Farmer Nally

In relation to the Nally case, I wonder would the outcome of these Discussion Papers have had a bearing on the case for the defendant? [broken link removed]
Criminal Law: Defences
The Commission is engaged in an ongoing review of the various defences to criminal charges.

In 2003, the Commission published a Consultation Paper on Provocation. The Consultation Paper provisionally recommends that the subjective test, which is currently applied in Ireland, should be replaced with a version of the objective test, which is applied in every other common law jurisdiction.

A second Consultation Paper in this series will deal with the defences of duress and necessity, and will be published in late 2005. This will deal with the circumstances in which a person commits what would otherwise be a criminal act under a threat which then person considers will be carried out (duress by threats) or in the context of specific circumstances (duress of circumstances). This Paper also considers the related issues of acting under necessity and coercion.

A third Consultation Paper in this series, on legitimate defence, is also being prepared and will be published in late 2005 or early 2006. The Paper examines the traditional rules for the defence, including the threat requirements (namely, that life is endangered, and the threat is imminent and unlawful) and the response requirements (namely, that the defender's response is necessary and proportionate). The Paper also considers which standard is most appropriate to the defence, namely an objective, a subjective, or a mixed or dual standard.

While my sympathy is divided between the parties, I admit to a biased subjectivity towards Mr. Nally. However, if Mr. Nally was 'out of his mind' with fear and paranoia, which seems very likely, wasn't it open to his defence to have pleaded insanity? It seems to me that would have been a reasonable and credible defence for shooting and killing a man who was already wounded, immobilised and in retreat. Perhaps Mr. Nally rejected this as a defence which might explain his own acceptance of a custodial sentence.
 
MOB said:
2. I am astonished at the "stormfront" website.
Click to expand...
What's this all about? The Nazi bulletin board? Was that mentioned in the context of this thread or something?
 
yes - there is a discussion of the Nally case on this website; quarterfloun posted a link by way of illustrating what a truly OTT perspective looks like.
 

One could say the same (not participate fully in the tax system) about vast swathes of the Irish building industry and many other parts of the 'settled' community. My first introduction to 'discount for cash' many years ago came not from a brickie or a chippie, but from a solicitor whom I had engaged on a civil matter. It seems like little has changed, based on the married solicitor/barrister couple who offered a friend of mine €50k cash for a particular construction job recently.
 
quarterfloun said:
Look what I found!



And I thought I was a bit OTT
Click to expand...
That seems like a well balanced website. I especailly liked the "White Pride World Wide" logo in the top left hand side of the screen .
 
"My first introduction to 'discount for cash' many years ago came not from a brickie or a chippie, but from a solicitor whom I had engaged on a civil matter."

For years now, I have had a polite way of avoiding this. When clients ask about getting a discount for cash, I say something along the lines of "well, you know, that sort of thing would be alright, but we are on record as acting in this transaction and the Revenue will want to see a fee in our books; If your transaction shows up as having a smaller fee than similar transactions, they will assume we have taken cash, so we just can't do it"

In my experience, far fewer people today ask for a "cash discount" than say ten years ago. I can't say whether this is because they know I am not amenable or because standards are improving. The former I suspect, the latter I hope.
 

At last! Thanks MOB - I thought I was alone in wondering about this. Just to follow up - I've always understood that a judge can (and must) GUIDE/DIRECT a jury along the lines of "if you find that Mr x did action y, then that amounts to crime z and you must therefore convict." However I didn't think the judge could ORDER a jury along the lines of "the evidence shows that Mr x did y and that amounts to crime z and you must therefore convict." Is this not a clear violation of the principle that juries make findings of fact in criminal trials?

In any event, it looks like the question will be answered by the Court of Criminal Appeal [broken link removed]

 
I thought that the judge had to direct at least a guilty manslaughter verdict because, even apart from the fact that he shot, beat and then reloaded and shot again, Mr. Nally clearly admitted in evidence and/or his statement that his intention was to kill Mr. Ward. On this basis I'm surprised that he didn't direct a guilty murder verdict. But, as I also mentioned above, I'm still not clear if a jury can ignore a judge's directions in this sort of matter or if, in doing so, they would simply leave open strong grounds for an appeal by one side or another.
 

Just to be painfully clear, I did not ask the solicitor for 'discount for cash'. I expressed horror at the fee that he was charging me (I was naive enough in those days not to have clarified the fee up front). The solicitor's immediate response was to suggest a discounted cash payment.
 
I remember when I was on a Jury for a rape case and the judge strongly suggested that we find the defendent not guilty. I can't remember exactly how he worded this. We ended up finding him guilty. I never found out what he was sentenced to.
 
RainyDay said:
It seems like little has changed, based on the married solicitor/barrister couple who offered a friend of mine €50k cash for a particular construction job recently.
Click to expand...

Given the high moral ground that you normally take on these matters. I assume you have reported this matter to Revenue and/or the law society.
 
Ham Slicer said:
Given the high moral ground that you normally take on these matters. I assume you have reported this matter to Revenue and/or the law society.
Click to expand...
Given that I know nothing about the couple other than that a barrister is married to a solicitor and they live in D4, I don't think it's really worth my while - do you?
 
No one seems to have mentioned the fact that there were no witnesses to the shooting and that we have to take Mr. Nally's word that he saw Ward "coming out the back door" of his house.

Another thing that struck me about the Prime Time interview -- Nally's head never moved an inch as he told his story. The cameraman could have locked off the camera and gone for a walk, he was so still. And the story he told was inconsistent. He said the gun went off accidentally because he was nervous. Later he said that first shot was a warning shot...

RTE let him away pretty lightly. Probably couldn't believe he agreed to be interviewed and didn't want to rock the boat.
 
extopia said:
No one seems to have mentioned the fact that there were no witnesses to the shooting and that we have to take Mr. Nally's word that he saw Ward "coming out the back door" of his house.
Click to expand...

It's uncontradicted evidence - why shouldn't we accept it? Why do you doubt evidence from Mr Nally that is entirely consistent with Mr Ward's previous record of criminality. Surely you don't believe the Wards were on the premises in an effort to buy/sell a car????
 
Surely Ward's son was a witness to the shooting/beating/shooting?

Where can one access the transcripts of trials?
 

Uncontradicted yes -- because as I said there were no witnesses.

Surely you don't believe that it's OK to shoot dead a person you may believe to be thief?
 
ClubMan said:
Surely Ward's son was a witness to the shooting/beating/shooting?

Where can one access the transcripts of trials?
Click to expand...


Don't know about transcripts, but according to the son himself on Prime Time he did not see the shooting, but heard the shots and drove off "to get help."
 
extopia said:
Don't know about transcripts, but according to the son himself on Prime Time he did not see the shooting, but heard the shots and drove off "to get help."
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, I presume that he was called as a witness? If so, what did he say in court as opposed to in media interviews?
 
extopia said:
Another thing that struck me about the Prime Time interview -- Nally's head never moved an inch as he told his story. The cameraman could have locked off the camera and gone for a walk, he was so still.
Click to expand...
So what? I don't get the relevance of this to the veracity or otherwise if his version of events? If, as you subsequently say, he was obviously contradicting himself then that's another matter. Ultimately what matters is what was presented in court though. I heard a snippet of an interview with him on the radio. When was the interview conducted? Before or after his conviction? If it was after then does anybody know what the protocol is for media interviews of convicted criminals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register