R v Pilot - [2014] QCA 275

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pilot [2014] QCA 275

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
PILOT, Lomax Douglas
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 46 of 2014
DC No 183 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

6 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2014

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   The pleas of guilty entered before Judge McLauchlan QC on the 30th of April 2007 are set aside.

3.   A re-trial on the counts to which the appellant then pleaded guilty is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant pleaded guilty to seven sexual offences in 2007 – where the appellant was detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 (Qld) at the end of his sentence – where the appellant suffers from significant cognitive impairment – where in 2012 the Mental Health Court found the appellant permanently unfit for trial for an earlier offence committed in 2002 – where the Director of Public Prosecutions does not oppose the appeal – whether there was a question as to the appellant’s fitness to plead

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E

R v Dunn[2014] QCA 254, applied

COUNSEL:

S M Ryan QC for the appellant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: I now invite Justice McMeekin to give reasons in respect of this matter.

McMEEKIN J: The appellant is Lomax Douglas Pilot. On 30 April 2007 in the District Court of Townsville, Mr Pilot was convicted on his own pleas of guilty of seven sexual offences by Judge McLauchlan QC. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment, suspended after three years, with an operational period of five years. As matters have transpired, at the end of his sentence, Mr Pilot was detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offences) Act 2003. Mr Pilot appeals now on the basis that he was not fit to stand trial in April 2007. This Court granted him an extension of time in which to appeal on 13 May 2014.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has investigated the matter and does not oppose the appeal. That attitude is, with respect, entirely appropriate, given the evidence now placed before the Court. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to go into the facts in any great detail.

The relevant test that must be applied on this question was explained by McMurdo P in R v Dunn [2014] QCA 254 at [63], and I quote:

“Under s 668E(1), Criminal Code, this Court is bound to allow the appeal and set aside the convictions if there has been a miscarriage of justice. As Justice Hayne explained in Eastman

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Pilot

Details

AGLC: R v Pilot [2014] QCA 275
Case: [2014] QCA 275
Decision Date: 6 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pilot, the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to seven sexual offences in 2007, appealed against his conviction. The appellant, who has significant cognitive impairment, was detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 (Qld) after serving his sentence. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the appellant's fitness to plead at the time of the original trial. The Director of Public Prosecutions did not oppose the appeal, which focused on the appellant's ability to understand the nature and consequences of the pleas he entered.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there was a question as to the appellant's fitness to plead at the time of his original trial. The court considered whether the appellant had the requisite mental capacity to understand the charges against him and the nature of the pleas he was entering. The court also examined the evidence from the 2012 Mental Health Court, which found the appellant permanently unfit for trial for an earlier offence. This finding was relevant to assessing the appellant's fitness at the time of the 2007 trial.

The court found that there was indeed a question as to the appellant's fitness to plead at the time of the original trial. It held that the appellant's significant cognitive impairment likely affected his ability to understand the charges and the nature of the pleas. The court concluded that this constituted a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the pleas of guilty were set aside. The court ordered a re-trial on the counts to which the appellant had originally pleaded guilty.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The pleas of guilty entered before Judge McLauchlan QC on the 30th of April 2007 are set aside.

3. A re-trial on the counts to which the appellant then pleaded guilty is ordered.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Pilot [2014] QCA 275
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v PILOT, Lomax Douglas (appellant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 46 of 2014 DC No 183 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	6 November 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 November 2014
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. The pleas of guilty entered before Judge McLauchlan QC on the 30th of April 2007 are set aside. 3. A re-trial on the counts to which the appellant then pleaded guilty is ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant pleaded guilty to seven sexual offences in 2007 – where the appellant was detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 (Qld) at the end of his sentence – where the appellant suffers from significant cognitive impairment – where in 2012 the Mental Health Court found the appellant permanently unfit for trial for an earlier offence committed in 2002 – where the Director of Public Prosecutions does not oppose the appeal – whether there was a question as to the appellant’s fitness to plead Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E R v Dunn[2014] QCA 254, applied
COUNSEL:	S M Ryan QC for the appellant V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent