Newtownabbey hijacker, who seized Citroen Berlingo after threatening man in Ballyclare, loses appeal of jail sentence

Greg McCullough, 29, seized control of the vehicle in Ballyclare, amid threats to stab the owner.

The Court of Appeal rejected any suggestion that the alleged assault diminished his culpability.

Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan said: “Hijacking is a frightening experience for victims and will result in a custodial sentence commensurate with this type of offending”.

McCullough, of Wynthorpe Grove in Newtownabbey, took the Citroen Berlingo on February 5 last year.

The court heard he approached the victim in The Square area of the town and repeatedly stated: “Get out of the van before I stab you.”

At the time he was bleeding from a head wound and appeared to be drunk.

McCullough pulled the other man out of the vehicle before getting in himself and driving off, striking the wing mirror of another car.

Based on descriptions of the hijacker, police located the van parked near the defendant’s home and discovered the keys inside the property.

He was taken to hospital for treatment and received staples to the back of his head.

McCullough initially claimed he had been elsewhere at a house party when the hijacking occurred.

He told police that an unidentified man gave him a lift home in a van and must have planted the keys. Eventually, however, he pleaded guilty to hijacking motoring offences.

McCullough’s legal team challenged the four-year jail term imposed on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

Appeal judges were told that just before he took the van, a suspected paramilitary gang armed with a claw hammer allegedly chased and attacked him over an outstanding drug debt.

Barrister Sean Mullan argued that the circumstances of his client’s head injury were not properly taken into account in the sentencing process.

Although Dame Siobhan accepted that McCullough probably had been subjected to an assault, she identified nothing which could have caused any impairment.

Dismissing his appeal, she ruled: “The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.”