The verdict by a Dublin jury in the retrial of Pádraig Nally has sent a dangerous signal to society. The Travelling community has the right to feel hard done by. By finding Mr Nally not guilty of the manslaughter of John Ward in Co Mayo in October, 2004, the jury broke new ground in deciding what could be regarded as reasonable force or an imminent threat in hostile circumstances. It is not surprising that the verdict is extremely divisive: welcomed by Mr Nally's supporters and by some local politicians and condemned as "a licence to kill Travellers" by a representative of the Ward family.
Society has a legitimate interest in limiting the use of lethal force by citizens or by members of the Garda Síochána. Human life is precious and must be safeguarded whenever possible. That is why the law requires that only reasonable force should be used in self-defence. And while a lethal response can be justified where there is an imminent threat to life, in other circumstances it has always been regarded as illegal.
On the basis of legal precedent, Mr Nally's acknowledgment yesterday that he had been preparing himself to go back to prison is understandable. His behaviour in shooting Mr Ward in the thigh and beating him soundly when he discovered him on his property, might have passed as an extreme, if understandable, response. But his subsequent actions in going to a shed to get more cartridges; giving chase to Mr Ward who was leaving the scene; catching up with him; shooting him dead and then dumping his body over a wall, hardly fits a defence of reasonable force or imminent threat. And yet that is what the jury decided after hearing all the evidence and following more than 15 hours of careful deliberation.
Protestations that the case does not reflect public attitudes to Travellers are unconvincing. It brought to a head some of the tensions that have been simmering between the settled and Traveller communities for decades. The not guilty verdict caused motorists to sound their horns in triumph near the Ward halting site. In spite of an us-and-them mindset, however, it may be wrong to conclude that the verdict was based on Mr Ward's way of life, rather than on his criminal record and a reputation for violent behaviour. But the jury's finding also indicates that the public may be in a different place to opinion leaders. A mood is developing which is unsympathetic to the political correctness in society.
Mr Nally says that the events of October 2004 are always on his mind. He is a decent, honourable man who did not go looking for trouble on that terrible day. Instead, trouble came to his isolated farmhouse in the shape of John Ward who had a criminal record and a history of violent behaviour. But, allowing for his fears, his reaction was excessive.
There is a need for greater clarity about the use of legitimate force in self-defence, as the Law Reform Commission has suggested. But lethal force must remain intolerable in all but exceptional circumstances.