I think justice was served here.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216996#Comment_119216996

I worked in the legal profession for years.

The only one spoofing here is you. You have shown zero grasp of how the justice system works.

And while the book of evidence is sent for trial proceedings, evidence contained in that book is presented before the judge during a bail hearing if there is opposition from Gardai or the DPP.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216520#Comment_119216520

Whoosh.

The point is that charging him with murder was complete and utter bullshít. As proven by the jury who didn't even see fit to convict him of assault - yet he spent nearly a year and a half on remand.

Meanwhile a white rich barrister caught red handed gets a holiday abroad to relieve his and his family's stress while awaiting his trial for murder.

Does it need to be spelled out any more clearly for you?

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218410#Comment_119218410

He didn't go on a holiday abroad.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218408#Comment_119218408

And while the book of evidence is sent for trial proceedings, evidence contained in that book is presented before the judge during a bail hearing if there is opposition from Gardai or the DPP.

They are 2 separate things, for someone who is worked in the "legal profession for years" you should know that.

The Book of Evidence can take months and in some occasions years to complete depending on the complexity of the case.

At a bail hearing because they take place relatively shortly after a charge a broad summary of the strength of the evidence, the accused history and detailed reasons as why the DPP are objecting to Bail.

The Book of Evidence wouldn't be next to near ready as in all likelihood the investigation would still be active.

Again this is basic stuff.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218396#Comment_119218396

The DPP are bound by a code of conduct, having worked in the legal system for years you should know that.

But to be brief, no frivolous cases, as it impinges on the constitutional rights of the accused, it is a unnecessary cost to the state and also undermines the justice system as a whole.

The decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is of great importance. It can have the most far-reaching consequences for an individual. Even where an accused person is acquitted, the consequences resulting from a prosecution can include loss of reputation, disruption of personal relations, loss of employment and financial expense, in addition to the anxiety and trauma caused by being charged with a criminal offence. A wrong decision to prosecute or, conversely, a wrong decision not to prosecute, both tend to undermine the confidence of the community in the criminal justice system.

A decision not to prosecute because the evidence is not sufficiently strong could be considered as an aspect of the consideration of the ‘public interest’. It can be said that it is not in the public interest to use public resources on a prosecution case which has no reasonable prospect of success. Furthermore, if there was a very high rate of prosecutions resulting in acquittals this could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

A prosecution should not be instituted unless there is a prima facie case against the suspect. By this is meant that there is admissible, relevant, credible and reliable evidence which is sufficient to establish that a criminal offence known to the law has been committed by the suspect. The evidence must be such that a jury, properly instructed on the relevant law, could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged.

In considering the strength of the evidence the existence of a bare prima facie case is not enough. Once it is established that there is a prima facie case it is then necessary to give consideration to the prospects of conviction. The prosecutor should not lay a charge where there is no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction before a reasonable jury or a judge in cases heard without a jury. 

There was no path to a murder conviction here, zero. Unless you want to explain how given your experience in the field?

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218620#Comment_119218620

Were you in court to hear all of the evidence? Unless you were your very serious accusations against the DPP are complete and utter bluster and have no basis.

The defence made an application through legal argument to have the murder charge thrown out. During this legal argument (in the absence of the jury) the DPP had to set out its stall as to why there was a case to answer, and the judge agreed with them. Is the judge in this case wrong too or do you, having read just a few paragraphs on the case, believe you know more about the law than the judge in this case?

Unless you were in court, you know absolutely f*ck all about the evidence presented to the jury. What is presented in the media is a tiny snippet of the days proceedings.

The DPP believed they could get a conviction, which is why they brought the proceedings in the first place. They didn’t, because they were met with a strong defence.

As I said, you’d swear there has never been a ‘not guilty’ verdict before. Big Boggles knows more about the case and the evidence than the DPP of course.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218808#Comment_119218808

When the judge ruled on that issue he would not have seen the video or heard any evidence the defence would have had.

The only way to a murder conviction is if the prosecution could prove that GB and deliberately bought the knife to the scene to stab someone. Him having a knife even if illegally would not have been enough

The prosecution conceeded that GB was legally at the scene. The only evidence they gave to a murder charge was using single frames from the CCTV and making an allegation that he was trying to be a hard man, which they provided no proof just an assumption on the part of the prosecuting barrister.

By the time the evidence was presented if the judge withdrew the murder charge he could have tainted the jury to thinking that he considered it MS. At that stage he either had to strike down both or none.

So he just gave a summation that made the consideration of a murder charge impossible by the jury. That left the jury to consider MS, common assault or aqquital.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218808#Comment_119218808

Calm down lad, you are being hyper emotional it's rarely ever a fit state to debate anything and makes me far less likely to engage with you.

The DPP are not infallible, to suggest they are is quite naïve, it's why they are open to review.

