Murder of Aisling Murphy

[Truthsayer]

How are these people on bail after being convicted of trying to cover for  such a henious murder? The system of bail North & South is obscene.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2025/0617/1518865-puska-family-court/

Why do you say that?

Many examples: Cresswell charged with murder & rape and gets bail..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68900513.amp
In case of Puska family, after being convicted of trying to cover a henious murder that appaled the country.. do you really think they should be free before sentencing?

[David McKeown]

How are these people on bail after being convicted of trying to cover for  such a henious murder? The system of bail North & South is obscene.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2025/0617/1518865-puska-family-court/

Why do you say that?

Many examples: Cresswell charged with murder & rape and gets bail..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68900513.amp
In case of Puska family, after being convicted of trying to cover a henious murder that appaled the country.. do you really think they should be free before sentencing?

Well you've two different issues there.  The first is that bail doesn't depend on the seriousness of the charge.  People are entitled to the presumption of innocence and the reality is that it would be wrong to remand everyone charged with a serious crime.  The unfortunate consequence of that is that inevitably there will be cases where with the benefit of hindsight mistakes are made.  They are though made both ways.  There are plenty of examples of people completely wrongly charged with murder rapes etc who are remanded.  There's no recompense for this individuals and by and large they tend to not make the news.  So a bail system that does not depend on the seriousness of the charge is the only fair system.  Bail can only be refused if one of the following criteria can be established:

1. There is an unmanageable risk of reoffending
2. There is an unmanageable risk of non attendance
3. There is an unmanageable risk of interference with witnesses or the course of justice
4. There is an unmanageable risk to the accused's safety (incredibly rarely used)
5. There is an unmanageable risk of public disorder.

The seriousness of the offence feeds in to those factors but it cant be determinative of them.  So there are plenty of cases where bail should be refused but not all cases.

The Puska family is a different situation.  There is obviously no presumption in favour of innocence there anymore. That said when granted bail an individual is told that there bail is to appear at the next appearance of the case and every subsequent appearance so the starting point is that the family are on bail.  Now its not uncommon for that be revoked on conviction but again theres a number of factors feed into that.  The most pressing being is jail inevitable and whilst I am not sure on the sentencing guidelines for such offences in the south, in the North I have to say jail is far from inevitable for this type of offending.  So whilst I may not agree with it I can certainly understand why bail was granted and I can see why such a system is necessary.

[Truthsayer]

How are these people on bail after being convicted of trying to cover for  such a henious murder? The system of bail North & South is obscene.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2025/0617/1518865-puska-family-court/

Why do you say that?

Many examples: Cresswell charged with murder & rape and gets bail..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68900513.amp
In case of Puska family, after being convicted of trying to cover a henious murder that appaled the country.. do you really think they should be free before sentencing?

Well you've two different issues there.  The first is that bail doesn't depend on the seriousness of the charge.  People are entitled to the presumption of innocence and the reality is that it would be wrong to remand everyone charged with a serious crime.  The unfortunate consequence of that is that inevitably there will be cases where with the benefit of hindsight mistakes are made.  They are though made both ways.  There are plenty of examples of people completely wrongly charged with murder rapes etc who are remanded.  There's no recompense for this individuals and by and large they tend to not make the news.  So a bail system that does not depend on the seriousness of the charge is the only fair system.  Bail can only be refused if one of the following criteria can be established:

1. There is an unmanageable risk of reoffending
2. There is an unmanageable risk of non attendance
3. There is an unmanageable risk of interference with witnesses or the course of justice
4. There is an unmanageable risk to the accused's safety (incredibly rarely used)
5. There is an unmanageable risk of public disorder.

The seriousness of the offence feeds in to those factors but it cant be determinative of them.  So there are plenty of cases where bail should be refused but not all cases.

The Puska family is a different situation.  There is obviously no presumption in favour of innocence there anymore. That said when granted bail an individual is told that there bail is to appear at the next appearance of the case and every subsequent appearance so the starting point is that the family are on bail.  Now its not uncommon for that be revoked on conviction but again theres a number of factors feed into that.  The most pressing being is jail inevitable and whilst I am not sure on the sentencing guidelines for such offences in the south, in the North I have to say jail is far from inevitable for this type of offending.  So whilst I may not agree with it I can certainly understand why bail was granted and I can see why such a system is necessary.

You're obviously a defence solicitor/barrister or involved in the legal process.
Because something is embedded in law does not make it right. I find it astonishing that the members of the Puska family may not get a custodial sentence. If that is the case sentencing laws need reviewed. To try and help a person evade detection for such a henious murder
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmw7ej17xjo.amp

As for the other case of Cresswell... charged with murder and rape and gets bail!! Jees! And duly suicides...
Agreed...  there needs to be compensation for a person is remanded and found not guilty after trial.
 

[gallsman]

You're obviously a defence solicitor/barrister or involved in the legal process.

Yet more searing insight on your part.

Because something is embedded in law does not make it right.

