R v Charles Sion Davison

Fitness to plead is assessed by the Pritchard criteria, not merely by diagnosis or delusional beliefs. A defendant remains fit where he understands the charge, evidence, significance of a plea, distinction between guilty and not guilty pleas, court process and relevant defences. A later psychiatric opinion will rarely make a conviction unsafe where fitness was examined contemporaneously and the new expert did not assess the defendant at the time or address the criteria. Where an application has no merit and is extremely late, the court may refuse both leave and the necessary extension of time.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Exeter in October 2015 after pleading guilty to murdering his mother. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years. A later sentence appeal was unsuccessful. He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction, relying on a February 2022 report from Dr Olotu which expressed the opinion that he had probably been unfit to plead when he entered the guilty plea. Three psychiatrists who assessed him contemporaneously had concluded that he was fit to plead. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence created a real prospect that the conviction was unsafe and whether the very substantial delay should be extended.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The application was 2,179 days out of time, and the court also refused the required extension.

1. Contemporaneous evidence. The applicant’s fitness to plead had been fully explored at the time by three psychiatrists, all of whom concluded that he was fit. In these circumstances, a finding that he was unfit would have required written or oral evidence from at least two psychiatrists supporting that conclusion. There was no such evidence.
2. Pritchard criteria. Mental illness, psychotic symptoms or delusional beliefs did not by themselves establish unfitness. The applicant understood the charge, the evidence, the significance of a guilty plea, the distinction between guilty and not guilty pleas and the workings of the court. He also had the basic cognitive ability to instruct his defence and follow the trial, and understood the available manslaughter and diminished responsibility alternatives.
3. Fresh expert evidence. The guidance in R v Erskine [2009] EWCA Crim 1425; [2009] 2 Cr App R 29 recognised that later retrospective reconstruction will very rarely displace a trial process supported by contemporaneous safeguards, absent contemporaneous evidence raising fitness concerns. The court applied that guidance. Dr Olotu had not examined the applicant at the time and did not expressly address the stringent Pritchard criteria. His report therefore created no real prospect of showing that the conviction was unsafe.
4. Order. There was no real prospect of a successful appeal against conviction. Given the absence of merit and the extreme delay, the necessary extension of time was declined.

• Crown Court at Exeter: the applicant pleaded guilty to murder in October 2015 and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years.
• Previous sentence appeal: the judgment records that an attempt to appeal against sentence was unsuccessful.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): a single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction. The renewed application was refused, and the extension of time was declined.