South Sligo man deceived several people with offers of trade work

A 41-year-old man who stole from older people in rural Sligo by taking deposits to do trade work and either doing a small amount of work or none, was found guilty by a jury on five counts of deception and theft.

After just over two and a half hours deliberation at Sligo Circuit Court, a jury of six women and five men returned a majority verdict, finding Martin Joseph Sweeney (41), of Cloonacool, Tubbercurry, Co Sligo guilty.

The defendant, who pleaded not guilty to the charges was before Judge Keenan Johnson in a jury trial which lasted two days. He was originally facing eight counts of deception and theft however, one count was marked as a disagreement by the jury and on counts three and eight, Mr Sweeney was found not guilty by direction of the judge.

The charges included inducing theft - cash to the value of €250 – the property of Robert Vandevelst at Dromore West on June 25, 2019; theft of cash to the value of €600 – the property of Christopher Burns at Roughan, Sooey on July 27, 2019; theft of cash to the value of €450 – the property of Olive Carter at Ballybeg, Ransboro on November 29, 2019; and theft of property to the value of €500 including kitchen fittings and furniture – the property of Margaret Lynott at Parke, Kilglass, Enniscrone on January 9, 2020.

Two further charges related to theft of the property cash to the value of €500 of Brendan Queenan at Castletown, Easkey on January 18, 2020, and also cash to the value of €500 – the property of Brendan Queenan at Castletown, Easkey on January 20, 2020.

Prosecuting Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions was Leo Mulrooney BL with State Solicitor, Elisa McHugh. They submitted it was not a case of simple theft but one of obtaining theft by deception – under false pretences thereby stealing from the complainants.

Mr Sweeney allegedly stole from the victims in obtaining their consent to hand over their items, and by deception he offered to do trade work, took deposits and either did a small amount of work or none. In most cases, he used a false name and when contacted by them, he provided excuses, fobbed them off and didn’t do the work. The prosecution also submitted he acted dishonestly by using a false name, taking money, and not doing the work he was supposed to do.

Defending counsel was Patrick O’Sullivan BL instructed by Ms Frances Whelan with Mr Tony McLynn Solicitors.

The first day of the trial heard evidence from five witnesses - the first was 88-year-old Christopher Burns who said a gentleman by the name of Mr Feeney called to his home offering to paint, power-wash and trim hedges. He gave him €80 for paint before he started and a deposit of €600 up front the next day. There was about three hours work done – painting the garage and power-washing one gable of the house. A young chap was with him who painted part of the pillar of one of the gates. He said he’d come back on the Monday and didn’t. Mr Burns rang him a few times a week and “he always had some story”.

The second witness was 74-year-old Margaret Lynott whose daughter put an advertisement on Done Deal to sell her kitchen, table, chairs and fridge. Mr Sweeney replied to it and called around the following day saying he would take the kitchen only and they agreed €300 for it. He took some of the units away and never came back for the rest. The Lynott family subsequently made several calls to Mr Sweeney who kept blanking them. She told the court he repaid €200 of the money at Ballymote Garda Station and, despite making several arrangements, he never showed either at her house or where they tried to meet. The third witness was 74-year-old Robert Vandevelst who told the court he remembered the date Mr Sweeney called to his house because it was the day his sister died, and all he could think of was his sister that day. When they got talking, he mentioned he needed painting done and Mr Sweeney said he could paint the whole house for €650 as well as cleaning and power-washing it. He kept pushing and looked for €250 in advance, returning the next morning knocking on the front door, then at the back before coming to the bedroom window saying if he gave him the money, he could get paint straight away. Mr Vandevelst got the money from the ATM in the village and when he returned, the man was on his phone in the van sounding as if he was ordering the paint but wasn’t. He handed over €250 the day after and when he phoned him, he was always too busy. The name he gave was Mr Feeney. Mr Vandevelst said he never saw the paint. A few of his friends called Mr Sweeney on his behalf with one telling him not to return. He said he met him in the village afterwards and saw his van passing the house. The fourth witness was 58-year-old Olive Carter who recalled meeting Mr Sweeney at the Centra station in Strandhill when they were both filling up their vehicles. She mentioned needing jobs done and he offered to quote. He said he was a Feeney from Grange. She asked him was he related to a couple she knew, and he said he was their son.

