Man cleared of murdering trespasser in home with garden shears

suicide_circus · 14-03-2018 06:04PM

Fair play. Good law well implemented.

Varik · 14-03-2018 06:17PM

darkdubh wrote: »

I don't think it's the first case to be tried under this law though. Wasn't there a similar case in Kilkenny a few years ago where someone got off under this act?

1 intruder died and another injured, they didn't charge the guy and they mentioned the change in law was the main reason they didn't bring charges.

seamus wrote: »

The case itself doesn't open the door for people to beat seven shades out of intruders or to "defend" their property using force.

The basic test of reasonable force still applies. So if someone is in your house and you attack them, you're on the hook for a criminal charge.

What the 2011 act did is remove the requirement for a homeowner to retreat first rather than confront and intruder or defend themselves. In this case the defence's contention was that the homeowner was attacked and was merely defending himself. Before the 2011 act, the defence would have had to show why the defendent didn't or couldn't flee when they found someone in their house.

So if you find someone in your house and they stop, put their hands up and say, "I don't want any trouble", there's little you can do but call the gardai. You can't pull out a gun and shoot them in the back. Or the chest.

Also changed it to what you believe is reasonable force and as with the death in Kilkenny there wasn't even charges brought. A lot harder to prove what someone believed or not, and "I don't want any trouble" isn't going to allay most people fears if face with an intruder.

A court or jury may not assess if such a belief was justified or not, only whether it was honestly held. However, in doing so, they may consider whether the accused had reasonable grounds for believing force was necessary.

14-03-2018 06:24PM

Gravelly wrote:

Is this case a turning point in how Ireland sees the defence of the home?

This isn't the first time this happened. There was a case where a farmer shot a traveller on his land. Its the first time under legislation brought in after the farmer case.

Great result. Its proper order that you can defend yourself and your family, with deadly force if needed in your own home.

bigpink · 14-03-2018 06:25PM

Very strange case they knew each other I have a feeling

end of the road · 14-03-2018 06:59PM

Gravelly wrote: »

If there are several cases where householders defend their property and family with violence, that leads to death or serious injury for the intruder, and the courts look sympathetically on the householder, it might begin to sink in.

unlikely. what's probably more likely is they will go to burgle armed to the teeth.

Gravelly wrote: »

The problem at the moment is that the intruder has little to dissuade him, as the sentences being handed down by the courts are laughable. Once the thought is planted that burglary comes with real risks, it might become less attractive.

they may also decide the risks are worth it and insure they are able to mitagate against the risks.

Gravelly · 14-03-2018 07:03PM

end of the road wrote: »

unlikely. what's probably more likely is they will go to burgle armed to the teeth.

Many of them already do. Those that don't probably don't because they can't get their hands on weaponry, rather than out of some gentlemanly desire to keep the playing pitch level.

end of the road wrote: »

they may also decide the risks are worth it and insure they are able to mitagate against the risks.

May, might, possibly. The old law didn't protect the homeowner, the new one does. That's all there is to it really.

Gravelly · 14-03-2018 07:04PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This isn't the first time this happened. There was a case where a farmer shot a traveller on his land. Its the first time under legislation brought in after the farmer case.

Great result. Its proper order that you can defend yourself and your family, with deadly force if needed in your own home.

I'm aware of that case, however this is the first time a defendant has used the new law in their defence, and, thankfully, it worked.

SEPT 23 1989 · 14-03-2018 07:28PM

So your man was invited into the dwelling is that correct?

facehugger99 · 14-03-2018 07:35PM

I'm not in favour of a frontier justice style system in this country, but one should be able to defend their own home and family with whatever force is deemed appropriate. Up to and including lethal force.

....... · 14-03-2018 07:43PM

This post has been deleted.

Gravelly · 14-03-2018 07:45PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Loved that - they were invited to the caravan by a mystery man who apparently then disappeared, and was never called as a witness, they then rummaged through the cupboards and "waited" in the bedroom. Sounds totally legit.

muckbrien · 14-03-2018 07:47PM

Grayson wrote: »

Just reading the details of that case. It's messed up.

It's shear madness

mynamejeff · 14-03-2018 08:10PM

Traveller kills travelller and uses a law to protect people from travellers to get off

crafty

the_syco · 14-03-2018 08:44PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So your man was invited into the dwelling is that correct?

Some random traveller invited Mooney & co in for a drink, and said random traveller then went to the offie to get the drink.

Wait, what?

the_syco · 14-03-2018 08:45PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm guessing they smelt copper?

Rerto · 14-03-2018 09:31PM

Good judgement. Home invaders deserve everything they get.

Your Face · 14-03-2018 09:41PM

I'll reserve my praise for the new Act until it's proven it will be used to protect every type of homeowner.

baylah17 · 14-03-2018 11:15PM

GarIT wrote: »

It’s a great result for justice. Everyone should have the right to kill anyone that has broken into their home even if they are trying to flee.