The question you asked was "how are they on bail?" You've been given an answer that is essentially "because that's the law". The "rightness" of that is not relevant.

[Truthsayer]

You're obviously a defence solicitor/barrister or involved in the legal process.

Yet more searing insight on your part.

Because something is embedded in law does not make it right.

The question you asked was "how are they on bail?" You've been given an answer that is essentially "because that's the law". The "rightness" of that is not relevant.

If you are going to quote what I asked.. quote it fully.
I asked: "How are these people on bail after being convicted of trying to cover for  such a henious murder? The system of bail North & South is obscene."
To make it clearer to people of your limited intelligence I should have asked: "How the f*** are these people on bail after being convicted of trying to cover for  such a henious murder?!..."
I do acknowledge it is the law... hence: "The system of bail North & South is obscene." The rightness of law is very relevant and worth debate.
I know you're still reeling from being wrong about the Kneecap charge... but try harder! 

[David McKeown]

How are these people on bail after being convicted of trying to cover for  such a henious murder? The system of bail North & South is obscene.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2025/0617/1518865-puska-family-court/

Why do you say that?

Many examples: Cresswell charged with murder & rape and gets bail..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68900513.amp
In case of Puska family, after being convicted of trying to cover a henious murder that appaled the country.. do you really think they should be free before sentencing?

Well you've two different issues there.  The first is that bail doesn't depend on the seriousness of the charge.  People are entitled to the presumption of innocence and the reality is that it would be wrong to remand everyone charged with a serious crime.  The unfortunate consequence of that is that inevitably there will be cases where with the benefit of hindsight mistakes are made.  They are though made both ways.  There are plenty of examples of people completely wrongly charged with murder rapes etc who are remanded.  There's no recompense for this individuals and by and large they tend to not make the news.  So a bail system that does not depend on the seriousness of the charge is the only fair system.  Bail can only be refused if one of the following criteria can be established:

1. There is an unmanageable risk of reoffending
2. There is an unmanageable risk of non attendance
3. There is an unmanageable risk of interference with witnesses or the course of justice
4. There is an unmanageable risk to the accused's safety (incredibly rarely used)
5. There is an unmanageable risk of public disorder.

The seriousness of the offence feeds in to those factors but it cant be determinative of them.  So there are plenty of cases where bail should be refused but not all cases.

The Puska family is a different situation.  There is obviously no presumption in favour of innocence there anymore. That said when granted bail an individual is told that there bail is to appear at the next appearance of the case and every subsequent appearance so the starting point is that the family are on bail.  Now its not uncommon for that be revoked on conviction but again theres a number of factors feed into that.  The most pressing being is jail inevitable and whilst I am not sure on the sentencing guidelines for such offences in the south, in the North I have to say jail is far from inevitable for this type of offending.  So whilst I may not agree with it I can certainly understand why bail was granted and I can see why such a system is necessary.

You're obviously a defence solicitor/barrister or involved in the legal process.
Because something is embedded in law does not make it right. I find it astonishing that the members of the Puska family may not get a custodial sentence. If that is the case sentencing laws need reviewed. To try and help a person evade detection for such a henious murder
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmw7ej17xjo.amp

As for the other case of Cresswell... charged with murder and rape and gets bail!! Jees! And duly suicides...
Agreed...  there needs to be compensation for a person is remanded and found not guilty after trial.
 

I don't disagree that there are many areas of sentencing that need looked at but that's a job for parliament.

As for bail. I can understand the perception that if charged with a serious offence you shouldn't get bail but I don't think that's a fair system. The presumption of innocence has to mean something and compensation for mistakes would probably lead to less remands as courts prosecutors etc would be concerned about the financial implications of getting it wrong. A black and white approach is unworkable as well. I think the system used in England and Wales represents the best system but it's not practicable in Northern Ireland.

[Puckoon]

A black and white approach is unworkable as well. I think the system used in England and Wales represents the best system but it's not practicable in Northern Ireland.

David could you expand on that a little? Great responses by the way, thanks for the insights.

[David McKeown]

A black and white approach is unworkable as well. I think the system used in England and Wales represents the best system but it's not practicable in Northern Ireland.

David could you expand on that a little? Great responses by the way, thanks for the insights.

It's a similar approach to here but with considerably greater resources.

Basically unlike here most of the evidence is gathered before charge and considered by a prosecutor. If remand is sought it can be considered by a Magistrate and is for a strictly limited time frame. 30 days. That can be extended twice but only if certain harder to achieve on each subsequent occasion milestones are met within the investigation. At the end of the 90 days the evidence gathered must be sufficient to allow a proper investigation into the strength of the evidence against an accused. If it's not bail must be directed.

Individuals who get bail will often be GPS tagged (not available in Northern Ireland as we only offer fixed location tagging). If they are and are subsequently sentenced to imprisonment the time spent on tag will either come off their sentence at a rate of 1 day for every 2 days (minimum 12 hours per day) that they are tagged and curfewed or will be a relevant factor to consider for sentence length.

