Editing Mens rea (section)

== Relevance of motive ==
One of the mental components often raised in issue is that of [[Motive (law)|motive]]. If the accused admits to having a motive consistent with the elements of foresight and desire, this will add to the level of probability that the actual outcome was intended (it makes the prosecution case more [[credibility|credible]]). But if there is clear evidence that the accused had a different motive, this may decrease the probability that he or she desired the actual outcome. In such a situation, the motive may become subjective evidence that the accused did not intend, but was reckless or willfully blind.

Motive cannot normally be a defense. If, for example, a person breaks into a laboratory used for the testing of pharmaceuticals on animals, the question of guilt is determined by the presence of an ''actus reus'', i.e. entry without consent and damage to property, and a ''mens rea'', i.e. intention to enter and cause the damage. That the person might have had a clearly articulated political motive to protest such testing does not affect liability. If motive has any relevance, this may be addressed in the [[Sentence (law)|sentencing]] part of the trial, when the court considers what [[punishment]], if any, is appropriate.

Rarely, a motive may amount to a defence if it is specifically allowed in law,<ref>For example, in England and Wales, parking on a cycle path is normally illegal, but not for the purpose of responding to an emergency: {{cite legislation UK|type=act|year=1998|chapter=52|act=Road Traffic Act 1998|section=21}}</ref> or is protected as a right (for example, if a conviction for crimes committed during a protest would unduly interfere with free speech rights; see ''[[DPP v Ziegler]]'').