Things that make you go What the F**k?

[armaghniac]

I didn't know about this. Jesus that family are bonkers.

Someone said that there was one sibling who had broken away from the pack and was living quietly as a normal teacher somewhere in the midlands.

[Wildweasel74]

But this is a great example of how indoctrine works, they be a great case study. Bit easier to see how the Nazis, came to power. I say this home taught craic, and especially not been in a school environment has affected these adults and common sense and the rule of law u expect normal people to know, is out the door in this case.

[general_lee]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

[johnnycool]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Saw that.

He was already on bail and had broken the terms of that bail a few times already, yet the judge allows him to continue on bail yet again.. He must be a tout, but that's wild, in possession of an assault weapon and all.

Some lad pulls down a Union Jack and gets a spell in the clink.

[Pub Bore]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Tout??

[Saffrongael]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Tout??

The cops opposed bail, it is the judge that decides on bail applications

[Orior]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Maybe some of the west brits from down south can explain it as they seem to know everything?

[armaghniac]

Guy abandons child at 5am, to piss off separated mother
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/father-who-abandoned-his-child-on-the-side-of-the-road-gets-jail-time/ar-AA1b0kyX?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=521abfcf87e140b3b2b1c84a84ab77f9

[David McKeown]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Maybe some of the west brits from down south can explain it as they seem to know everything?

I can do it if you like.

There is a presumption of innocence in all cases. Incumbent in that is a presumption in favour of bail. Therefore in order to have bail denied the court must be satisfied that one of the four statutory objections to bail is made out.

1. Risk of re-offending this is supposed to be there is a risk the defendant will reoffend linked to the original offence but has now become so watered down that effectively all the prosecution have to persuade a judge or is that the defendant will reoffend whilst on bail.

2. Risk of flight. The prosecution are able to prove there's a real risk that if released the defendant won't show up for court.

3. Risk of interference with witnesses/justice. This is the risk that the defendant if released will interfere with witnesses or the case as a whole by for example destroying evidence.

4. Release on bail represents a real risk of undermining public confidence in justice or will pose a risk to the safety of the defendant himself.

If and only one or more of these objections are made out should bail be refused and even then only if bail conditions couldn't adequately manage the risk.

You will note that factors such as for example seriousness of the charge or record of the defendant are not grounds to refuse bail they are significant factors in assessing those statutory objections. For example someone up for murder may be more likely to leave the country or not turn up for trial due to the potential sentence.

Likewise strength of the prosecution case is not a reason to refuse bail but a strong prosecution case may be relevant to for example the likelihood the defendant will try to interfere with witnesses.

It therefore stands to reason that weakness of a prosecution case can be a factor that makes bail more likely. That seems to be what's happened in this case.  The case against this accused is clearly weak given the nature of the judges remarks.

So I imagine that's the major factor in the defendant getting bail.

It should be noted that we are probably too conservative with the grant of bail. Despite there being no legal basis for it a lack of an address is probably the biggest reason for bail refusal at the minute. Moreover unlike England we don't have strict custody timelimits. Also in England 12 hour curfews result in that time coming off your final sentences. It doesn't impact sentences at all over here.

Hope that answers the query.

If the prosecution

[Orior]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Maybe some of the west brits from down south can explain it as they seem to know everything?

I can do it if you like.

There is a presumption of innocence in all cases. Incumbent in that is a presumption in favour of bail. Therefore in order to have bail denied the court must be satisfied that one of the four statutory objections to bail is made out.

1. Risk of re-offending this is supposed to be there is a risk the defendant will reoffend linked to the original offence but has now become so watered down that effectively all the prosecution have to persuade a judge or is that the defendant will reoffend whilst on bail.

2. Risk of flight. The prosecution are able to prove there's a real risk that if released the defendant won't show up for court.

3. Risk of interference with witnesses/justice. This is the risk that the defendant if released will interfere with witnesses or the case as a whole by for example destroying evidence.

4. Release on bail represents a real risk of undermining public confidence in justice or will pose a risk to the safety of the defendant himself.

If and only one or more of these objections are made out should bail be refused and even then only if bail conditions couldn't adequately manage the risk.