As a result trials are brought on far quicker in England and Wales and people don't sit in jail or under curfew for years on end only for cases to be withdrawn as happens regularly here. 

[Truthsayer]

A black and white approach is unworkable as well. I think the system used in England and Wales represents the best system but it's not practicable in Northern Ireland.

David could you expand on that a little? Great responses by the way, thanks for the insights.

It's a similar approach to here but with considerably greater resources.

Basically unlike here most of the evidence is gathered before charge and considered by a prosecutor. If remand is sought it can be considered by a Magistrate and is for a strictly limited time frame. 30 days. That can be extended twice but only if certain harder to achieve on each subsequent occasion milestones are met within the investigation. At the end of the 90 days the evidence gathered must be sufficient to allow a proper investigation into the strength of the evidence against an accused. If it's not bail must be directed.

Individuals who get bail will often be GPS tagged (not available in Northern Ireland as we only offer fixed location tagging). If they are and are subsequently sentenced to imprisonment the time spent on tag will either come off their sentence at a rate of 1 day for every 2 days (minimum 12 hours per day) that they are tagged and curfewed or will be a relevant factor to consider for sentence length.

As a result trials are brought on far quicker in England and Wales and people don't sit in jail or under curfew for years on end only for cases to be withdrawn as happens regularly here. 

Sounds better than here. The process here seems to drag out forever.. not easy for victims when a guilty person is running about on bail.

[David McKeown]

A black and white approach is unworkable as well. I think the system used in England and Wales represents the best system but it's not practicable in Northern Ireland.

David could you expand on that a little? Great responses by the way, thanks for the insights.

It's a similar approach to here but with considerably greater resources.

Basically unlike here most of the evidence is gathered before charge and considered by a prosecutor. If remand is sought it can be considered by a Magistrate and is for a strictly limited time frame. 30 days. That can be extended twice but only if certain harder to achieve on each subsequent occasion milestones are met within the investigation. At the end of the 90 days the evidence gathered must be sufficient to allow a proper investigation into the strength of the evidence against an accused. If it's not bail must be directed.

Individuals who get bail will often be GPS tagged (not available in Northern Ireland as we only offer fixed location tagging). If they are and are subsequently sentenced to imprisonment the time spent on tag will either come off their sentence at a rate of 1 day for every 2 days (minimum 12 hours per day) that they are tagged and curfewed or will be a relevant factor to consider for sentence length.

As a result trials are brought on far quicker in England and Wales and people don't sit in jail or under curfew for years on end only for cases to be withdrawn as happens regularly here. 

Sounds better than here. The process here seems to drag out forever.. not easy for victims when a guilty person is running about on bail.

Yes the system in England and Wales is better. Mind you they struggle to get cases going due to unavailability of lawyers and court rooms so it's not all sunshine and rainbows.

[gallsman]

What happened your other post where you blamed it all on lawyers on the take?

[David McKeown]

What happened your other post where you blamed it all on lawyers on the take?

Is that directed at me?

[gallsman]

What happened your other post where you blamed it all on lawyers on the take?

Is that directed at me?

Nope, you got in before me.

[Truthsayer]

What happened your other post where you blamed it all on lawyers on the take?

Is that directed at me?

Was too long and stuff personal to a local case. I didn't say 'all' lawyers.. is cases dragged out forever and I am aware every 'mention', as listed in court papers, is £££ for lawyers. And after 2 years... jury sworn in, trial ready to start... client rearraigned and 'guilty' plea, Why is that? you think could have been plea ages before. I'll keep debate with you David. Not directed at you personally. I don't even know you.
Gallsman keen to get even with me for proving him wrong on the Kneecap case   

[David McKeown]

What happened your other post where you blamed it all on lawyers on the take?

Is that directed at me?

Was too long and stuff personal to a local case. I didn't say 'all' lawyers.. is cases dragged out forever and I am aware every 'mention', as listed in court papers, is £££ for lawyers. And after 2 years... jury sworn in, trial ready to start... client rearraigned and 'guilty' plea, Why is that? you think could have been plea ages before. I'll keep debate with you David. Not directed at you personally. I don't even know you.
Gallsman keen to get even with me for proving him wrong on the Kneecap case   

It's certainly not £££ for lawyers. There's no mention fees in the Magistrates Court at all and fees in the Crown court are between £64 and £86 and to get that weve usually spent at least 3 or 4 hours on the case between reading preparing and attending. No lawyers are getting rich of mentions.

As for defendants pleading at the last minute there's often very good reason for that. They can range from defendants waiting to see if witnesses will attend court, whether expert evidence benefits them, whether pleas to lesser sentences can be taken etc. Lawyers aren't profiting from that either and defence lawyers definitely aren't the ones dragging it out. Dragging out cases doesn't aid lawyers. I recently finished a high profile murder that took over three years for a range of reasons the fee was relatively low and much less than I could make in other courts or other types of work.  The way fees work the vast majority of the fee was made immediately and the extra fees were very small.