Former All-Ireland hurler Niall Gilligan pleads not guilty to assaulting boy with stick
Before a jury panel at Ennis Circuit Court this morning, Gilligan (48) replied 'not guilty' when arraigned on two charges.
Gilligan said 'not guilty' when arraigned on the charge of assault causing harm of the boy at the Jamaica Inn Hostel, Mt Ivers, Broadford Rd, Sixmilebridge contrary to Section 3 of the Offences Against the Person Act on 5 October 2023.
Dressed in a suit and tie, Gilligan, of Rossroe, Kilmurry, Sixmilebridge, also replied 'not guilty' to producing a wooden stick capable of inflicting serious injury during the course of a dispute contrary to Section 11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act at the same location on the same date.
Counsel for the State, Sarah Jane Comerford BL, instructed by State Solicitor for Clare, Aisling Casey, told the jury panel that the alleged offences occurred at the Jamaica Inn hostel in Sixmilebridge on 5 October 2023.
Comerford said that Gilligan is alleged to have assaulted the boy 'and used a wooden stick during that assault'.
Advertisement
Comerford said that it is anticipated that the trial will take four to five days and should finish by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
Comerford called out a list of civilian witnesses to give evidence and included the name of the alleged juvenile injured party on the list. She also listed the names of five witnesses who have compiled reports for the trial.
Comerford also provided to the jury panel the names of 18 Garda witnesses due to give evidence.
Comerford said that the defence in the case has notified the State of the potential to call one defence witness during the trial, a Martin Murphy residing at Kilmurry, Sixmilebridge, Co Clare.
A jury of seven men and five women was then selected from the jury panel to serve on the jury.
The selection process took just over 20 minutes as solicitor Daragh Hassett, for Gilligan, and Casey, for the State, each challenged potential jurors to serve. The maximum number of challenges is seven for each side.
Judge Francis Comerford told the jury that the trial will commence on Wednesday morning and adjourned the case until then.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
Omagh bombing survivor wants High Court to compel State to hold public inquiry into atrocity
Two people directly affected by the Omagh bombing want the High Court to compel the Irish government to establish a public inquiry into the atrocity. Emmet Tunney, who survived the 1998 dissident republican bombing, says the Government is obliged to establish a public inquiry in circumstances where state authorities allegedly held 'actionable intelligence' relating to the attack. Mr Tunney's case states that a public inquiry is required to ensure an effective investigation of the atrocity. He alleges the State's failure to hold such an inquiry is a breach of his rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to Mr Tunney's court documents, article two of the ECHR requires an 'effective, independent, prompt, and public' investigation in circumstances where state agents knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. READ MORE Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution require effective investigations of deaths involving potential state failures, his papers say. Shawneen Conway, whose 18-year-old brother Gareth was killed in the bombing, is seeking to bring an action similar to Mr Tunney's, the High Court heard on Tuesday. A total of 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins, died and hundreds were injured when a car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998. An independent inquiry into the bombing established by the UK government opened in Omagh in January and is continuing. That inquiry is examining whether the atrocity could have been prevented by UK authorities. In the High Court on Tuesday, Ruaidhrí Giblin, for Mr Tunney, sought an early date for his application seeking the court's permission to bring the case. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said she would hear Mr Tunney's and Ms Conway's applications for court permission next week. Mr Tunney, from Omagh, Co Tyrone, is seeking an order compelling the Government to establish a public inquiry into the bombing and he wants a court declaration that the Government's failure to establish such an inquiry to date is in breach of his rights. He wants to bring his case against the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. His case claims some of the perpetrators of the bombing are believed to have operated within the Republic of Ireland. He alleges there were failures in intelligence sharing and co-operation between Irish and UK authorities before the bombing. Authorities in the Republic may have had prior knowledge of the Real IRA's planning, his documents claim. Mr Tunney also argues an Irish government inquiry is required in circumstances where there are limitations on the jurisdiction of the UK government's inquiry. For example, he says, the UK government cannot make findings as to whether Irish authorities are culpable for a failure to supply information relating to the bombing. In the UK Omagh bombing inquiry, its chairman, Lord Turnbull, heard arguments over the last two days regarding applications from some survivor and family groups seeking to be represented by special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings and they raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they were not. However, a lawyer for the UK government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act and she cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'important and interesting'. He will provide a written decision 'in due course'. – Additional reporting PA
The Journal
7 hours ago
- The Journal
Man (24) who fatally stabbed sister's partner with kitchen knife found guilty of manslaughter
