Ignorantia juris non excusat

Carawaystick

How does this principle stack up against a law that is deliberately secret?

say for an eu regulationthat states
"In accordance with Article 1 the annex is secret and shall not be published in the Official Journal of the European Union."
yet citizens are expected to comply with this law. This would appear to skate close to Kafka.
Are there other examples of secret laws and what justification is used to justify them?

All I can think of is membership of a banned organisation can be proven by the secret knowledge of a Garda super, but that's a very narrow set of circumstances and we know the actual law here, just the knowledge held by the gardai is secret.

Rhonda9000

Carawaystick wrote:

How does this principle stack up against a law that is deliberately secret?

say for an eu regulationthat states
"In accordance with Article 1 the annex is secret and shall not be published in the Official Journal of the European Union."
yet citizens are expected to comply with this law. This would appear to skate close to Kafka.
Are there other examples of secret laws and what justification is used to justify them?

All I can think of is membership of a banned organisation can be proven by the secret knowledge of a Garda super, but that's a very narrow set of circumstances and we know the actual law here, just the knowledge held by the gardai is secret.

I dont know but...

Perhaps the (secret) laws aren't applicable to citizens in the normal sense? Maybe they're effect is confined to e.g. employees of a state body?

Or perhaps the laws are targeting universal crimes..

johnnyskeleton

What is this secret annex to an eu regulation?

I can't think of any secret laws, although there are still some pre 1922 statutes and common law offences which are still active but which are not that easy to come across.

Tom Young

Well this is quite a philosophical question. Depends on your school of thought really and indeed interpretation of the constitution. Secret laws I would assume fall fould of the Irish Constitution and indeed the shield in Article 29 of same.

You could take a leaf from some other jurists and say: Lex Injusta Non Obligat. The basis being the difference between a just law and an unjust law.

I could spout for hours about the differences between natural law and positivism and indeed more contemporary jurists in relation to Jurisprudence but it possibly wouldn't address the question.

I have always wondered about the precise mechanics of private members bills in Ireland, and their outputs.

Rhonda9000

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What is this secret annex to an eu regulation?

I can't think of any secret laws, although there are still some pre 1922 statutes and common law offences which are still active but which are not that easy to come across.

The phrase is used in:
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1862/2006 of 15 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security.

.. "in order to prevent acts of unlawful interference ... No 622/2003 should be secret and should not be published. The same rule necessarily applies to any amending act."


ANNEX

In accordance with Article 1 the Annex is secret and shall not be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Rhonda9000

If this is just some procedural process laying down the rules for aviation security I doubt the everyday citizen could be hauled up for breaking it, as enforcing the regulation is not their concern but the concern of e.g. airport officials?

Carawaystick

but citizens are forced to give up their property, either truly forced to give it up or prevented from flying if they refuse to give over their property to airport security at some airports in Ireland if they want to carry certain substances with them, but the basis for the rule is hidden....

I mean likely scenario(fictional)
arrive at airport security with 101ml of distilled water
"sorry you can't bring that, check it in or it will be confiscated"
Why? what law says that I can't bring my 101ml of water?
....
Can't tell ya, it's a secret. Just trust me...


What would the penalties be for refusing to obey security staff?
Would something like failing to follow directions from a guard apply?

It just seems very close to star chamber stuff.

Tom Young

Is that not similar to the signs on display in Dublin and Shannon airports purporting to advise passengers that they are "now on US soil" ....I don't think so.

johnnyskeleton

Carawaystick wrote:

It just seems very close to star chamber stuff.

HEY! EU bashing is one thing, but don't knock the court of star chamber. Very important in the history of our court system.

The principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat doesn't necessarily translate into ignorance of the law doesn't excuse, it is more of a fancy way of saying that it is presumed that every citizen knows the law. This presumption could possibly be rebutted by strong evidence to the effect that the person did not know the law because it was secret (as opposed to they didn't know because they were too lazy or stupid to know the law).

So it might be worth a punt as a defence if a prosecution arises from such a scenario.

The only thing that I would say is that as it is eu law isn't the same as domestic law and (in my hazy, unreliable memory) I don't think that criminal offences can have direct effect, nor does it apply as between private citizens/bodies (in Ireland anyways). The only people who can enforce such laws would be the private bodies effected by it, and they can only enforce it against the government.

But that's not what this thread is about, so "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". George Bush said that.

IANAL (hullaballoo's test a/c)

It was Castle Chamber here, not Star Chamber. It was very important at the time, and was actually a clever enough jurisdiction to have running.