You will note that factors such as for example seriousness of the charge or record of the defendant are not grounds to refuse bail they are significant factors in assessing those statutory objections. For example someone up for murder may be more likely to leave the country or not turn up for trial due to the potential sentence.

Likewise strength of the prosecution case is not a reason to refuse bail but a strong prosecution case may be relevant to for example the likelihood the defendant will try to interfere with witnesses.

It therefore stands to reason that weakness of a prosecution case can be a factor that makes bail more likely. That seems to be what's happened in this case.  The case against this accused is clearly weak given the nature of the judges remarks.

So I imagine that's the major factor in the defendant getting bail.

It should be noted that we are probably too conservative with the grant of bail. Despite there being no legal basis for it a lack of an address is probably the biggest reason for bail refusal at the minute. Moreover unlike England we don't have strict custody timelimits. Also in England 12 hour curfews result in that time coming off your final sentences. It doesn't impact sentences at all over here.

Hope that answers the query.

If the prosecution

Thank you. In your view, was bail justified?

[Saffrongael]

Obviously no expert but the judge said the case was just about chargeable, so it's not a huge leap that bail would be granted

[general_lee]

A violent, repeat offender; currently already on bail (which he has broken already) for other offences. Surely the grounds are there to fulfil one or more of the criteria?

[David McKeown]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Maybe some of the west brits from down south can explain it as they seem to know everything?

I can do it if you like.

There is a presumption of innocence in all cases. Incumbent in that is a presumption in favour of bail. Therefore in order to have bail denied the court must be satisfied that one of the four statutory objections to bail is made out.

1. Risk of re-offending this is supposed to be there is a risk the defendant will reoffend linked to the original offence but has now become so watered down that effectively all the prosecution have to persuade a judge or is that the defendant will reoffend whilst on bail.

2. Risk of flight. The prosecution are able to prove there's a real risk that if released the defendant won't show up for court.

3. Risk of interference with witnesses/justice. This is the risk that the defendant if released will interfere with witnesses or the case as a whole by for example destroying evidence.

4. Release on bail represents a real risk of undermining public confidence in justice or will pose a risk to the safety of the defendant himself.

If and only one or more of these objections are made out should bail be refused and even then only if bail conditions couldn't adequately manage the risk.

You will note that factors such as for example seriousness of the charge or record of the defendant are not grounds to refuse bail they are significant factors in assessing those statutory objections. For example someone up for murder may be more likely to leave the country or not turn up for trial due to the potential sentence.

Likewise strength of the prosecution case is not a reason to refuse bail but a strong prosecution case may be relevant to for example the likelihood the defendant will try to interfere with witnesses.

It therefore stands to reason that weakness of a prosecution case can be a factor that makes bail more likely. That seems to be what's happened in this case.  The case against this accused is clearly weak given the nature of the judges remarks.

So I imagine that's the major factor in the defendant getting bail.

It should be noted that we are probably too conservative with the grant of bail. Despite there being no legal basis for it a lack of an address is probably the biggest reason for bail refusal at the minute. Moreover unlike England we don't have strict custody timelimits. Also in England 12 hour curfews result in that time coming off your final sentences. It doesn't impact sentences at all over here.

Hope that answers the query.

If the prosecution

Thank you. In your view, was bail justified?

I've no idea. I've done enough cases to know that reports don't always pick up the subtle nuances of court procedures.

Generally speaking bail is considerably more likely in cases where the prosecution evidence is weak. A challenge to a connection is rare unless the evidence is particularly weak (and it's almost never successful even then)

[Mourne Red]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Maybe some of the west brits from down south can explain it as they seem to know everything?

I can do it if you like.

There is a presumption of innocence in all cases. Incumbent in that is a presumption in favour of bail. Therefore in order to have bail denied the court must be satisfied that one of the four statutory objections to bail is made out.

1. Risk of re-offending this is supposed to be there is a risk the defendant will reoffend linked to the original offence but has now become so watered down that effectively all the prosecution have to persuade a judge or is that the defendant will reoffend whilst on bail.

2. Risk of flight. The prosecution are able to prove there's a real risk that if released the defendant won't show up for court.

3. Risk of interference with witnesses/justice. This is the risk that the defendant if released will interfere with witnesses or the case as a whole by for example destroying evidence.

