Judge explains his sentence in case of child rapist who took family hostage

The 40-year-old, who was jailed for 23 years at Bristol Crown Court this afternoon, took a knife to the throat of the woman who caught him raping her daughter in June 2020.

He held a knife to the woman’s throat and barricaded her and her children in an upstairs room at their Ramsbury home. Police were forced to smash their way into the house then Tasered Watts as he refused to comply.

This is what the judge said as he sentenced Watts, who had moments earlier decided to walk out of his hearing.

‘Vulnerable’

Watts had raped his victim, a girl under 13, repeatedly – including the night before she and her family were held hostage.

Judge Martin Picton said: “I watched the video recording of her evidence to the police and could assess her vulnerability, both physically and in terms of the nature of her as a person, and it was obvious to me that she was highly vulnerable to this predatory defendant.

“She is small and slight and would have been quite unable to prevent the defendant doing that which he was determined to do.”

He said the defendant had groomed the girl. “When she resisted the defendant used threats,” he added.

READ MORE: Child rapist who held family hostage is jailed for 23 years

Kill

The defendant was discovered raping the girl by her mother. Judge Picton said: “Her discovery of the defendant raping her daughter was the catalyst for a night and morning of terror when she and the children were held captive in the home.

“The victim of the rape was confronted the following morning with the sight of the defendant holding a knife to her mother’s throat.

“The defendant threatened to kill [the woman] and the jury were sure, and I have no doubt, that the threats were uttered in serious terms and were meant to be taken seriously.

“There was every reason why both she and the children should have been terrified that the defendant might carry out that threat. The defendant gave every sign of being quite prepared so to do.”

Bristol Crown Court, where David Watts was sentenced 

‘Wicked’

Judge Picton said: “The arrival of the police did not bring this incident to an end. They had to smash their way into the house at great personal risk to themselves fight in order to subdue the defendant and prevent even greater harm occurring.

“The body worn footage of their arrival into the bedroom where the defendant was holding the whole family hostage is deeply shocking.

“The children were obviously terrified as was their mother. The defendant can be seen holding a large knife to her throat.

“The defendant gave every indication of being intent on using that knife on her and potentially others.

“The defendant continued to resist even when the police deployed Tasers and used them. It was only due to considerable bravery on the part of those officers, who had to use significant force, that they were able to free the children and save the people in that room from even greater harm.

“The defendant’s behaviour was utterly shocking and deeply wicked given the threats that the defendant was making about leaving five bodies in the room and going out in a blaze of glory as he put it.”

How did the judge arrive at the sentences he imposed?

The judge had to apply the sentencing guidelines.

He said the rapes – charged as rape of a child under 13 – fell into category 2A on the sentencing guidelines, with a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment and a range of 11 to 17 years.

“Each of the rapes, but particularly the first and the last, were sustained incidents and the defendant used physical force to overcome his victim’s resistance. There was grooming behaviour on his part,” Judge Picton said.

The threats to kill charge carried a starting point of four years, as it had involved use of a weapon and the impact on Watts’ victims was significant.

There were no sentencing guidelines for the false imprisonment charge. However, the judge took the view the harm caused and Watts’ blameworthiness made it a serious matter. He said: “The footage that the police captured of the arrest clearly demonstrates the level of terror which the defendant generated in the minds of the victims who must have feared that they would not get out of that house alive. The defendant had a long time to reflect upon what he was doing and yet persisted in a determined fashion to keep them in the house and create as much terror as he could.”

David Watts' custody shot Picture: WILTSHIRE POLICE

He took the rapes and the false imprisonment as the lead offences, imposing a total sentence on all of 23 years.

Judge Picton ordered Watts serve an extended sentence, meaning he must serve at least two-thirds of his 23 year sentence behind bars, with an extra five years to be served on licence.

The judge said: “In terms of future risk as I have already mentioned the defendant has refused to engage with the probation service.

“I have also already referred to the fact that his behaviour toward the probation officer is not untypical of the way he presented on the rare occasions when he would be present in court at least by way of the prison video link.

“The defendant’s conduct on this night is in my judgement sufficient to demonstrate that there is a significant risk of him committing further specified offences of a sexual or violent nature and a significant risk of him causing serious harm thereby.

“Accordingly, I assess that the defendant is dangerous within the meaning of the statute. I am also quite sure that a determinate sentence alone would not sufficiently address the risk that he will present in the future.”

Watts must register as a sex offender for life and was made subject to an indefinite sexual harm prevention order.

READ MORE: Child rapist who held family hostage is jailed for 23 years

Why didn’t Watts get life?

Judge Picton considered whether Watts should be given a life sentence. However, this is what he concluded.

“I have had to consider whether I should impose a life sentence. One of the challenges is trying to assess when the risk he currently presents may reduce but I am conscious of a lack of relevant previous convictions.

“In the circumstances I have concluded that it is just possible to avoid the imposition of a life sentence but I am satisfied that it is necessary to impose an extended sentence where by a very lengthy term of custody will be combined with an extended licence period.

“During the extended licence period the defendant’s conduct will need to be carefully monitored by those responsible for him as and when he is released. In my judgment the abuse of alcohol by the defendant is a very significant risk factor.”