The Court of Appeal has dismissed Stefan Onofrei’s appeal against a three-year prison sentence imposed for theft and fraud offences involving social welfare claims.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 19 January 2016, the court said the sentence imposed by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court was open to the sentencing judge and disclosed no error in principle. The appeal focused on whether the sentence should have been partly suspended. The challenge to its length was accepted in oral argument to be without objection in itself, as the three-year term fell within an acceptable range of penalties.
Onofrei was sentenced on 15 July 2015 on a six-count indictment. The remaining counts were taken into consideration. He had originally been charged with 436 counts, and the maximum sentence available to the Circuit Court was ten years’ imprisonment.
The offences involved seeking and obtaining jobseekers allowance, jobseekers benefit, supplementary welfare allowance, rent allowance and family income supplement between January 2009 and February 2015. The State’s calculation put the amount at €97,407.24. Onofrei argued that there was double counting and challenged some counts, estimating the amount at about €85,000. The sentencing judge approached the case on a range of €85,000 to €97,000.
The judgment said Onofrei, a Romanian national, came to Ireland in 2003 or 2004. He later used a false identity and PPS number, obtained through a Lithuanian passport and driving licence in another name, to work in construction. After losing his job in 2009, he began claiming social welfare. The judgment said most of the money was obtained using the false identity; the family income supplement was claimed in his own name, but the family was not entitled to it because his wife was working.
The court noted the offending was prolonged and persistent and involved significant loss to the State. It also referred to his guilty plea, lack of previous convictions and cooperation with gardaí. At the time of sentencing he was married with two children and his wife was pregnant; the judgment said he was then the father of three children. The court said recovery of the debt remained uncertain.
The Court of Appeal said it could intervene only if there was an error in principle and the sentence was not properly available to the sentencing judge. Finding neither basis established, it dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not alter the sentence.