*Deliberations from the jury continue on Wednesday.ย
THE JURY of seven men and five women in the assault trial of former Clare 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 โto come back tomorrow to make a fresh start of itโ.
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, โWhat is the next step if we are not unanimousโ.
In reply, Judge Comerford said, โThere are various procedures which can kick in if juries are not unanimous but they can only be taken at various pointsโ.
He said, “It is always preferable that you try to reach a unanimous verdict – that is the ideal and it is better than any alternativeโ.
Judge Comerford said, โAt 4.50pm, I think it is appropriate that you break for the day and come back tomorrow and make a fresh start of itโ.
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, โYou have had a lot of information the past couple of days and before thatโ.
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 โafter a cold, direct, forensic determination of the factsโ.
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 canโt 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 โnoโ, 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 โyesโ to that question โthen you must acquit. If no, it wasnโt reasonably necessary, well then he is guilty of the offence.โ
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 โare clearly regrettableโ.
Mr Whyms said that on the evening at the Jamaica Inn hostel, Mr Gilligan โdidnโt know that he was dealing with a child and did not create this situationโ.
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 โin the dark and believed that he was under siegeโ.
He said, โBelieving 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, โAnd Mr Gilligan, a family man who has young children and no previous convictions gives a clear story which hasโt changed and an entirely credible, fulsome account of what happenedโ.
Earlier in her closing speech on Monday, Ms Sarah Jane Comerford BL (instructed by State Solicitor for Clare, Aisling Casey) told the jury, โThis is a story of a man who lost his coolโ.
She said, โInstead 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 frustratedโ.
Ms Comerford said that the alleged assault in broad daylight โis 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 Gilliganโ.
Ms Comerford said that Niall Gilligan โlost 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 propertyโ.
The jury continues their deliberations on Wednesday.
