The jury in the trial of a Co Mayo farmer who denies murdering a member of the Travelling community was told by a judge at a sitting of the Central Criminal Court yesterday that it could either return a verdict of guilty of murder, or not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
The options open to the 12- member jury was spelt out by Mr Justice Paul Carney after closing submissions had been made by lawyers for the prosecution and the defence in the trial of Pádraig Nally (61), Funshinagh, Cross, Co Mayo, who denies murdering John Ward, Carrowbrowne halting site, Galway city, on October 14th last.
Mr Justice Carney told the jury that they must return a unanimous verdict. The jurors had to agree on a conviction either for murder or for manslaughter. Anything in between would be a disagreement.
Yesterday was the fifth day of the trial which is being held in Castlebar courthouse and is the first murder hearing at the Co Mayo venue.
After his summing up, Mr Justice Carney adjourned the trial until 11am today when the jury will be instructed to retire to consider its verdict.
In his closing submission, Paul O'Higgins SC, prosecuting said it was the State's case that Mr Nally used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend himself.
He had won his fight, it was over. The law did not allow someone to kill someone else because they might come along later and kill them.
Mr O'Higgins said there was very little conflict between the two sides as to what actually happened. It was the prosecution case that neither self-defence nor provocation applied in the case to justify Mr Nally's actions.
There were no "plaster saints" in this case. There had been evidence that Mr Ward had got into trouble before. There was no reason to doubt that Mr Nally, although a decent man, was capable of adorning or gilding the truth.
Mr O'Higgins agreed that Mr Nally believed he might be attacked but the law did not contemplate killing or seriously injuring somebody to put them out of action for the next six months or a year.
It was for the jury to decide whether the force used was necessary and taking the most charitable view of the evidence, it was hard to contemplate self-defence.
Mr Nally was aware that Mr Ward's son, Tom, had left the scene. He knew that John Ward was retreating, seriously injured, and was no threat.
It was for the jury to decide whether Mr Nally made a calculated decision to "shoot the next man" on his property and if he did, then he was guilty of murder. If there was a feeling that there was a sudden loss of control, then that amounted to manslaughter.
Noel Grehan SC, defending, told the jury that a decision had been made by the trial judge about the verdicts it could return.
Mr Grehan said Mr Nally had a grievance and dislike of Travellers. "Pádraig Nally did not go looking for trouble but trouble came looking for him," he said.
John Ward had not come busting in Mr Nally's back door for the good of the community and Tom Ward was also there to play a role.
Mr Grehan said that Mr Nally was a law-abiding, upstanding member of the community, who did not after 60 years become a murderer. He had acted in self-defence and was provoked.
The defence was not arguing insanity. Mr Nally had come before the jury with testimonials from those who knew him well, his friends and neighbours.
Claiming that the killing took place in the heat of the moment, Mr Grehan said the law made concessions for those who did things in the heat of the moment.