MILDENHALL RAPIST SIMON COOMBES HAS APPEAL REQUEST QUASHED
A man found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman following a Christmas celebration has had his attempt to appeal denied by senior judges in the high court.Simon Coombes, aged 35 and formerly residing on Queensway in Mildenhall, along with an unnamed co-defendant for legal reasons, received sentencing in 2021.
Coombes sought additional time to lodge an appeal against his conviction and sentence, but this request was rejected on Friday by the Court of Appeal.
According to previous proceedings at Ipswich Crown Court, the two men had given the woman a lift after the holiday event; however, instead of taking her home, they took her to a flat where they committed the assault.
The victim, heavily intoxicated at the time, later could not recall the attack but contacted police after noticing torn clothing and injuries such as bruises and abrasions.
Both men denied the charges of rape during the trial, but the jury convicted them.
They were sentenced to twelve years and six months in prison, with an additional five-year extended licence period.
During the hearing on February 9, Lady Justice Andrews summarized the case.
Although she described the woman as “totally wasted,” she noted that Coombes refused to accept that someone in such a drunken state could not give valid consent.
The judge also cited statements made by Coombes, suggesting that in the modern age, drinking and sex are commonplace and if a woman regrets it afterwards, it is her own fault.
The court was informed that Coombes was often warned about disruptive behavior in court, which he admitted was partly due to cocaine use.
Furthermore, Coombes inappropriately attributed the woman’s injuries to her husband, without any supporting evidence.
After his initial conviction, Coombes requested an extension to present new evidence, but Lady Justice Andrews and the other judges found that the material submitted did not raise any concerns about the verdict.
They regarded his claims as mere assertions, and their review concluded that his defense was competent.
The court also noted that Coombes had criticized his legal team after the trial, but the judge upheld that his defense had been well-organized.
She added that Coombes’s defense counsel was “professionally embarrassed” when he accused her of colluding with the prosecution after discovering that barristers often prosecute as well as defend.
Lady Justice Andrews stated that before verdicts, Coombes was satisfied with his legal representation and even complimented his cross-examination of the victim, writing a thank-you note with a smiley face.
She ultimately found no grounds to allow the appeal.
