Curran then murdered 2-year-old Aaliyah Morrissey while on bail.
This was a disgusting case. I remember at the time asking myself: how can a person who is accused of murder be allowed bail? It defies logic and moral common sense.
As expected, this website has supporters and detractors.
Sensible Sentencing and victims are, naturally, all for it.
They say it provides a new type of accountability for judges and the legal system has been largely unchallenged and unquestioned for years.
Local lawyers the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend spoke to say it's about revenge, that the trust makes statements that are neither sensible nor informed and appeals to a mob mentality.
One lawyer says it "seriously undermines the rule of law" and there is an appeals' system in place if people are dissatisfied.
Court judges are often easy targets but that's because their job is so serious.
They have the awesome power to jail people, find people guilty, decide if they should be allowed in the community, and whether the public has a right to know who offenders are.
Their role in administering justice drives to the heart of society and they are presiding over cases that have huge emotional investment. It's only natural people will have strong views.
It should be assumed judges know the law well and have a huge amount of skill and experience to make the right decisions.
But the problem, apart from them making honest mistakes like anyone else, is there is a fundamental difference between decisions based on precedence and what's appropriate legally, versus what everyday lay people think is right morally.
There is also a difference of opinion between conservative and liberal people. Some might think 18 years in prison for murder is justice; others will want the death penalty.
In Curran's case, it might have been legally appropriate for Justice Cooper to bail him but how many normal, right-thinking people would agree?
I thought it was the wrong decision. No one accused of murder should be bailed because of the gravity of the offence and the public's right to safety must always come first.
Yes, court decisions can be appealed but that doesn't mean other people and organisations shouldn't express public views on them.
Such freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy.
Just because someone isn't a lawyer doesn't mean they are not entitled to express an opinion or say if they think a judge made a bad call, as long as they don't cross a legal line by scandalising the court.
Judges must not be above criticism.
The Sensible Sentencing website is a good way for people to make themselves aware of controversial decisions and make their own judgments. The risk of it undermining the legal system is surely small because judges are supposed to be immune from public influence.
The legal fraternity should welcome openness rather than fear it.
