Sodeman v R [1936] HCA 75

Sodeman v R [1936] HCA 75

While the burden of proving insanity rests upon the accused, the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities. The summing up was held adequate by some members of the court; others considered it insufficient, as it may have misled the jury regarding the requisite standard. The law does not treat irresistible impulse alone as a defence, but such evidence may be relevant to lack of cognitive capacity. On an equally divided court, special leave to appeal was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Arnold Karl Sodeman; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court (refused); Subsequent Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Privy Council (refused)
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused; Privy Council petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Insanity Defence, Burden of Proof, Irresistible Impulse, Jury Directions, Evidentiary Standards, Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence, Standard of Proof in Criminal and Civil Cases
Criminal Law Insanity Defence Burden of Proof Irresistible Impulse Jury Directions Evidentiary Standards Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence Standard of Proof in Criminal and Civil Cases

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arnold Karl Sodeman

Applicant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court (refused); Subsequent Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Privy Council (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the direction to the jury regarding the standard and burden of proof for insanity was correct
  2. 2 Whether irresistible impulse constitutes a defence of insanity under Australian law
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge sufficiently explained the legal principles of insanity to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

While the burden of proving insanity rests upon the accused, the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities. The summing up was held adequate by some members of the court; others considered it insufficient, as it may have misled the jury regarding the requisite standard. The law does not treat irresistible impulse alone as a defence, but such evidence may be relevant to lack of cognitive capacity. On an equally divided court, special leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused; Privy Council petition dismissed