Dylan Mangan was jailed for five years by Judge Martin Nolan at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on January 28, 2025

The Criminal Courts of Justice, Dublin. (Image: Collins)

An extortionist who demanded €20,000 from two innocent victims – threatening one that their children’s throats would be slit and warning another he would be killed – has argued that his five-year sentence was twice as severe as that handed to his co-accused.

Dylan Mangan (27) of Patrick Heaney Crescent, Dublin 1, pleaded guilty on October 21, 2024 to charges of making unwarranted demands with menace in March 2020. He was jailed for five years by Judge Martin Nolan at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on January 28, 2025.

Judge Nolan described it as an “insidious offence” and said threats were made to two people which included threats to kill them, slit the throats of their children and burn down houses. He said the threats were both menacing and frightening.

Mangan’s co-accused Des Smyth (26), with an address at The Island, Chapelizod, pleaded guilty to the same offence. He was sentenced to four years with the final 18 months suspended for three years by Judge Orla Crowe on January 17, 2025.

Mangan’s sentencing hearing was told the charges related to two separate innocent victims – a man whose half brother was a drug dealer who owed a debt, and that man’s employer. Both victims had no involvement in the drug trade and were unconnected to the debt, the court heard.

CCTV footage showed Mangan and his co-accused arriving at the first victim’s workplace on March 20, 2020. They called to the office claiming the man owed them €20,000 and said they would return the following day to collect it.

They then spoke to the man’s boss, telling him they knew where he lived and threatening that they would “fucking slit your kids’ throats” if the money was not paid. After they left, the boss contacted his employee, who confirmed he owed no money.

Sign up to our new Crime Ireland newsletter and get exclusive content from Michael O’Toole and Paul Healy

The Irish Mirror’s Crime Writers Michael O’Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week

Later that day, the second victim received a phone call from two men demanding money. When he said he had none, they referenced his car, house and named his other business. He subsequently received five further calls from a private number which he did not answer.

The first victim was later told that a note had been put through the door of his family home threatening to burn the house down if €20,000 was not paid. Further calls threatened to kill him, with the callers naming his wife and referring to his children.

Mangan was identified through CCTV. When gardaí called the number connected to the threats following his arrest, Mangan’s phone rang.

Mangan, who has 18 previous convictions, made no comment in interview.

At the Court of Appeal today, Paul Carroll SC, for Mangan, argued the sentencing judge had failed to have adequate regard to the principle of parity. Mr Carroll highlighted the 50 per cent difference between Mangan’s sentence, and the term imposed on his co-accused.

He also contended that insufficient weight had been given to the mitigating factors in the case, and that the judge failed to consider the principle of rehabilitation, as the sentence contained no suspended element.

Mr Carroll acknowledged that the evidence suggested his client had been in “a more involved position” and that there was a “justified basis” for distinguishing between Mangan and his co-accused.

However, he added that, “when it’s all put in the balance I feel there is an argument that the difference was such that the disparity falls on the side of being an error.”

Counsel highlighted the mitigation in the case, including the fact that Mangan had had a difficult upbringing as his mother had passed away at a young age. Counsel also said that Mangan had evidence of some work history and had issues with gambling. Mr Carroll suggested the court could have suspended a portion of Mangan’s sentence which would have “lessened the disparity” between the two sentences.

In response, Jane McCudden BL, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said the judge made no error in drawing a distinction between the sentence imposed on Mangan and that of his co-accused.

She said Mangan was the “lead assailant” and had “a far more culpable role” in the offending which had been “pre-meditated and pre-planned”.

Ms McCudden said Mangan’s co-accused had personal circumstances that were “somewhat different” from those of this appellant, noting that there was evidence he struggled with an addiction and had taken steps towards rehabilitation. She added that his sentencing court was therefore justified in suspending a portion of his four-year sentence.

Regarding Mangan, she noted that there was no evidence before the court of a claimed gambling addiction, apart from the submissions made by his defence counsel.

She submitted the sentence imposed was within the discretion of the judge and was correct in law.

Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the court would reserve judgment.

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news from the Irish Mirror direct to your inbox: Sign up here.