6. Hennessy and Quick were both cases relating to insanity and diabetes, choose the correct relationship of these two offences and insanity...

In 'Hennessy' it was ruled that if the diabetes/disease affects the mind it is within the rules of insanity. In 'Quick' it was ruled that if the effect of a drug/insulin causes the defendant to act that way then it does not come under insanity.
In the case of 'Hennessy' it was decided that if the defect of reason is caused by the effect of a drug/insulin then it comes under the defence of intoxication. In 'Quick' it was decided that if the defect of reason is caused by a disease that effects the limbs it does not come under Insanity.
In 'Hennessy' it was ruled that if the defendant acts that way because of the drug/insulin then it does not come under insanity. In 'Quick' it was established that if the diabetes/disease affects the defendants mind then it does come under insanity.

7. What case does the following statement relate too...'If the defendant knows what he has done is legally wrong then he is not insane by the M'Naghten Rules'?

Mere absent-mindedness or confusion is not insanity.
If defendant knows that what he has done is legally wrong then he is not insane by the M'Naghten rules.
If defendants actions are caused by the effect of insulin/drugs then he is not insane.

The condition must affect mental reasoning, memory and understanding.
The condition must affect the defendants ability to excersize his own self-control.
If sleep-walking is the condition then the cause must be internal.