Unlike others on here I have not professed to being an expert in Irish law, my opinions are based on the entirety of the case, precedent and the law largely guided by Judges interruptions of the law.

Now if you want to actually debate any the points I raised in a respectful polite manner, like I said I'll gladly engage, shouty name calling not so much.

Up to you, TBH I'm not pushed either way.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218410#Comment_119218410

Conspiracy theory. Seek help.

That's not how our justice system operates.

Book a flight to Brazil after stabbing someone in the chest twice. Expect to stay on remand until trial.

It's that simple.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218410#Comment_119218410

TBF to the barrister it's not like he is pulling fast ones or skirting the law.

What he does have in his favour is expertise and means. It is quite startling how his rights fall into line because of that.

He was back in court again recently because his legal team wanted to interview key witnesses to the alleged crime, the DPP objected stating the book of evidence wasn't next to near completion (but, but, anyway 😕), his legal argument was witnesses are not property and don't belong to one side or another, the Judge completely agreed and throw out the DPPs objection.

He also wanted access to his interview videos which was also objected to, again thrown out by the Judge.

It's fascinating to watch someone who is an expert in law navigate the system, lets say compared to a poor immigrant and an actual victim of crime.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218999#Comment_119218999

Bento had a legal team as is right including senior counsel. You're making out like it was poor Fievel the Mouse from an American Tale all on his own versus the big bad Irish legal system.

The reason he didn't end up at the Court of Appeal challenging a bail application refusal was.... actually can you guess what that was Boggles?

Give a wild guess.

I'm sympathetic to Bento, but he was always going face charges, and he was always going to be refused bail after demonstrating himself as a flight risk.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218974#Comment_119218974

While there was a valid reason for him to remain on remand for a murder charge it highly unlikely that any judge would have kept him on remand if the charges were reduced to MS after 4-5 months.

The simple fact is there was no pathway to a murder conviction. The prosecution after recieving the Garda evidence and reviewing it should have reduced the charges.

The knew and conceeded that GB was entitled to be try to recover the bike and they knew the criminal history of the individual who stole the bike. He was not put on the stand by the prosecution and I think he made a point at some stage in his summation that this was strange and inference could be drawn from it.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219029#Comment_119219029

I agree, It's more likely he would have been bailed had the charges been reduced to MS after a certain period.

But, it was a murder charge, and the High Court had to deal with that.

Danzy

The prosecution couldn't put the original bike thief up on the stand, their argument was based on Dunne being an innocent bystander who got accidentally stabbed.

What would have happened when Bento's defense asked him did he know Dunne.

The case would have been finished there and then.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219026#Comment_119219026

Again you have provided no evidence to suggest at his bail hearing the Judge new anything about his girlfriend booking and subsequently cancelling the flights a few hours later. They were booked using their house mates financial details.

Again you are spoofing.

There is no need for it, unless their is some warped angle you are trying to push here that I am not aware of.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218956#Comment_119218956

Don't tell me I'm being hyper emotional when you are making very serious accusations against the DPP with zero evidence to back it up.

Were you in court for the trial? Yes or no?

The DPP are not infallible, and they have dropped charges in the past when challenged under legal argument before a judge in the absence of a jury. It happens. You seem to think the DPP should be bullet proof when that exact type of attitude would result in the justice system completely falling apart.

The Defence brought a legal argument to have the murder charged dropped to one of manslaughter. Do you think the defence can do that and then not present their reasons as to why? Especially for a big argument like that? Come on, man, use your brain.

You implied yesterday that the DPP should only bring cases to trial if they're definitely going to win. As I already said, what is the point of a judge and jury then? George Bento had a right to a fair trial, he got one and he was found not guilty. A shining example of the great work in our justice system. How can you have any problem with that?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219029#Comment_119219029

The DPP could have retracted their murder charge at any time.

But in this case bizarrely months later they increased the charges.

Namely assault of the 2 little lambs that were forcibly performing extensive dental work on his friend.

Any details when those "victims" are having their day in court or was that minor indiscretion forgiven in exchange for testifying?

Sure, Justice, Something, Something.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219099#Comment_119219099

Conspiracy theory alert.

Of course the High Court knew about Bento's flights. His bail application wasn't refused becuse of his skin color. He was objectively a flight risk.

PROVIDE EVIDENCE THEY DIDN'T. See how this works?

You're peddling a conspiracy theory that the courts system is inherently racist, impugning our justice system.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219116#Comment_119219116

You are making the claim, it's up to you to back it up. That's how this works.

Also are you just going to shout Conspiracy Alert in every post, because it's not clever, it's quite remedial actually.

So you have no idea if the Judge was furnished with the information, you are spoofing. Glad we cleared that up so would can move one.

