Pod Insights The Case Of Isla Bell: Court hears bid to throw out case About this episode The man originally charged with Isla Bell's murder has made an application to have the only remaining charge against him thrown out permanently.
Marat Ganiev was charged with Isla's murder after the 19-year-old's body was found at a tip in Melbourne's east in 2024. That charge was then downgraded to manslaughter, and later replaced with attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Kristian Silva returns to the pod to explain why Marat Ganiev's barrister is now applying for a permanent stay on the remaining charge.
Listen to our previous episode explaining how Isla’s alleged murder case collapsed. https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/the-case-of/isla-bell-why-her-alleged-murder-case-collapsed/106684636
If you have any questions you’d like Kristian and Stocky to answer in future episodes, please email [email protected] mailto:[email protected] .
The Case Of is the follow-up to the hit podcast Mushroom Case Daily, and all episodes of that show will remain available in the back catalogue of The Case Of.
Transcript 0:00 Speaker 00 Why did Matthew Flinders write such saucy letters to his best friend, George Bass?
0:06 Speaker 01 Who really chopped off choppers' ears?
0:09 Speaker 00 And why did they name a swimming pool after an Australian Prime Minister who drowned?
0:16 Speaker 01 I mean, why didn't they just use Harry Holt's high school nickname, Puss? These are the kind of historical questions we'll be asking on The Dead Can't Sue.
0:26 Speaker 00 Search The Dead Can't Sue podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
0:30 Speaker 02 ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music and more.
0:45 Speaker 01 Melbourne was worried when Isla Bell disappeared, saddened when her body was found, shocked when charges for her murder were dropped. And now, as arguments for the case to be thrown out completely are made, there have been rallies outside the Supreme Court. I'm Stephen Stockwell, this is The Case Of.
1:03 Speaker 03 Victoria Police have charged two men in relation to the suspicious disappearance of a missing Melbourne teenager.
1:09 Speaker 04 Isla, then 19, was last seen leaving her home in Brunswick.
1:13 Speaker 05 Six weeks later, a grim discovery, with Miss Bell's remains found at a Dandenong tip.
1:18 Speaker 06 A 53-year-old man has been charged with murder, and a 57-year-old man has been charged with assisting in a murder. This is a very difficult day, to see the charges that have been dropped.
1:29 Speaker 07 And the rage in me, I just, I promise, bub, I fought hard, I fought with my every breath.
1:41 Speaker 01 Isla Bell disappeared in late 2024. Weeks later, her body was found at a tip. And we took a look at this story a few months ago, when it was revealed that no one would be held responsible for her death. But now, the man who was originally charged with her murder, Murat Ganyev, may not face any charges at all, with his defence applying for a permanent stay in proceedings. It is an incredible turnaround from a murder charge to potentially nothing at all. And following this story, there's been ABC Court reporter, Christian Silver. Christian, welcome back to The Case Of.
2:12 Speaker 05 Thanks for having me, Stocky.
2:13 Speaker 01 Isla Bell was 19 years old when her body was found in a fridge at a rubbish dump in late 2024. Can you remind us of the timeline of the charges that Murat Ganyev has faced?
2:24 Speaker 05 Well, yeah, Stocky, after the body was found, police charged him with murder. The case then went through the fairly slow legal process through the magistrate's court in the early stages. It then went to a committal hearing where the prosecution evidence was put to somewhat of a test. It passed that test because a magistrate committed the case up to the Supreme Court for trial on a murder charge. The defence wanted the case thrown out at that point, but failed.
2:55 Speaker 01 Okay.
2:55 Speaker 05 Then the case reached the Supreme Court and we found out that the prosecution had filed a new indictment for manslaughter. And that changed, obviously, the game. And then, at some point after that, the manslaughter charge was dropped and a new indictment was filed for a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. So, as you said, all charges relating to Isla's death were abandoned. And then the charge became about what Gagnev is alleged to have done. It's the alleged cover up of Isla's death.
