Writers are divided over this former detective. Was he a great cop or was he bent as a boomerang? Lundy effectively used the criminal supergrass to bring to book dozens and dozens of villains. Certain people were dismayed at what Lundy was achieving and the methods he was using, but one point that journalist Martin Short made, and has been ignored by Lundy`s detractors, is that nine out of every ten villains he put away, put their hands up to the crimes alleged. This involved the use of villains such as Billy Amies, Maxie Piggott, David Smith, and others.
What brought him down was two villains in particular, Billy Young and Francis Attard. It seems that one of them, Young, had a champion in journalist Andrew Jennings, whom wrote a book making serious allegations against Lundy, but Lundy did not respond with legal action. Obviously, the feeling was that shit stuck. Martin Short defended Lundy,stating that due to his rank, Lundy was in the Superintendants Association, which was not as financially equipped to support Lundy in a costly libel action. Short also wrote in his book about Lundy, a scathing atack on the allegations by Jennings in his book. He also stated to Lundy, thaty if he did unearth positive proof of his corruption, he would publish it without hesitation. This appears not to have happened, even now, all these years later.
Another point about Lundy was his use of a big time informant named Roy Garner, who eventually went to prison for twenty two years for, I believe, drugs. Lundy did speak up for him, but then again, he would because he was a top flight informant. Jennings claimed that Garner was the "Top Villain" in London, which Short savaged. Jennings also claimed that Garner had a licence to rob. My belief is that what brought Lundy down, was being too successful and this dredged up resentment and jealousy amongst his colleagues. It beggars belief what police officers will do to each other, when they are supposed to be on the side of Law and Order.