Rex vs David Shotayo

This case involved an appeal by David Shotayo against a two-year detention and training order (DTO) for rape and theft, highlighting the court's consideration of previous offending history and the severity of the crime.

TLDR:

• David Shotayo was convicted of rape and theft at the age of 16.
• He was sentenced to a two-year DTO by Mr Recorder Kovats KC.
• Shotayo appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle.
• The Court of Appeal refused the appeal, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and Shotayo's offending history.

On 1 November 2023, David Shotayo, then aged 16, was convicted of one count of rape and one count of theft at the Crown Court at Woolwich. His co-defendant, Kijani Scatliffe, was also convicted of one count of rape. The offences occurred in a park in Lewisham, London, where the complainant, MM, was approached by the defendants, taken to a secluded area, and raped. Shotayo also stole MM's AirPods, which were later recovered from his bedroom.

On 9 February 2024, Mr Recorder Kovats KC sentenced Shotayo to a two-year DTO for the rape, with no separate penalty for the theft. The judge revoked a youth rehabilitation order (YRO) previously imposed on Shotayo. Scatliffe received a two-year YRO with intensive supervision and surveillance for his role in the offence.

Shotayo applied for leave to appeal his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that there was a disparity between his sentence and that of his co-defendant. His application was referred to the full court by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals. The appeal was heard by Lord Justice Edis, Mr Justice Murray, and His Honour Judge Dennis Watson KC.

At the sentencing hearing, the judge considered several reports, including a pre-sentence report, a clinical psychology report, and a victim personal statement from MM. The judge noted the significant aggravating factor of Shotayo's offending history, which included multiple convictions for serious offences. Despite the mitigating circumstances of Shotayo's difficult childhood, the judge concluded that immediate custody was necessary to mark the gravity of the offence and protect the public.

During the appeal, Mr Callum Morgan, representing Shotayo, argued that the judge gave too much weight to Shotayo's previous offences and insufficient weight to his personal mitigation. Morgan also contended that the judge failed to adequately consider the principles of the Sentencing Council Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People, particularly the focus on rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal was not persuaded by these arguments, noting that the judge was entitled to consider the severe psychological impact on the victim, the implied threat of violence, and Shotayo's poor response to previous sentences. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the disparity between Shotayo's sentence and Scatliffe's was justified given their differing offending histories.

However, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on the sole ground that the judge failed to deduct 102 days for the period Shotayo spent in local authority accommodation on electronically monitored curfew. Despite this, the appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the two-year DTO.