Law 'doesn’t allow for pay-back', jury told in father-murder case

The jury in the trial of a 23-year-old man charged with the murder of his father has been told that the law does not allow for "pay-back time".

Patrick Gageby SC was referring in his closing speech to a phrase the defendant used to describe the fatal beating he gave his father with a spade, after enduring 21 years of his violence.

James McInerney of Lacey Avenue, Templemore, Co Tipperary has pleaded not guilty to murdering 56-year-old James ‘Jimmy’ McInerney Snr at the family home on June 17, 2009.

During the trial, the jury heard from a number of witnesses that the deceased frequently beat his wife and some of their ten children. His widow, Eileen McInerney, testified that he was "a bad man", while a nun gave evidence of seeing her black eyes.

The trial heard from witnesses who saw the deceased holding a spade in his back yard on the night he died. He was heard shouting abuse at his wife and the defendant, and calling him outside. He was also seen breaking windows in the defendant’s van.

This is when the accused told gardaí that he "flipped", came outside, took the spade off his father and beat him with it, describing it as "pay-back time".

“Everyone in this room would have sympathy for the McInerneys,” said Mr Gageby. “But the law does not allow for pay-back time.”

In anticipation of the defences to be argued, he said it was neither self defence nor provocation and that there was intent to kill or cause serious injury.

He said that there was cooling-off time between the breaking of the van windows and the fatal assault, and that there was deliberation while the defendant armed himself with a spade.

He said that the defendant’s account of the fight with his father was made up to conceal the reality.

He pointed out that witnesses, who had seen both his father shouting with the spade and the accused beating his father, had not seen any fight between them.

He noted that the deceased was 5’ 4” while his son was 6’ or more and that anyone watching would not have thought his intention was to give his father a mere beating, as he argued.

Brendan Grehan SC, defending, then put forward three possible defences for his client: lack of intent, self defence and provocation.

In arguing that his client did not intend to kill or seriously injure, he pointed to the state pathologist’s evidence that the spade was light and wouldn’t have been expected to cause such injuries. He also pointed out that his client had not used the sharp edge of the spade.

He told the jury that it was possible that his client acted in self defence, reminding the members that his client was scared of his father, whom he referred to as ‘the bossman’.

He added that there was no doubt at all that what the deceased had done that evening amounted to provocation.

“The deceased was behaving in a violent, aggressive and totally unreasonable manner,” he said.

“The accused had walked away. The house was then attacked and he was called out to fight. The spade went from Mr McInerney Snr’s hands to the accused’s hands within a couple of minutes,” he continued. “The accused, with his baggage and things welling up inside him like a volcano after being suppressed all these years, did something out of character.”

Mr Grehan reminded the jury of the description of the deceased given in court as being a violent, "hardy" man and "strong as a horse", and said his son thought he would have been able to take his beating. He said that the difference in size of the two men brought to mind the following phrase: “It’s not the size of the man in the fight but the size of the fight in the man.”

Mr Justice John Edwards has now begun charging the jury of five women and seven men, who are expected to begin deliberating tomorrow.