Perverse verdicts

Our man in Havana

Is there any precedent for the overturning of a perverse verdict in a criminal case in Ireland?

civdef

It's one of the joys of trial by jury.

Gobán Saor

Well, aren't juries the darnedest things? I presume you have the Nally case in mind which triggered off an amazing reaction over in the After Hours forum. While the usual suspects were quick out of the traps to condemn them as racist, bigoted and stupid, I would submit that the jury's verdict is subtle, nuanced and, once again, shows the wisdom of placing such decisions in the hands of 12 "ordinary decent citizens" made of human flesh and blood rather than rely on cold clinical analysis of the more technical points of the criminal law. Yes, the technical analysis of the defence of self-defence in the Nally case has been done ad nauseum on Boards and it's pretty weak at best. But, Padraig Nally didn't have hours, days or months to comb the legal textbooks to parse where the limits of "reasonable force" were located. This 62 year old man, who was never, ever previously in trouble with the law, was having a lunchtime cup of tea in his farmhouse when he was confronted with a dangerous, violent, recidivist criminal thug on his property. Ninety seconds later it was all over. Clearly the jury managed to put themselves into the mindset of this unfortunate man and judge his actions with a degree of common sense and human understanding that can't just be codified in the criminal law.

And its not a traveller thing. It was Ward's record of crime, violence, bare knuckle fighting and outstanding bench warrants that, rightly, prejudiced the jury against him and, presumably, allowed the jury to infer that he was up to no good and behaving in a manner that put the fear of God into Padraig Nally. Suppose a peaceful, elderly traveller with no criminal record whatsoever, who was highly thought of and respected by his neighbours and the local Gardai, was confronted by a settled thug 20 years his junior who, with a companion, had arrived on his property in circumstances giving rise to a serious and genuine fear of imminent criminal violence? And suppose said traveller had shot said non-traveller in the course of a violent struggle. Most jurors, I believe, would take a similarly understanding view of such a traveller as they took of Nally.

Sparks

I would submit that the jury's verdict is subtle, nuanced and, once again, shows the wisdom of placing such decisions in the hands of 12 "ordinary decent citizens" made of human flesh and blood rather than rely on cold clinical analysis of the more technical points of the criminal law.

Ah yes. Truthiness. That's what we should base the legal system on.

Sparks

Ninety seconds later it was all over.

In ninety seconds he shot a man, broke his arm and his nose, beat him to within an inch of his life opening his scalp to the skull in eight seperate places, wandered to the shed, found the shells, reloaded, returned, found Ward had escaped, chased him down the road and shot him from point-blank range while Ward was on his hands and knees, then threw his body over the ditch?

That's one fast-moving 62-year-old.

gonk

Sparks wrote:

he shot a man, broke his arm and his nose, beat him to within an inch of his life opening his scalp to the skull in eight seperate places, wandered to the shed, found the shells, reloaded, returned, found Ward had escaped, chased him down the road and shot him from point-blank range while Ward was on his hands and knees, then threw his body over the ditch?

Indeed. If that's reasonable use of force, what would it take to be considered unreasonable? Maybe if he had put the body through a wood chipper à la "Fargo"?

Gobán Saor

Sparks wrote:

That's one fast-moving 62-year-old.

Precisely. He HAD to act quickly. Ward was struggling violently with him, trying to grab the gun, hitting him, trying to grab him by the balls. He didn't have time to ring 999, yet alone wait for help to arrive. For all practical purposes he was alone and facing TWO intruders. NOT a good time to ponder the boundaries of "reasonable force." Is it so difficult to imagine yourself in his shoes? The jury could.

Sparks wrote:

...and shot him from point-blank range...

Not quite. Five yards, actually, according to expert Garda evidence.

Sparks

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Precisely. He HAD to act quickly. Ward was struggling violently with him, trying to grab the gun, hitting him, trying to grab him by the balls.

Says Nally.
Nally also said first off that he shot Ward while both men were standing up and ten yards apart and he didn't mean to kill him. Later, he changed that to be that he did mean to kill him, because he was afraid he'd come back. Then the state pathologist pointed out that Ward had a broken arm, severe head wounds and was shot at very close range while on the ground by someone standing over him.

Forgive me, but I don't believe a word Nally says.

Not quite. Five yards, actually, according to expert Garda evidence.

Far less, according to the state pathologist. Nally could have been five yards away, it's true - but they'd have to be five yards straight up.

Gobán Saor

Sparks wrote:

Says Nally...Forgive me, but I don't believe a word Nally says.

Does 62 years of not being in trouble with the law, being regarded as a good neighbour, being well thought of by the Gardai not give him at least SOME credibility? As a matter of interest, do you find the evidence of Tom Ward credible? Just wondering...

Sparks wrote:

Far less, according to the state pathologist. Nally could have been five yards away, it's true - but they'd have to be five yards straight up.

So what? Expert witnesses differ, you know.

Sparks

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Does 62 years of not being in trouble with the law, being regarded as a good neighbour, being well thought of by the Gardai not give him at least SOME credibility?

Nope. He hadn't shot anyone during those 62 years, so he didn't have the motive to lie that he did after he'd shot Ward.

As a matter of interest, do you find the evidence of Tom Ward credible?

Not particularly. However, the evidence does not contradict his testimony. It does contradict Nally's version of events.

So what? Expert witnesses differ, you know.

Indeed. Physical evidence doesn't disagree with itself though. The path the pellets took in Wards body would show the angle of impact which would show where Ward and Nally had to be for the shot to be possible. Which was Ward on the ground and Nally standing over him, according to the state pathologist.

seamus

Guys, this thread is not about Nally.

Please stay on topic, or there will be bans.