A 24-YEAR-OLD man who told gardaí he was 'so drunk' that he couldn't remember fatally stabbing his sister's partner once in the chest with a kitchen knife following a dispute has been found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by a Central Criminal Court jury. The panel of eight men and four women unanimously rejected the prosecution case that Valeriu Melnic was guilty of murder, despite evidence he had told Ion Daghi 'I will kill you' when the deceased had tried to calm him down. The State had submitted this was the 'clearest statement of intent' that the jury were likely to encounter. Moldovan national Melnic, with an address at Calliaghstown Lower, Rathcoole, Co Dublin had pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to the manslaughter of Daghi (39) at The Close, Sallins Park, Sallins in Co Kildare on 12 May 2024. In seeking a verdict of manslaughter for his client, Brendan Grehan SC, defending, told the jurors in his closing address that the issue of intoxication was 'all over' the case and that the consumption of three bottles of 'firewater' had an effect on everyone that night. Counsel submitted that whiskey can have a remarkable transformation on people's moods and how they behave. Melnic told gardaí in his interviews that he couldn't remember stabbing his sister's partner with the knife as he was so drunk but later said that 'all the evidence pointed' to him being 'the only one responsible'. Grehan also argued in his closing speech that if everybody who said the words 'I will kill you' in a fight were guilty of murder, the State wouldn't be able to build prisons fast enough. 'People say things not meaning them,' he submitted. Whereas, Carl Hanahoe SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted in his closing address that Daghi had entered his kitchen when a struggle pursued between the defendant and his sister. 'It wasn't the entry of a bull or a bear, it was a man entering saying 'calm down, calm down''. The defence had asked for a verdict of manslaughter on the basis of intoxication or the partial defence of provocation, which can reduce an intentional killing from murder to manslaughter. Grehan said there wasn't any doubt but that a provocative act had occurred to his client, who he said was 'badly beaten' and had reacted to that. He said the defendant had picked up a knife in the heat of the moment, where passions did not have time to cool. 'Provocation is a reaction to something that causes you to boil over; and boil over he did and cause the death of the deceased'. Curiously, the lawyer submitted that Melnic did not recall being hit over the head by the deceased with the leg of a chair and the only thing he could remember was Daghi having his hands around his neck trying to strangle him. He said nine hours after the defendant's arrest, scrape marks or finger marks were found on Melnic's neck. The jury had the option of returning two verdicts in relation to the murder charge against Melnic, namely; guilty of murder or not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The 12 jurors took six hours and 27 minutes over three days to reject the State's contention that the defences of provocation and intoxication were not open to Melnic. Following today's unanimous verdict, presiding judge Mr Justice David Keane told the panel that jury service is one of the most important duties that an individual can be asked to perform as an Irish citizen. He said they had 'very properly discharged' their civic duty at the cost of some disruption to their family lives and working lives. The judge said the graphic nature of the evidence which the jurors had to deal with during the trial had made their service 'particularly challenging and difficult'. He thanked them for their service and exempted them from further jury duty for the next ten years. Advertisement A sentence hearing for Melnic is expected to take place on 3 November and the judge remanded the defendant in custody until that date. The case was listed for mention on 20 October. On 3 November, the Daghi family will have an opportunity to make a statement to the court about the impact Ion's death has had on their lives. The judge also directed a probation and a governor's report on the defendant. The trial heard that on the evening in question, Melnic met up with a friend and proceeded to Daghi's house, arriving at 8pm. There were a number of people present in the house and they had some food in the garden, drank a bottle of whiskey and proceeded to a pub where a second bottle of whiskey was purchased and consumed back at the house. The group then went to a nightclub where they bought a third bottle of whiskey. Some time around 3am, a dispute arose between Melnic and Daghi. Witness Alexandru Beccieu (24) said both he and Daghi were trying to calm Melnic down but the defendant was 'very drunk'. The witness said he went in between his friends to pull them apart when they started throwing punches at each other. Beccieu said the defendant tried to hit him and was successful on the second occasion. He said Daghi then got in between them and separated them. Baccieu went to look for the defendant's car keys, because Melnic wasn't calming down after Daghi told him to go home. When the witness came back, he said the defendant was 'down' or on the ground with his hands on his head 'trying to ward something off' and that Daghi had a piece of a chair in his hand. A woman took Melnic into the house and Baccieu and Daghi stayed outside smoking a cigarette. The witness said Daghi looked in the window of the house and saw Melnic and his sister pulling at each other. He said Daghi went into the kitchen to see what was happening and came out seconds later. The witness continued: 'Mr Daghi said he cut and fell down in front of me.' Under cross-examination, Beccieu agreed with Grehan that Melnic must have had 'a colossal amount' of the whiskey as the deceased didn't have a lot of alcohol in his system. A pathologist told the jury that Daghi died from a single stab wound to the chest, which measured 13cm in depth, and death would have been very rapid. 73 milligrams of ethanol was detected in the deceased's system, which is just over 2.5 pints. Referring to the law of intoxication in his charge, Mr Justice Keane had said it is not a complete defence to murder and is there if the defendant's mind was in such a state from the effects of alcohol that he had not intended to kill or cause serious injury. He told the jurors if they had a doubt about that, then the verdict should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Having been arrested on suspicion of assault causing harm to Daghi in the early hours of 12 May, Melnic was deemed unfit for interview and was not questioned until 15 hours later. He told interviewing officers at Naas Garda Station that he and the deceased had been drunk and at some point an argument started. 'A lot of drink was taken, my memory is very hazy,' added the defendant. Melnic's sister, Angelina Spinu, had agreed that her evidence to a jury, where she had 'painted a picture' of her own partner Daghi 'as the aggressor' in the altercation and holding a weapon, was 'the complete opposite' to what was said in her garda statement. In her direct evidence at the Central Criminal Court, Spinu denied to the prosecutor via a Romanian interpreter that she was trying to protect her brother. The jury had heard that Spinu told gardai in her statement that her 'kid brother' said to her husband 'I will kill you' before he took a step forward and 'pushed' a knife into his chest.