He said he lived in Ballybeg and called to her half an hour later. Her husband told him about a few jobs like windowsills, gutters and paths needed doing. He first looked for €650 and they agreed on €450.

He went to get chemicals with money she gave him, returned and spent a half hour with “a Domestos type substance” which he threw around. He then had to go to collect his children explaining he was separated from his wife and had them at weekends. The work did not get done and she was disappointed as she was depending on him.

She texted the following day to see if he was coming back and he said he was. This went on for a few days before he texted to say he’d be back the following week.

Ultimately, those communications came to nothing. Around Christmas, she asked him what he did with the money, and he said he bought toys with it for his children.

The fifth witness was 72-year-old

Brendan Queenan who said a man came to the house asking for directions from his wife on January 18. He told her he was a painter and decorator and was lining up jobs in the area. When they spoke he said he could do a good price and they agreed €1500 to paint outside and to do a few rooms inside the house. He said he could start power-hosing the next day, demanded a deposit and he gave him €500. Mr Sweeney rang afterwards to say he couldn’t come that day but arrived on Monday, January 20, and did 20 minutes work.

He said he had paint in a slatted shed which had frost damage so he needed to buy more.

He had got it at a good price in Ballina, so Mr Queenan drove there with him and withdrew the €500 deposit from the ATM. He then said he thought he could get a better price in Sligo and would get in there quickly for it.

They returned to Mr Queenan’s home where he gave him €500. The following day, Mr Sweeney said he couldn’t come to do work. Over the next few days he’d ring him but there was always an excuse why he couldn’t come. He said he never received the paint.

The trial also heard evidence from investigating officer, Sergeant Therese Duignan. Under questioning by Mr O’Sullivan as to whether his client was willing to work, she said initially he was but after a couple of weeks that “fizzled out” and there was no more contact or communication – it was sporadic and there were times he didn’t answer the phone or come back to the complainants.

When asked if it was his intention to return to complete the work, Sergeant Duignan said she couldn’t agree with that statement.

Mr Sweeney testified he was a painter and decorator for the past twenty years and before that he worked on building sites. Mr Mulrooney put it to him he was operating a system where he was extracting deposits from mostly elderly people for work, he had no intention of doing which he denied saying he had every intention to return.

When the defendant was asked if he had receipts for the paint and various products, he said he bought for the jobs, he replied he didn’t keep receipts as they were all small jobs. He had a problem with reading and writing so he found that very hard.

In his closing statement, Mr Mulrooney said theft was taking something without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it.

He said deception was at play in this case and the defendant was operating a system with a deliberate pattern of behaviour. He reminded the jury that they needed to be satisfied without a reasonable doubt of their decision. Mr O’Sullivan, in his closing statement, asked the jury to accept his client was not the most reputable painter but each of the complainants knew who they were dealing with – the reality was it was a cheap job, and they were prepared to enter into a contract on that basis.

He was operating the business on a “wing and a prayer” and they should not have expected “first class treatment” dealing with someone off the book.

He submitted that his client maintained at all times it was his intention to undertake the work, and the evidence showed as much.

He said there was a question over him allegedly providing the wrong name but two of the gentlemen witnesses had admitted they were hard of hearing.

He felt he was subjected to discrimination and the perception out there was that a member of the travelling community had to be “on the take”. The jury returned a majority verdict finding Martin Joseph Sweeney guilty on counts one, two, five, six and seven. The fourth count – the charge relating to Ms Olive Carter was marked as a disagreement. On counts three and eight Mr Sweeney was found not guilty by direction of the judge.

Judge Johnson directed Mr Sweeney pay a cash bond of €5,000 on condition he surrender his passport and not apply for travel documents. He remanded him on continuing bail for sentencing on January 10, 2023.