Before I posted the thread was moving in a direction which focused on intent as mens rea, in fact using them almost synonymously, it was merely a warning not to think of them as synonymous that I orginally posted.
I have to take some of the blame for that, as I am personally focused on satisfying the fault element with intent. In my case, I'm looking at motive as the basis for forming intent.
Motive, as we all know, can be loosely defined as having a "desired outcome". If a person achieves that desired outcome through criminal means, then it can be established that the person acted with deliberate intent. Thus satisfying the "guilty mind" element.
The summary you give of mens rea above is fairly good. But the second condition is anything but clear, especially the subjective element. Merely because a judge or jury might have known that a certain action would occur does not mean most reasonable persons would have known, and trial judges must weigh such a consideration.
That's why there's the assumption that the accused is of average intelligence and capable of understanding the concept of cause and effect. If an accused person is not capable of understanding cause and effect, then it could be argued that the accused is not criminally responsible. Generally it would be the defense attorney who would raise the issue of criminal responsibility, and the accused would be sent for a psychiatric assessment to determine if he/she understood the nature of his/her crimes and/or whether he/she was fit to stand trial.
