Jury in Niall Gilligan trial asks judge 'what is the next step if we are not unanimous?'

Sunday World

4 days ago

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