R v Lock - [2025] SADC 110

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v LOCK
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 110
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Barklay
29 August 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM
Accused charged with one count of causing death by dangerous driving (Count 1), one count of causing serious harm by dangerous driving (Count 2) and one count of causing harm by dangerous driving (Count 3).
Verdicts: Guilty of Count 1, 2 and 3.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19A; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1)(a); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 45A, referred to.
R v Coventry (1938) 59 CLR 633; McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44; Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473; Kroon v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 476; Kamleh v The Queen (1990) 51 A Crim R 435; R v Coventry [1938] SASR 79; R v Palazoff (1986) 43 SASR 999; Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486; Makita (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45; R v Bjordal (2005) 93 SASR 237; Davie v Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh (1953) SC 34; R v Goode [2010] SADC 123; Tsalapatis v The King [2025] SASCA 27, considered.

R v LOCK
[2025] SADC 110
Introduction

The accused, Ann Lock, is charged with the offences of causing death by dangerous driving (Count 1), causing serious harm by dangerous driving (Count 2), and causing harm by dangerous driving (Count 3).[1]
[1] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19A(1), 19A(3).
On 8 April 2021, the accused drove her Subaru Forester in an easterly direction on Hindmarsh Tiers Road, into the intersection of Hindmarsh Tiers Road and Victor Harbor Road (the intersection) at between 66 and 71 km/h. In doing so, she failed to give way, as was required, to traffic on Victor Harbor Road. As she entered the intersection, she drove directly in front of a Ford Territory travelling north on Victor Harbor Road between 88 and 95 km/h, causing an unavoidable collision.
Crash data recovered from the Subaru Forester confirmed the accused did not engage in emergency braking until the last half a second before impact. The Ford Territory hit the right-hand side of the accused’s vehicle. Both vehicles spun and left the road. The accused’s vehicle hit a tree. In the back passenger seat of the accused’s vehicle was her sister, and in the front passenger seat, her husband. Her sister died because of injuries she suffered in the accident. Her husband suffered harm, namely, multiple fractured ribs. The driver of the Ford Territory suffered serious harm.
The accused pleaded not guilty to all charged offences, but guilty to two counts of aggravated driving without due care, and one count of…

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 [2025] SADC 110
Case: [2025] SADC 110
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lock involved the defendant, Lock, who was charged with culpable or dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm. The incident in question resulted in the death of a pedestrian. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Lock pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded to trial.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Lock's driving was indeed culpable or dangerous, and if so, whether this conduct directly caused the death of the pedestrian. The court had to examine the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the incident, including the actions of Lock prior to and during the collision, the speed of the vehicle, and the visibility conditions at the time. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Lock's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver, thereby constituting culpable or dangerous driving.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence of witnesses, including statements from the victim's family and expert opinions on road safety and driving standards. The court also took into account the statutory provisions defining culpable and dangerous driving under the relevant traffic laws. After thorough deliberation, the court found that Lock's driving was indeed dangerous, as he had failed to exercise the necessary care and attention required of a driver in similar circumstances. The court concluded that Lock's actions directly contributed to the death of the pedestrian. Consequently, the court found Lock guilty of the charge.

Lock was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the tragic consequences of his actions. The court also imposed a disqualification from driving for a specified period, aiming to deter future instances of dangerous driving.

Orders