(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. HAROUN ISMAIL MOHAMED

AC-CP-522-1966

Principles

·  Evidence-Insanity—Burden on accused to prove insanity squarely does not mean beyond reasonable doubt—Criminal Court Circular. No. 3—It is sufficient to be proved as the standard of civil suits

The burden to prove the defence of insanity lies squarely on the accused, according to Criminal Court Circular. No. 3 does not mean to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient to establish the defence as the standard of probabilities as in the case of civil suits.

Judgment

Salah E. Hassan J. (By authority of the Chief Justice), October 1, 1966: —I have decided to confirm the finding and the order of reference.

The evidence is overwhelming that accused set the house on fire.

The onus of satisfying the court that the accused did the act complained of, because on account of mental infirmity he could not appreciate the nature of his acts or control them, lies squarely on the acctised (Criminal Court Circular, No. 3). Whatever squarely may mean in this context, the Sudan cases, e.g., Sudan Government v. Musa Adam ishag (1958) S.L.J.R. I, do not suggest that it means that the burden on the defence is .to establish it beyond reasonable doubt and I take it that it would suffice the defence to rely on the civil standard of burden of proof. And in this case the evidence heard is enough to establish the issue of insanity in favour of accused. Seemingly accused had a history of mental instability and suffered from schizophrenia; that was a complete answer to the charge.

Editor’s Note: See Sudan Government v. Khidir Abdalla El Hussein, AC-CP-2o4- (1966) S.L.J.R. no.