The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the instigator of a plot intended to entrap and rob a man from Co Mayo, who subsequently was brutally assaulted and confined in a car boot. The panel of five judges concluded that the attempts made by William Twomey to sabotage the very plot he concocted were “grossly insufficient” to retract his deeds or to halt the crime.
Twomey, aged 60, a financial consultant residing at Havelock Place, Warrenpoint, Co Down, was declared guilty in November 2021 by the Special Criminal Court, which doesn’t involve a jury, for robbery, assault and demanding money under threat from Edward McAndrew in December 2017. Twomey, however, was absolved from the accusation of falsely detaining McAndrew, a dealer of used construction machinery hailing from Curradrish, Foxford.
During Twomey’s trial, it was reported that Mr McAndrew was subjected to a “savage” assault by men who battered him with metal bars, demanded cash and robbed him in a secluded spot in Co Louth. The gang, claiming to be an arm of the Continuity IRA, had duped Mr McAndrew into coming to Omeath under the false presumption that they intended to sell him plant machinery.
Although Twomey was characterised as the “architect of a collaborative venture” by the passing judge, it was also acknowledged that the “outcomes far exceeded” his initial considerations. Twomey has already completed the sentence levied on him.
In Tuesday’s verdict, Supreme Court’s Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley highlighted a history of companionship and subsequent fallout between Twomey and Mr McAndrew. She added that Twomey denied that vendetta against his old mate was the driving force but asserted that he was indeed owed money.
Tony Finglas, a 53-year-old who previously worked in debt collection with notorious tenants, was employed by him. Finglas of Havelock Place admitted to threatening Mr McAndrew for money and received a sentence of four years and nine months in December 2020.
A detective officer verified in court that he conversed with Twomey, expressing his fear about potential violent behaviours towards Mr McAndrew. The officer suggested Twomey get in touch with the Northern Ireland Police Service, expecting the incident to take place north of the border. Twomey alleged that he called a common helpline but was informed that this issue was under the jurisdiction of the gardaí as Mr McAndrew, who was not issued a warning, resided in the South.
In his appeal to the court, Twomey claimed he had clearly expressed his desire to backtrack from the plot in a timely fashion. His solicitors argued that he took rational and appropriate measures to cancel or countermand his involvement.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions maintained that his engagement with the two police departments was not only unproductive, but Twomey was also aware of its inefficacy.
Justice O’Malley stated that the widespread opinion within the common law world suggests that the defence of withdrawal demands substantiation of definitive, clear and punctual communication to the key criminal. She concurred that Twomey divulged to Finglas that the plan should be aborted, but she claimed he was aware that Finglas was not deterred and would go on.
Twomey took “some” apt measures to avert the crime by reaching out to two police forces, but according to Justice O’Malley, those actions were not “objectively sensible and balanced” considering his prior involvement. Therefore, she dismissed his appeal.