The Supreme Court has dismissed William Twomey’s appeal against convictions for robbery, assault occasioning harm and making a demand with menaces, ruling that he had not taken sufficient steps to withdraw from the joint enterprise. He had been acquitted of false imprisonment at trial.
The offences arose from an incident in rural County Louth on 2 December 2017. The victim, second-hand construction equipment dealer Edward McAndrew, was lured to a meeting by a false machinery sale. Three masked men assaulted him, demanded money and took phones and laptops. He was held in a car boot and later threatened with further assaults unless he paid €50,000.
The prosecution did not allege that Twomey took part in the assault or was at the scene. It said he devised the scheme, recruited Tony Finglas and helped arrange the meeting through emails offering machinery for sale. The Special Criminal Court found that Twomey’s involvement continued through at least 21 October 2017, when he sent further emails and machinery photographs. It concluded that assault and some physical force were within the scope of the enterprise, though the violence that occurred exceeded the level Twomey had contemplated.
Twomey argued that he had told Finglas to stop in November, after becoming concerned about his behaviour, and had contacted a garda and the Police Service of Northern Ireland about a possible attack. He said he feared contacting McAndrew directly. The trial court accepted that he had made the police contacts, but found that he had not provided enough detail or warned McAndrew, leaving him exposed to the risk. The Court of Appeal upheld that conclusion.
Delivering the Supreme Court’s judgment on 16 July 2024, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley said a person seeking to withdraw must clearly communicate that decision to the other participants. Depending on the person’s earlier role, further steps may also be needed to reduce the likelihood of the crime. Those steps must be reasonable and proportionate to the accused’s contribution, and timely.
The Court accepted that Twomey had told Finglas the plan should cease and had contacted both police forces in time. But, given Twomey’s central role in devising and advancing the scheme, the warnings were inadequate. The Court said he should have ensured that the danger linked to messages from “Alan Mooney” or “Barry” was communicated, along with advice that McAndrew should not meet anyone contacting him about them.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment addressed the withdrawal defence; it did not alter the trial acquittal on false imprisonment.