Im confused. Whats the difference between insane and non insane automatism? And what are the M'Naughten Rule?

Besides, I want to know that once an accused succeeds in his armour of automatism , is he acquitted ? And what about if the accuse succeeds in the defence of insanity, is he acquit or he is sent to mental assylum ? And one more thing.... I enjoy noticed in few cases, why does the accuse raise the defene of automatism rather than Insane ? And yeaaa..... an alternative Question .. what is convulsion... concussion and reflex action and spasm ? IM CONFUSED!! I need assistance :(
1. Automatism is an absolute defence. If it succeeds the Defendant is acquit.
2. If the Defendant succeeds in a defence of Insanity, he will be found "Not Guilty by use of insanity" and may well be sent to a secure mental hospital.
3. There is a fundamental difference between Automatism and Insanity. Put within the simplest terms, legal insanity must arise from some internal impose, where as Automatism must arise from an external cause.
4. The M'Naghten Rules are the 19th Century formulation of "Insanity", still the font of the modern law on insanity.
5. All of the things you list are instances where on earth a person's body moves out of control, for example during an epileptic fit or because of an electric shock.
I hope these links make it adjectives clearer. A person who is insane will be assessed on remand and found unfit to stand trial and will simply sectioned below the Mental Health Act.

Automatism is a very rare safeguard, but if a person did act while sleep walking or have been hypnotised he would have to be acquit as not having been competent to form the necessary mens rea.…

Related Questions: