Gang rapists who targeted vulnerable teen claim they deserve shorter sentences as they were young – The Irish Times

Lawyers for three men who “targeted” a vulnerable teenager and lured her into a car before driving her to Dollymount Strand where they gang raped her have argued that they should have received shorter sentences because of their youth at the time.

Dion Genockey, Daryl Rooney and Troy Ryan were aged 17 when they drove the then 18-year-old victim, who had grown up in care, to the end of a wooden bridge at the strand where they took turns raping her before abandoning her in a “dark and lonely place” three quarters of a kilometre from the main road.

Genockey (27) of Clarion Quay Apartments, Rooney (28) of Railway Street and Ryan (27) of Lower Gardiner Street, all in Dublin city centre, raped the woman at Bull Island, Dollymount, Dublin, on January 5th, 2016. They were each convicted of rape following a second trial at the Central Criminal Court in March 2022.

The jury in the first trial, which was held in 2020, was unable to reach a verdict.

Genockey was sentenced to nine years by Judge David Keane, while Ryan was sentenced to nine and a half years and Rooney was jailed for 10 years.

The sentencing court heard none of the men accepted the verdict of the jury and maintained their innocence.

Opening an appeal against sentence on Friday, Genockey’s senior counsel, Thomas O’Malley, argued the headline sentence of 15 years set by the trial judge was too high. He also contended the reduction given to the initial headline term was inadequate given the mitigating factors, including his client’s youth, good work record, supportive family and lack of previous offending.

He noted aggravating factors including that it was a gang rape and that the victim was left at the scene. However, he said that in his client’s case, the act itself was not accompanied by other aggravating factors such as “degradation or violence”.

He argued a headline sentence of 12 to 13 years would have been appropriate.

Counsel said the judge had given a discount of one third to the headline sentence after mitigation, but argued “he could have given more”.

He said a body of knowledge had developed over the past number of years suggesting that those under the age of 18 who commit offences are less deserving of punishment than an adult for a number of reasons.

Judge Nuala Butler in the Court of Appeal said there was no evidence of immaturity in Genockey’s case, noting he had made a decision to leave school early, had started a successful business and had a supportive family. She questioned what evidence there was of immaturity “other than his date of birth”.

Senior counsel Seoirse Ó Dúnlaing, representing Rooney, said he had adopted O’Malley’s submissions.

He also argued the judge was wrong not to consider suspending any portion of his client’s sentence.

He noted the judge had acknowledged cognitive impairment factors in Rooney’s case. The barrister argued this reduced his client’s culpability “to some extent”. He said there was “some mitigation”, which he accepted “only goes so far”. There was “some basis for a very limited suspension” of a finite period, Ó Dúnlaing said.

Senior counsel John Berry, for Ryan, said he also wished to adopt his colleagues’ submissions.

He said, in this case, there was a “cumulative effect” because the headline term, had the defendants been adults, was “at the top end”, and the discount for “a child’s lack of maturity” was at the lowest level, leading to a headline sentence that was too high.

Counsel suggested the judge had made an error because of the “diametrically opposed positions” of, on the one hand, saying “you can’t have a suspended sentence because it’s impossible to rehabilitate you”, and on the other imposing a two-year post-supervision order to “incentivise rehabilitation”.

In response, senior counsel Eilis Brennan, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said the trial judge had given a carefully reasoned decision as to how he came to the headline sentences. She said he had also given “the maximum” discount on the basis of immaturity, and submitted no error had been identified as she urged the court to refuse the appeal.

Brennan highlighted the “appalling circumstances” of this case. It involved “significant planning”, counsel said, with a young boy used to “lure” the victim by telling her three lads wanted to talk to her.

The victim, who had grown up in care and had taken tablets on the day, initially said no to going with the youths but was eventually persuaded into the car and brought to Dollymount. Once there, the defendants “had sex with her sequentially”, with one handing out condoms to the others.

On the way back, the three had started to joke about the incident.

The teenager was a “particularly vulnerable victim”, Brennan said, and the three defendants had demonstrated “maturity and planning”, with CCTV showing them “clocking” the young woman as she came into a cafe.

They “targeted” the victim before abandoning her at an isolated location at 10pm in “bleak midwinter” in a “dark and lonely place”, the barrister added.

She said there was no evidential basis for suspending any portion of the sentences imposed.

Judge Patrick McCarthy, sitting with Judge Nuala Butler and Judge Tara Burns, said the court would reserve judgment.