I think justice was served here.

Yeah no one suggested that, very poor attempt at whatever that was supposed to me.

I asked a very simple question, if you don't know just say so.

Believe it or not, I have a long standing policy on boards of not giving links to people who are ignorant of facts on a subject and can go find it themselves

lol. So you don't, you are guessing / spoofing.

And to correct what his hilariously smug ignorance, The completed book of evidence is sent forward for trial not bail hearings.

He wasn’t an innocent victim in regards to the case against him. He was a murder accused.

He should have gone to trial sooner, but that didn’t happen. Makes sense that they kept him on remand for such a serious case.

But the system is somewhat rigged if you know how to play it. Such as in the case of a high level barrister.

If the hypothetical person starts beating the living shi7 out of people for his own thrill, it may end the same

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 🙄

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.

Extensive reporting of a trial only covers a snippet of the evidence presented. Why are you ignoring this?

Lol, extensive coverage of trial also covers the mundane, but largely the most pertinent parts of the evidence, are you suggesting the press didn't report on bombshell evidence that pointed to guilt, they didn't that's nonsense obviously.

You're actually really annoying me here. You haven't a f*cking clue about how trials work and you're here telling me that I'm wrong when you have no evidence to back it up.

I asked you for your opinion several times, an opinion that is not forthcoming, I think at this stage we can guess why.

We will have to leave it there so, I did ask you to be polite. Tut. Tut.

..