I think justice was served here.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206281#Comment_119206281

No sh*t.

They were doing their job brining a charge in this case.

No prosecutor would have let this one out of their sights.

"Ah shur it was a fair knife fight, nothing to see here"

Come out of the fog.

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206278#Comment_119206278

You have no basis to say they were always going to bring charges, and evidently, it may have been wiser not to.

Of course there would have been pressure from the media alone.

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206301#Comment_119206301

They failed in their job I think you will find, no sh*t indeed.

mikethecop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119204744#Comment_119204744

if you dont understand what happened here or why you dont have to comment on it you know

a incident happened , a kid died , the guy responsible was identified and brough to court to find out how and why that happened , a jury decided biased on the facts and information provided to them .

in this one rare occurrence the system seems to have worked

🙄🙄🙄

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206248#Comment_119206248

Are you seriously suggesting that in this case, where a death occurred, and there was evidence to identify the people involved that the DPP was somehow pressurised to put the case forward for trial?

I am entirely satisfied that the DPP, the courts and the jury have all acted properly and without outside influence.

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206339#Comment_119206339

I don't know either way, I wasn't present at the trial but the DPP will obviously need to review and figure out what went wrong for them and why.

walshb

I am not really seeing this political pressure angle for the DPP to prosecute. Read the case notes and the facts we know. Not at all a stretch to think the DPP could have brought this to trial.

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206360#Comment_119206360

Why do you think something went wrong for the DPP?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206360#Comment_119206360

Nothing went “wrong” for the DPP.

They put a case forward. It was the job of the jury to decide on the verdict based on the evidence.

At the thread title notes - justice was served.

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206377#Comment_119206377

Well clearly they lost the case.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206305#Comment_119206305

You're peddling a conspiracy theory that there was political pressure to bring a prosecution and are oblivious to how the DPP works.

This may shock and apall you, but there are people out there who are bit more clued in to how the justice system functions Ush.

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206401#Comment_119206401

Well it clearly went wrong for the DPP as they lost the case. So was it a lack of evidence, was it not presented correctly, better witnesses etc.... I'm not making any inference on justice being done, I'm saying that the DPP won't be just forgetting it, they will review it and see what can be learned from it.

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206441#Comment_119206441

I don't know if there was pressure but can certainly see how it would be likely. If you don't think pressure gets put on the DPP you can go ahead and believe that, but you're naïve in the extreme IMO.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206461#Comment_119206461

of course they would review, but it isn't their job to win all cases

otherwise there would be no need of a jury or judge

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206401#Comment_119206401

Of course it did. Reading the reporting of the trial it was a complete and utter clown show, with the Judge eventually telling the jury in not such a subtle nudge nudge wink wink fashion that they should acquit. Personally I think the Judge should have thrown out the murder charge before it got to the Jury which he is fundamentally obliged to do when they is even a small chance of a miscarriage of justice.

But that's okay the DPP are a collection of humans and by no means infallible, but their remit is to the public and to the public purse. They dropped the ball on this one.

Let's not forget he was also charged with assault and producing a knife to intimidate, he was acquitted on both of these as well.

The justice system is finite and shouldn't be used for folly, whether the DPP felt obliged or pressured to bring a murder charge I have no idea, but there was a level of unprofessional incompetence IMHO.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206670#Comment_119206670

an specifics on the clown show aspect

Bass Reeves

It is not the DPP job to win cases at all. There job is to decide if I here is a case to answer and what charges should be bought for prosecution.

The real question here is why they felt it necessary to prosecute a murder charge here. As I point out earlier there has been a number of precedence cases where the jury have refused to convict in similar cases.

It's interesting that the judge made the point in his summation that life is not lived frame by frame. He was obviously unhappy with the DPP using frame by frame analysis of the CCTV to bring an inference to the case.

The only reason he left the option of conviction for murder open to the jury was because of the defendant having a knife on him but it would seem that he was as not overly happy with that option.

It's all very well saying justice was served but if the defendant had lost he have served 10+ years in jail and probably alit of it in solitary confinement because of area has he young lad that had as killed was from.

