QLDQCA
R v Lock [2001] QCA 84
[2001] QCA 84
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-03-13|Before: Williams JA, Ambrose and Douglas JJSeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
View original sourceAt a glance
Source factsCourt
Court of Appeal (Qld)
Decision date
2001-03-13
Before
Williams JA, Ambrose and Douglas JJSeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
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
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS –INSANITY – DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL ILLNESSOR MENTAL INFIRMITY –DIRECTION TO THE JURY – whether the learned trial judge in his summing upfailed to adequatelyidentify the issues with respect to the nature of thedefences raised by the appellant and the facts relevant to thosedefences.CRIMINAL LAW – COURSE OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS ANDADDRESSES – 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 – SUMMINGUP.CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OFJUSTICE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION.Criminal Code ss 27and 304AAmado-Taylor v R [2000] 2 Cr App R 189, consideredDomican v The Queen (1992) 73 CLR 555, consideredMogg v R[2000] QCA 244(2000) 112 A Crim R 417, consideredR v Rolph [1962] QdR 262,consideredRPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3