R v Samuel Kayode
[2024] EWCA Crim 1032
R v Charles Sion Davison
11 November 2022
[2022] EWCA Crim 1549
Court of Appeal
A man pleaded guilty to murder years ago. Now, he says he was too unwell to understand what he was doing. But the court already had three doctor's reports saying he was fine, so they didn't believe him, especially since he waited so long to complain.
Key Facts
- •Charles Sion Davison (applicant) pleaded guilty to murder in October 2015 and received a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years.
- •The applicant, now 46, applied for leave to appeal against conviction, significantly out of time (2179 days).
- •The application's basis was whether he was fit to plead at the time of the plea.
- •Three psychiatrists (Drs. Sandford, Rosseau, and Sanikop) assessed the applicant as fit to plead before the guilty plea, despite acknowledging his mental health issues (paranoid schizophrenia).
- •Fresh evidence was presented in the form of a report by Dr. Olotu (February 2022), who opined that the applicant was likely unfit to plead due to his mental illness and the stress of court proceedings.
- •The applicant's legal team at trial were aware of his mental health but accepted the plea of guilty to murder despite an offer to plead to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.
Legal Principles
Fitness to plead is determined by the Pritchard criteria.
Implicit in the judgment, referencing prior case law and psychiatric assessments.
The legal representatives are best placed to decide on fitness to plead, and judges oversee the process.
R v Erskine [2009] EWCA Crim 1425
Unless there is contemporaneous evidence suggesting unfitness to plead, a later retrospective assessment is unlikely to overturn a conviction.
R v Erskine [2009] EWCA Crim 1425
A guilty plea may be vitiated if the defendant was unfit to plead.
R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108
Outcomes
Leave to appeal was refused.
The court agreed with the single judge that the applicant's fitness to plead was established contemporaneously by three psychiatrists. The fresh evidence from Dr. Olotu, being retrospective and not directly addressing the Pritchard criteria, did not provide a basis to overturn the conviction.
The application for an extension of time was also refused.
The significant delay (2179 days) and lack of merit in the appeal led to the refusal.