The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed Padraig Nally’s manslaughter conviction for the killing of John Ward and directed that he face a retrial. It ruled that the trial judge had improperly prevented the jury from considering a complete acquittal on self-defence grounds.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kearns on 12 October 2006, concerned Nally’s appeal against his conviction after a July 2005 trial in the Central Criminal Court at Castlebar Courthouse. The jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, starting on 11 November 2005.
The charge arose from events on 14 October 2004 at Funshinaugh Cross, Claremorris, County Mayo. The judgment recounts that John Ward and his son Tom had come to Nally’s farm. Nally’s account at trial was that a shotgun discharged accidentally during a confrontation, after which a physical struggle took place. He said he feared the son had left to get reinforcements. Ward later left the property; Nally reloaded the shotgun, followed him onto the public road and fired the fatal shot. Nally’s defence was self-defence.
At the end of the evidence, the prosecution asked the trial judge to prevent the jury from acquitting Nally outright, arguing that the force used was so excessive that full self-defence could not apply. The judge ruled that a full self-defence verdict would be perverse and left the jury a limited version of the defence, under which it could find manslaughter rather than murder. The jury then returned its verdict.
On appeal, Nally argued that the judge had wrongly removed the question of whether the force was objectively reasonable from the jury. The appeal court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *The People (DPP) v Mark Davis*, which established that a judge may direct an acquittal but cannot direct a jury to convict. Although a judge may express a strong view about the evidence, the jury must decide guilt or innocence.
The court held that the jury had been denied the opportunity to return a not-guilty verdict, even if the trial judge considered it unsupported by the evidence. Whether the force was objectively reasonable was a question of fact for the jury. It therefore granted leave to appeal, quashed the conviction and directed a retrial. The judgment did not determine the outcome of any retrial.