Dad’s Pics: Boy Hurt by Niall Gilligan’s Incident
Former hurling Star’s Defense in Assault Case hinges on Perceived Threat
Table of Contents
A former inter-county hurling star is facing an assault charge, with his defence arguing that his actions were a reasonable response to a perceived threat. the court heard that the player, identified as Mr. Gilligan, believed he was about to be attacked and acted to protect himself.
The Incident and Mr.Gilligan’s Account
the incident, which led to the assault charge, saw Mr. Gilligan use a stick and his feet to defend himself. He stated that he felt he was going to be attacked and, in an effort to protect himself, “drew out with the stick on two occasions and then kicked out twice.” This account forms the crux of his defence, painting a picture of a man acting under duress.
Defence Arguments: Fear and Vandalism
Mr. Gilligan’s legal counsel presented a robust defence, emphasizing that their client was unaware he was dealing with a child at the time of the incident. The defence argued that Mr. gilligan was in darkness and genuinely believed he was under siege. Furthermore, it was highlighted that Mr. Gilligan had reached ”the end of his tether” due to ongoing vandalism at a vacant property he was attempting to sell. this context,the defence contended,made the force used a reasonable measure in the circumstances as Mr.Gilligan perceived them.
Judicial guidance to the Jury
Judge Francis Comerford provided crucial guidance to the jury, directing them to determine whether the incident constituted an assault or if it was an assault with a lawful excuse. The judge clarified that the defence of lawful use of force could not be considered if the initial encounter with the boy occurred outside the building, rather than within the corridor.
The Importance of Location
The judge stressed that if the confrontation took place in the corridor, the jury would then need to assess whether the force employed was both reasonable and necessary, considering the circumstances as mr.Gilligan genuinely believed them to be. This distinction in location is pivotal to the jury’s decision-making process.