R v Simon Coombes (aka Simon Tharme)

An appellate court will consider the merits of a proposed appeal despite a lengthy and unexplained delay. Where the material gives no proper basis to doubt the safety of a conviction, it may refuse an extension of time and leave to appeal.

Under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, proposed fresh evidence must be assessed for admissibility, novelty, credibility, the explanation for its absence at trial, and its capacity to afford a ground of appeal. A sentence properly located within the applicable guideline range, supported by a justified finding of dangerousness, will not be disturbed as manifestly excessive. A loss-of-time order may exceptionally be made where plainly meritless applications waste substantial court resources.

Following a jury trial in the Crown Court at Ipswich before Recorder Benson KC, Simon Coombes was convicted of vaginal rape and oral rape. He received concurrent extended sentences of 17 years and six months, comprising 12 years and six months’ custody and a five-year extension period.

Acting without counsel, he sought extensions of time to renew applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. He also applied to adduce fresh evidence on the conviction application. His proposed grounds alleged defects in his representation, trial process, evidence and sentence.

The central questions were whether the delay should be excused, whether any proposed ground gave rise to a concern about conviction safety or sentence, whether fresh evidence should be received, and whether a loss-of-time order was appropriate.

1. The renewed applications were refused. There was no reasonable excuse for the substantial delay in pursuing the conviction appeal. In any event, the court considered the merits and found no material capable of casting doubt on the safety of either conviction. The jury had been best placed to assess the conflicting accounts of consent.

2. The complaints about trial counsel, solicitors, the amended defence statement, jury matters, directions and alleged police misconduct were without substance. The defence had been professionally prepared and presented. Nothing disclosed an arguable ground of appeal with real prospects of success.

3. The application under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 failed. The proposed material consisted of bare assertions, inadmissible social-media extracts, or material disclosed and available at trial. It was therefore not fresh evidence capable of affording a ground for allowing an appeal.

4. The sentencing challenge also failed. The Recorder correctly placed the offending in Category 2A. The offenders had acted together, there were several Category 2 harm features, and the aggravating factors and previous relevant convictions justified a custodial term above the starting point but within the guideline range. The finding of dangerousness and the extended sentence were justified. A custodial term of 12 years and six months was not manifestly excessive.

5. Applying the guidance in R v Gray & Others [2014] EWCA Crim 2372, the court held that this was an exceptional case for a loss-of-time order. The applications had no merit, the applicant had been warned of the risk, and his extensive correspondence had wasted significant court time. It ordered that 56 days should not count towards his sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the renewed applications concerning conviction and sentence, refused the fresh-evidence application, and made a 56-day loss-of-time order: [2024] EWCA Crim 188.
• Crown Court at Ipswich Convicted the applicant of vaginal rape and oral rape after a jury trial, and imposed concurrent extended sentences.