mr Barra McGrory. One must also look at the type of questioning used by the PPS barristers, it is quite clear they have a deep rooted distain of the Protestant culture and they use every opportunity to try and demonise the Protestant culture and tradition. In my own personal case the PPS barrister played a video of a crowd singing ‘no Pope in Rome’ and proceeded to label this as ‘disgraceful behaviour’. Just who is this barrister to make a judgement call on that? Who is he to comment, whilst employed by the PPS, on an expression of anyone’s culture when there had been no breach of the law? 

The PSNI work hand in glove with the PPS in pursuing these fruitless and political prosecutions, which more often than not end up as nothing more than Protestant bashing persecutions! Of course the concerns about republican infiltration of the PSNI, that people such as me were mocked and derided for voicing, have proven to be well founded following the recent suspension of a Sergeant for passing information to the INLA. How many more PSNI officers is passing information to republicans or actively doing their bidding by criminalising expressions of Protestant culture? 

Sinn Fein has made considerable political capital out of claims of collusion between loyalists and the RUC yet they seem to be totally silent on the clear collusion between the PSNI and republicans. They also seem to be silent on the actions of the PPS, who quite often seem to mount very convenient prosecutions against not only Protestants but also against anyone within the republican community who speaks out against the Sinn Fein peace process strategy. 

The Belfast Agreement has allowed republicans to infiltrate every civic and public body as a result of the perverse notion of ‘positive discrimination’. They now have their blood stained hands on the levers of justice and there is a clear cabal which runs throughout the PSNI, PPS and bodies such as the totally discredited and unelected quango, the parades commission. 

Far too often the Judiciary have either willingly or unknowingly pandered to this political cabal by playing along with blatant and clear political prosecutions. The judicial system has failed to robustly challenge the PSNI and PPS, instead giving them a free ride to contrive all sorts of fanciful cases using dubious pieces of legislation. A lot of the cases have verged on nothing more than legalised internment! 

The case against the YCV band should open the eyes of every bandsman in the country. The court should have been rammed with hundreds of bandsmen supporting the YCV band, but sadly too many seem to care little as long as it doesn’t affect them or their band, but who knows which band will be targeted next. Who will the PSNI and PPS hound next with draconian bail conditions and malicious prosecutions designed to destroy the band? We have already seen the criminalisation war beginning to be waged against the Pride of Ardoyne for playing music in a 100% loyalist area. This is where we are at and unless people wake up and take a stand to resist this horrific oppression that is silently engulfing our people then before we know it we will be so oppressed that there will be no way back. We must resist now before it is too late. 

They came for Drumcree but I am not a Portadown Orangeman…

They came for Rasharkin but that is miles away…

They came for Coleraine but I don’t march in Coleraine…

They came for the Crumlin Road but I don’t march the Crumlin Road…

They came for Clifton Street but I don’t march Clifton Street…

They came for the YCV band but I am not in the YCV band…

They came for the POA but I am not in the POA….

They jailed a Protestant for playing a flute but I didn’t know him…

They jailed peaceful flag protestors for defending the Union flag but they weren’t my friends…

They changed the law to persecute outspoken Protestants but I haven’t been charged…

Eventually they will come for every band, every lodge and every Protestant. Resist now whilst there is still a chance of victory because it may come to the point when even resistance will be fruitless. 

Stay silent and watch the chains of oppression become tighter or resist and stand together to defend our freedom and liberty.

Loyalists- The last socially acceptable group to discriminate against! 

Loyalism bears the brunt of much criticism, abuse and downright vilification. This comes from sections of the media, elected politicians, online satire sites, bloggers and wider civic society.

During the flag protests the term ‘flegger’ became common terminology. It was a mocking of the speech of working class loyalists, yet it was gleefully adopted and became a running joke for the media, politicians and civic society. It became a ‘fun and fashionable’ term for the great and good to use, a term that allowed a label to be attached to a community that felt isolated, misunderstood and without a stake in the current political process. A label that allowed the blame for all of society’s problems and frustrations to be lumped onto one community.

Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment- what if a derogatory term arose that was used to mock the Chinese community? There have been many unacceptable terms used to describe Chinese persons, some which wrongly mocked their race and some their accent, yet these terms have rightly been viewed with distain by the great and good and if one was to publicly label the Chinese community using one of these terms then the public outcry would be enormous. The great and good and wider political and civic society would be the first out of the traps condemning it, and rightly so. Yet when loyalists are mocked because of their speech, their education or cultural expression, it is seen as fair game- all a bit of craic.

When online sites such as LAD spent over two years targeting the loyalist community with jibes, jokes and mocking- political and civic society largely joined in with this. The deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has often used the term fleg or flegger, as have vast numbers of journalists, bloggers and members of civic society. This has gone unchecked, it is seen as acceptable, but why? Would it be acceptable if the Chinese, Polish or Muslim community were mocked because of their speech or accent? Would it be acceptable for a website to set up an online campaign targeting the migrant community with jokes, mocking videos and cheap jibes? I would safely say that political and civic society would be up in arms, as would the media, so what is different when it is the loyalist community who is the target of the jokes and jibes?

Pastor James McConnell made some comments about Muslims and there was outrage, yet when Loyalists are mocked and derided the media and society either join in for the ‘craic’- or stay silent.

The imbalance is startling. Loyalism needs to challenge this unequal treatment and the attitude of wider society. Loyalism needs to challenge the accepted norm of labelling and abusing our community for a bit of ‘craic’. It isn’t a bit of craic when jokes are made about the migrant community or the disabled community, so why should society have a different tolerance level when it comes to loyalists?

Loyalism also needs to open up to the media and engage. Stereotypes and mistruths need to be challenged in the public battlefield, not from the trenches.

I can imagine the self righteous bloggers and satirists sitting sipping their gin and tonic during one of their gatherings or summer BBQ’s, laughing and mocking the loyalist ‘fleggers’, people they are unlikely to have ever met or had a conversation with.People who have very real fears and concern for their culture but who have no way of expressing that due to continued exclusion. People who have normal concerns and worries about feeding their families, paying rent or heating their homes.The jokes and mocking remarks directed against loyalists on twitter pages or blogging sites, met with an approving chuckle by the political class who are more than happy to look haughtily down their nose at one section of the community.Imagine if someone at one of these gatherings of the self righteous stood up and began to label the Polish community using derogatory terms or joked about the racial complexion of the Chinese community? The rest of the jolly good fellows and self appointed ‘politicos’ would immediately distance themselves from the remarks, heaping scorn on the vile racist who dared to make such a joke. So I ask again, why is it acceptable to target the loyalist community?

The onus is on society as a whole, but especially those who champion equality, to ensure that there are no double standards, that there is no hierarchy of who can be abused and who can’t.

Either every community is fair game to be targeted by jokes and jibes-for the craic- or else everyone is respected equally. The great and good can’t have it both ways.

Kelly admits Royal Pardon- who is the ‘fantasist’ now? 

For the past two years I have continually raised the issue that elected members of Sinn Fein had Royal Pardons. Indeed I furnished Kate Hoey MP with a document that led her to exposing, via a question to the Secretary of State, the vast number of pardons that had been issued. 

I was mocked and laughed at by those who said I was a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and a ‘nut-job’. I published a video two years ago saying that Gerry Kelly was in receipt of a Royal Pardon, once again I was dismissed as a fantasist. 

Following Mr Kellys admission today that indeed he does have a Royal Pardon, I find it hilarious to watch the faux outrage and how some media are reporting it as ‘breaking news’. 

I also stated that many of those who received pardons were assets of MI5 and British Military intelligence. If anyone still thinks I am a fantasist then perhaps you should look at the example of my ‘fantasy’ in relation to Gerry Kelly and ask yourself the question, what if the fantasists are those who are blinded by their desire to keep this sham process on track?

