R v Lock - [2001] QCA 84

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Lock [2001] QCA 84

PARTIES: R
v
LOCK, Peter Russell
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 151 of 2000
SC No 479 of 1997

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 13 March 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 19 February 2001

JUDGE: Williams JA, Ambrose and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:
1. Appeal allowed

2. Conviction quashed, retrial ordered.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – INSANITY – DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL ILLNESS OR MENTAL INFIRMITY – DIRECTION TO THE JURY – whether the learned trial judge in his summing up failed to adequately identify the issues with respect to the nature of the defences raised by the appellant and the facts relevant to those defences.

CRIMINAL LAW – COURSE OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS AND ADDRESSES – ADDRESSES – GENERALLY.

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

CRIMINAL LAW – LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY – PROOF AND EVIDENCE.

CRIMINAL LAW – SUMMING UP.

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION.

Criminal Code ss 27 and 304A

Amado-Taylor v R [2000] 2 Cr App R 189, considered
Domican v The Queen (1992) 73 CLR 555, considered
Mogg v R (2000) 112 A Crim R 417, considered
R v Rolph [1962] QdR 262, considered
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] 74 ALJR 449, considered
R v Terry [1961] 2 QB 314 considered

COUNSEL: A J Kimmins for the appellant
P M Ridgway for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Robertson O'Gorman Solicitors (Brisbane) town agents for Price & Roobottom (Southport) for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Douglas J, and, though I agree with what he has said, the importance of the case demands that I state my own reasons for arriving at the conclusion that there should be a re-trial. Such a conclusion is unfortunate if only because it will result in a third trial; at the first trial the jury was unable to agree upon its verdict.

There was no dispute at the trial that the appellant killed his wife on 18 June 1997. There was a formal admission to that effect at the outset. The appellant was called primarily to verify the statements he made to doctors who were called to give evidence as to his state of mind at the time of the killing. Under cross-examination he acknowledged that he had planned to kill his wife over some days leading up to her death; that plan included taking steps to make it appear that an intruder was responsible for what had happened.

The defence put in issue the appellant's state of mind at the…

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 Lock

Details

AGLC: R v Lock [2001] QCA 84
Case: [2001] QCA 84
Decision Date: 13 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lock, appealed against his conviction for murder, arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the defences of insanity and diminished responsibility. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's summing up to the jury was deficient in identifying the issues with respect to the defences raised by the appellant, specifically in relation to the nature of those defences and the facts pertinent to them.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury on the defences of insanity and diminished responsibility was adequate. The court needed to assess if the summing up correctly articulated the requirements for proving these defences and if it sufficiently linked the evidence to the defences. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly explain the nature of the defences and did not sufficiently direct the jury on how to consider the evidence in relation to these defences. The prosecution contended that the trial judge's summing up was appropriate and sufficiently covered the necessary legal principles.

The High Court found that the trial judge's summing up was indeed deficient. The judge did not adequately identify the issues with respect to the defences of insanity and diminished responsibility, and failed to properly link the evidence to these defences. The court held that this constituted a misdirection that could lead to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered to ensure that the jury was properly directed on the defences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Conviction quashed, retrial 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 Lock [2001] QCA 84
PARTIES:	R v LOCK, Peter Russell (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 151 of 2000 SC No 479 of 1997
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 March 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 February 2001
JUDGE:	Williams JA, Ambrose and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Conviction quashed, retrial ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – INSANITY – DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL ILLNESS OR MENTAL INFIRMITY – DIRECTION TO THE JURY – whether the learned trial judge in his summing up failed to adequately identify the issues with respect to the nature of the defences raised by the appellant and the facts relevant to those defences. CRIMINAL LAW – COURSE OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS AND ADDRESSES – ADDRESSES – GENERALLY. CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. CRIMINAL LAW – LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY – PROOF AND EVIDENCE. CRIMINAL LAW – SUMMING UP. CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION. Criminal Code ss 27 and 304A Amado-Taylor v R [2000] 2 Cr App R 189, considered Domican v The Queen (1992) 73 CLR 555, considered Mogg v R (2000) 112 A Crim R 417, considered R v Rolph [1962] QdR 262, considered RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] 74 ALJR 449, considered R v Terry [1961] 2 QB 314 considered
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the appellant P M Ridgway for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robertson O'Gorman Solicitors (Brisbane) town agents for Price & Roobottom (Southport) for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent