For almost two years after he was convicted of the manslaughter of his wife Celine Cawley, killer Eamonn Lillis's soft- spoken voice was at odds with his dogged assertion that he was entitled to 100pc of the joint assets they had held -- the luxury properties in Ireland, France and Spain -- before her unlawful death in December 2008.

At every possible crossroads, the man who had embarked on an affair with a beauty parlour masseuse and who was found guilty of killing his 46-year-old wife with a brick during a nasty marital row -- leaving her to die outside their Howth home on a cold December morning before inventing a story of an intruder -- was said to have blocked and frustrated Celine's family in their challenge to his right for a share of the family home and other property assets.

He had already made €353,000 -- his share from the liquidation of Toytown Films, the company Celine founded and of which he was a joint shareholder.

It was only on the morning of December 6, 2011, as Justice Mary Laffoy was about to rule in the high-court case taken by Celine's family, that Eamonn rowed back and acknowledged his right to only 50pc of the joint property assets.

In the final event, Justice Laffoy ruled that Eamonn Lillis was entitled to 100pc of their joint assets, pointing to a deficit in the law which, she said, gave her no other choice.

She then referred to a precedent to rule that 50pc of the proceeds from those assets should be held in trust for Celine Cawley's estate, therefore going to the couple's 18-year-old daughter, Georgia.

Justice Laffoy herself called for a review of the law, and her ruling also prompted calls for new legislation that would apply a clear-cut rule to the general assumption that a killer should not benefit from his or her crime.

"We need a broad debate on this," said Mairead Fernane from Victim Assistance. "And a clear-cut decision on whether a spouse who is convicted of killing his or her partner is entitled to a share of the joint assets.

"It's a legally complex issue, but for families of murder victims, it's very simple: they have to look on as someone who killed their loved one appears to benefit from the crime. That makes people very angry."

If the legal complexities surrounding the disposal and distribution of joint assets in homicide cases are perplexing for experts such as Justice Laffoy, they are truly galling for the families of murder victims.

One legal source said: "Think of all those men sitting in prison and sitting on assets worth millions of euro while they're detained at the State's pleasure."

"They will come out of jail and live happily ever after with their share from the sale of the family home. This massive legal deficit gives major empowerment to convicted killers.

"Imagine knowing that you can kill your spouse and still have that share of joint assets to enjoy when you get out of prison; it's mind-boggling," they added.

Section 120 of the 1965 Succession Act precludes a spouse who murders, attempts to murder or is convicted of the manslaughter of their partner from inheriting that partner's estate. They are deemed 'unworthy to succeed'.

However, it is not written in law that a spouse convicted of any of these crimes loses their right to a share of jointly held assets such as property. That is a matter of common law, with each case decided individually.

Following a conviction, there is no automatic entitlement on the family's part to a share of joint assets. The onus is on the grieving family to take a civil case -- and if they don't, the convicted killer gets 100pc.

One person watching the Lillis case from the sidelines has been Marian Leonard, who, along with her brother Pat and mother Bridget O'Brien, were the first family of a murder victim in this country to take a civil case against the perpetrator. Their case made legal history and set a precedent for the Lillis case.

But their civil case to secure a share of their sister Esther's family home struck only a minor note in what was a tragic and scandalous murder case.

In September 1992, Frank McCann, a swimming coach and president of the Leinster branch of the Amateur Swimming Association, started a fire at his family home in Rathfarnham that killed his 30-year-old wife Esther and 18-month-old foster child Jessica.

It was at least Frank's third attempt to kill his family in a bid to cover the tracks of his scandalous life.

On one previous occasion, Esther had woken to find an electric blanket on fire at the end of her bed; on another, she had to leave the house after smelling gas, suspected at the time of being a gas leak big enough to cause a massive explosion.

On the night that Tramore-born Esther and Jessica died, the court found that Frank McCann had left the pub he owned in Blessington and gone home to start the fire with a blow torch and gas cylinder.

He then left the scene and, when the blaze was out of control, returned to play the role of the panicked husband and foster father, even making a show of trying to get into the house to save Esther and Jessica.

It later emerged that Frank had fathered a child with a 17-year-old swimming student with special needs.

Unknown to Esther, the child was born and adopted just months after Frank and Esther married.

A number of years into the McCann's marriage, Frank's sister Jeanette had a child, Jessica, that he and Esther cared for and planned to adopt.

On the night that she died, Esther planned to have a conversation with Frank over unexplained delays in the adoption process.

What her husband hadn't told her was that the application had been rejected following a complaint made by the mother of the swimming student he had fathered a child with.

The net was closing in on Frank's life as a respectable, confident member of his community.

"I remember one of the big reasons why we decided to take a civil case against Frank McCann was that ownership and possessions meant so much to him," says Marian Leonard.

"He premeditavely murdered Esther and Jessica to preserve his good name and position. Imagine, on the day that he killed them, he made sure to remove his swimming association chains of office and put them in a safe place.

"We knew it would bother him to see us having control over part of his possessions.

"We also wanted to ensure that he didn't get 100pc of the joint assets," Marian continues.

"In fact, I could never understand why he was entitled to any share, given what he had done, but we understood from the start that we could only go after 50pc.

"Following the fire, he got a pay-out from the insurance company and we put in a caveat to stop him doing anything with the proceeds and to prevent him from selling the house."

In 1996, Frank was convicted of the murder of Esther and Jessica and given two concurrent life sentences, which he continues to serve at Arbour Hill prison.

In 1998, Judge Elizabeth Dunne reached her landmark ruling on the disposal and distribution of the McCann's family home, which was then reported to be valued at 180,000 Irish pounds,

Judge Dunne found that Frank's actions severed the joint tenancy agreement between him and his late wife, and also found that he could not benefit financially from her share of the family home.

She awarded Esther's mother, Bridget, 52.5pc of the value of the home and 47.5pc to Frank, according to reports at the time.

From his share, Frank was ordered to pay the £20,000 costs of the O'Brien family's high-court case against him.

He was also ordered to pay nearly £28,000 that had accrued from his share of the life insurance policy to Bridget and, in a separate case, more than £9,000 to her for mental stress and funeral expenses.

It didn't leave much of a nest-egg for scheming Frank.

Tragically, Marian lost her sister as her own son James was battling cancer. He died the following Arpil, two weeks before McCann's arrest.

"My heart goes out to families like the Cawleys," says Marian.

"Taking a case is a hard road for them because every time they go to court they will have to revisit those dreadful events. It will be a nightmare for them.

"When we initiated proceedings, it was just one court appearance after the other. The convicted person is allowed to appeal and fight everything, a lot of deference is given to the convicted killer. The system is callous.

"At the time of Esther and Jessica's deaths, we were shell-shocked," she explains.

"To us, the issue of assets was a small one, there was so much else going on. Their murders have had a massive impact on my family's lives and the lives of our children."

Unfortunately, says Marian, the process doesn't stop there. "And it just goes on and on: every three years, Frank McCann is eligible for parole and we have to lodge submissions for the parole hearing. He then gets to read and question those submissions at his ease.

"Four years ago, we took the opportunity of giving victim impact statements so that they would be taken into account during subsequent parole hearings."

Despite this ongoing ordeal, Marian is philosophical about the way the situation has progressed.

"We have been very well looked after by the Department of Justice and the parole board, and I don't see McCann getting out any time soon to enjoy what's left of his share of the assets," she says.

"He hasn't been granted any concessions because he hasn't shown any remorse or changed his tune. He treats the inmates and staff in jail with disdain, he's remote from everybody. Although he has moved on in one way, completing a Phd."

Given the landmark ruling in the McCann case, Marian is surprised that Celine Cawley's family have needed to follow a similar legal route.

Another family who took on the legal system to stop their relative's killer from benefiting financially was Tom Nevin's, appalled at his killing on the night of March 19, 1996, and at Catherine Nevin's attempts to cover up her involvement in his death.

When Catherine Nevin sold Jack White's pub in 1997 for 620,000 Irish pounds, Tom's mother, Nora Nevin, took legal action to challenge the sale and to seek a declaration that Catherine would not be entitled to any share of Tom's assets.

