Man allegedly lured to farmhouse, beaten and told to pay £50,000

A man was allegedly lured to a Co Louth farmhouse, assaulted with iron bars and placed in the boot of a car before £50,000 was demanded from him, the Special Criminal Court has heard.

It is also alleged that the man’s daughter was contacted and his home was set on fire.

Two men charged with attacking and falsely imprisoning Edward McAndrew at One Ferry Hill, Cornamucklagh, Omeath, on or about December 2nd, 2017, appeared before the court on Tuesday for a bail hearing. They are also charged with robbing Mr McAndrew of items, including two mobile phones and a passport.

William Twomey (56), from Havelock Place, Warrenpoint, Co Down, and Anthony Finglas (49), also of Havelock Place, Warrenpoint, have been in custody since being arrested separately last week.

State solicitor Michael O’Donovan indicated then that the prosecution would likely object to their bail applications. In particular, he stated that the prosecution wished to ascertain the means of Mr Twomey as gardaí “believe this is a man of very substantial means”. Mr O’Donovan said they wished to access Mr Twomey’s bank statements and get an understanding of his assets.

Finances

Caroline Cummings BL, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, on Tuesday said the prosecution had “received nothing” about finances from either man.

She said she understood that Mr Finglas was seeking to adjourn the matter for a number of days, by which time his financial information would be provided. She said the prosecution would consent to this.

However, in relation to Mr Twomey, Ms Cummings said he had been in “complete default” of providing the prosecution with information about his income, his assets or his occupation.

Ms Cummings said the prosecution is “anxious” to accommodate Mr Twomey’s move to have his bail application heard as soon as possible but she said the prosecution needs the information about his finances.

Mr Justice Paul Coffey asked Ms Cummings if she believed “a failure to comply with the [Bail] Act and to furnish that information is an impediment to the matter proceeding at all?”.

She answered, “Yes, I do.”

The barrister said the offences which the court is concerned with are of an “intimidatory kind”. She said it is alleged that Mr McAndrew was lured to a farmhouse and assaulted with iron bars before he was placed in the boot of a car “for period of time”. She said he was allegedly later taken out of the boot and told to pay £50,000.

Daughter

Ms Cummings added that it is alleged contact was later made with Mr McAndrew via email, during which the demand for the money was repeated, and that his daughter was also contacted with a message that included the words “warmest greetings” and the name “Barry”.

Counsel said that on the evening Mr McAndrew’s daughter was contacted, his home was allegedly damaged by a fire. She said given the “seriousness of the offences” it was “incumbent” on the court to have the relevant financial information pertaining to the two men.

Bernard Condon SC, for Mr Twomey, told the court that despite efforts by his solicitor, the Irish Prison Service has failed to facilitate a meeting between Mr Twomey and his solicitor or counsel since he was placed in custody last week.

Mr Condon also argued that the prosecution’s move to access Mr Twomey’s “financial details” is a case of the prosecution putting “the cart before the horse” and that it was a “fishing” exercise.

He also claimed the prosecution was attempting to use the Bail Act as an “investigatory tool” and he said this was “not appropriate”. He argued against Mr Twomey being remanded further “for the convenience of the State”.

Ms Cummings said the information was being sought in order for the prosecution to assess whether Mr Twomey is a flight risk. She said such a request is provided for in the Bail Act.

She also rejected Mr Condon’s assertion that the Bail Act was being used as an “investigatory tool” as the information obtained “can only be used for the purpose of that act [Bail Act] and no other purpose”.

Mr Justice Coffey said: “It seems to the court that the obligation under scrutiny is in fact a mandatory obligation and that, in those circumstances, it is an obligation that should be complied with.”

He added that the information sought will “not result” in any trial prejudice as the material furnished “cannot be used against him in that trial...it can only be used in relation to the bail application”.

The men were remanded in custody until next Tuesday.