A MAN who was arrested almost 20 years after a vicious rape attempt on a frightened pensioner was recently denied reduction of his jail sentence.
In 2011, Ronald Steven Toms was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an attempted sex attack on an 84-year-old widow who lived nearby at the time in 1987.
Following the night-time attack, the pensioner spent two weeks in hospital suffering from extensive injuries from the struggle, including two black eyes and bruising to her arms from where Toms had held her down.
Toms’ traumatised victim passed away 8 years after the attack in 1995. Her son said that she had never recovered from the ordeal, constantly fearing that her attackers would return.
Toms, who used to live in Iscennan Road, Ammanford, was brought to justice following him being arrested for a petty offence nearly five years ago, where experts managed to match his DNA to samples which were collected from the 1987 crime scene.
The sample collected from the scene was not complete enough for technology at the time to produce a full DNA profile, but it became possible in 2004 due to technological advances.
The profile which was created from the DNA sample was added to the National Police Database, and was found to be a match with Toms’ when he was arrested for a public order offence in 2011.
Police officers who arrived on scene at his Ammanford home in March of 2011 told him: “I’ve been waiting for you for 20 years.”
Following his arrest, in March of 2011 Swansea Crown Court heard him admit the attempted rape as well as another serious sexual offence, leading him to be jailed the following month.
Toms’ recent launch of a bid to reduce the length of his sentence was heard at London’s Criminal Appeal Court on Tuesday (Apr 12).
Toms argued that he did not receive proper advice from his lawyers about an appeal at the time of his sentence.
But Judge David Radford, Lord Justice Davies and Mr Justice Gilbart told Toms that his case had “no merit.”
Judge Radford continued: “It seems to us that the appellant had every opportunity to pursue matters sooner, with or without the assistance of his legal team.” He concluded that the long delay between Toms’ sentence and his appeal was ‘in no way justified by the reasons he gave.
Add Comment