Automatism vs Insanity — MRCPsych Paper B MCQ
Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.
Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.
Reveal the answer and explanation
Correct answer: D — Episode 1 is non-insane automatism with complete acquittal; episode 2 is insanity with a special verdict because its cause is internal.
Explanation lettering: E = shown as A · C = shown as B · A = shown as C · B = shown as D · D = shown as E
B is correct. Once complete involuntariness is established, English law distinguishes non-insane automatism from insanity principally by causation. Transient concussion from an unexpected blow is an external factor and may support non-insane automatism, producing a complete acquittal. Epilepsy is treated as an internal disease of the mind; because the stem also establishes the required M'Naghten defect of reason and lack of knowledge of the act's nature and quality, the Crown Court outcome is the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. A is wrong because complete loss of control alone does not determine classification. C wrongly assumes that a neurological condition cannot be a legal disease of mind. D overstates the meaning of medically explained involuntariness, while E ignores the internal–external causal distinction.
Reference: Law Commission, Fourteenth Programme of Law Reform, section 'The Defence of Insanity', paragraphs 2.13–2.16 and footnote 14, 2025. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b95657b0a373a01819fdec/14th_programme_-_with_covers_for_web_and_digital_laying.pdf