CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEEDS
HHJ SPENCER QC CP No: 13EC0239219
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB DBE
MR JUSTICE LINDEN
____________________
REX | ||
- v - | ||
DANIEL PAUL GRACE |
____________________
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
1. MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB: This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. Mr Grace seeks an extension of time within which to appeal of over 13 years. The court has a discretion to grant the extension of time and will require a full explanation for the delay if the grounds have merit. He also seeks to introduce fresh evidence in support of his appeal. Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 this court may, if it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice, receive any new evidence which was not adduced in the proceedings from which the appeal lies. In deciding whether to admit it, the court has regard in particular to whether the evidence is capable of belief, whether it may afford a ground for allowing the appeal, whether it would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal and whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in the proceedings.
2. Daniel Grace pleaded guilty to offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment on 2 July 2010. On 14 January 2011 he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of detention for public protection, pursuant to section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The minimum term was three years on each count concurrent.
3. The facts of the offences can be summarised briefly from the transcript of the opening of the offences. The applicant was 18 years old in June 2010. His girlfriend Shauna Smith was 16. Jamie Harrison (the complainant) was also 16.
4. On 14 June that year Jamie Harrison was in the Dewsbury Moor area looking for a friend when he went to the applicant's address. The applicant and Smith took drugs, later identified by the applicant as M-Kat and cannabis.
5. Under the influence of these substances they turned on Harrison, accusing him of stealing their property. In the attack which followed he was held against his will, punched to the floor, his hands were later tied up, he was struck to the head with a hacksaw, stabbed to the left leg with a kitchen knife and his head was stamped on. Intermittently he lost consciousness. He was dragged from the living room to a bedroom and whilst Smith held his feet the applicant cut his Achilles tendons on both ankles, severing one and damaging the other. He was also hit to the ribs with a crowbar, struck to the head with a screwdriver and had hot wax poured onto him. Finally, he was gagged with a sock in his mouth, which was sealed, and the attackers threatened to pour acid on him to kill him. They left him unconscious in a sleeping bag bound with wire. When he came to, two other people were in the flat and the emergency services were called. He suffered lifelong consequences.
6. By the time of this offending the applicant had acquired 23 previous convictions, including for assaults and robbery. An application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence was refused by the single judge in May 2020 and has not been renewed.
7. The proposed grounds of appeal which the applicant has formulated for himself can be summarised under two headings. First, that although he was legally represented, his guilty pleas were equivocal and entered under duress because he was told his co-defendant was prepared to give evidence against him. Secondly, that no attention was paid to the applicant's mental health at the time, with a relevant diagnosis not made until 2023.
8. Because the proposed appeal involved criticism of trial counsel, the Court of Appeal Office invited the applicant to waive privilege. A response from trial counsel was received. Counsel rejected the allegation that pressure was put on the applicant to plead guilty. He observed that the evidence was very strong, although whether or not there was a discussion about the impact of Shauna Smith giving evidence for the prosecution in the applicant's case is something which counsel cannot remember due to the passage of time. He observes that at no stage between conviction and sentence, many months later, did the applicant indicate his dissatisfaction with the guilty pleas he had entered or any second thoughts.
9. The applicant has responded to counsel's document. Significantly he states: "I am not saying I am innocent. I am stating the obvious where I was of ill mind at the time of the offence and when my case was in court." These submissions are consistent with what the applicant confessed prior to sentence to his probation officer and a psychiatrist who assessed him.
10. Turning to the second proposed ground, the applicant cites the potential defence of diminished responsibility on the basis of a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder which he says has been undiagnosed since 2002. However, there is nothing in this particular point as far as the appeal against conviction is concerned because diminished responsibility would not have been available as a defence to either of the charges the applicant faced and there was no suggestion that he was unfit to plead or stand trial. Indeed, the sentencing judge had a psychiatric report available which we have seen, as well as a pre-sentence report, the latter prepared by the applicant's case manager who had been responsible for him since November 2009 whilst supervising a community order.
11. As well as containing references to the admissions, as we have mentioned, both these documents indicate that the applicant had no mental health abnormalities. The psychiatrist concluded that he was not suffering from a diagnosis of mental disorder despite his history of psychoactive substance misuse. There were signs of a previous adolescent conduct disorder, tending towards the use of instrumental violence to threaten and coerce others, although no grounds for a mental health recommendation.
12. The new material consists of three pages of notes recorded from the content of an interview with a psychiatrist Dr Ness on 12 July 2023 with a single line diagnosis of "complex trauma and PTSD type symptoms". The applicant was prescribed antipsychotic medication and was to be reviewed in six weeks' time. The notes make reference to a short psychiatric report obtained in June 2013 subsequent to his conviction and sentence in this case, which found no mental illness. The applicant had been referred to Dr Ness in 2023 because he reported hallucinations, namely the face of the perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse against him. During the consultation the applicant described his hallucinations and stated that he had seen a psychiatrist when young. In addition, the applicant has provided a letter sent to him by a psychologist at HMP Wealstun in April 2024 after the completion of two hubs of meetings at which the applicant's past experiences were brought up and discussed. This may well have been as a consequence of Dr Ness' diagnosis.
13. Neither the 2023 notes nor this letter which post-date the decision of the single judge contain any reference to the events of 2010 or shed any light on the applicant's mental condition at that time. Equally, there is no suggestion that whatever the applicant is dealing with at the present time had any impact on his ability to understand the nature of his actions against Jamie Harrison in 2010 or made him less likely to make an informed decision of whether to be plead guilty.
14. Having considered the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal with care, independently for ourselves, we are not persuaded that either have any merit. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the guilty pleas were entered under duress and not freely made. The medical notes and letter are not capable of amounting to evidence which could undermine the safety of the conviction, which is the test, in summary, that the court must apply in these circumstances.
15. Any application for leave to appeal against conviction should be lodged within 28 days of the date of conviction, pursuant to section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the Criminal Procedure Rules 39.2. The applicant is unrepresented, and it follows that this application is very significantly out of time. While the second ground relies on a diagnosis very recently made and has been rejected for reasons we have already determined, the first ground in respect of the equivocal guilty pleas entered at a time when he was represented has not arisen recently. His pleas are confirmed as entirely unequivocal given the admission to the author of the pre-sentence report and the psychiatrist prior to sentence.
16. Accordingly, we find ourselves in agreement with the single judge and these applications must be refused.