If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Guilty of manslaughter of Waterford fisherman

  • 13-07-2022 4:59pm
    Registered Users Posts: 994 ✭✭✭Sandor Clegane

    So now it seems you can't defend yourself from an intruder who has just smashed your window with a rock and then enters your property...I mean I'm struggling to understand this result, one stab wound to a man who has just broken into your house violently is not excessive, if anything it's lenient.

    Another quote from the article is astonishing, Jury must consider if kerrie "honestly believed that Mr Power had entered his home as a trespasser intending to commit a criminal act"...I mean what the **** else was he doing? last I heard you don't smash a persons window with a rock then enter their house just to say a friendly hello!

    Am I missing something here or is this just an outrageous miscarriage of justice?



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,053 ✭✭✭✭Boggles

    Was this case not on months ago and Jury failed to reach a conclusion?

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,751 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp

    Yep, same case.

    I'm surprised with the verdict to be honest.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,717 ✭✭✭kirk.

    Seems a strange one

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,222 ✭✭✭Allinall

    You can use reasonable force to defend yourself, not your house.

    Knives are for buttering bread and chopping vegetables, not stabbing people who break into your house.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 78,847 ✭✭✭✭Overheal

    I wonder if you could appeal that, since the judge instructed the jury the only had a few limited verdicts to pick - and he reportedly never instructed them on their option (assuming Ireland has it) to return a Null Verdict. Basically deciding that the law that applies to the case is bullshit or being applied in a bullshit way - in this case to prosecute someone for manslaughter because of the size of their self defence weapon during a home invasion. Yet a kitchen chef knife is no larger or more deadly than a dagger, what you'd regard as the practical minimum for a bladed defense weapon outside of concealed or throwing knives. The courts instructions seem effed.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,523 ✭✭✭Jequ0n

    Very strange outcome. I remember reading about the case and thinking that this was a hell of a situation to deal with for a teenager. Unless I remember incorrectly there was an issue with hiding the knife, but I can’t see how this would have benefited ms angle.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,751 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp

    The blood soaked knife was on the draining board in the kitchen. Very poor effort at hiding the knife. It doesn't even look like he was trying to hide it in plain sight as it wasn't washed. It was heavily blood stained. I wouldn't believe the 'trying to hide the knife' end of things.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,092 ✭✭✭screamer

    I’m sure this won’t be the last we hear of it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,620 ✭✭✭donaghs

    Is there some element of doubt about the facts of the case? After Power throws a stone at the window, many reports say “There were differing accounts of what happened next.” E.g. was Power attacked/confronted in the garden first and followed Kerrie into the house.

    IF, Keerie’s account is correct , it seems like a self-defence scenario.

  • Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Ham_Sandwich

    he could have left his house and called the gardai thats what there there for everyone wants it to be the wild west like america killing people over trespassing

  • Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Ham_Sandwich

    houses usually have a front and back door theres also a window which id rather jump out to avoid having to kill someone

  • Registered Users Posts: 994 ✭✭✭Sandor Clegane

    Well, god forbid if you ever find yourself in such a situation then you are entitled to go for the back door or jump out the window, however you're not obliged to, how a person reacts is going to be different for everyone, there is no telling what any of us would do in a situation like this unless it happened to you, no reaction is the wrong one in a situation like this, if you run or hide fine, if you stand your ground and this happens, also fine...a person who forcibly enters your home should have little to no rights and the courts should lean heavily in favor of the person defending himself/family/home.

  • Registered Users Posts: 78,847 ✭✭✭✭Overheal

    IDK about this case but I live in an apartment, there is 1 entrance only, and I'd break my legs exiting any other way. If you come looking to do me harm in my bible belt abode I'm just saying don't miss, I don't intend and you'll be giving me few alternatives.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Varik

    Judge's instructions sound way off.

    If he used excessive force but had an honest belief that the force he used was necessary then he is not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter, the judge said. He added: "If you find that the accused knew the force used was excessive, then you must find him guilty of murder."

    Any report or article or even the amendment to the act itself can't possibly be read that way.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭pjcb

    the witness described the guy leaving the house when he was stabbed

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭ittakestwo

    You dont have a authomatic right to kill someone if they break into your home.... obviously. Only if you believe your life is in danger. But you cant infer someone breaking into your home wants to kill. Thousands of break ins a year which virtually lead to no deaths.

  • Registered Users Posts: 78,847 ✭✭✭✭Overheal

    That doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't walking-dead, with limited time to expire.

  • Registered Users Posts: 38,053 ✭✭✭✭Boggles

    It seems to me on the face of it his defence were for want of better wording less keen in the retrial.

    It also appears to me that the law needs further clarification.

    Is there much difference in this case?

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes

    That's not true as BattleCorp has quoted above. Provided he only used the amount of force as he honestly believed necessary.

    I hope there is more to this than meets the eye otherwise terrible miscarriage of justice.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,093 ✭✭✭Furze99

    Sounds like a pretty dodgy verdict. If the basic facts are as reported and RTE usually fairly balanced in court reports, I'd find it hard to believe how he could have been convicted. Evidence of victim's friend maybe played a notable role. If some drunk broke into my house, I'd be defending myself and others with whatever is to hand. As for calling the Gardaí, you'd be waiting a long time around here.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭ittakestwo

    That is not an automatic right to kill someone who breaks in your home.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,751 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp

    There's no automatic right to kill someone if they break into your home. There's also no right to kill someone if you believe your life is in danger either for that matter. You have a right to defend yourself and your property in a proportional way. And sometimes that proportional way means that the person attacking you dies. But it doesn't simply mean that you can kill someone if you believe you are in danger. If you defend yourself and your property in a proportional way, you can use this as a defence if you are charged with a crime, even if you kill someone. The law allows you to use this as a defence.

    In simple terms, if a 10 year old kid is stealing apples from your orchard (within the curtilage of your property) , you aren't allowed to batter them to death with a lead pipe. That clearly isn't proportional. If a fully grown man is attacking you with a chainsaw, I'd guess using a knife or any other weapon would be proportional. The problem is that it's slightly/very subjective when it comes to a judge or jury deciding what's proportional or not.

    I think it was probably a huge mistake for Dean Kerrie not to give evidence in the trial. It's possible the Jury were swayed by this. I'd say Christopher Lee's evidence probably led to Dean Kerrie being found guilty. Kerrie had the ability to counter Lee's evidence but he didn't take the stand therefore it's possible that they believed Lee moreso than Kerrie.

    Correct. See my first paragraph in this post.