5 days ago
Dad of boy hurt by Clare hurling star shows pictures of wounds sustained in incident
Family of youngster injured by the former All-Stae believe a 'dangerous precedent' set by not-guilty verdict
Photographs show the extent of the boy's injuries following the dispute at the disused hotel
Photographs show the extent of the boy's injuries following the dispute at the disused hotel
Niall Gilligan faced charges after causing injuries to a 12-year-old boy at a disused hotel he owns
The family of a 12-year-old boy who was hit with a stick and kicked by All-Ireland winning hurler Niall Gilligan have released shocking images of the youngster's injuries – days after the former All Star was acquitted of assault.
The boy's father yesterday told the Sunday World his son (now 14) had told him 'I want people to see my injuries' because he feels he has been unfairly vilified as a result of the outcome of the case.
The images, which were shown in court, show how the boy suffered bruising to his right shoulder, a fractured bone in his left hand, a 2cm wound to his right forearm and a 2cm wound to his left shin – as a result of the blows and kicks he sustained.
The incident occurred after Gilligan found him trespassing at a property he owned.
The boy's father said yesterday he believes the jury's decision to find Gilligan not guilty, after being shown these images during the trial, sets a dangerous precedent in what can now be considered 'proportionate force' in cases where self-defence is used.
Niall Gilligan faced charges after causing injuries to a 12-year-old boy at a disused hotel he owns
'We feel the verdict was the wrong one,' the boy's father said.
'This was very much a legal decision where a deep understanding of the law was required and I don't know if that should be left up to 12 random people.
'This man was accused, he admitted being there and he admitted applying the force that caused these injuries and yet he walked free.
'And, ultimately, I think that sets a dangerous precedent for what self-defence can be, especially when it involves a minor.
'This wasn't his home house; it was a premises that had been derelict for about a decade.
'For me, that's what stung here, that 12 people made a legal decision after seeing these pictures of my son's injuries, that this was a justified use of force.
Today's News in 90 Seconds - July 27th
'Just because stitches can be removed in a week, doesn't mean these weren't serious injuries.
'The broken bone in his hand healed in a month, but it doesn't mean it's not a broken bone.
'And we're not talking about the psychological damage — we're talking about the physical injuries.
'It leaves a bitter taste in our mouth.'
Mr Gilligan, a former Clare hurler, stood trial before Ennis Circuit Court charged with assault causing harm to the boy at the Jamaica Inn Hostel in Sixmilebridge, which he owned, on October 5, 2023.
The ex-sportsman, who is a farmer and auctioneer, was also charged with producing a wooden stick capable of inflicting serious injury during the course of a dispute.
Both charges were denied by the 48-year-old, who claimed he had acted in self-defence.
It was the prosecution's case that two boys had exited the building and were outside when Mr Gilligan encountered them while checking on the property that night.
In his evidence, the boy claimed Mr Gilligan hit him 'full force' with the stick and that there were repeated blows.
The boy said he tried to defend himself by putting up his hand and that his wrist ended up as 'big as a sliotar'.
He said he could not feel anything because he was 'just terrified'.
'He was so tall and I was so small. It just scared me,' he said.
Photographs show the extent of the boy's injuries following the dispute at the disused hotel
.
.
.
The boy admitted during cross-examination that it had been his third time going into the Jamaica Inn Hostel, and that he had stolen keys to the property and let off fire extinguishers there with a friend.
A majority verdict acquitting Mr Gilligan was returned after five hours of deliberations.
Speaking yesterday, the boy's father said the impact this incident has had on his son and his family are immeasurable.
'We can only protect him to the best of our ability,' he said.
'We sent him for counselling and we'll probably have to send him for counselling again.
'He's going to run into this guy again at some stage and I don't know how he will react.
'He's a 14-year-old boy now and he's seen the comments, he's reading what being said in the articles, and he's seen the smears against him.
'The building had been abandoned and was a popular place for teenagers to go and yet every bit of damage that was ever done there is being blamed on him.
'My son and his friend admitted what they did, they entered the premises a few times and messed with fire extinguishers and hid keys they found so they could get back in.
'But their fear now is this will follow them for the rest of their lives.
'So for us, and for my son, the pictures show the extent of what happened here.
'And we've promised him we'll get his word out there.
'At the start he didn't want the photos out there but after reading the comments he came to me and said: 'I want people to see the injuries … these people need to see the injuries.'
'That's a 14-year-old boy saying that.
'He's willing to do this to clear his name. He's the victim here and yet feels he's being made out to be some kind of a criminal.'
Contacted by the Sunday World yesterday, Mr Gilligan said he was busy and not in a position to discuss the case but might do so at a later stage.
The court heard how in a prepared statement to gardaí, Mr Gilligan said he came into contact with the boy in a corridor inside the building, not outside, and that he acted in a reasonable manner to protect his property from destruction by fire and further damage.
He claimed the boy and others had broken into the building and caused extensive damage, including lighting a fire, releasing fire extinguishers, breaking windows and writing graffiti.
'I acted in a reasonable manner to protect myself from injury and assault from a person or persons unknown to me'.
The statement went on to say Mr Gilligan heard footsteps behind him and did not know 'who or what' was coming at him.
He said he felt he was going to be attacked and, to protect himself, 'drew out with the stick on two occasions and then kicked out twice'.
Mr Gilligan's counsel argued the former hurling star did not know he was dealing with a child and was in the dark and believed he was under siege.
He was 'at the end of his tether' due to the vandalism of a vacant property he was trying to sell.
The force used was reasonable in the circumstances as Mr Gilligan believed them to be, it was argued.
Judge Francis Comerford told jurors they had to decide if the incident was an assault or not an assault due to lawful excuse.
They were told lawful use of force could not be considered as a defence if the first encounter with the boy was outside the building rather than in the corridor.
The judge said that if it was in the corridor, jurors would then have to consider whether the force used was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances as Mr Gilligan saw them.