I haven't mentioned race once, in fact I think you are first on here. Could be wrong though. Very strange.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219102#Comment_119219102

You implied yesterday that the DPP should only bring cases to trial if they're definitely going to win

I most certainly did not, again this what happens when your state is hyper emotion, you misunderstand peoples opinions and make claims no one made.

But given you volunteered your extensive legal experience.

Could you please tell us in your opinion the path to a murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. .

That's not my standard by the way it's the DPP's, as I already highlighted to you in their own code of conduct manual.

The evidence must be such that a jury, properly instructed on the relevant law, could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219147#Comment_119219147

Prove that the High Court didn't know. You're the one making that claim and that he was remanded because of racism or something.

Use what's between your ears. The first thing Gardai will do upon arrest on suspicion of murder is to seize electronic devices.

You're absolutely engaging in a conspiracy theory. That the judiciary conspire to remand suspects on the basis of their skin colour or class and do not perform of balancing of rights test.

He booked flights to Brazil after stabbing a young man in the chest. He was flight risk. The High Court got it right.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219184#Comment_119219184

Again extremely weirdly you have decided to bring race into.

You can continue along that path if we wish but I certainly won't be engaging.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219154#Comment_119219154

Yes, and there was an application by the defence under legal argument to have that charge reduced to manslaughter, and the judge ruled that there was a murder case to answer for.

What part of this are you having difficulty with? Seriously? We're going around in circles here and you're not actually making a coherant point. What's the point in me responding to you with the facts when you're just going to say otherwise?

Were you in court for the trial? Yes or no?

I wasn't in court for the proceedings so I don't know all of the evidence. You seem to know though. So tell me all of the evidence in a six-week trial that was presented by the prosecution, please?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219190#Comment_119219190

Use your brain Boggles. He was remanded until trial because he was a demonstrated flight risk. Not because of his class / race / hair colour / anything else you want theorize about.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219192#Comment_119219192

Yes, and there was an application by the defence under legal argument to have that charge reduced to manslaughter, and the judge ruled that there was a murder case to answer for

This has already been explained to you, rarely if ever will a judge exercise his duty in that regard, I think I have come across less than a handful of times it has actually happened. Although it should happen far more often than it does IMO, but that's a separate topic.

The defence were 100% correct, the murder charge was complete nonsense, I do notice you still haven't answered by question on that by the way. I think given your legal expertise it would be worth hearing your perspective on it.

Anyway in this particular case the judge not so subtly walked the jury into an acquittal.

Were you in court for the trial? Yes or no?

Irrelevant and rhetorical.

Again, I asked you to be polite or I will disengage. 🙄

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119218999#Comment_119218999

He got access to his own video interviews. The judge ruled the request outside the norm but granted him access

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219212#Comment_119219212

You'd struggle to find a bail application for murder where the DPP didn't object on the accused being a flight risk.

A leading barrister accused of murdering a father-of-four in a fatal shooting on farmland in Tallaght last month has a ‘powerful incentive to evade justice’ and should not be granted bail, a High Court judge has ruled.

Ruling on Monday on Diarmuid Rossa Phelan’s application for bail, Judge Deirdre Murphy concluded that the accused was a serious flight risk

Lisa Smith whose charges were so egregious she wasn't afforded a jury trial was deemed a flight risk and received bail, because and again I hate repeating Judges legal opinion, her fundamental right to the presumption of innocence.

Again and for the last time if you insist on weirdly bringing race into I won't be engaging further.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219225#Comment_119219225

The Judge commented it was outside the norm, but he was fully entitled to them under the law.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219217#Comment_119219217

Actually, being in court for the trial is very relevant for this discussion, because you are claiming to know everything about the evidence that was submitted from the DPP. How can you know that if you weren't in court? You're just dismissing the question now because it doesn't suit your arguement.

And I answered your question by saying I can't answer that. I wasn't in court. I can't make assumptions about the evidence presented to the jury. Like you, I can only go on what I've read. There was an argument to reduce the charge, the defence put forward its reasons why, and the judge ruled there was a murder charge to answer. As you said, judges have exercised that duty to reduce the charge in the past so I don't know what point you're trying to make there.

Don't tell me I'm not being polite when you're arguing in bad faith. You weren't in court, so you are in no position to comment on the evidence presented to the jury. That's the simple fact of the matter here. There was six weeks of evidence and witness testimonies and you only know a small amount of it from the newspapers.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219237#Comment_119219237

I can't make assumptions about the evidence presented to the jury. Like you, I can only go on what I've read

Great, I mean it's a messaging board it's not legally binding.

TBF the reporting on this case has been quite extensive.

So if you don't mind given your legal expertise and what is in the public domain if you could answer the question I'd appreciate it.

Could you please tell us in your opinion the path to a murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

If anything it would improve the quality of debate from people shouting "You, weren't there" and "Conspiracy Theory" ad nauseum.