4. Release on bail represents a real risk of undermining public confidence in justice or will pose a risk to the safety of the defendant himself.

If and only one or more of these objections are made out should bail be refused and even then only if bail conditions couldn't adequately manage the risk.

You will note that factors such as for example seriousness of the charge or record of the defendant are not grounds to refuse bail they are significant factors in assessing those statutory objections. For example someone up for murder may be more likely to leave the country or not turn up for trial due to the potential sentence.

Likewise strength of the prosecution case is not a reason to refuse bail but a strong prosecution case may be relevant to for example the likelihood the defendant will try to interfere with witnesses.

It therefore stands to reason that weakness of a prosecution case can be a factor that makes bail more likely. That seems to be what's happened in this case.  The case against this accused is clearly weak given the nature of the judges remarks.

So I imagine that's the major factor in the defendant getting bail.

It should be noted that we are probably too conservative with the grant of bail. Despite there being no legal basis for it a lack of an address is probably the biggest reason for bail refusal at the minute. Moreover unlike England we don't have strict custody timelimits. Also in England 12 hour curfews result in that time coming off your final sentences. It doesn't impact sentences at all over here.

Hope that answers the query.

If the prosecution

Thank you. In your view, was bail justified?

I've no idea. I've done enough cases to know that reports don't always pick up the subtle nuances of court procedures.

Generally speaking bail is considerably more likely in cases where the prosecution evidence is weak. A challenge to a connection is rare unless the evidence is particularly weak (and it's almost never successful even then)

Between here and the Armagh Vs Derry thread you should be charging posters for overtime David 😂

[David McKeown]

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/two-co-antrim-men-in-court-for-possessing-military-style-assault-weapon-and-50k-worth-of-drugs/483986061.html

Can someone explain how this **** Verner got bail!?!

Maybe some of the west brits from down south can explain it as they seem to know everything?

I can do it if you like.

There is a presumption of innocence in all cases. Incumbent in that is a presumption in favour of bail. Therefore in order to have bail denied the court must be satisfied that one of the four statutory objections to bail is made out.

1. Risk of re-offending this is supposed to be there is a risk the defendant will reoffend linked to the original offence but has now become so watered down that effectively all the prosecution have to persuade a judge or is that the defendant will reoffend whilst on bail.

2. Risk of flight. The prosecution are able to prove there's a real risk that if released the defendant won't show up for court.

3. Risk of interference with witnesses/justice. This is the risk that the defendant if released will interfere with witnesses or the case as a whole by for example destroying evidence.

4. Release on bail represents a real risk of undermining public confidence in justice or will pose a risk to the safety of the defendant himself.

If and only one or more of these objections are made out should bail be refused and even then only if bail conditions couldn't adequately manage the risk.

You will note that factors such as for example seriousness of the charge or record of the defendant are not grounds to refuse bail they are significant factors in assessing those statutory objections. For example someone up for murder may be more likely to leave the country or not turn up for trial due to the potential sentence.

Likewise strength of the prosecution case is not a reason to refuse bail but a strong prosecution case may be relevant to for example the likelihood the defendant will try to interfere with witnesses.

It therefore stands to reason that weakness of a prosecution case can be a factor that makes bail more likely. That seems to be what's happened in this case.  The case against this accused is clearly weak given the nature of the judges remarks.

So I imagine that's the major factor in the defendant getting bail.

It should be noted that we are probably too conservative with the grant of bail. Despite there being no legal basis for it a lack of an address is probably the biggest reason for bail refusal at the minute. Moreover unlike England we don't have strict custody timelimits. Also in England 12 hour curfews result in that time coming off your final sentences. It doesn't impact sentences at all over here.

Hope that answers the query.

If the prosecution

Thank you. In your view, was bail justified?

I've no idea. I've done enough cases to know that reports don't always pick up the subtle nuances of court procedures.

Generally speaking bail is considerably more likely in cases where the prosecution evidence is weak. A challenge to a connection is rare unless the evidence is particularly weak (and it's almost never successful even then)

Between here and the Armagh Vs Derry thread you should be charging posters for overtime David 😂

Like the fact that it's usually always less than 10 sleeps to Christmas. This is one of the few advantages to insomnia