3:30 Speaker 01 Okay, so Christian, it's a pretty dramatic turnaround from, you know, a murder charge at the beginning, all the way through to now attempting to pervert the course of justice. Can you take us back and explain kind of what was, what police were alleging had happened at that early stage?
3:45 Speaker 05 So, police alleged that when Isla Bell went into Murat Gagnev's apartment, that she was attacked. They claimed that there was some CCTV which showed this. And they claimed that after this alleged attack, that her body was put in his fridge. And then that fridge was taken out of the property. And then the fridge was moved around Melbourne. And eventually what happened was the body was found at the tip. The big sticking point in this case, Stocky, has been the cause of death. And what we learned at the committal was that several forensic experts who analysed the body could not determine a cause of death.
4:26 Speaker 05 Part of that was down to the fact that the body was decomposed after several weeks before it was found. And it was also damaged because it had been through rubbish compacting machinery. It's, it's pretty awful. The other thing that pathologists were not able to exclude was the possibility that Isla Bell died of a drug overdose because they found a litany of prescription and illegal drugs in her body when they analysed it. So this was really the big sticking point of the case and the defence said you cannot prove that Isla Bell didn't die of a drug overdose.
5:08 Speaker 01 All right. That was the case against Murat Ganyev initially. Now that's obviously changed again. We're now down to attempting to pervert the course of justice charges. But there was a second man, Yafy. He had been charged originally with attempting to pervert the course of justice, but that charge was dropped in May. Is that right?
5:25 Speaker 05 That's correct. So Yafi was accused of being involved in basically this body disposal plot that the police had alleged. Police said that he was the one who brought a fridge to Murat Ganyev's property and then Isla Bell's body was put in Murat Ganyev's fridge and then taken out of the property and that fridge was then moved around Melbourne for several weeks. We've gone through the quite shocking and confronting timeline in our last episode, but what ended up happening was Isla's remains ended up at a local tip.
6:03 Speaker 05 So Yafi also had the same situation applied to him. When his case got to the Supreme Court, the charges were dropped and a couple of months ago he left court a free man.
6:16 Speaker 01 Yeah, right. And we learned a little bit about his background as well. He had some previous convictions?
6:20 Speaker 05 Yeah, well, once this case was over, legal restrictions on what we could say about his past were lifted and we were able to dig up some old court cases and Yafi had quite an extensive criminal history, including a period of jail that he served for.
6:37 Speaker 05 Quite a vicious assault on a woman, and it was a case where he'd actually threatened to stuff that victim in a suitcase, and he spent some time in jail for that.
6:48 Speaker 01 Yeah, okay. Christian, we're now at a point, though, where Murat Ganyev is still charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. His defence team is now asking for a permanent stay. Before we get into the arguments, what is a permanent stay?
7:02 Speaker 05 It's basically when the judge intervenes in the case and says, I'm going to stop this. There can be a number of reasons for it. On this occasion, the defence says there's been an abusive process, and basically for this case to continue is grossly unfair. That's what they say. And the reason for that is, is he was charged with murder, then they changed it to manslaughter, then they've changed it again and laid this, this new charge. And what the defence is saying is, everyone has known the alleged conduct that Ganyev supposedly engaged in. The police have known this for a long time. He was never charged with it
7:43 Speaker 05 until very recently. And that's what the defence is saying. It's very unfair for you to chop and change this case when you could have laid these charges at the beginning. So they've called on Justice James Elliott to throw the case out.
7:56 Speaker 01 What's so bad about changing the charges?
7:58 Speaker 05 Well, from the defence point of view, they say this is an abusive process, and this is, to use Sally Flynn's words, so unfair. Because, she says, the prosecution could have laid these charges ages ago, and now because their manslaughter case has fallen over, they're now trying to salvage the case by laying these new ones. The prosecution says that's not, that's not true, and the decision to abandon one aspect of the case and start a new aspect of the case, they're unrelated. And both sides, one of the few things they can agree on is that the evidence in the case has not changed for a long time.