Judicial impartiality surrendered on the political altar! 

I am not in anyway surprised by today’s verdict. I have long predicted it and indeed I think from the moment the Judicial system granted bail to Sean Hughes on terrorism charges and remanded me in custody for peacefully protesting, it was plain for all to see that there was never going to be a fair trial within the Magistrates court.

The Judges ruling was as politically motivated as are ever likely to hear in a Magistrates court. No logic, the only aim was to protect the PSNI at all costs. She also clearly relied on the evidence of two police officers, both of gave different accounts. In other words they lied. 

Indeed this harsh truth was confirmed when the Judge agreed to  disregard my Article 6 right to a fair trial and reversed the burden of proof for the first time in history under this legislation. Of course the Judge then denied my right to appeal this absurd decision to a higher court, forcing the sham trial to proceed using the ludicrous reversed burden to ensure it was effectively impossible for me to provide any defence to the malicious and contrived political charges levelled against me. 

The lack of concern for a fair trial was confirmed further when during the trial the farcical PPS case was allowed to proceed and the Judge permitted the PPS Barrister, sent down from a higher court, to ask questions not at all relevant to the case and indeed further to this the Judge protected senior PSNI officers from rigorous questioning at all costs. 

I will appeal this farcical and biased decision in every court available to me. The very fact that I have been judged to a higher standard than others who have been charged, and acquitted, makes it quite clear that not only am I being persecuted for my refusal to silently roll over under the jackboot of the PSNI & the PPS but that the justice system is using this as a test case to strengthen parading legislation and to effectively remove any defence to the charge. It opens the door for legalised internment and it’s about time people woke up and realised that. 

I have no regrets about fighting the case. I always knew I would be found guilty and I had zero faith in my Article 6 rights being upheld but I felt it imperative that I fought on regardless. I think anyone who was in the court seen the whole case for the farce that it is. It was a circus and I am hard pushed to select who the biggest clown was! 

Of course let’s not forget that a document sits completed in the Police Ombudsman office that is damming of the PSNI and would totally vindicate me. It has been withheld so as to protect the PSNI from it being aired in open court. 

 This is a mere skirmish, a small battle in what will be a long war. The real fight will be before a High Court judge and I must say, judging from experience, at least then I will be given the right to a fair trial, which is all I have ever wanted. 

The PPS couldn’t make the charges stick so they just contrived with elements of the Judiciary to change the burden of proof. That is not justice. That is an abuse of process and an abuse of the system! 

The cry was, is and always will be…No Surrender! 

ACC Kerr’s mystery ‘tape’ & the Judicial protection of the PSNI

 ACC Will Kerr had a ring of steel thrown around him by the PPS and the Judiciary when he was summoned to give evidence at the final day of my trial. 

He took to the stand and informed the court that everyone at the meeting on 29th January knew the weekly walks from East Belfast were illegal. That is strange because if you check the policing board minutes from 7th February they told the Policing Board they were not sure if it was illegal. I would hate to call the ACC a bare faced liar so instead I will let others judge how much credibility can be attached to this officer and indeed the PSNI as a whole! 

ACC Kerr also stated in a sworn affidavit to a Judicial review that he only took the decision that the walks were illegal in the middle of February and indeed only decided to stop them on the weekend following the 23rd February. Of course it is no surprise that the PPS refuse to disclose this affidavit, which I have seen, to my defence team.  

It is of course all one big co incidence that it was in this week following 23rd February that the order was given, following a meeting with Sinn Fein/IRA, to arrest me and subsequently the PSNI, PPS and the judiciary contrived to effectively legally intern me on the basis of the most farcical charges ever to enter a Northern Ireland courtroom. 

ACC Kerr also skipped around the questions about an interview he gave to the Irish News when he said ‘there is no such thing as an illegal parade under the public processions act’. He claimed that The Lord Chief Justice has heard the full transcript of this tape. Really? That’s very interesting, because the judicial review case was told the PSNI’s did not have a complete copy of the interview. 

