Niall Gilligan Trial: Defence Argues “Reasonable Force” in ⁤Incident with 12-Year-Old

Limerick Circuit ‌Court – The⁣ defence in the trial of Niall Gilligan has argued⁣ that the ‍former hurler used “reasonable force” when confronting⁣ a 12-year-old boy at a vacant property he was attempting to sell. Mr.Gilligan, who‍ is accused of assault causing harm, was reportedly ‌”at‍ the end of his tether” due to ongoing vandalism at the property.

Defence Claims Gilligan Felt Under Siege

Barrister Liam Whyms, representing Mr.‌ Gilligan, told the jury that his client was at the vacant hostel on the night of October 5th,⁣ “in ‌the dark and believed that he⁤ was ​under siege.” Mr. Whyms emphasized that Mr. Gilligan “did not know that he was dealing with a child and did not create this situation.”

“believing 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 stated, as instructed by solicitor Daragh Hassett. He posed a direct question ‌to the⁤ jury: “Did Niall Gilligan use such force as was ‍reasonable in the ⁤circumstances as he believed‌ them ⁢to be? If he did then no offense was committed.”

The defence also highlighted that an undisplaced⁢ fracture to the finger ‍is⁣ “the only fracture in this case.”

Prosecution Alleges Loss of Control

Earlier in the proceedings, ⁢prosecution barrister Sinead Comerford, ⁢instructed ‌by State solicitor for Clare Aisling casey, described the incident as⁢ “a⁤ story of a man ⁤who lost his cool.” She argued that instead of simply‍ escorting the boy home, Mr.Gilligan “hit him and lost it and he was angry and frustrated.”

Ms. Comerford contended that Mr. gilligan “lost 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 property.”

Credibility of Young Witnesses and Injuries

The ⁣prosecution asserted that the evidence provided by the ​boy and his friend is “credible and can be ​relied upon to the high standard beyond reasonable doubt.” ⁣Ms. Comerford‍ acknowledged that the boy understood it was‌ wrong to explore a building without⁣ permission, discharge fire extinguishers, and remove keys.

Though, she detailed a medical report ⁤indicating the boy suffered a head injury, loss of consciousness, bowel incontinence, and injuries⁣ to his arms and ​shoulders. “He lost consciousness for ​a while. He must have been hit multiple times to have sustained as many injuries as⁢ he did in the various ‍locations you ⁣can see in the photos ​taken on the night and following⁣ day,” Ms. Comerford told the jury.

The ‍prosecution concluded that self-defence should not⁤ be available to Mr. Gilligan due to the ‌level of force he allegedly used.

Jury Deliberations to Commence

Judge Francis Comerford began⁣ his charge to the jury on Monday. ⁤deliberations are expected to commence once the judge has completed his instructions.