Court hears the prison bond of released killer Kelly Noble was 'lost or never signed'
Published 21/01/2013 | 17:10
THE Court of Criminal Appeal has heard that it is unknown whether Kelly Noble entered a bond when leaving prison or whether the bond has been "misplaced".
Noble was released in 2010 from her eight-year sentence for stabbing to death a young mother outside a supermarket.
The three-judge court this morning made no order with regard to a motion brought by the State, having found that it had no jurisdiction to address the matter in the absence of a bond.
Prisoners leaving jail to serve the suspended portion of a sentence normally sign a bond before the prison governor to be of good behaviour and keep the peace.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, presiding, said the motion concerned an allegation that Noble (26) had reoffended “in an entirely different way” to her manslaughter conviction.
In March 2007 Noble was sentenced to 10 years with two years suspended by Mr Justice Barry White after a Central Criminal Court jury found her not guilty of murder but guilty of the manslaughter of Emma McLoughlin (19), who was stabbed in the chest in Laytown, Co Meath, on June 2nd, 2006.
The mother of two appealed against the severity of that sentence, and in February 2008 the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) substituted the original sentence with one of eight years with two years suspended.
Mr Justice Hardiman said that Noble, who was not present for this morning’s hearing, had left prison and that it was unknown whether or not she signed a bond upon her release.
He said the “unfortunate circumstance” was that there was “no sign” of any bond entered in to by Noble upon her release from prison.
Mr Justice Hardiman said the court had before it an affidavit stating that either no bond was entered in to or the bond was “misplaced” and cannot now be located.
He said that the court found this was a “very serious matter” and should be subject to “very serious inquiry” by the appropriate authorities.
Mr Justice Hardiman said the appeal court’s jurisdiction was dependent on such a bond and in its absence the court had no jurisdiction to address the matter further.