ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF Criminal Law-Insanity-Irresistible impulse-Evidence-Burder of proof-Direc-
tion to jury-Sufficiency.
On a trial for murder the prisoner admitted the killing but raised the defence MELBOURNE,
of insanity. The defence was that by reason of mental disease the prisoner Mar. 30, 31
was subject to impulses which he was unable to control. The trial Judge directed the jury that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt every element necessary to constitute the crime, but that on the defence of insanity the position was entirely different and the prisoner had the burden of proving clearly that insanity did exist. The Judge stated the rule in M'Naghten's Case, (1843) 10 Cl. &F. 200; 8 E.R. 718, and explained it by reference to cases of delusional insanity. At the conclusion of the summing up the Judge told the jury that they had to be "satisfied" that the prisoner murdered the girl May 28.
and, as to the defence of insanity, that the prisoner must "satisfy" them that he was insane at the time of the killing. The prisoner was convicted. He applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria for leave to appeal, but the application was refused.
Held, by Latham C.J., Starke, Dixon and Evatt JJ., that the accused had the onus of satisfying the jury of his insanity, but not the onus of satisfying them beyond reasonable doubt.
Latham C.J. and Starke J. were of opinion that the summing up was adequate, and, in particular, that it was not likely to have misled the jury into thinking that the prisoner had to prove insanity beyond reasonable doubt: Dixon and Evatt JJ. were of the contrary opinion. The Court being equally divided, special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria: R. v. Sodeman, (1936) V.L.R. 99, was refused.
The prisoner petitioned the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. Held that the case was not one in which leave should be granted. Present-Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Macmillan, Sir Isaac Isaacs.
APPLICATION for special leave to appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria.
Arnold Sodeman was presented before the Supreme Court of Victoria for the murder of a young girl. He confessed that he had killed the girl, and also that he had killed three other girls in some- what similar circumstances. The confessions as to all the killings were put in evidence by the Crown without objection on the part of counsel for the prisoner. The defence of insanity was taken. The trial Judge directed the jury that the burden lay on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt everything necessary to constitute the crime, but, as to the defence of insanity, the position was entirely different and the prisoner had the burden of proving clearly that insanity did exist. His Honour directed the jury on the legal test of insanity as laid down in M'Naghten's Case 1, and…
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 Sodeman v the King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sodeman v the King [1936] HCA 75
Case
[1936] HCA 75
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Arnold Sodeman was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. He admitted to the killing but raised the defence of insanity, arguing that he was subject to uncontrollable impulses due to mental disease. The trial judge directed the jury that while the Crown bore the burden of proving all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, the defence of insanity required the prisoner to prove clearly that insanity existed. The judge applied the rules from *M'Naghten's Case* and instructed the jury that they must be satisfied of the murder and that the prisoner must satisfy them of his insanity. The Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria refused Sodeman leave to appeal.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the defence of insanity were adequate. Specifically, the court considered whether the judge had correctly placed the onus of proof on the accused for the defence of insanity, and whether the jury had been adequately instructed on the standard of proof required for that defence, particularly in light of the distinction between the Crown's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the accused's burden. The court also considered whether the judge's explanation of insanity, particularly in relation to uncontrollable impulses, was sufficient and in accordance with established legal principles.
A majority of the High Court (Latham C.J. and Starke J.) held that the accused bore the onus of satisfying the jury of his insanity, but not beyond reasonable doubt. They found that the trial judge's summing up was adequate and unlikely to have misled the jury into believing that insanity had to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Dixon and Evatt JJ. dissented, holding the contrary view. The Court was equally divided, and therefore special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria was refused. The Privy Council subsequently also refused to grant special leave to appeal.