On bail the judge had probably no other option but to refuse bail. However at the same time it was not out of the ordinary for the accused to have a fear of the justice he would receive. He came from another jurisdiction where there system may not be as fair. There was a slant in the reporting of what happened so he deciding to leave was not out of the ordinary.

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206504#Comment_119206504

The DPP decide to pursue the charges, and should only ever do so with a very high likelihood of conviction. Courts are expensive. I'm not sure what you mean by jury or judge. It's an adversarial system where the defence will state their case and the jury will decide, but the case is initiated by the DPP, they are prosecution.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206670#Comment_119206670

I can’t see how this is a win/lose situation. If there was any doubt about whether the accused caused the death then you could take that view.

This was a case of asking whether or not the accused had committed murder or if his actions were justified.

The jury decided, based on the evidence, that there was no murder or manslaughter. Judging for the lack of sympathy here for the ultimate victim in this case, many people agree with the jury.

I’m sure that the prosecutors for the DPP are capable of disengaging their emotions when in the courtroom and will get over the loss of the case.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206766#Comment_119206766

If there was no ambiguity on cases as you seem to think is the case then why have a jury system in the first place

just have the DPP

They are there to see if the case warrants prosecution, not of whether the person is innocent or guilty

in this case there was lots of evidence but a decision to be made on what was reasonable force

thats where the jury comes in

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206766#Comment_119206766

Soft on crime stance from "I'm not right wing" Ush. But only when an inner city youth is dead.

walshb

You'd wonder how people discussing this would feel if it was there 16 year old son that became involved here (or in any volatile situation) for whatever reason, and some man (carrying a knife))stabbed him twice resulting in his death.

Would it be a blanket "he deserved it because he was involved."

The victim, as far as I am aware wasn't known to Gardaí as a troublemaker, and even if he was, it still shouldn't see folks glowing because he died here. Josh wasn't even initially involved. Circumstances led to him becoming involved.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206816#Comment_119206816

I can’t see how this is a win/lose situation

It's very much a win / lose situation for the defendant. He has lost quite a considerable portion of his liberty.

The DPP followed by the Judge are meant to be a buffer for justice, a buffer for the Jury. They are not supposed to say, sure fúck it he is probably not guilty but sure we will let the Jury decide.

The whole thing was filmed, it wasn't some abstract he said she said piece.

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206820#Comment_119206820

Well first of all the DPP isn't a number of your peers chosen at random so it's completely different. They exist in the interest of the public and clearly pursue a guilty verdict (not sure what you mean by determining guilt or innocence), the jury either agrees with them or the defence.

What you are describing is a system where someone has no right to a defence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206840#Comment_119206840

What circumstances? Was he attacking these guys or not?

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206873#Comment_119206873

He arrived during the killer's altercation with a person on a moped.

The killer already had brandished the knife against the sole individual on the moped. Josh and others happened upon this, and Josh's friend became involved, resulting in him being stabbed. Josh then stepped in to retaliate/defend against this, and the killer stabbed him to death.

Of course, a lot more info to go with this, as well as context and nuance, but you can see well why the DPP felt this was worthy of trial, and why the prosecution laid out the argument that the killer (Mr. Bento) was OTT in his actions

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206893#Comment_119206893

Hmm, murder does seem a bit much given the circumstances though.

But I think if you attack anyone there's a chance you could get killed. A single punch can kill.

Not saying he deserved it though.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206864#Comment_119206864

that is what you are describing

If a case meets their criteria they try it, it isn't setup to be a slam dunk

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206909#Comment_119206909

You know, this is what is calked fair and balanced. I agree with your take here.

Mr. Bento did not set out that day to murder-kill. Josh, very likely didn't set out to get into a violent scuffle with Mr. Bento.

Circumstances brouht them together and a teen/child lost his life. Utter devastation for his family and loved ones.

The DPP (after their work) decided this warranted charges being brought. From what I have read, I cannot disagree with the DPP, albeit I think a murder charge is a bit of a stretch.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206893#Comment_119206893

Happened upon it and decided to involve themselves.