The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions appeal seeking to overturn a fully suspended three-year sentence imposed on Gerard Lawlor for social welfare fraud totalling €167,873.90.
The DPP argued the sentence was unduly lenient because it gave insufficient weight to the scale and duration of the offending, the need for deterrence and allegations that Lawlor had given inaccurate information to the Probation Service. The appeal, brought under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, challenged the suspension of the whole sentence. The DPP did not contest the sentencing judge’s four-year headline sentence.
Lawlor had pleaded guilty to 11 theft counts involving offences committed between December 2005 and May 2015. The judgment says he claimed social protection payments while self-employed during part of the period and received rent payments from the Department of Social Protection on behalf of tenants in a property he owned in Ballycullen. The amount calculated as fraudulently obtained was €167,873.90.
At sentencing in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in June 2017, the judge imposed three years’ imprisonment on six counts, wholly suspended for three years on a €300 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Lawlor, then 67, had no previous convictions. He had borrowed €11,000 towards repayment and was living on a State pension reduced by €28.20 a week for repayments. The sentencing judge also considered his health problems and his role in caring for two sisters with serious health needs.
The Court of Appeal said serious fraud on the public purse should almost always attract an immediate custodial sentence. It also said a fully suspended sentence required exceptional circumstances. The court noted the sentencing judge had treated custody as the starting point and relied on a probation report describing the sisters’ circumstances and their dependence on Lawlor’s care.
The judges did not find that Lawlor had misled the Probation Service. They said the allegation was not accepted and that relying on apparent dishonesty without a trial on the issue would not be possible. The court concluded that the sisters’ circumstances could justify departure from the usual custodial starting point, and that the sentencing judge was entitled to a substantial margin of discretion. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the suspended sentence in place.