Coombes, R. v (aka Tharme) [2024] EWCA Crim 188 (09 February 2024)

Coombes, R. v (aka Tharme) [2024] EWCA Crim 188 (09 February 2024)

There was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal against conviction or sentence. The trial was fair, the evidence supported the verdicts, and the sentence was within the appropriate range. No fresh evidence justified reopening the case. The delay in appealing was unjustified and no extension of time was warranted. A loss of time order was appropriate due to the wholly unmeritorious and resource-wasting nature of the applications.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 188
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: Simon Coombes (aka Simon Tharme)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction and Sentence; Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Appeal Procedure, Sentencing, Fresh Evidence, Loss of Time Orders
Criminal Law Rape Consent Appeal Procedure Sentencing Fresh Evidence Loss of Time Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Simon Coombes (aka Simon Tharme)

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction and Sentence; Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are arguable grounds for appeal against conviction for rape
  2. 2 Whether there are arguable grounds for appeal against sentence
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

There was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal against conviction or sentence. The trial was fair, the evidence supported the verdicts, and the sentence was within the appropriate range. No fresh evidence justified reopening the case. The delay in appealing was unjustified and no extension of time was warranted. A loss of time order was appropriate due to the wholly unmeritorious and resource-wasting nature of the applications.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for extension of time to appeal conviction refused
  • Renewed application for extension of time to appeal sentence refused