That is not what the law allows
That would lead to a murder conviction

GarIT · 14-03-2018 11:52PM

baylah17 wrote: »

That is not what the law allows
That would lead to a murder conviction

That's why I said should have the right to not does have.

I believe if someone has broken into your home and is still inside your property you should be entitled to shoot them in the back of the head as they try to run away.

I think the home should be treated as sacred and protected within the law. Breaking into somebodys home is only beaten in terms of seriousness by, murder, manslaughter, rape and pedophilia. If you catch somebody breaking into your home you should own them, you should be allowed to do what you want to them without the law getting involved. If you want to stop a burglar leaving your home so you can beat them for longer that's totally acceptable in my books.

Graces7 · 15-03-2018 12:29AM

The Healy Raes will be delighted BUT that photo speaks worlds.

LadyMacBeth_ · 15-03-2018 12:54AM

I think it's definitely a step in the right direction that someone can defend themselves from an intruder in their own home. With reasonable force only though, people advocating that they should be allowed to shoot someone in the back of the head who is trying to flee would be better off living in the deep south of 'Murica.

15-03-2018 01:03AM

this is good

Varik · 15-03-2018 01:04AM

Just on the matter of the person who allegedly invited them into the caravan. If they exist is there any charges that could be brought for the death.

There was a shooting in the US where the occupant shot 3 intruders, but the 4th person was in their car and fled. The driver was charged with 3 first degree murders (ie her accomplices), the law there allows a murder charge against a participant in a crime in which people are killed even if that person does not take part in the killing.

jaxxx · 15-03-2018 01:05AM

Wait hold the phone. Am I reading things right or is this actually a documented case of common sense in actual use in the justice system???? I must be dreaming... surely??

Varik · 15-03-2018 01:06AM

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

I think it's definitely a step in the right direction that someone can defend themselves from an intruder in their own home. With reasonable force only though, people advocating that they should be allowed to shoot someone in the back of the head who is trying to flee would be better off living in the deep south of 'Murica.

Law says what you believe is reasonable force.

Mutant z · 15-03-2018 01:08AM

He was defending his home and family absolute correct decision.

Manic Moran · 15-03-2018 01:58AM

seamus wrote: »

What the 2011 act did is remove the requirement for a homeowner to retreat first rather than confront and intruder or defend themselves. In this case the defence's contention was that the homeowner was attacked and was merely defending himself. Before the 2011 act, the defence would have had to show why the defendent didn't or couldn't flee when they found someone in their house.

Not really correct, and the case to look at is DPP vs Barnes in 2006, which is actually referenced in the RTE link.
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/ADED5C6B04F391478025725D00516C14?Open&Highlight=0,barnes,~language_en~

There are consequences of the special status of the dwellinghouse and of its importance to the human dignity of its occupants. Amongst the most relevant of these is that, as has been held by the Courts of Common Law for centuries, a person in his dwellinghouse can never, in law, be under an obligation to leave it, to retreat from it or to abandon it to the burglar or other aggressor. Thus, Sir Matthew Hale said (I Hale P.C. 486):

“It seems to me in such a case H. being in his own house, need not fly as far as he can, as in other cases of se defendendo for he hath the protection of his house to excuse him from flying, for that would be to give up the possession of his house to his adversary by his flight”.

It is of course common experience that there will be occasions when a person might well be advised to flee, but that is a matter for his own discretion and he can never be under a legal obligation to do so. Equally, there will be other occasions when a person might be ill advised to flee, perhaps because of exterior conditions or perhaps because of the fear of meeting an accomplice of the known aggressor, or being pursued by the latter, and attacked when he is outside his dwellinghouse and to that extent in a worse or more dubious position.

It is, in our view, quite inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of the inviolability of a dwellinghouse that a householder or other lawful occupant could be ever be under a legal obligation to flee the dwellinghouse or, as it might be put in more contemporary language, to retreat from it. It follows from this, in turn, that such a person can never be in a worse position in point of law because he has decided to stand his ground in his house.

What the Defense of the Dwelling act did was basically codify into statute what was already in effect under common law.

Noveight · 15-03-2018 02:14AM

Excellent result, proper order.

baylah17 · 15-03-2018 08:54AM

Varik wrote: »

Law says what you believe is reasonable force.

No, it does say what YOU believe is reasonable force, Reasonable Force is defined in law as such force as a reasonable person would deem necessary, which is quite different

seamus · 15-03-2018 08:58AM

GarIT wrote: »

I think the home should be treated as sacred and protected within the law. Breaking into somebodys home is only beaten in terms of seriousness by, murder, manslaughter, rape and pedophilia. If you catch somebody breaking into your home you should own them, you should be allowed to do what you want to them without the law getting involved. If you want to stop a burglar leaving your home so you can beat them for longer that's totally acceptable in my books.

Nah, I can't agree. It's just bricks and mortar and possessions. I don't see why protection of them should take priority over another person's life.

Man cleared of murdering trespasser in home with garden shears

Comments