The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the initiator of a plan to lure and rob a Mayo man who ended up being badly beaten and locked in the boot of a car,
The five-judge court found William Twomey’s efforts to undermine the scheme he earlier devised were “simply inadequate” to undo his actions or to prevent the crime.
Twomey (60), a financial adviser with an address at Havelock Place, Warrenpoint, Co Down, was found guilty in November 2021 at the non-jury Special Criminal Court of robbery, assault and of demanding money with menaces from Edward McAndrew in Co Louth in December 2017.
He was acquitted of a charge of falsely imprisoning McAndrew, a second-hand construction equipment dealer of Curradrish, Foxford.
Twomey’s trial heard McAndrew was set upon in a “barbaric” attack by men who beat him with iron bars, demanded money and robbed him at a remote location in Co Louth.
McAndrew, who was kept for some time in the boot of a car, had been lured to Omeath by the gang, who claimed to be part of the Continuity IRA, on the pretence that they had plant machinery to sell to him.
The sentencing judge described Twomey as the “initiator of a joint enterprise” but said the “results went well beyond” what he had contemplated.
He has already served the sentence imposed on him.
In a ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley described a background of friendship and falling out between Twomey and McAndrew. She said Twomey denied he was motivated to seek revenge against his former friend, claiming instead he was owed money.
He recruited Tony Finglas, who had been employed previously, to collect debt from “difficult” tenants. Finglas (53), also of Havelock Place, pleaded guilty to demanding money with menaces from McAndrew and was sentenced to four years and nine months in December 2020.
A detective garda confirmed at the trial he spoke with Twomey about his concern there might be aggressive action towards McAndrew.
The garda advised him to contact the Police Service of Northern Ireland as the attack was expected to happen north of the border. Twomey claimed he rang a general number there but was told this was a matter for gardaí as McAndrew lived in the south.
He did not warn McAndrew.
Appealing to the top court, Twomey submitted he communicated his intention to withdraw from the plan in a clear and timely manner. His lawyers contended he took reasonable and proportionate steps to nullify or countermand his participation.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) submitted that contact with the two police forces was not only ineffectual but was known by Twomey to have been ineffectual.
Ms Justice O’Malley said the unanimous view from across the common law world is that the withdrawal defence requires evidence of a clear, unequivocal and timely communication to the principal offender.
She accepted that Twomey told Finglas the plan should cease but said he knew Finglas was not dissuaded and would proceed. Twomey took “some” timely steps to prevent the crime by contacting two police forces, but his action did not amount to all that was “objectively reasonable and proportionate” given his earlier involvement, she said.
She said it “must be remembered” that the plan was Twomey’s idea, that he recruited Finglas, sent emails under a false name to McAndrew until at least up to October 21st, 2017, and sourced photos for use in those emails
Finglas would not have been able to think up a way to get McAndrew to the location without Twomey’s help, she said.
It needed to be conveyed, either through the police or directly to McAndrew, that the danger was associated with emails from “Alan Mooney” and/or “Barry” and that McAndrew should not meet anyone associated with those messages, she said.
It must have been obvious to Twomey that one or both police forces needed to be given more detailed information to take preventative action, she said.
The detective garda was left only with the vague impression that there was a danger to McAndrew and that something might happen to him in Northern Ireland, she said.
The court dismissed the appeal.
