Sodeman v the King

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.