The Central Criminal Court decided to hear the Nally case in Castlebar, making it the first murder trial in Mayo for almost a century; the jury was chosen from a pool of more than 200 locals.
[1] Travellers' support groups criticised the bias because of the jury's composition, arguing that the murder trial should have been afforded a more independent and objective forum.
[5] The court heard that a post-mortem examination and toxicology tests on Mr Ward's body found traces of cannabis, opiates and tranquillisers.
[5] The Prime Time Special (RTÉ flagship current affairs programme) brought forward new evidence showing that John Ward had a long criminal record dating back over 30 years and revealed that four bench warrants for John Ward's arrest were outstanding at the time of his death.
[6] Tom Ward, the chief witness for the prosecution, was himself serving an eleven-month sentence at the time of the trial, for possessing a knife and for theft.
[3] During the first trial, the court heard that Nally had become increasingly agitated and worried that his property would be targeted by local thieves as a number of farms in the area had recently been burgled.
Tom Ward said that on the evening of 13 October 2004 he had bought the car he and his father had travelled in to Pádraig Nally's house the following day.
Pádraig Nally's barrister had earlier stated a car bearing a similar description had previously been seen in the vicinity of Cross a short distance from where a chainsaw was reported stolen.
[10] Sentencing Nally to six years for the manslaughter conviction, Mr Justice Paul Carney said: "This is undoubtedly the most socially divisive case I have had to try.
[8] The judge said he would take into consideration Nally's unblemished past, his low risk of re-offending, his willingness to show remorse for his crime and the fact that the prosecution's case was based largely on testaments given by the farmer.
[11] Although widely heralded as "allowing" homeowners to exercise reasonable force in defending their home,[12][13] the Act in fact did nothing to change the legal position as it existed at the time of Nally's trial, other than to place the previous common law jurisprudence on a statutory footing.