A judge has reserved sentence in the case of a teenager who was found guilty of the murder of a father of seven as she said she wanted to ensure she imposed the correct penalty, given she had no precedent to guide her on the sentencing of juveniles for murder.
“I’m anxious to get it right,” said Ms Justice Mary Ellen Ring in the case of the 19-year-old who was 17, and so cannot be named for legal reasons, when he and five others attacked Thomas Dooley (43) from Killarney at Rath Cemetery, Tralee, Co Kerry, on October 5th, 2022.
The man was convicted of the murder along with the deceased’s brother, Patrick Dooley (36) from Killarney, the deceased’s cousins Danny Dooley (42) from Tralee and Thomas Dooley snr (43), Michael Dooley (29) and his nephew Thomas Dooley jnr (21) all from Cork.
All five adults were sentenced to life imprisonment last year, but the teenager’s case was adjourned because the law changed to allow judges to depart from the mandatory life sentence where the crime is committed by a juvenile who becomes an adult before he is convicted.
Chris Murphy emerges as a clear voice for Democrats countering Trump
Loneliness: ‘I usually say I’m fine, but the reality is, most days, I’m at home by myself with my memories’
SSE Airtricity misread Anne’s meter, overcharged her by thousands and won’t refund her
Newlyweds land job as caretakers of Great Blasket Island
On Monday at the Central Criminal Court sitting in Cork, Ms Justice Ring heard from Det Sgt Mark O’Sullivan how Tom Dooley, his wife Siobhán, and their four youngest children were attending the funeral of a friend, Bridget O’Brien, at Rath Cemetery when they were attacked by the six men armed with weapons.
Mr Dooley suffered fatal ‘slash and chop’ wounds to his thigh and his back, while Ms Dooley suffered an injury to her arm while trying to protect her husband before she fled the graveyard with her four young children, fearing for their lives.
Ms Dooley said in a victim impact statement that her young children “haven’t been children since this happened – it took their childhood away” as she detailed how she will never forget what happened that day, with a scar on her arm a permanent reminder of “the horror show”.
Prosecution counsel, Donal O’Sullivan SC, told the court that because the law had changed and there was no precedent and no guidelines available to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP was not offering any observations on the scale of culpability of the accused in the case.
Defence counsel Jane Hyland SC said her client was just 17 at the time and was in the company of older men whom he viewed as authority figures, but he was remorseful – as evidenced by a letter he had written to the court, excerpts of which she then read out.
“I want to take full responsibility for the actions and wrongdoing which I should have said in court. I want to say I’m genuinely sorry from my heart for what happened. If I could change things and turn back time I would never have got involved or been there.”
[ Tom Dooley’s children witnessed murder, gardaí say as two are chargedOpens in new window ]
Ms Hyland noted that the higher courts had recommended in a case for a serious but different offence that someone guilty of an offence committed as a juvenile should receive a headline sentence of between one-half and two-thirds of the penalty imposed on an adult.
Ms Justice Ring said there was a lack of precedent in such matters in relation to murder, but she had consulted parole board reports and found that the average time served for murder was now 21 years and 10 months, although it previously had been 18 years.
Ms Hyland said if one was to take 18 years as the average time served by an adult guilty of murder, that would mean the headline sentence for her client should between nine and 12 years, whereas if one took a 22 year figure then it would be between 11 and 14 years.
Mr O’Sullivan pointed out that a 21-year sentence served by an adult convicted of murder was one that involved a 25 per cent remission for good behaviour, so the headline sentence should be calculated at 28 years before mitigating and aggravating factors were considered.
Ms Justice Ring acknowledged that the accused was a minor at the time of the offence, but she said that among the aggravating factors were the fact it was pre-planned and that it happened in front of four young children.
Given that the DPP had offered no observations and there was no precedent and no guidelines to assist her in sentencing, Ms Justice Ring said she wanted time to consider the matter carefully. She adjourned sentencing until March 31st.
