INTRODUCTION: One way to understand the “automatism defense” that applies under common law is to have a full knowledge of its use. The nature, scope and what may constitute automatism as a defense will be examined as well as its limits by the courts and defense reforms. Automatism is a legal defense in which an individual has no conscious knowledge of their actions. Lord Denning's definition of authority in Bratty v Attorney General says that automatism is an act performed by the muscles without any control of the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or an action performed by a person without having any control awareness. In other words, it is an act performed involuntarily, without any physical constraint. It is a complete defense against any offense. The defense of automatism had been distinguished into two types such as: “Crazy” and “non-crazy” automatism for reasons of public policy. Insane automatism, also called the insanity defense, dates back to 1843 and the so-called "M'Naughten rules" that govern the defense. According to this rule, the accused, at the time of the offense, suffers from a defect of reason caused by mental illness and did not know that the nature of the act was legally wrong. The test for this defense is legal and not medically recognized as in the Sullivan case. A successful plea for this type of automatism is a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity", leaving the court with the power to detain and enter an order of suspension in a hospital for the protection of the public and the charge The burden of proof lies with the defendant. Whereas non-insane automatism, sometimes called automatism, is a defense applicable to any offense and concerns the complete loss of voluntary control. Loss of control must not be self-induced when claiming ...... middle of paper ...... and mental disorders. The defense must be based on the lack of understanding and self-control skills. Some reforms could be the exemption from prior fault and the placement of intoxication cases under its control and not under that of the defense.CONCLUSIONThe defense of automatism has given rise to problems of anomalies which seem quite difficult to resolve . The defense aims to protect the public from diseases that may recur. However, there seems to be some doubt that the court did not take into account these political considerations in trying to differentiate one type of automatism from others in order to restrict the possibility of granting a simple acquittal. The restriction was achieved through the doctrine of factors, but it is still not as reliable due to the difficulty in producing and this has raised the possible idea of ​​reforming the law by the Law Commission and legal academics..