'Violent individual' with 44 convictions sentenced to over 10 years behind bars

“You are a violent individual who cannot control his acts of violence,” Recorder Mark Giuliani said to Michael Tyrrell as he sentenced him at Sheffield Crown Court for two offences committed in 2024 and 2025.

The court was told that on October 3, 2024, Tyrrell, 55, of Moss House Court, Mosborough, ended up pursuing an Uber delivery driver in a high-speed chase where he ran through multiple red lights.

During the incident, Tyrrell continued to ram the other car, with the chase ending with a crash with a Stagecoach bus on a roundabout.

While on bail, on April 19, 2025, Tyrell then assaulted another man outside the Sherwood Pub , on Birley Moor Road.

It was explained in court that he punched a person he knew to be a Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) fighter, and proceeded to kick him while he was on the ground.

Tyrrell pleaded guilty to the first offence and was found guilty of the second after a five day trial in October, 2025.

“Your a man who in the 56 years on this earth accumulated 44 convictions for 96 offences - 17 of those convictions are for offences against a person,” Judge Giuliani explained as he laid out the details of Tyrrell’s 15 year sentence.

Tyrrell was sentenced to 12 years in custody for the two offences, with an extended period of three years on licence which he will serve outside of prison.

Sign up to our court newsletter, where we seek to ensure that justice is not just done but seen to be done.

PC Tayla Russell, one of the officers in charge of the case, said: “Tyrrell’s actions were reckless in the extreme, and he has shown no regard for others through his offending.

“It is clear that he is a dangerous man and prison is currently the best place for him.

“I am proud of the officers who worked hard to gather the evidence that helped to put Tyrrell behind bars, and I hope that this lengthy sentence offers his victims some closure.”

Dangerous Driving

Prosecuting barrister Charlotte Noddings explained to the court that on October 23, 2024, an Uber delivery driver was out working with a friend.

However, at around 8.30pm when they pulled over to receive additional instructions about a delivery, they were approached by Tyrrell who was driving a BMW X5 at the time.

She said Tyrell was “verbally abusive,” but after he noticed the bags of food in the Uber driver’s car he seemed to calm down.

The driver and his passenger drove off, and after making another delivery decided to call it a day.

It was then that they saw the BMW once again, and Tyrrell - who also had a passenger in his car - began chasing them.

The high-speed pursuit dramatically came to an end when they crashed into the side of a Stagecoach bus.

In a victim impact statement - read out in court by Ms Noddings - the driver explained that he remembered the car ‘lifting off the ground and shaking’ as Tyrrell repeatedly drove into the back of them.

He said that he fell unconscious, and remembers waking up in the wreckage of the car.

He was taken to hospital after suffering a number of injuries including burst eardrums, a fractured skull, bleeding in the space between the brain and the membrane and fractured ribs.

His passenger also suffered less serious injuries, has since returned to Slovakia and did not provide a statement.

“If I could speak to the person who did this I would ask why they did this to myself and my friend,” the driver’s statement added.

“I do not know him and he does not know me so I do not understand why he did this.

“I felt like they just wanted to kill me and my friend for doing work.”

Tyrrell was tracked down thanks to DNA evidence and during interviews blamed the victim for reversing into his car.

“You said you pursued him because you thought they were dodgy and you accepted in that pursuit you drove through red lights,” Judge Giuliani said as he sentenced Tyrell.

“This was a clear and deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road.”

Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent

Judge Giuliani said that Tyrrell wanted to prove that he was a ‘tougher man’ when he assaulted a UFC fighter on Birley Moor Road on April 19, 2025.

The court was told that Tyrrell - who was on bail at the time - attended the Sherwood pub with plans to meet his brother, who was actually at the Birley Hotel across the street.

Tyrrell had previously been banned from the pub, however attended with people who worked there so believed it would be okay to go for a drink, the court was told.

While there, he met a group of men and it was said that there was ‘light banter’ and a cheerful atmosphere between them.

When the group went to leave, Tyrrell shook the hand of one man he had learnt was a UFC fighter.

“In my judgement, that was, from what I’ve seen, an act designed to put victim at ease because what you intended to do was cause him really serious harm,” the judge added.

“You knew that he was and had been a UFC fighter. I am satisfied that you wanted to prove that you were the tougher man and that you set about to cause him really serious harm

“As I said that handshake designed to put him at ease and off his guard because immediately after that handshake finished, for no good reason other than you are a violent individual who cannot control his acts of violence, hit him with force.”

The man fell to the ground and Tyrrell proceeded to kick him, the court was told.

A statement from the victim, read by Ms Noddings, added: “Although the assault was over within a few minutes I was unconscious for days - my family were advised at the time no one could predict the effect this would have long term.”

The victim said that the assault caused a ‘massive scar’ on his head, and resulted in him needing an eye surgery.

He proceeded to say that it ‘changed the way I see the world’ and that he no longer feels comfortable going out and socialising.

Tyrrell’s defence barrister, Richard Adams, explained that while his client had a history of violent offences that there had been a hiatus between his last conviction and this one.

He said that his client would likely be in his 60s when released from sentence, and due to his age ‘may be less of a risk than a younger man’, arguing that an extended sentence was not necessary.

Nevertheless, the judge said it was ‘necessary to impose an extended sentence to protect the public in future’.