A 21-year-old man has received a prison sentence for breaking into vehicles and stealing a van in Waterford city last year.
Michael McGinley (21) of 20 Ringfort Avenue, Balrothery, Dublin, appeared before Judge Eugene O’Kelly for a sentencing hearing at Waterford Circuit Criminal Court last month.
The accused was already in custody on another matter and appeared in court via video link.
It was heard that on 6 May 2025, Gardaí received a report concerning several vehicles being broken into in the Ballygunner area of Waterford city. The accused was observed searching through parked cars in the area alongside a female, who is also before the courts.
The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of theft, which included a wallet that had a debit card and cash worth €10, another wallet with €70 inside, as well as another person’s passport and public services card.
The court was additionally told that the accused stole and drove away a Ford Transit van on the same night, which was later found burned out by Wexford Gardaí. He ‘made admissions’ to taking the van, and was charged under Section 112 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.
Accused filmed TikTok videos in stolen van
Detective Garda Liam Harty told the court that Gardaí identified the accused driving the van in TikTok videos that were posted online, under the name ‘Whitey Sham’.
Judge O’Kelly said this appeared to be “some class of a boast” going on by the accused, and Det Garda Harty agreed that Gardaí have seen trends in videos of stolen vehicles being posted on social media accounts.
The Detective additionally confirmed that the owner of the van did not wish to make a victim impact statement. It was noted in court that the accused has a number of previous convictions for similar matters.
Acting for the defendant, Luke O’Higgins BL said the offences were ‘opportunistic’ and “not a great deal” of planning went into them.
Mr. O’Higgins added that the accused made no efforts to conceal his identity, made full admissions, and wished to apologise to the court. The barrister stated that the accused was suffering from drug addiction at the time and sold the van for €500 to fund a debt that he was in.
The keys of the van were found in another unlocked vehicle beside it, which were both owned by the same person. It was heard that all of the vehicles that items were taken from were also unlocked.
Mr. O’Higgins told Judge O’Kelly that no attempt was made by his client to ‘hot wire’ any of the vehicles. The accused “didn’t hold on to anything of immediate cash value” as owners of the vehicles reported that their glove boxes were opened with ID documents scattered around the footwell.
It also emerged during the hearing that the accused was disqualified from driving at the time of the incident, as he was banned from getting behind the wheel for two years in December 2024.
A psychological report had been also prepared in advance, and Mr. O’Higgins stated that the accused had symptoms of ADD and ADHD, and struggles with his attention span. The barrister added that “doesn’t excuse” his client’s behaviour but shows that “should have gotten therapy”
Mr. O’Higgins stated there was ‘no evidence’ that the accused contributed to the burning out of the vehicle, and that a ‘third party’ had been involved. The barrister asked Judge O’Kelly to be as ‘lenient’ as possible in sentencing, and leave a portion of the sentence suspended, to give his client some ‘hope.’
The judge said the accused has no ‘positive diagnosis’ of ADHD, and asked why a psychological report was sought over a Probation report.
Mr. O’Higgins replied that his client is a ‘closed-off’ young man, and he had wanted to speak to a psychologist.
“A closed-off man making TikToks?’ Judge O’Kelly exclaimed.
The judge said aggravating factors in the case were that the accused made ‘boastful’ Tiktoks after the offence, which showed ‘bravado’ and encouraged others, that he has previous convictions, and was disqualified from driving at the time.
Judge O’Kelly set a headline sentence of four years for the Section 112 offence, and eight months each for the theft matters.
The four year sentence was reduced to three years and each of the theft offences were reduced to six months in mitigation.
Mitigating factors in the case were the accused’s guilty plea and admission as well as the findings of the psychological report, the Judge said.
It was noted that the sentences will all run concurrently to each other.
Funded by the Court Reporting Scheme Robyn Power
