/

/

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Lawyers in Sydney
Lawyers in Melbourne
Lawyers in Brisbane
Lawyers in Perth
Family lawyers
Employment lawyers
Criminal lawyers
Wills and estates lawyers
Find a lawyer

Company

Pricing
API
Privacy
Terms
Support
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Commonwealth
New South Wales
Queensland
Victoria
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.

Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.

R v Lock [2001] QCA 84 | Case summary | Zoe

Legislation Cases Guides Find a lawyer Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Home/Cases/[2001] QCA 84

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 source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

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

(2000) 199 CLR 620

[2000] 74 ALJR

449, consideredR v Terry [1961] 2 QB 314 considered

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

[1]

Robertson O'Gorman Solicitors (Brisbane) town agents for Price & Roobottom (Southport) for the appellant

[2]

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

R

Respondent/Defendant:

Lock [2001] QCA 84

Cases Cited (2)

(1992) 73 CLR 555

(2000) 199 CLR 620