Police officers of the UK, do you ever actually get a "Full Poirot"?

'Guilty Mind' is how my lecturers translated it, with Actus Rea being 'Guilty Act'. Examples: For theft, the Actus Rea is taking property that belongs to someone else, the Mens Rea is doing it dsihinestly and with the intent to permently deprive them of it (i,.e. not intending to give their stuff back.) I recall our lecturer explaining it on the basis hthat if you take a random bke, you likely fulfil both criteria, however, if you 'borrow' your mates bike, even without their permission, you don't have the necessary mens rea becasue youdon't inded to permenently reprive them of it. If you take someone else's bike becaue it's the same as yous and you pick up the wrong one, you don't have the necessary mens rea becasue there was no dsihinesty. Mens rea is normally able to be inferred from your acts - e.g. if you stab someone you will have a hard time arguing you did not intend to cause them serious harm, on the other hand if you are appearing on stsge and shot someone with a prop gun which turns out to have been loaded, you probably could argue that you did not intend to hurt tehem (at least unless and until the cops find your igerprints on the bullets :) ) A abive, s strict liabiliy offence is one where there is no requirement for any intent or mens rea, but there may still be a defence to that kind of offence (I belive, for example, that the offence of driving without insurnace is a strict liability offence but there is a defence if you are an employee drving your employers vehicle for work and you did not know / had no reason to belive that you were not insured . I think there are also situation wehre you might be found to have committed a srict liability offence but that the court would not impose any penelty for it, althoguh I think that the poster abivove is right and duress would be a defence either wy.