The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal against the severity of a prison sentence imposed on a man convicted of rape and related sexual offenses, leaving intact a lengthy term that had been handed down by the Tel Aviv District Court.
In a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Alex Stein and joined by Justices Gila Kanfi-Steinitz and Ruth Ronen, the court dismissed the defendant’s claim that the circumstances of the offense were comparatively minor and did not justify the punishment imposed.
The man was sentenced in April 2024 to seven years in prison after being convicted of rape, aggravated sodomy, and obtaining consent by fraud, following a plea agreement that left sentencing to the court.
The court also activated a previously suspended sentence, adding several months to the prison term and bringing the total time behind bars to seven years and three months, along with additional suspended sentences and financial compensation to the complainant.
According to the amended indictment, the offenses occurred after the defendant and the complainant met through the Tinder dating app and agreed to meet at his apartment. During their encounter, the complainant made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if the defendant used a condom.
'Rape is rape is rape'
Despite this, the defendant falsely claimed that he was wearing one, exploited the darkness in the room, and engaged in sexual acts without her informed consent. When the complainant later reiterated her refusal to engage in intercourse without protection, the defendant ignored her repeated objections and forcibly continued, causing her physical pain and severe emotional harm.
In his appeal, the defendant claimed that because she had initially agreed to meet him and no extreme violence was used, his sentence should be reduced. The Supreme Court firmly rejected that argument. “Rape is rape is rape,” Stein wrote, emphasizing that consent to enter a home or to engage in some form of sexual contact does not constitute blanket permission for any sexual act.
“The complainant made it clear that she did not agree to sexual intercourse under the circumstances that arose… All relevant decisions regarding what would be done to her body remained, at all times, within her sovereign discretion,” he stated.
The court underscored that the complainant’s refusal – regardless of its reason – was decisive, and that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a grave violation of bodily autonomy, carried out first through deception and then through force. Stein further noted that the absence of additional violence did not mitigate the offense but rather underscored the coercive nature of the acts themselves.
The ruling also rejected claims that the district court placed excessive weight on the harm caused to the complainant. Citing both statutory sentencing principles and prior case law, the court held that serious psychological harm is inherent in sexual offenses of this nature and was, in this case, corroborated by a victim impact assessment describing long-term trauma.
The prosecution argued that the sentence accurately reflected the gravity of the offenses and the lasting damage inflicted on the complainant. Prosecutors stressed that the case involved a clear instance of rape under the law, not a borderline or mitigated scenario.
“The complainant said ‘no,’ and that should have ended the matter,” Stein wrote. “Her cry is our cry.”