She also took an injunction seeking details of rental income from two properties that the Nevins owned together.

In October 2006, the Nevin family took further legal action to prevent Catherine from collecting rents from the rental properties.

According to Catherine's solicitor, Anne Fitzgibbon, the civil case that Tom's family initiated against her many years ago is still ongoing.

All financial assets in the case continue to be frozen, almost 12 years after Catherine was sentenced to life in prison for the killing of her husband and seven years for soliciting three men to kill him.

"She didn't even get her share of the pub, which she jointly owned with Tom and which she was entitled to," says Anne.

It is understood that if Catherine's conviction had been found to be a miscarriage of justice in her unsuccessful 2010 appeal, she stood to benefit greatly not only from joint assets but also from Tom's estate, which included a bank account with almost £200,000 and a life insurance policy, worth almost £80,000.

Tom's family have maintained a dignified silence around the case and Tom's brother Patrick Nevin declined to comment for this article.

With a strong background in law, the Cawleys are better placed than many families to take on Celine's killer -- her father Thomas and sister Susanna are both solicitors, as are two brothers-in-law.

The Cawleys are not intimidated by a legal system that many families of murder victims describe as savage, callous and unjust.

But they still have a long way to go in the wearing emotional and costly financial battle to dispose of and distribute the joint assets Celine held with Eamonn.

Both sides have to report back to Laffoy on the disposal of joint assets. Other joint assets involved in the case include bonds worth €45,000 and two bank accounts amounting to €24,500.

Lillis was told to account for his financial dealings after Celine's death. For instance, the Cawleys had no idea where rent from the couple's Sutton investment property had gone since January 2011.

A parallel high-court case involving their holiday home near Biarritz in France is due for hearing in late March, while the process of disposing of property assets in Ireland continues.

In France, there is a greater likelihood that all of the €750,000 value of the Biarritz holiday home will go directly to Celine's estate, since France does have a law dealing with the disposal of joint assets in cases of homicide of a spouse by a spouse.

Meanwhile, a legal source says the absence of such a law in this country is a "massive legislative deficit" which maintains the status quo and offers no protection to women, particularly professional women who have built up substantial assets during the course of their marriage.

And there are more than one convicted spouse killers sitting on a nest-egg while they complete a prison sentence.

Brian Kearney, who was convicted in 2008 of the murder of his wife Siobhan Kearney, and Joe O'Reilly, who was convicted in 2007 of the murder of his wife Rachel O'Reilly, are also believed to have inherited a share of the property or properties they owned with their partners.

Brian -- who strangled his 38-year-old wife Siobhan with a vacuum-cleaner flex in their expensive Goatstown home and then tried to make it look like suicide -- had been under pressure to reduce extensive borrowings at the time.

Between buying a hotel in Majorca and building a house next to their family home, he had overstretched himself on borrowings despite having assets of nearly €5m.

Moves that Siobhan was making to leave the unhappy marriage would have interfered with his plans to get out of his financial quagmire.

Following Brian's conviction, it was reported that he tried to sell the hotel in Majorca for €3.4m in 2009.

The property was taken off the market in 2011 and was reportedly being run by his brother, Patrick.

And it is understood that the Naul home where Joe O'Reilly battered his young wife Rachel to death in October 2004 continues to lie empty, with no decision yet made about its future.

Joe, who was having an affair with advertising executive Nicky Pelley, is believed by gardai to have beaten Rachel with a dumbbell.

The Department of Justice says that it has noted the recent judgement in the Lillis case and that this area is under review, although it doesn't expand on what 'under review' means.

Legally, families with the energy and wherewithal, can make a submission to the Law Reform Commission to change the law regarding the disposal of joint assets in murder cases.

Patricia Rickard Clarke from the Law Reform Commission says that it will take submissions from members of the public next year before embarking on its fourth programme of law reform.

The other option is that the government or Attorney General could refer the matter to them.

"There seems to be no interest in changing the law," says one relative. "There's only interest in the gory details of how people are killed by their spouses."

- Catherine Murphy

Originally published in