8:40 Speaker 05 There's just this dispute about whether it's right or fair for the prosecution to be laying a charge relating to one aspect of it now.
8:51 Speaker 01 Right, okay. And is part of their concern with the timing and the way that this is all unfolded and the way the O P P has managed this, you know, the initially it being the murder charge, then the defence sort of saying in the committal, this is never going to fly, that process ends, it changes to manslaughter, they kind of also make some noise and then it changes again. Is that what they're coming at?
9:11 Speaker 05 It's all about the management of the case and that's what makes this one interesting. And what the defence was saying this week was that when the manslaughter charge was laid, the defence got up in the Supreme Court and pointed out what they claimed were fatal flaws in the prosecution case. Now, that's obviously their spin on it.
9:33 Speaker 01 Yep.
9:34 Speaker 05 But anyway, shortly after they made those arguments in court, the manslaughter case disappeared and then this new charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice was laid. Now, the defence is saying, because we pointed out your mistake, you've got rid of the manslaughter charge and now to sort of try and make up for it in some kind of way to keep this on going, you've laid this attempting to pervert the course of justice charge. The prosecution says that's not true.
10:02 Speaker 01 Yeah, okay. The thing, Christian, that stuck with me was when Sally Flynn was explaining, you know, her concerns around this process, basically, you know, what you were explaining before, the timeline of this change. Is part of this stay application kind of a protection from the O P P doing something like this in the future?
10:21 Speaker 05 That is what the defence says and both sides in this case, in a sense, are claiming to be the good guys in terms of honouring the way the legal system is supposed to work. So what Sally Flynn said was, we've done everyone a favour by pointing out the supposed flaws in your case. We could have just taken this to trial. Had a jury empaneled, let this entire case play out, sat on our hands and then hit you with what they say is their no case submission. There's a case in the High Court, which apparently has some similarities to this Isla Bell case. And what they were going
11:01 Speaker 05 to say was, on that example, the accused was acquitted. So it's a given that they say the judge would have to acquit Ganiev. Now, that is obviously their take on things. So they're saying they've done everyone a favour and now they're calling on the judge to stop the case now because you would have stopped it down the track.
11:22 Speaker 01 Yep, right.
11:23 Speaker 05 It should be noted that the prosecution says that, well, even if the manslaughter charge was stopped, that doesn't mean that Ganiev is immune from all charges. And they say that the conduct relating to the manslaughter charge, which is, you know, the alleged unlawful killing of Isla Bell, is very different to the conduct of attempting to pervert the course of justice. This is the alleged hiding of the body and so forth.
11:51 Speaker 01 Christian, is what the defence is saying here, that the actions by the OPP are improper, unconscionable, whatever word you want to kind of use from the defence around this, and that if they're not kind of pulled into line here, this could happen for other cases and, you know, this could be bigger than Isla Bell. This could affect all sorts of other murder trials down the track with the OPP changing charges once they realise that a case isn't going to get up.
12:15 Speaker 05 Yep, that is the argument that Sally Flynn was making. And one thing to make clear about this is the defence is not challenging the quality of the evidence in relation to the attempting to pervert the course of justice charge at this point. What they're getting at is the process has been abused, in their words. They say it's not fair that you could have charged him with this ages ago, but you keep chopping and changing. And for the defence, that means they have to reassess their strategy as well.
12:45 Speaker 01 Yep, okay, right. How likely is a permanent stay? Do they happen often?
12:50 Speaker 05 They're very, very rare. And the judge made the point that permanent stays are tough to get up.
12:54 Speaker 01 Christian, we've spoken before about how kind of unemotional courtrooms are. But in this instance on Tuesday, there was real feeling in this argument. You know, Sally Flynn, who's acting for the defence in this case, really kind of felt, and, you know, despite kind of how dry this may sound, she was really animated and passionate about the case she was making.
13:13 Speaker 05 Yeah, I think there's different styles that you see in the courtroom from everyone, from the judge to the lawyers. Sally Flynn's arguments were made pretty passionately. Jeremy McWilliams, the prosecutor, is more of a laid-back type. I've seen him in quite a few cases and his style is to be more relaxed, I suppose you could say. Also, this hearing was only booked in for an hour of oral arguments, so people had to make their points promptly because Justice Elliot had another case to get to. So I think that's what it was. But it was tense in the room because this entire future of the case now hinges on this decision by Justice Elliot.
13:55 Speaker 01 Yeah, absolutely. And while there's the emotion in the room, there's also a lot of emotion outside of the Supreme Court as well. Members of Isla Bell's family, friends, supporters, kind of rallying around, making kind of noise about the way this case has been handled. What was that like?
14:11 Speaker 05 There was a really big rally at the front of the Supreme Court. I'd say close to 100 people were there, many of them holding signs. So some of them said things like, "Isla deserves justice, stop the killing of women, end the silence against the violence, reform the system", and people with Isla Bell's face emblazoned on their t-shirts as well. So it was a really passionate rally. And Isla's mum, Justine Spokes, spoke at this rally. She actually didn't even want to come into the courtroom to see the legal process unfold. I think she's so appalled by what goes on in these courtrooms. But she was outside and spoke very passionately.
14:56 Speaker 07 You know, today I'm here to really talk about the Office of Public Prosecution, also known as the Office of Perpetrator Protection. And I'm here to advocate for Isla because she's got no voice, and I'm going to give her a voice. The Office of Perpetrator Protection treat crimes like corporate transactions, where they only invest if a win is completely guaranteed, reducing Isla's stolen life to a statistic.
15:34 Speaker 07 They commodified her memory by deciding that avoiding a difficult or complex circumstantial trial is worth more than giving a grieving mother, myself, all those that loved her, nurtured her, our rightful day before a jury.
16:01 Speaker 01 That's Justine Spokes, Ailabell's mum. And Christian, you know, very critical of the Office of Public Prosecutions in what she's saying there, almost in the same way that the defence team of Murat Ghaniev is critical of the Office of Public Prosecutions.
16:15 Speaker 05 It's really unusual. Look, I'm sure it's happened before where people have been openly critical of the prosecution when they're from the victim's side of things. But yeah, she is furious with how they have handled this case. She's very angry at how it's constantly changed. She's very supportive of the police and she thanked the police for how they investigated this case and for everything that they've done. But she's very upset about the handling of it. She claims that the OPP has not been fully transparent with her about how things have been going on in the background. Now, that's obviously her claim.
16:58 Speaker 05 One thing that's worth pointing out is that when there was this criticism of the OPP made in the courtroom, Jeremy McWilliams, the prosecutor, addressed the fact that these charges have changed. And he didn't explain the specific reasons why, but what he did say was that cases are always reviewed and it is not unusual for them to change. And he said, that's a normal process, that happens.
17:28 Speaker 01 Yeah, okay. One of the things that sort of sticks with me from the arguments that the defence has made in this is around the timing and the reasoning for the Office of Public Prosecutions decisions. It's also kind of where Justine Spokes is coming from as well. Why have they made this decision? Why haven't they let a jury make that call? Are we ever going to know why the OPP has made this call?
17:49 Speaker 05 I don't think we'll get a really clear understanding. They don't tend to explain their decisions. Often when they drop charges or change them and we ask for a comment, the best we'll get is something along the lines of, we didn't think there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction. But exactly what arguments or decisions have been made in house, we won't know. And even it's frowned upon for judges to even inquire about that. They are supposed to be independent. They don't act for the victims.
18:26 Speaker 01 Hmm.
18:26 Speaker 05 In many cases, they may represent the victim's interests in the sense of trying to pursue justice for someone that is the alleged victim of a crime. But in this case, we have a situation where Isla Bell's loved ones and supporters don't feel that the prosecution team is on their side.