So either the Irish News released their tape to the Lord Chief Justice, or else once again there is a massive question mark over the credibility that can be attached to what is offered up as ‘truth’ by the PSNI.  

Where is this tape of the interview? If the Irish News didn’t release it then does that mean a tape of the interview does exist, but the PSNI lied to the Judicial review? They would really need to make their mind up! 

I will rigorously be seeking the truth about this fantasy tape and of course even an Officer in the case allegedly felt that information was being withild by senior PSNI. 

The Police Ombudsman report that is being hidden so as to avoid it being aired in open court shows the sheer corruption that has polluted every avenue of so called policing and justice. 

This isn’t going away and when I am inevitably found guilty, on the basis of not a single piece of credible evidence, I will go straight to the appeal court and re-run this entire trial. I will fight tooth and nail for every piece of disclosure and I will have the ACC back on the stand and he will then have to explain why he- in my opinion- wilfully misled the court, the policing board and the general public. 

ACC Kerr may have slithered out of Belfast Magistrates court last week with the ‘impartial’ apparatus of justice protecting him, but rest assured his confidence is misplaced. He may feel he has managed to duck and dive and avoid the battle but this initial contest is only the beginning. He will be back before the appeal court and wouldn’t it be shocking if a copy of this phantom tape did appear and wouldn’t it be even more shocking but not altogether unsurprising, if we were to find out that the complete recording of the interview had been withheld from a High Court judge?

Final day of trial exposes the corruption at heart of policing & justice! 

The 9th March concluded perhaps the most farcical case that has ever entered a N.Ireland courtroom. 

The final day ended with ACC Will Kerr having to be called as a defence witness and due to this the prosecution bizarrely kept intervening to avoid the defence asking our own witness any pointed questions. 

The PPS and PSNI had clearly conspired beforehand, this of course is no shock to me. 

We have seen throughout this case no evidence of any wrongdoing. The severe lack of evidence led the PPS to seeking a reverse burden for the first time ever under this legislation. This effectively means I have to PROVE my innocence. It is pretty much impossible to PROVE my state of mind. This shows the desperation to secure a conviction at any cost, even the cost of usurping centuries of British justice. 

We had PSNI officers exposed as liars who claimed they just decided to make statements 4 months AFTER I was arrested, then we heard about the internal memo whereby senior police asked officers if anybody could make a statement against me, about anything at all. Totally and utterly farcical. 

Not one person has ever spent a single day, not a single day in prison on the basis of any charge under this legislation. Never. Yet I have already spent an effective 2 month sentence on remand. That is in itself a precedent. 

I have no doubt whatsoever I will be found guilty. It is and always has been a political persecution and when the Judge agreed to reverse the burden of proof to assist the PPS I think it was plain for all to see just where the judicial loyalty lies in this ‘case’. What ever happened to the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? I am guilty until I can prove myself innocent. 

The aim of this is sending me to prison. They know full well that this entire farce will be laughed out of the High Court on appeal. They want to lock me up and keep me off the streets pending the appeal. No one has ever went to prison for a single minute for this offence, but that won’t deter the unaccountable political cabal behind this witch hunt. They need a scapegoat and they need cover for spending over £1 million trying to convict someone of effective jay walking. 

Even through there is a inevitability about the outrageous outcome, I wouldn’t do a thing differently. I am glad I fought the case the whole way and never once compromised with them in anyway. 

A great evil is perverting our justice system and our country. The very principles of democracy and justice are being eroded in favour of a system that would shame North Korea. I am glad I resisted it, even at great personal cost to myself. 

I have done nothing wrong and will fight this injustice in every lawful method available to me. 

No regrets. No remorse. No surrender. 

Final day of the malicious case- PSNI/PPS could not win! 

Tomorrow is the final day of the malicious and politically contrived farce of a case against me. 

