The Court of Appeal has reduced Rafael Tiso’s sentence for rape and aggravated sexual assault from 14 years, with the final year suspended, to 12½ years, with the final 12 months suspended.
In its judgment delivered on 5 December 2018, the court allowed Mr Tiso’s appeal against the severity of his sentence. It quashed the sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court and replaced it with the new term. The appeal concerned sentence; the judgment does not overturn the convictions.
The offences arose from events in Dublin’s Harcourt Street and Montague Lane area on 18 January 2016. The judgment recounts that the injured party was heavily intoxicated and had taken an Ecstasy tablet when she left a club with Mr Tiso. The sentencing judge had described the offences as among the most serious, citing the woman’s vulnerability, the severity of her injuries and the fact that she was left in a quiet area in a dreadful condition. She required surgery and was in hospital for about a month. The judgment also records that she could no longer give birth naturally and would require a Caesarean section if she became pregnant.
The original sentencing judge identified 18 years as the starting point for the rape and aggravated sexual assault offences, then reduced the term to 14 years in light of mitigating factors. These included Mr Tiso’s guilty pleas, admissions, expressed remorse, lack of previous convictions and difficulties serving a sentence far from his home country. The court said the 18-year starting point was not inappropriate and found no error in principle in setting it.
The appeal court focused on the timing and form of the guilty pleas. Eight days after the incident, Mr Tiso’s solicitor told Gardaí that he would not contest the allegations and would plead guilty. Signed pleas were entered in the District Court on 26 April 2016 and confirmed in the Central Criminal Court on 7 June. The appeal court said full credit had not been given to these unusual circumstances, particularly the signed pleas, and that they merited particular consideration.
The court said it would have dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence if the case had not involved signed guilty pleas. It also took account of Mr Tiso’s distance from his home country and limited access to family support. It concluded that a term resulting in 11 or 12 years to be served would be more appropriate, then imposed 12½ years with the final year suspended. The judgment states the substituted sentence but does not specify any further conditions for the suspension.