Prices for Custom Writing
within 5 days $17.95 per page within 3 days $19.95 per page within 48 hours $21.95 per page within 24 hours $25.95 per page within 12 hours $29.95 per page within 6 hours $38.95 per page
Service Features
  • Original and quality writing
  • 24/7 qualified support
  • Lifetime discounts
  • 300 words/page
  • Double-spaced, 12 pt. Arial
  • Any writing format
  • Any topic
  • Fully referenced
  • 100% Confidentiality
  • Free title page
  • Free outline
  • Free bibliography
  • Free unlimited revisions
Affordable Student Services

Sign-up for over 800,000 original essays & term papers

Buy original essay on any topic

The distinction between insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility in the Laws of England and Wales. Covers the M'Naghten rule which is also a dominant rule in US legal doctrine.

Title: The distinction between insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility in the Laws of England and Wales. Covers the M'Naghten rule which is also a dominant rule in US legal doctrine.
Category: /Law & Government/Law Issues
Details: Words: 2940 | Pages: 11 (approximately 235 words/page)
The distinction between insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility in the Laws of England and Wales. Covers the M'Naghten rule which is also a dominant rule in US legal doctrine.
"The defendant who seeks to avoid criminal liability on the basis that s/he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged crime must have a defence that falls within one of the following, legally recognised, categories: Insanity, Diminished Responsibility or Automatism. While, at one level or another, these "mental disorder defences" share common characteristics, they each differ significantly. Unfortunately, this point does not appear to be fully appreciated in English …showed first 75 words of 2940 total…
You are viewing only a small portion of the paper.
Please login or register to access the full copy.
…showed last 75 words of 2940 total…Insanity – Sleepwalking and Statutory Reform C.L.J. 1991, 50(3), 386-388 Cases 1. Alphacell [1972] 2 All ER 475 2. Burgess [1991] 2 W.L.R. 106 C.O.A. (Criminal Division) 3. Byrne [1960] 3 All ER 1 4. Cooper v. McKenna [1960] Q.L.R 406 5. Hennessy (1989) 89 Cr.App.R 10, CA 6. Kemp [1956] 3 All ER 249; [1957] 1 Q.B.399 7. M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 C & F, 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718. 8. Quick and Paddison [1973] Q.B. 910 9. Seers [1985] Crim.L.R, 315 10. Sullivan [1984] A.C. 156 (House of Lords) 11. Tandy [1988] Crim.L.R 308 12. Tolson (1889) Legislation 1. Homicide Act. 1957. 2. Trial of Lunatics Act 1883

Need a custom written paper?

Buy a custom written essay and get 20% OFF the first order