Sunday World
7 hours ago
- Sunday World
Jury in Niall Gilligan trial asks judge 'what is the next step if we are not unanimous?'
At Ennis Circuit Court just before 5pm on Tuesday, Judge Francis Comerford sent the jury home 'to come back tomorrow to make a fresh start of it'. The jury of seven men and five women in the assault trial of former All-Star and Clare All-Ireland winning hurler, Niall Gilligan are to continue their deliberations on Wednesday. At Ennis Circuit Court just before 5pm on Tuesday, Judge Francis Comerford sent the jury home 'to come back tomorrow to make a fresh start of it'. In the case, Mr Gilligan (48) of Rossroe, Kilmurry, Sixmilebridge denies the assault causing harm with a stick of a then 12 year old boy at the Jamaica Inn hostel, Sixmilebridge on October 5th 2023. The jury deliberated for 2 hours and 47 minutes on Tuesday when the jury returned to court with a question for Judge Comerford at 4.51pm. After the jury took up their seats in the jury box, the jury foreman asked: 'What is the next step if we are not unanimous?' In reply, Judge Comerford said: 'There are various procedures which can kick in if juries are not unanimous but they can only be taken at various points." He said: "It is always preferable that you try to reach a unanimous verdict - that is the ideal and it is better than any alternative." Judge Comerford said: 'At 4.50pm, I think it is appropriate that you break for the day and come back tomorrow and make a fresh start of it." Judge Comerford said that if the jury is still not unanimous in its verdict after a while on Wednesday, the position can be reviewed. Judge Comerford told the jury: 'You have had a lot of information the past couple of days and before that.' They jury commenced their deliberations at 12.33pm on Tuesday with a break for lunch and before they commenced, Judge Comerford told them that they should make their decision in the case 'after a cold, direct, forensic determination of the facts'. Judge Comerford told the jury that what they have to decide is was there an assault and is it not an assault because of a lawful excuse. In his charge to the jury Judge Comerford directed if they are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the first encounter between Mr Gilligan and the boy that led to the force being applied commenced and started outside the two storey Jamaica Inn rather than in the corridor of the building, then they can't consider the lawful use of force as a defence. Judge Comerford also told the jury in the defence of self defence they should consider did the accused honestly believe that he had to use force for the purpose of protecting himself from an assault or damage to his property. Judge Comerford said that if the answer is 'no', the defence of self defence is no longer available to the accused. He said that if the answer is yes, then was the force used by the accused reasonable and necessary in the circumstances as he saw them. He said that if the answer is 'yes' to that question 'then you must acquit. If no, it wasn't reasonably necessary, well then he is guilty of the offence.' Judge Comerford said that the jury can only apply this test if they are satisfied that the first encounter was inside the two storey building. Judge Comerford said that both child witnesses in their video interviews and under cross examination in the case said that the first encounter with Mr Gilligan was outside the building. Judge Comerford asked the jury that they should ask what would the gain be for the child witnesses saying that when they both admitted that they were earlier in the building. In his closing speech to the jury on Monday counsel for Mr Gilligan, Patrick Whyms BL said in no way is Mr Gilligan trying to suggest that he was entitled to punish the boy as was suggested and said that the injuries sustained by the boy 'are clearly regrettable'. Mr Whyms said that on the evening at the Jamaica Inn hostel, Mr Gilligan 'didn't know that he was dealing with a child and did not create this situation'. Mr Whyms (instructed by solicitor, Daragh Hassett) said that Mr Gilligan "was at the end of his tether" by the vandalism being done to a vacant property he was trying to sell. Putting forward the defence of reasonable force against the charge, Mr Whyms said that Mr Gilligan was at the Jamaica Inn hostel on the night of October 5th 'in the dark and believed that he was under siege'. He said: 'Believing himself under threat and needing to protect himself and his property, Niall Gilligan needs to make an instant decision and so we are here." Mr Whyms said: 'And Mr Gilligan, a family man who has young children and no previous convictions gives a clear story which has't changed and an entirely credible, fulsome account of what happened." Earlier in her closing speech on Monday, Ms Sarah Jane Comerford BL (instructed by State Solicitor for Clare, Aisling Casey) told the jury: 'This is a story of a man who lost his cool.' She said: 'Instead of picking up the boy after he slipped and bringing him out to his car and driving him home and telling his parents, he hit him and lost it and he was angry and frustrated.' Ms Comerford said that the alleged assault in broad daylight 'is the action of a man who took out his anger and frustration on a child. There is no evidence that his injuries were caused by anything other than his interactions with Niall Gilligan.' Ms Comerford said that Niall Gilligan 'lost control and punished the boy for the damage and inconvenience caused to his property on a morning when he had to clean up human faeces and urine from his property'. The jury continues their deliberations on Wednesday. Niall Gilligan at Ennis Circuit Court News in 90 Seconds - July 22nd