I have fought this abuse of process from the moment it began and I intend to fight it until the bitter end, even if that is not in my own interests. 

I have no doubt I will be found guilty in the Magistrates court. No doubt whatsoever. There isn’t a shred, not a single shred of credible evidence against me but given they have wasted close to £1 million pursuing this farce of a case, I believe elements of the judiciary will feel the need to ensure a conviction. That is wrong, it is political and it is a malicious abuse of process but welcome to Northern Ireland. 

Some people chose to make deals and plead guilty. I could not sleep in my bed at night if I made any deal. I could have walked away with a small fine a free man had I just compromised with them and allowed them to get a small conviction, I told them to shove their dove!

I have done nothing wrong and I will not meekly roll over and surrender everything I believe is right just to appease the PSNI and PPS. 

I would rather rot in jail having fought them every step of the way than walk out a free man and know within myself I was a coward. 

People mocked me, abused me and said I would never withstand everything they would throw at me. People said I would buckle and eventually make a deal. People said that I would never get ACC Will Kerr into court, it was a certainty I would fail they said. They said I could never withstand the questioning from the senior Barrister the PPS brought from the crown court to run my case. 

Well tomorrow is the final day and I am still standing, the PPS barrister had to stop his questioning early due to him being left in knots, I still have the stomach for the fight and ACC Will Kerr- much to his anger- has been subpoenaed and will take the stand and as a result become the highest ranking officer ever to give evidence in a Magistrates court. 

I am first person ever to have a reversed burden of proof under the parading legislation. The Ombudsman hold in their possession a damming report that would totally vindicate me yet they withhold it and the PSNI have sent their attack dogs out to harass me and generally deploy every dirty trick in the book to break me. 

They just don’t understand. You cannot break a man that would rather die than compromise with you. Some people can’t be bought, bullied or reasoned with. I am one of those people and perhaps that is to my detriment. 

I have fought the weight of the whole system to the final round. I am coming out of my corner and I am coming out swinging. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain. No matter what they couldn’t beat me, so if they win on points because of some twisted decision by a ‘homer’ then so be it, but no matter what happens they will know that they threw everything they had at me and in the end I was still standing facing them down. 

Long live loyal Ulster! 

Police Ombudsman withholding damning report to protect ACC Kerr on witness stand

Today I have had to once again write to the Police Ombudsman requesting full disclosure of the completed report into my complaints against PSNI within 48 hours. I have put them on notice that should this not be forthcoming then I will request my legal team initiate emergency third party disclosure proceedings to seek an order from the court to compel the Ombudsman to release the report. 

This report has been completed for quite some time. Initially I was told the Director had to personally review the report due to the serious nature of it and given that there were ‘National security’ issues around the disclosure within it. What national security really means is that the security services have cocked up and this is their get out of jail free card! 

As I have pressed the issue finally yesterday the Ombudsman admitted that the review was complete and quite unbelievably stated that it should be in my possession by start of next week. Conveniently a day or two after the end of my court case. 

I found this wholly unsatisfactory so today rang the Ombudsman to offer to personally collect the report, I was then told that now there are new lines of enquiry and this would stall the report once again. It is remarkable how his has happened within 24 hours! 

It is my clear contention that this report will be absolutely damming of the PSNI and will completely undermine their case against me. It will also raise serious questions for the ACC who has been subpoenaed to attend court on Monday to be cross examined by my defence team. 

I will eventually get this report and it will be submitted to the court. If, as I believe, that the Ombudsman is stalling this to protect the ACC and purposefully withholding it to interfere with the court process then I will ensure that is exposed. 

This is just the latest in a long line of dubious ‘misfortunes’ that seem to all be weaving together conveniently to try and protect the PSNI. 

It matters not for how long this goes on, I will eventually get the report and the disclosure. It cannot be buried for ever. And I will use every lawful method available to me. The PSNI and PPS wanted a fight, they are getting more than they bargained for!