R v Daniel Paul Grace

Neither ground of appeal has merit; guilty pleas were unequivocal and freely made; fresh medical evidence does not relate to applicant's mental state at the time of offence or conviction and cannot undermine the safety of the conviction.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Daniel Paul Grace; Complainant: Jamie Harrison; Co Defendant: Shauna Smith
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 05 February 2025
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome: application refused
Legal Topics: Appeal Against Conviction, Extension of Time, Fresh Evidence, Mental Health, Guilty Plea Validity

Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Extension of Time Fresh Evidence Mental Health Guilty Plea Validity

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Daniel Paul Grace

Applicant

Jamie Harrison

Complainant

Shauna Smith

Co Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

1 Whether the guilty pleas were equivocal and entered under duress
2 Whether fresh evidence of mental health diagnosis affects the safety of the conviction

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
application for extension of time refused

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.