Guilty of manslaughter of Waterford fisherman

Yep, same case.

I'm surprised with the verdict to be honest.

I wonder if you could appeal that, since the judge instructed the jury the only had a few limited verdicts to pick - and he reportedly never instructed them on their option (assuming Ireland has it) to return a Null Verdict. Basically deciding that the law that applies to the case is bullshit or being applied in a bullshit way - in this case to prosecute someone for manslaughter because of the size of their self defence weapon during a home invasion. Yet a kitchen chef knife is no larger or more deadly than a dagger, what you'd regard as the practical minimum for a bladed defense weapon outside of concealed or throwing knives. The courts instructions seem effed.

Evidence was given that Power assaulted Kerrie's mother and Kerrie himself so I think it's safe to say Dean Kerrie wasn't defending his house. He was defending himself. By the way, you can use reasonable force to protect your house.

If someone attacked me in my house in the middle of the night, I think it would be reasonable to use a knife or whatever else was to hand to defend myself.

I think the fact that Kerrie didn't give evidence himself in this second trial might have harmed his defence. There is a lot of conflicting evidence too, especially from Christopher Lee. His version of events were very different from Dean Kerrie's.

The blood soaked knife was on the draining board in the kitchen. Very poor effort at hiding the knife. It doesn't even look like he was trying to hide it in plain sight as it wasn't washed. It was heavily blood stained. I wouldn't believe the 'trying to hide the knife' end of things.

Is there some element of doubt about the facts of the case? After Power throws a stone at the window, many reports say “There were differing accounts of what happened next.” E.g. was Power attacked/confronted in the garden first and followed Kerrie into the house.

IF, Keerie’s account is correct , it seems like a self-defence scenario.

he could have left his house and called the gardai thats what there there for everyone wants it to be the wild west like america killing people over trespassing

houses usually have a front and back door theres also a window which id rather jump out to avoid having to kill someone

Judge's instructions sound way off.

Any report or article or even the amendment to the act itself can't possibly be read that way.

Can't believe that there are people trying to defend the guy who smashed his way into another person's house. Incredible.

You dont have a authomatic right to kill someone if they break into your home.... obviously. Only if you believe your life is in danger. But you cant infer someone breaking into your home wants to kill. Thousands of break ins a year which virtually lead to no deaths.

It seems to me on the face of it his defence were for want of better wording less keen in the retrial.

It also appears to me that the law needs further clarification.

Is there much difference in this case?

Sounds like a pretty dodgy verdict. If the basic facts are as reported and RTE usually fairly balanced in court reports, I'd find it hard to believe how he could have been convicted. Evidence of victim's friend maybe played a notable role. If some drunk broke into my house, I'd be defending myself and others with whatever is to hand. As for calling the Gardaí, you'd be waiting a long time around here.

There's no automatic right to kill someone if they break into your home. There's also no right to kill someone if you believe your life is in danger either for that matter. You have a right to defend yourself and your property in a proportional way. And sometimes that proportional way means that the person attacking you dies. But it doesn't simply mean that you can kill someone if you believe you are in danger. If you defend yourself and your property in a proportional way, you can use this as a defence if you are charged with a crime, even if you kill someone. The law allows you to use this as a defence.

In simple terms, if a 10 year old kid is stealing apples from your orchard (within the curtilage of your property) , you aren't allowed to batter them to death with a lead pipe. That clearly isn't proportional. If a fully grown man is attacking you with a chainsaw, I'd guess using a knife or any other weapon would be proportional. The problem is that it's slightly/very subjective when it comes to a judge or jury deciding what's proportional or not.

I think it was probably a huge mistake for Dean Kerrie not to give evidence in the trial. It's possible the Jury were swayed by this. I'd say Christopher Lee's evidence probably led to Dean Kerrie being found guilty. Kerrie had the ability to counter Lee's evidence but he didn't take the stand therefore it's possible that they believed Lee moreso than Kerrie.

Correct. See my first paragraph in this post.