Gang rapists who targeted teen claim they deserve shorter sentences as they were young

Fiona Magennis

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 and 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 5, 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 ten years.

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

Opening an appeal against the 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 included that it was a gang rape and that the victim was left at the scene. However, he said in his client’s case the act itself wasn’t 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 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 several reasons, including their lack of capacity to think through their actions and the fact that they are “more susceptible to peer pressure”.

Judge Nuala Butler 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”.

Mr O’Malley said those who commit offences while under the age of 18 who are sentenced as an adult “are categorically entitled to some reduction”.

Counsel argued that the fact his client was a hard worker, had a good family background and was the parent of a young child were all factors that “would go to his credit” and questioned whether there had been a “sufficient reduction for these other factors”.

Cognitive impairment factors

Seoirse Ó Dúnlaing SC, representing Rooney, said he adopted Mr 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, Mr Ó Dúnlaing said.

John Berry SC, 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.

Addressing the question of rehabilitation and the possibility of suspending a portion of his client’s sentence, Mr Berry acknowledged that the non-acceptance of guilt was “a massive difficulty”.

However, he said the court must not lose sight of the fact that his client was aged 17 years and 7 months at the time.

Mr Berry said there was a basis for a situation where a court should consider suspending some portion of the sentence “for societal good”.

He said: “Child offenders are recognised as having a far greater interest in rehabilitation than other offenders because they are not fully developed.”

Counsel suggested the judge had made an error because of the “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 “incentivize rehabilitation”.

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

Ms 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 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 men started to joke about “who had been the best at sex and who had the biggest penis,” counsel said.

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

They “targeted” the victim before abandoning her at an isolated location at 10pm in “bleak midwinter” in a “dark and lonely place” three-quarters of a kilometre from the main road, the barrister added.

She said the judge had imposed the post-release supervision order “to protect the public” with a view to limiting “the risk of each man committing further offences” and to rehabilitate the defendants “if that is possible”.

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

“Each showed no interest in pursuing victim-focused work because not one of them accepts the verdict,” she noted.

“When you look at the sentence in the round for what happened in this case, I say it was a fair sentence,” the barrister said.

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

If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can call the national 24-hour Rape Crisis Helpline at 1800-77 8888, access text service and webchat options at drcc.ie/services/helpline/ or visit Rape Crisis Help. In the case of an emergency, always dial 999/112.