Lawyers for three men who \u201ctargeted\u201d 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. <\/p>\n
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 \u201cdark and lonely place\u201d three quarters of a kilometre from the main road.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The jury in the first trial, which was held in 2020, was unable to reach a verdict.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The sentencing court heard none of the men accepted the verdict of the jury and maintained their innocence. <\/p>\n
Opening an appeal against sentence on Friday, Genockey\u2019s senior counsel, Thomas O\u2019Malley, 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\u2019s youth, good work record, supportive family and lack of previous offending.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s case, the act itself was not accompanied by other aggravating factors such as \u201cdegradation or violence\u201d.<\/p>\n
He argued a headline sentence of 12 to 13 years would have been appropriate.<\/p>\n
Counsel said the judge had given a discount of one third to the headline sentence after mitigation, but argued \u201che could have given more\u201d.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Judge Nuala Butler in the Court of Appeal said there was no evidence of immaturity in Genockey\u2019s 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 \u201cother than his date of birth\u201d.<\/p>\n
Senior counsel Seoirse \u00d3 D\u00fanlaing, representing Rooney, said he had adopted O\u2019Malley\u2019s submissions.<\/p>\n
He also argued the judge was wrong not to consider suspending any portion of his client\u2019s sentence.<\/p>\n
He noted the judge had acknowledged cognitive impairment factors in Rooney\u2019s case. The barrister argued this reduced his client\u2019s culpability \u201cto some extent\u201d. He said there was \u201csome mitigation\u201d, which he accepted \u201conly goes so far\u201d. There was \u201csome basis for a very limited suspension\u201d of a finite period, \u00d3 D\u00fanlaing said.<\/p>\n
Senior counsel John Berry, for Ryan, said he also wished to adopt his colleagues\u2019 submissions.<\/p>\n
He said, in this case, there was a \u201ccumulative effect\u201d because the headline term, had the defendants been adults, was \u201cat the top end\u201d, and the discount for \u201ca child\u2019s lack of maturity\u201d was at the lowest level, leading to a headline sentence that was too high. <\/p>\n
Counsel suggested the judge had made an error because of the \u201cdiametrically opposed positions\u201d of, on the one hand, saying \u201cyou can\u2019t have a suspended sentence because it\u2019s impossible to rehabilitate you\u201d, and on the other imposing a two-year post-supervision order to \u201cincentivise rehabilitation\u201d.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cthe maximum\u201d discount on the basis of immaturity, and submitted no error had been identified as she urged the court to refuse the appeal.<\/p>\n
Brennan highlighted the \u201cappalling circumstances\u201d of this case. It involved \u201csignificant planning\u201d, counsel said, with a young boy used to \u201clure\u201d the victim by telling her three lads wanted to talk to her.<\/p>\n
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 \u201chad sex with her sequentially\u201d, with one handing out condoms to the others.<\/p>\n
On the way back, the three had started to joke about the incident. <\/p>\n
The teenager was a \u201cparticularly vulnerable victim\u201d, Brennan said, and the three defendants had demonstrated \u201cmaturity and planning\u201d, with CCTV showing them \u201cclocking\u201d the young woman as she came into a cafe.<\/p>\n
They \u201ctargeted\u201d the victim before abandoning her at an isolated location at 10pm in \u201cbleak midwinter\u201d in a \u201cdark and lonely place\u201d, the barrister added.<\/p>\n
She said there was no evidential basis for suspending any portion of the sentences imposed.<\/p>\n
Judge Patrick McCarthy, sitting with Judge Nuala Butler and Judge Tara Burns, said the court would reserve judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Lawyers for three men who \u201ctargeted\u201d a vulnerable teenager and lured her into a car before driving her…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":445331,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[367,28976,9,10,68634,68635,205995,1578,205996,3809,68636,33249,2595,205997,86667,18,1015,205998,205999,18804,13,14,113310,68638,6,206000,5489,19,17,86670,717,11,12,78430,15,16,76608,5996,18813,5,2603,113313,206001,10339,19863,7601,4657,15144,11581,7,8,19537,18820,30335],"class_list":{"0":"post-475780","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-ireland","8":"tag-architecture","9":"tag-blue","10":"tag-breaking-news","11":"tag-breakingnews","12":"tag-building-exterior","13":"tag-built-structure","14":"tag-capital-cities","15":"tag-city","16":"tag-coat-of-arms","17":"tag-column","18":"tag-courthouse","19":"tag-decor","20":"tag-decoration","21":"tag-dome","22":"tag-dublin-ireland","23":"tag-eire","24":"tag-europe","25":"tag-european-community","26":"tag-european-union-flag","27":"tag-famous-place","28":"tag-featured-news","29":"tag-featurednews","30":"tag-flag","31":"tag-four-courts","32":"tag-headlines","33":"tag-heraldic","34":"tag-history","35":"tag-ie","36":"tag-ireland","37":"tag-irish-culture","38":"tag-justice","39":"tag-latest-news","40":"tag-latestnews","41":"tag-legal-system","42":"tag-main-news","43":"tag-mainnews","44":"tag-monument","45":"tag-nation","46":"tag-national-landmark","47":"tag-news","48":"tag-old","49":"tag-old-fashioned","50":"tag-ornate","51":"tag-past","52":"tag-republic-of-ireland","53":"tag-sculpture","54":"tag-sky","55":"tag-statue","56":"tag-stone","57":"tag-top-stories","58":"tag-topstories","59":"tag-town","60":"tag-urban-scene","61":"tag-window"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":"Validation failed: Text character limit of 500 exceeded"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475780","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=475780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475780\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/445331"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=475780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=475780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=475780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}