The Secretary, Bobby Sands Trust, 51-53 Falls Road, Belfast, BT12 4PD.

By Post & Email

Open Letter to the Bobby Sands Trust

Dear Trustees,
I have just read an article written by journalist Mark Rainey: Hunger strikers
family slams republicans profiting from his memory, dated 25th February
2016. The Secretary of the BST is quoted in the article to have made the
following pertinent statements:
Bobby in a signed letter witnessed by his solicitor and which is part
of the foundation documents of the Bobby Sands Trust bequeathed his
writings to the republican movement.
These documents are lodged in the National Library, Dublin, for the
Irish nation. The library has promised to digitise copies of all the
writings and eventually make them accessible to students and
historians. See Article Here
The letter referred to by the BST Secretary could be a codicil to a more
substantive drafted will. A codicil is a document that is similar in effect to a
will where something is being bequeathed. In practice a codicil is only used
in order to make minor amendments to a pre-existing will; otherwise it is
more appropriate to draft a new will. If there was no pre-existing will then,
from the information detailed above, the alleged letter written by Bobby Sands
appears to be the foundation to the BST in the form of, what is called in law, a
half-secret trust.
The BST Secretarys disclosure only adds to the murky origins of the BST and
its secret beneficiary. If, as Mr Morrison claims, Bobby Sands bequeathed his
property to the republican movement this would imply that the BST was
established as a half-secret trust. A half-secret trust derives from a will that
identifies what property is to be held on a trust, but, the beneficiary is not to
be identified; hence, until now, the identity of the BSTs beneficiary has been a
mystery. The existence of a half-secret trust must be in the possession of at
least one trustee before the settlors death, or that the trustee knows where to
find it, for example, in the form of a sealed letter held by a lawyer. That
Bobby Sands family have been unaware of the alleged letter before Bobby

Sands died on hunger strike does nothing to allay suspicion that Bobby Sands
may have been unduly coerced at a time when he was at his most vulnerable.
If Bobby Sands was advised by the same law firm which also represented the
intended beneficiary this could give rise to doubts about any will being
written free from coercion or improper advice or influence.
The Secretary of the BST defines the sole beneficiary of Bobby Sands will to be
the republican movement. Prior to Bobby Sands death the republican
movement was essentially the IRA; Sinn Fein at that time was an insignificant
organisation under the umbrella of the republican movement. Reference to
the republican movement is not very well defined and, if challenged, any
will, or trust, would most likely fail for lack of surety of the object for which
the will or trust was intended.
Madden & Finucane Solicitors would have known that bequeathing property
to an unlawful organisation would invalidate any will irrevocably. Thus, it is
assumed, that the BST Secretarys use of the term republican movement is
intended as a smoke screen to avoid specifically identifying Sinn Fein as the
BSTs secret beneficiary.
The law relating to wills are contained in the Wills Act 1837 where Section 7
would require that Bobby Sands had the necessary capacity to write a valid
will; capacity defined as being of sound mind, memory and fully cognisant of
what he was doing and its consequences. If Bobby Sands wrote the alleged
letter during his hunger strike then was the legally required 2nd witness a
doctor who had assessed Bobbys faculties and fitness to sign such an
important document? In fact, it is considered best practice for a solicitor to
obtain a written medical opinion where the mental health or vulnerability of
the testator might be in doubt. The formalities required by the Wills Act serve
to protect the testator from fraud and undue influence and from making a will
that does not reflect his genuine wishes or to prevent exclusion of someone (a
child or vulnerable adult) who ought to have been included in accordance
with law.
Section 9 of the Wills Act is to ensure that careful consideration is given to the
construction of a will and its contents. A will can be fraudulent if the testator
has left a significant person out that would otherwise have benefited but for
any misrepresentations. This would be one reason why sound legal advice is
so crucial. It was Bobby Sands lawyers inescapable responsibility to make
sure that his client understood, in terms that he could comprehend, the full
2

extent and value of the property of which he was bequeathing to Sinn Fein.
The lawyer would also be compelled, under the Wills Act, to advise Bobby
Sands that he must make sufficient provision for his 10 year old son in his
written will.
In addition, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and
Dependants Act) 1975 was also relevant at the time, and, Bobby Sands should
have been advised by his lawyer against completely disinheriting his own son,
or, making insufficient or no reasonable provision for him. The law clearly
states that a parent cannot disinherit a child under the age of 18; it appears
that former friends and comrades of Bobby Sands took it upon themselves
to disinherit his son.
Trustees act in the interests of the beneficiary for whom they owe a fiduciary
duty of care, thus, they cannot do certain things if the beneficiary has
instructed them not to. The Public Records Office have informed me that they
can find no records that any will or trust relating to Bobby Sands has ever
been registered with their office. It is perplexing that the Bobby Sands Trust
will not provide Bobby Sands next of kin with a copy of the will or trust
instrument? It is as if only the Trustees and their legal advisors are the only
ones who have ever seen proof that such documents exist. It is also a
consideration that Gerry Adams is both leader of Sinn Fein and a long
standing trustee who might be exercising his personal controlling interest to
ensure that the BST is used as an undeserved secret nest egg for himself and
his political party at the expense of Bobby Sands next of kin.
It is hard to ignore that Gerry Adams might be applying his dual roles, as both
trustee and beneficiary of the BST, to ensure that Bobby Sands next of kin do
not see copies of any of the foundation documents. If Danny Morrison is
correct and Bobby Sands bequeathed his property to strangers, and not to his
next of kin, then Gerry Adams should have nothing to fear from providing the
family with a copy of any will, or trust instrument. Perhaps Mr Adams
resistance to having his pivotal roles scrutinised by Bobby Sands family is
because both he and his party have enjoyed unjust enrichment from Bobby
Sands written works to the depravation of Bobby Sands son and rightful
successor?
Mr Adams and Sinn Feins objections to allowing the Sands Family to see
copies of any of the foundation documents is particularly puzzling given that
the BST Secretary has asserted that all the foundation documents have been
lodged with the National Library for future public access. This causes me to
think 2 possibilities; 1) that the Bobby Sands Trust is acting with contempt
3

toward Bobby Sands son by refusing him any right to see the alleged
documents; or, 2) the alleged foundation documents might have been forged
or coerced and the Sands Family could expose that possibility. Certainly, one
wonders what possible harm could be caused by Bobby Sands son having
sight of documents written or signed by his own father?
There is no reasonable excuse for Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein, as beneficiary
of the trust, for preventing the BST from providing Bobby Sands son with
copies of, what Mr Morrison describes as foundation documents
bequeathing Bobby Sands writings to the republican movement. Mr Adams
and Sinn Fein have already exercised their beneficiary right over the BST to
hand the documents over to the National Library so why not allow Bobby
Sands son immediate access to view these same documents?
Yours Sincerely
Christy Walsh
2nd April 2016