PRESS RELEASE

18/11/2005

Billy Kelleher op-ed on Crime for Evening Echo

The length to which people can go to defend themselves when threatened by intruders in their own homes has been the subject of much debate in the past week. The trial of Pádraig Nally, a Mayo farmer who shot dead Traveller John Ward after he intruded on his land, polarised public opinion about the lawful use of reasonable force. I am convinced that reasonable force should be used in self-defence. That is our legal entitlement. The difficulty arises in the definition of reasonable.

I believe the Pádraig Nally case has been used as an imperfect prism through which we consider the individual’s right to self-defence. The debate, which should be about the protection of family and property, has instead become excessively preoccupied with Traveller issues. It has been clouded by societal prejudices and often misguided preconceptions about the Traveller community. Whether or not John Ward was a Traveller is, in my view, irrelevant.

I believe Pádraig Nally initially used reasonable force to rout Mr Ward from his land. But his fatal mistake - prompted by impulse and fear - was to shoot dead a man who was already retreating from him. In my view, that decision was wrong. We can argue about the severity of Judge Paul Carney’s six-year jail sentence but we must ultimately accept the court’s decision.

Pádraig Nally lived on his own in a rural area. His self-confessed fear of burglary mirrors the state of mind of many other people living in both urban and rural parts of the country. Some of them have had to confront intruders in their own homes. Others to whom I have spoken have used force to drive out imposters and protect their families and property. By doing so they risk getting hurt or worse - but it a risk they feel they have to take to protect themselves.

I am not a criminologist. I have no legal expertise nor can I clinically evaluate an individual’s state of mind when confronted by an intruder. But I believe the defence of home and family within the parameters of the law is an instinctive and reasonable response when confronted by danger.

Our gardaí serve rural areas with distinction. But despite their best efforts, burglaries and domestic attacks still happen. For many people, burglary is their biggest fear and a coherent emergency response is needed urgently to allay their concerns. I would like gardaí, who may be on traffic duty in these areas, to be able to respond quicker to emergency calls. There is an assumption that more Garda stations are needed. I believe more mobile gardaí are required in rural areas and not necessarily physical buildings.

This Government has an impeccable record on policing. By the time the next election comes around, the number of gardaí in training and fully attested will have reached 14,000. The new 14-point policing plan, announced in this year’s Budget Estimates, is key to tackling crime. An additional €3.8 million will bring the total spend on Garda transport to €22.9 million. That will be used to buy a fleet of specially adapted high-visibility and high-powered vehicles. New digital Garda radios will replace older ones that could be intercepted by criminals.

These measures should bolster security in urban and rural areas - and we must make every effort to ensure that happens. People should never have to live in fear. They deserve to know that their homes are safe at night. They deserve to know that a rapid response will follow an emergency call.

The Garda budget is now over €1.1 billion. Resources allocated to the Garda Siochána have risen by 83pc since the Fine Gael-led Rainbow Government was in power. That administration spent just €600 million on a smaller force in 1996/97. But our resources must always be targeted at better policing. We must never be complacent when we know that some people are still living in fear.

The Pádraig Nally case has focused our attention on crime in rural areas. But it should not take a high-profile trial to tap the collective consciousness. In any assessment of the right to use reasonable force when faced by an intruder, it is important not to be over-simplistic because each situation is different. However, we must never allow the debate to be sidetracked by prejudice or skewed by intolerance of other cultures. We must approach each case objectively and administer justice fairly in the common good. Above all else, we must protect people in their own homes.

ENDS