R v Sodeman
1936 · 2 All ER 1138; Victoria
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Arnold Sodeman was in Victoria of the murder of a girl. He had killed three other girls. His defence was insanity. The trial judge directed the jury that he had to prove that defence, and that if the evidence left them in doubt he was to be convicted.
- Issue
- To what standard must an accused prove insanity?
- Held
- The Privy Council dismissed the appeal. Insanity must be proved by the accused on the . A direction that leaves the jury thinking they convict if they are merely left in doubt about sanity is too high a standard, but on these facts the Board was not persuaded there had been a miscarriage.
- Principle
- Where the accused bears a , the standard is the balance of probabilities, not proof .
- Why it matters
- It is the authority for the standard on insanity. Carr-Briant applies the same standard to a statutory reverse burden.
Words and Latin in this note
- Balance of probabilities
- The standard of proof in civil cases, and the standard when an accused bears a legal burden: the court asks whether something is more likely than not to have happened. Open the note.
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- The high standard of proof in criminal cases: the prosecution must prove guilt so that the tribunal is sure. It is short of certainty, and it is not a mere shadow of a doubt. Open the note.
- Legal burden
- The obligation to prove a fact to the required standard, or lose on that issue. In crime it is on the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, except for insanity and a statutory exception, which the accused proves on the balance of probabilities. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.