Afaik Bond, the DPP can appeal a jury's decision and bring it to one of those higher courts where pesky jurys don't get in your way.

Our man in Havana

Afaik Bond, the DPP can appeal a jury's decision and bring it to one of those higher courts where pesky jurys don't get in your way.

Thanks for the reply. I wanted to know if a jury verdict of not guilty has ever been sucessfully appealed by the DPP?

maidhc

Bond-007 wrote:

Is there any precedent for the overturning of a perverse verdict in a criminal case in Ireland?

Well legislation can be used to change a "perverse" finding insofar as it applies to subsequent actions. A jury verdict will never be appealed to a judge only court for a final determination, the most the higher court could do is order a retrial.

We will get legislation in relation to Nally. It will probably define and liberalise the definition of reasonable force in self defence. And so it should, it seems only fair that ordinary people should be entitled to use force to protect themselves and their property.

OTK

Has a precedent been set? Can I kill people in future on the street if I believe they have trespassed on my property? Or is it only travellers?

Gobán Saor

seamus wrote:

Afaik Bond, the DPP can appeal a jury's decision and bring it to one of those higher courts where pesky jurys don't get in your way.

Not so. The only appeal the DPP has is against leniency of sentence. Traditionally, even this was not available but it was provided for by statute, (I think the 1994 Criminal Justice Act?) The DPP can NEVER appeal against an acquittal. There is copious Supreme Court precedent on this, stemming from the Constitutional right to a trial in accordance with law as provided for in Article 38. (In some circumstances the DPP can bring an appeal on a point of law, but this serves only to decide the point and, even if successful, does not overturn the acquittal.)

The UK has enacted statutory basis for an appeal where new evidence comes to light. This was triggered by the origenal acquittals for the Stephen Lawrence murder. Many common law jurisdictions also allow an appeal where the prosecution can show the acquittal was procured through fraud, jury tampering, bribery etc. Not in this country, though.

Our man in Havana

The DPP can NEVER appeal against an acquittal.

Thanks for that. That's all I wanted to know.

11.3 SECONDS

There is a further answer to your question.

If you ever find yourself trying to argue against a shi*ty perverse decision which is being cited in argument as a precedent in a future case you can always argue that the original decision was made per incuriam.

I have never heard of this in relation to a jury decision but you should be able to use it if the perverse decision is being put up as an authority.

Per incuriam means that the original verdict or decision was so patently bad or wrong that it should never be cited in support of an argument.

As far as that recent case goes I wish that the incredibly irresponsible interpretations of what the verdict actually means and what people think they can do had not been published by the media. :mad:

I fear that some idiots will now think that if they find themselves in a particular type of confrontation they have the authority to pull the trigger regardless of the facts. When they hear the verdict guilty of murder and hear the cell door clanging behind them they might then realise that it is a bad idea to rely on the tabloids as a source of legal advice.

The point is that Nally's case provides no authority for anything. A similar fact case could well produce a guilty verdict.

hullaballoo

Just to clear up a point of information that has pervaded commentary on criminal justice since the advent of science in trials, something that is dubbed CSI syndrome:

Forensic Evidence is NOT weighted highly in criminal cases, nor should it be. On TV, often the only evidence that is needed to convict someone is a strand of DNA or a measurement of the trajectory of a bullet - this is NOT SO in real life.

Forensic evidence is opinion evidence, and little more. It can be and is disputed in trials and this is with good reason: as any pragmatic scientist will tell you, there are mitigating factors in practical applications of science that can make results unreliable. For instance, to use an example I heard recently, if you ram a stick into the ground, there is no doubt that you can measure the angle at which the stick entered the ground.

What you cannot do, however, is tell how long it took to ram the stick into the ground, or in what position the person who rammed it into the ground was standing.

Further, if the person threw it into the ground, you cannot conclusively tell where he was standing.

Comparitively, you cannot tell conclusively how far away from Ward Nally was standing when he fired the gun. You can give an expert opinion as to what was the likely arrangement, but the jury must take into account that there are infinite possibilities as to the arrangement, within certain physical boundaries of course.

As for the analysis on this site with regard to self-defence, I'm not sure to what extent each and every user has been exposed to the law in this regard, so I can't expect a whole lot, but it is an interesting issue.

Personally, I can't see how, based on the facts of the case as I see them (although I'll admit that my knowledge is peripheral), Nally might have been convicted.

Sparks

Can't trust physical evidence, can't trust expert trained opinion, can't trust eyewitness testimony... just what do you do?

hullaballoo

Howzat for putting words in my mouth?!

You can trust all of these things, but you just have to be careful what weighting you give them.

Eyewitness testimony is and always has been the basis for trial procedure in this jurisdiction. Even back in early Irish society, the rules of evidence were strikingly similar to the way they operate today. Even despite the fact that it wasn't until later that the Anglo-Normans started to have an influence, we had rules such as hearsay (is bé carnae cluas cáich), and laws against deceitful testimony (imarbae testa) - most fundamental to the system was that the first rule of evidence against someone was being without a witness (buith cen teist).

Expert opinion is just opinion, and it's one of the only exceptions to the rule against narrative where a witness is allowed to give an opinion - because it's an expert they might know a little bit about the subject. That said, my point wasn't to do with not being able to trust them, but just that they're not infallable - contrary to popular opinion.

sh_o

Sparks wrote:

Can't trust physical evidence, can't trust expert trained opinion, can't trust eyewitness testimony... just what do you do?

Sorry for being slightly off topic, but in a civil trial that makes it to court with the necessity for expert witnesses, it would not be uncommon for the Plaintiff to have an expert whose opinion is white and a defendant whose opinion is black!