R v David Shotayo

R v David Shotayo

The sentence was not manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle given the seriousness of the offence, the applicant's offending history, and the proper application of sentencing guidelines. Disparity with the co-defendant's sentence was justified by their differing records. The only arguable ground was the failure to deduct 102 days for time spent in local authority accommodation under curfew, but the appeal was dismissed as the judge had considered this in determining sentence length.

Parties
Applicant: David Shotayo; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence
Outcome
application for leave to appeal sentence refused except on the arguable ground of failure to deduct 102 days; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Theft, Sentencing, Youth Offenders, Sentence Disparity, Credit for Time Served
Criminal Law Juvenile Justice Rape Theft Sentencing Youth Offenders Sentence Disparity Credit for Time Served

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Shotayo

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether there was unjustified disparity between the applicant's sentence and that of his co-defendant
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to credit for time spent in local authority accommodation under curfew

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was not manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle given the seriousness of the offence, the applicant's offending history, and the proper application of sentencing guidelines. Disparity with the co-defendant's sentence was justified by their differing records. The only arguable ground was the failure to deduct 102 days for time spent in local authority accommodation under curfew, but the appeal was dismissed as the judge had considered this in determining sentence length.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal sentence refused except on the arguable ground of failure to deduct 102 days; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted solely on the ground of failure to deduct 102 days for time in local authority accommodation under curfew
  • Appeal dismissed