Padraig Nally

Read the wikipedia entry on jury nullification. I think that's what happened with Nally. He really ought to have been convicted of manslaughter (were this to occur today, I'd advise him to plead to manslaughter, ffs, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, but I suppose his lawyers are better than me, plus diminished responsibility is only a more recent creation in Ireland).

I wouldn't play the Dublin vs Mayo card though, cos although the first trial was in Mayo, the re-trial (where he was acquitted after the first conviction was quashed) was held in Dublin.


Edited by SuperDave84 - 26 Feb 2013 at 2:29pm

roverstillidie wrote: irishmufc wrote: Not in that sense tbh. The act itself would be considered murder but he clearly had diminished responsibility.I dont think it was as premeditated as much as it was heat of the moment.He decided to finish him off while he was in an unfit state of mind. Is it still considered murder if he's of unsound mind at that time ?!   He didn't plead insanity or diminished responsibility, so we will never know.

Plus, like I said above, afaik, diminished responsibility was not part of Irish law at the time.

The doctrine of excessive self-defence was though (and remains, albeit very rarely used, seeing as it only changes murder to manslaughter and has no application elsewhere), which, like diminished responsibility, would have lead to a conviction for manslaughter. It applies where the killing is admitted and where the force used is more than reasonably necessary but where the accused thinks it is necessary. I think they may have ran that too in Nally, at least as a back up plan, saying first, it was total self-defence (the force was reasonable) but that even if the jury thought it wasn't, and thought he should be convicted of something, and concluded that the force was unreasonable, Nally thought it was reasonable, and so should only be convicted of manslaughter, on the grounds of excessive self-defence.

I think he should have been found guilty but that the sentencing by the judge was the place to take into account his situation and circumstances.

irishmufc wrote: Just to clarify lads why did he actually get off in the end?! I was under the impression that it was because he wasn't in a fit state of mind to be held accountable for his actions. Anybody can tell that was excessive force to say the least. If he got off for anything other than a plea of insanity, its sets a dangerous precedent for future cases like this

Like I said, it smacks of jury nullification.

If someone comes into your house like that they deserve to be shot.

roverstillidie wrote: theheff1989 wrote: If someone comes into your house like that they deserve to be shot.   Who came into whose house?

Your man the knacker into Nally house.

RTID is spot on here. I always worry about myself when I say that!!

irishmufc wrote: Shouldnt the jury be applying the law, not disregarding it no matter how draconian and unjust it may be?

 

RogerMilla wrote: irishmufc wrote: Shouldnt the jury be applying the law, not disregarding it no matter how draconian and unjust it may be?     they are under no obligation to apply the law,  they have to decide if he is guilty or not , they can chose to acquit him for any reason at all..