R v Pilot

[2014] QCA 106

[2014] QCA 106

COURT OF APPEAL

MUIR JA
MORRISON JA
ATKINSON J

CA No 46 of 2014
DC No 183 of 2007

THE QUEEN

v

PILOT, Lomax Douglas  Applicant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 13 MAY 2014

JUDGMENT

MUIR JA:  The reasons of the court are as follows.  The applicant, through the adult guardian who was appointed the applicant’s guardian by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 21 June 2013, applies for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction on 30 April 2007 on pleas of guilty of two counts of attempted rape, two counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault with intent to rape.  The evidence reveals that at the time of the sentencing hearing there were doubts about the applicant’s fitness to plead.

A continuing detention order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) was made in respect of the applicant on 31 August 2012. It was reviewed on 28 October 2013 and the applicant was released on a supervision order. The applicant was then subject to a forensic order made by the Mental Health Court on 12 September 2012 consequent on a finding by the court that the applicant was unfit for trial of an offence of rape allegedly committed in 2002. As a result of the order the applicant was taken from prison to the high secure unit of The Park Centre for Mental Health.

Officers of the adult guardian undertook investigations into the state of the applicant’s mental health in connection with the Mental Health Court proceedings and the Dangerous Prisoner hearings.  Those investigations led to this application.  The respondent properly accepts that the material on which the applicant relies in this application raises a serious question about the applicant’s fitness for trial at the time he entered his pleas of guilty.  I should say made his pleas of guilty.  It was accepted also that in order for this court to determine the matter on its merits it will be necessary for an appeal record book to be prepared and for evidence from the applicant’s counsel and solicitors at the time of the sentencing hearing to be adduced.

A report dated 7 October 2013 by Dr Phillips, forensic psychiatrist, provides cogent but as yet untested evidence of the applicant’s unfitness to plead in April 2007.  Accordingly, it’s appropriate that the time within which the applicant may appeal be extended to 18 March 2014.  That’s the date of filing of the applicant’s notice of appeal and it is so ordered.  Of course, when the matter is considered, perhaps, in a bit more detail it may not be necessary to get to the stage of preparing record books, but that, of course, will be a matter for the respondent and its further inquiries.

MS LOURY:  Thank you, your Honour.

MUIR JA:  Thank you.