The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Dainis Rubenis against a condition attached to the suspension of his four-year sentence for theft and deception involving €37,635 in social welfare payments.
The judgment, delivered on 13 July 2020, records that Rubenis pleaded guilty to 20 charges relating to offences between September 2007 and September 2009. More than 100 counts had initially been considered, but the parties agreed to proceed on 20 counts. He was sentenced on two counts, with the remaining charges taken into consideration.
The Circuit Criminal Court imposed two consecutive two-year sentences, backdated to 30 April 2019, and suspended both. One condition required Rubenis to enter a €500 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 10 years. The other required the gross proceeds from selling lands in Latvia, after expenses and taxes, to be lodged with the court, supported by official documentation, for transmission to the Department of Social Protection.
His appeal concerned only the land-sale condition. The judgment says Rubenis had initially given evidence that he owned land in Latvia and was prepared to sell it or its timber to repay the State. He later indicated he was unwilling to do so because his mother lived on the lands, though the court said that reason had not been raised in his evidence. The prosecution argued the proposal to sell had originated with Rubenis and that removing the condition would make the sentence unduly lenient.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge’s treatment of the lack of restitution as an aggravating factor had no effect on the outcome: the headline sentences were within the judge’s margin of appreciation. It described the offending as requiring significant premeditation and said the appellant’s moral culpability was high. It also considered mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, cooperation, a positive probation report, low assessed risk of reoffending, work record and family circumstances.
The court held that the four-year cumulative sentence was proportionate and found no error in principle. It noted that suspending the entire sentence if Rubenis followed through on his original repayment proposal could itself be considered lenient. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the sentence and its conditions in place.