18:50 Speaker 01 Hmm. And that was a point that Justine Spokes made outside of the Supreme Court earlier this week as well, basically saying, look, these are not our lawyers. You know, we don't have a lawyer in this space. There's no lawyer for, for, you know, Isla Bell or Isla Bell's family in this situation, the OPP acting for the Crown, basically, in this situation.
19:06 Speaker 05 Yeah, that's right. And even if you just look at the name of the case, it is, you know, Director of Public Prosecutions versus Murat Ganyev.
19:18 Speaker 01 Hmm.
19:19 Speaker 05 It's not the family of Isla Bell versus Murat Ganyev. So they are acting for the state and it's supposed to be somewhat detached from the alleged victim's family.
19:29 Speaker 01 Hmm. Yeah, it's interesting looking at that structure because, you know, we've spoken about this previously. Victims can kind of get lost a bit in this process. This really is about the act that was committed and assessing whether or not the person on trial is guilty of the act that's being prosecuted. But, you know, that's in a criminal court. You think of something like a coronial inquest. You know, there's often lawyers and legal representation for a family and they can ask questions and inquire on, on that process as well. So, yeah, just a different type of approach in these situations.
19:56 Speaker 05 And we've talked about it on this pod. Not just in the episodes that we've done together, but in others you've done. Often the humanity is stripped out of these things. And it's lost in the legal process and sometimes even in the hype that surrounds a case or the attention and the media.
20:15 Speaker 01 Hmm.
20:15 Speaker 05 Um frenzy that can surround certain cases that the human beings at the centre of it are sometimes forgotten.
20:21 Speaker 01 Absolutely, yeah. You know, in this situation, we're talking about this because a nineteen year old woman was has lost her life. Um. And at this point, no one will be found responsible. It was interesting listening to some of the speeches outside of the Supreme Court. You know, Ilabelle's grandfather saying, look, we don't know what's happened here, but we can be pretty confident that Ilabelle hasn't put herself in that fridge that was found at the rubbish dump. So that's the situation the family is dealing with at the moment. Christian, what happens now? The hearing on Tuesday was quite short. Are we waiting for the judge to make his decision on whether or not Rat Gagnev will be prosecuted for anything?
20:57 Speaker 05 We are. So he heard the oral arguments. He's also received written submissions. The judge said that he's got to finish up his current trial and then he's got to head off on some vacation that he had booked. So a nice winter break for the judge and then he will come back and and make a ruling. So I suppose somewhere two to six months, we'll find out what the future holds for this case. And if he does decide to dismiss the state application, the case continues. We go through the regular pre-trial process of refining all the evidence that is supposed to come before a jury. And then if it gets to that point, we will have a trial.
21:38 Speaker 01 Okay, great, Christian. Thank you so much for for joining us on the case of to to talk us through this and explain what's been unfolding.
21:44 Speaker 05 Thanks, Oki.
21:46 Speaker 01 We're back in your feeds on Tuesday. We're going to be talking about the man who cannot be named in Queensland, a very high profile person who we are not allowed to talk about. And the story of how we get to that position is kind of wild. If you're online at all, you probably already know what I'm talking about. We'll have more details for you on Tuesday. Make sure you grab ABC Listen. It's the best place to listen to the case of and lots of other wonderful ABC content.
22:17 Speaker 01 The Case of is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News. This episode was reported by Christian Silver and presented by me, Stephen Stockwell. Our supervising producer is Greg Muller and our executive producer is Claire Rollinson. Thank you to senior lawyer Jasmine Sims, our legal queen for her legal advice, to the Victorian newsroom and also to Audio Studios manager, Eric George. This episode was produced on the land of the Wurundjeri people.
Previous Alan Jones | Pre-trial sets stage for assault charges trial Next 'High-profile man': Suppression challenged in QLD extortion case Page updated October 29, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated