Former Commerzbank Employee Sees Prison Term Reduced After Appeal
A former banker who was imprisoned after fabricating sexual harassment allegations against a female manager has had his sentence significantly reduced by appeal judges. Damilare Ajao, who worked at German finance giant Commerzbank's London offices, saw his initial 20-month jail term cut to just eight months following a hearing at the Court of Appeal.
The False Allegations and Employment Tribunal Claim
Ajao, who was employed in Commerzbank's Gresham Street offices in the City of London between May and November 2019, made what were later described as "simply false" claims against his manager, identified in court only as 'Ms Q'. He alleged that she had made sexualised comments about being able to see his nipples through his shirt and had attempted to touch his Gucci belt in the staff canteen.
After being dismissed from his position on the client life cycle management team, Ajao brought an Employment Tribunal claim against Commerzbank, accusing Ms Q of sexual harassment and assault. He claimed she had told him "I fancy you" and that her behaviour represented a pattern of misconduct throughout the summer and autumn of 2019.
Court Proceedings and Initial Sentencing
In April 2024, Employment Judge Anthony Snelson dismissed Ajao's tribunal claim, finding his allegations were "in large part made up" and "simply false." While acknowledging there had been a conversation about Ajao's string vest, the judge determined this was innocent fashion discussion between colleagues.
Commerzbank subsequently pursued contempt of court proceedings against Ajao at the High Court. In November, Mr Justice Martin Spencer found him guilty of 12 counts of contempt, sentencing him to 20 months imprisonment and ordering him to pay £150,000 toward the bank's legal costs.
Appeal Court Decision and Reduced Sentence
On Thursday, two Court of Appeal judges - Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Miles - reduced Ajao's sentence to eight months after determining that sentencing guidelines had been improperly applied in his case. The judges noted that while they regarded the contempts as "very serious," they found the High Court judge had misapplied the relevant guidelines.
The appeal judges allowed Ajao's challenge against one of the 12 contempt findings, describing it as a "small, essentially trivial" part of the allegations that didn't affect the overall sentence length. They also considered Ajao's young children, who live with their mother, as mitigating factors in their decision.
Impact on the Accused Manager and Judicial Findings
The court heard that Ms Q, described by the judge as "entirely honest and credible," suffered significant distress as a result of the false allegations. She reported feeling like a "criminal" and described the experience as "insulting and painful," resulting in her needing sleeping medication.
Mr Justice Spencer had previously noted that Ajao's evidence contained "such discrepancies, inconsistencies and impossibilities" that it was "quite incapable of acceptance." He determined that Ajao had engaged in a "deliberate and wicked assault" on Ms Q's professional standing and that there "wasn't a shred of truth" in any of his claims.
Appeal Judges' Reasoning and Immediate Consequences
Despite reducing the sentence, the appeal judges refused to suspend Ajao's prison term, noting he had shown "no remorse" and demonstrated no understanding that his actions were wrong. Lord Justice Lewis stated that Ajao's actions "strike at the heart of the administration of justice" and that imprisonment remained the only "appropriate punishment."
Ajao, who served just three days of his original sentence before being bailed pending appeal, was taken immediately to Pentonville Prison to begin serving his reduced eight-month term. The court heard that the former banker has lost his finance career, now relies on benefits, and his marriage has ended, leaving him living alone in Medway, Kent.
The judges concluded that eight months represented "the shortest sentence that can be imposed" given the seriousness of the offences and the available mitigating circumstances.
