A man who raped a 12-year-old girl he met on a hook-up app has been jailed for eight years. 

Elijah Ofereh-Mugbeh was 23-years-old when he raped the girl while videoing it for another woman to watch on FaceTime.   

Ofereh-Mugbeh, now aged 26, claimed he thought the girl was 18 and that it was “just two adults having sex”.   

But after seeing the girl give evidence, Judge Philip Shorrock said: “It would have been obvious to anyone who spent any time in her company that she was a great deal younger than that.  

“I have no doubt that you didn’t care what age she was, all you wanted with sex without strings attached.” 

The Met Police said they would not release his photo for Ofereh-Mugbeh's own protection. 

A spokesperson told the News Shopper that officers had carried out a risk assessment and concluded that releasing his photo would make him more identifiable, subsequently creating a significant risk to him.

However, photographing offenders is an important and generally uncontroversial part of open justice and no compelling reason has been given as to why the publication of Ofereh-Mugbeh's photograph places him or anybody else in any greater danger than the publication of his name and address, which police are not seeking to prevent.

‘Rape of a child under 13’ 

The incident took place in 2018, but despite the girl being interviewed by police the following month Ofereh-Mugbeh was not charged until 2022.   

At trial, Ofereh-Mugbeh, of Whitcher Close in Deptford, was found guilty of three counts of rape of a child under 13 – all relating to one victim. 

The court heard that Ofereh-Mugbeh had met the girl on an app mainly used for organising sexual hook-ups.   

They met at a station and went to an address where Ofereh-Mugbeh took her virginity.   

The girl claimed she told Ofereh-Mugbeh she had changed her mind before he had sex with her, the court heard. 

Judge Shorrock said it was his review that the girl had “reluctantly” consented to the sexual activity, though this did not provide a defence against the charges because of the child’s age. 

While he raped her, Ofereh-Mugbeh FaceTime-called a woman he had met on the same app.   

Defending Ofereh-Mugbeh in court, barrister Alex Taylor-Camara said his client genuinely believed the victim was 18.  

He said: “It wasn’t that he wasn’t concerned about her young appearance at all. There were even some questions from his side, such as asking her to show him some ID.”  

But Judge Shorrock dismissed this, saying: “We all saw and heard that girl when she was interviewed by a police officer in 2019. 

“There is no way she could have been taken by anybody who spent a second in her company as 18, or even 16. I just do not accept that he thought she was older.”  

He added: “It would have been obvious to anyone who spent any time in her company that she was a great deal younger than that.  

“I have no doubt that you didn’t care what age she was, all you wanted with sex without strings attached.” 

Judge Shorrock gave Ofereh-Mugbeh and eight-year custodial sentence – he will serve just over five years in prison before he can be released.  

‘For his own protection’ 

The Met Police said it would not release Ofereh-Mugbeh's custody image. 

A spokesperson said officers had carried out a risk assessment which identified a risk to Ofereh-Mugbeh is his photo is released and he was made identifiable. 

News Shopper editor Simon Murfitt said: "Open justice is the bedrock of a civilised society. It benefits the defendants, whose prosecutions are independently monitored for fairness, and the public, who are warned about dangerous individuals. 

"The disclosure of offenders' custody images is an important and generally uncontroversial tenet of open justice. 

"Ofereh-Mugbeh has been convicted of raping a child. Police across the country release convicted child abusers' custody images every day in the public interest.

"No compelling reason has been given as to why the publication of Ofereh-Mugbeh's photograph places him or anybody else in any greater danger than the publication of his name and address, which police are not seeking to prevent. In the absence of any sensible explanation, this appears to be an arbitrary decision."