R v Daniel Paul Grace

A delay of more than 13 years in seeking leave to appeal requires a full explanation and will not be extended where the proposed grounds lack merit. Fresh evidence under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 must be capable of belief and capable of affording a ground for allowing the appeal, among other statutory considerations. Recent medical material that does not address the applicant’s mental condition at the time of the offence or plea, or explain how it could undermine the safety of the conviction, cannot justify receiving it or granting leave. A guilty plea remains unequivocal where there is no evidential foundation for duress.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Leeds on 2 July 2010 to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment. He was sentenced on 14 January 2011 under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

More than 13 years later, he renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sought an extension of time and permission to rely on fresh psychiatric material. He alleged that his guilty pleas had been entered under duress and that an undiagnosed mental disorder had not been considered. The central issues were whether the delay should be extended and whether the proposed evidence could affect the safety of the convictions.

1. Applications refused. The court independently considered the proposed grounds and agreed with the single judge.
2. Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court may receive new evidence where that is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. Relevant considerations include whether the evidence is capable of belief, may afford a ground for allowing the appeal, would have been admissible at the original proceedings, and whether there is a reasonable explanation for not adducing it earlier.
3. The 2023 psychiatric notes and the 2024 psychologist’s letter did not address the applicant’s mental condition in 2010. They did not show that his later difficulties affected his understanding of the offending or his ability to make an informed decision to plead guilty. The material therefore could not undermine the safety of the convictions.
4. Diminished responsibility was unavailable as a defence to the charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment. There was also no suggestion that the applicant had been unfit to plead or stand trial.
5. There was no foundation for the allegation that the guilty pleas were entered under duress. Counsel did not support the allegation, the applicant had made admissions before sentence, and he had not raised any dissatisfaction with the pleas during the intervening period. The pleas were entirely unequivocal.
6. An application for leave to appeal against conviction should be lodged within 28 days under section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and rule 39.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. The delay was very substantial. The mental-health ground depended on recent material but lacked merit, while the challenge to the pleas was not a recent matter and had been raised when the applicant was represented. The extension of time and renewed applications were therefore refused.

• Crown Court at Leeds: the applicant pleaded guilty on 2 July 2010 and was sentenced on 14 January 2011.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): an application for an extension of time to appeal against sentence was refused in May 2020; it was not renewed.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, extension of time and admission of fresh evidence was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 580.