Afoladi Sotunde, of Edgware, cleared of rape and assault in St Albans Crown Court

10:00am Sunday 13th January 2013 in News By Frazer Ansell

A man accused of sexually assaulting a schoolgirl as she slept collapsed in the dock on Friday when he was found not guilty by a jury.

Afoladi Sotunde, 28, broke down in tears after being acquitted at St Albans Crown court of rape and an alternative charge of assault by penetration.

Sotunde, now living in Edgware, told the court that the allegation had left him distraught, scared and unable to sleep.

He admitting "trying it on" with the 18-year-old as she lay on the couch in his former flat in Premier Place, Watford, but denied any sexual offence.

Giving evidence he said he sat down on the couch and then lay down behind her. "We were just talking - it was just general conversation.

"I had my left hand on her left leg. There was no resistance or anything. I moved my hand towards her private area. It was under her skirt. It was a natural escalation," he said.

Asked by his barrister David Jones, if she was awake he replied: "Yes she was." He denied raping her or sexually penetrating her with his finger.

He said the teenager pushed his hand away when he moved it. She then got up and walked into Mr Sotunde's bedroom where he said the girl's friend was having sex with a man who was living in his flat. He said the two girls then left the flat abruptly.

Later Mr Sotunde saw a text message sent to the other man in which he was accused of rape.

He went on: "I was shocked and scared. I was petrified. She was saying I raped her. I was distraught and scared and couldn't sleep. I said I had tried it on but she wasn't having any of it."

The next day he went on a trip to Bournemouth with friends and was called by the police who said they wanted to speak to him at Watford police station as a "matter of urgency". He went to the police station, where he denied any wrong doing.

Earlier, the jury heard that the schoolgirl had been to an Ann Summers party before going onto Area night club with a friend where they met the defendant and his flatmate. After leaving the club in the early hours of Saturday morning they for went chips in the High Street. They then got a lift with the friend and Mr Sotunde back to his flat.

In a police video interview she said she was asleep on a sofa when she alleged Mr Sotunde was having sex with her.

The girl, who at the time was wearing a white blouse and short black pencil skirt, said she had drunk wine earlier that night and in the flat. When asked by the police officer how drunk she was on a scale of one to ten, she said "eight".

Mr Sotunde denied rape and assault by penetration on April 16 2011. He was cleared by the jury of rape on Thursday (January 10) and of assault by penetration on Friday (January 11).

Comments(15)

Razor Sharp says...
1:02pm Sun 13 Jan 13

It must have been a tough call for the jury.

Report this post »

pepsiman says...
1:50pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Can’t see why they mention schoolgirl, totally irrelevant, she was an 18 year old drunk adult. With all the above facts it shouldn’t have got to court.

Report this post »

LuthersLoveChild says...
3:07pm Sun 13 Jan 13

I can't help but fell that the men should also be given anonymity in this case unless proved guilty.

They've named an innocent man and the woman who i assume is at least wasting police & court time is allowed anonymity?

Report this post »

crazyfrog says...
7:18pm Sun 13 Jan 13

LuthersLoveChild wrote:
I can't help but fell that the men should also be given anonymity in this case unless proved guilty. They've named an innocent man and the woman who i assume is at least wasting police & court time is allowed anonymity?
Thats an very good point indeed, the fact that he was proven innocent in a court of law yet the court did not think to protect his name form the papers, to be honest i think its a shame that the Watford Observer has published his name, they could of just as well published the story without his name!
how about removing his name WO?
if he was found guilty then hell yes print it and shout it from the rooftops!

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
7:30pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Without reading the legal papers, it's too difficult to arrive at an informed comment.

The school girl reference can be misconstrued. There must have been sufficient evidence for it to go to court, but probably not enough to convict.

Perhaps it was too fine a line between consensual sex and rape for the jury to arrive at any other verdict.

Well, Mr Sotunde's reputation is lost, despite being found not guilty and the 'girl'/young lady must have endured extensive character analysis, with the Ann Summers reference being a case in point.

The reality will only be known to the two individuals concerned.

Report this post »

G_Whiz says...
9:59pm Sun 13 Jan 13

It's not just Judges, it's Jury's that now think that because a girl wear's a pencil skirt and visited Ann Summers - she was asking for it!

What she was wearing or what shops she has visited should never be relevant as evidence. ever.

Not many girls make this kind of assault up.

Report this post »

Roy Stockdill says...
10:07am Mon 14 Jan 13

Once you start going down the road of saying that anyone who appears in court should have their name withheld from the public unless they are found guilty, then you are on a very rocky path indeed. And I speak as one who many years ago spent a large part of his life covering court cases in the magistrates' court, Quarter Sessions and Assizes as a local newspaper reporter.

Granted, every case has to be looked at on its merits, but the whole essence of our legal system is that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. And that means that all court cases must be reported by the press, including in the great majority of cases the name of the accused, however unfair it may sometimes seem to be.

The point surely is that this man got off and was acquitted. He was seen to be found innocent and this fact was reported, therefore his reputation was cleared and publicly seen to be so. Without knowing all the evidence, it does seem from the report that there was at least some degree of culpability on his part, though obviously the jury thought it wasn't sufficient for a conviction and acquitted him accordingly.

If the police thought the girl had made the whole story up, then I would expect the Crown Prosecution Service to bring a case against her.

Our justice system is not perfect but it's probably the best we have. Press reporting of court cases is a vital part of that system. What I find more worrying is the increasing use of secret justice, such as in the family courts and the use by celebrities of mega-injunctions to prevent their sordid little peccadilloes becoming public knowledge.

Report this post »

LSC says...
12:23pm Mon 14 Jan 13

I couldn't disagree more Roy. Look at the words you used; 'This man got off'. No he didn't 'get off' anything. According to our law there was nothing TO get off, because he wasn't guilty. But your implication there is that he side-stepped justice.
What chance does this man have at a job interview this week? I know what SHOULD happen, but we both live in the real world.
In cases like this, name both parties or preferably neither. It isn't in the public interest at all; of course, report the case and the details if you wish, but not the names; what purpose does it serve?
'Innocent man is Innocent' isn't really much of a headline, admittedly.

Report this post »

not a regular says...
1:31pm Mon 14 Jan 13

So a girl goes out and gets 80% paralytic (assuming a 10 out of 10 is full on paralytic), voluntarily goes back to a man's flat, and then decides she's made a mistake so calls rape.

I'm sure the guy is not of sound judgement seeing as he chose to bring this scum back to his home, but it's a sad state of affairs that it's his name that gets tarnished.

Report this post »

KeefyD says...
7:56pm Mon 14 Jan 13

I agree with most of the comments, except the "got off" comment. I have always thought that if a rape case is brought to court then both parties should NOT be named unless a guilty verdict is agreed. Not forgetting that there have been a few cases on appeal that the verdict was unjust and then the conviction overturned.......ver
y rare though.

I for one am fed up of reading about false rapes, and a lot of it has to do with victim compensation, I believe that a reported rape with penetration is currently 8k, I could eb wrong, this may have gone up or down, but quite a lot of cases are for this reason only. Rape is an horrendous crime and should be reported everytime it happens, but, cases like this do not encorage women AND men (more than we realise ) to come forward as they believe that they will not be taken seriously. IF an allegation has been totally made up because of guilt of bad feeling against the other party, then whatever sentence the offender WOULD have received should be passed on to the accuser......this will certainly discourage false reports and accusations. I for one am sick and tired of reading all the gritty details and should eb kept private, the excuse of reporting "free speech and in the public interest " is nonsense in my opinion, it is gossip in print and it fills out the paragraph.

If any of my family were hurt or injured in any way, I do not want my next door neighbours or childrens friends at school reading about all the gorey details about what happened, sometimes the press just think they cna print what they like and then hide behind the "in the public interest" blurb.

End of sermon, why can't we all get along ???

Report this post »

KeefyD says...
7:58pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Apologies for the spelling errors, I always think I can speed type but always proved wrong :-)

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
10:50pm Mon 14 Jan 13

KeefyD wrote:
Apologies for the spelling errors, I always think I can speed type but always proved wrong :-)
Interesting angle. The rates are as follows:

Sexual assault - severe - non-penile penetrative or oral-genital act(s) £3,300

Non-consensual penile penetration of one or more of vagina, anus or
mouth - by one attacker £11,000

Difficult to gauge if this was a contributory factor in reporting the alleged sexual offense(s).

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
10:51pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Here is the link:

http://www.justice.g
ov.uk/downloads/vict
ims-and-witnesses/ci
c-a/am-i-eligible/cr
iminal-injuries-comp
-scheme-2012.pdf

Report this post »

G_Whiz says...
1:58pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Razor Sharp wrote:
KeefyD wrote:
Apologies for the spelling errors, I always think I can speed type but always proved wrong :-)
Interesting angle. The rates are as follows:

Sexual assault - severe - non-penile penetrative or oral-genital act(s) £3,300

Non-consensual penile penetration of one or more of vagina, anus or
mouth - by one attacker £11,000

Difficult to gauge if this was a contributory factor in reporting the alleged sexual offense(s).
Non-consensual penile penetration of one or more of vagina, anus or
mouth - by one attacker £11,000

Is that all a victim get's for a life, mind, personality virtually ruined?

And that's only if the attacker is found guilty - Which due to this kind of case (one word against another) is very rare.

As far as this case goes - watch this space????

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
7:40pm Tue 15 Jan 13

It really depends which view and who's side one takes. In this case on the reported information it's too difficult to call. Had her drink been spiked by the accused it might have changed the outcome. The trial must have weighed heavily on both parties.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree