Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ignorance of the law as a defense

  • 19-08-2012 12:49pm
    #1
    Just Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74 ✭✭


    I have often heard that ignorance of the law is no defense. How does that work? for instance, if someone genuinely believes that they are Insured to drive another car on an insurance policy. and following an accident, end up in court, when the insurance company refuses cover. How might that defense be viewed?


Comments

  • #2
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Just Jack wrote: »
    I have often heard that ignorance of the law is no defense. How does that work? for instance, if someone genuinely believes that they are Insured to drive another car on an insurance policy. and following an accident, end up in court, when the insurance company refuses cover. How might that defense be viewed?

    Insurance is a strict liability offence in other words unlike a lot of offences mens rea is not required. You are either insured or not if not then guilty. There are a few defences one of which is you are employed and driving the vehicle under instruction of employer.

    The issue of ignorance of the law is not being able to raise as a defence that you did not know a certain law existed, an example saying I had no insurance but I did not believe I needed it because I did not know it was illegal to drive with out it.

    Another example of ignorance of the law is a 18 year old boy has sex with a 16 year old girl because he thinks that's the age of consent is 16, knowing the girl is 16 he may not be able to raise the defence of ignorance of the law as the age of consent is 17.


  • #3
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Probably a bit off topic but this is one of the reasons the Constitution does not allow the delegation of legislation - except in narrow terms. The idea being that if ministers can amend primary legislation it becomes difficult for the citizens to keep track. As if it wasn't already.

    I suppose what I'm trying to say is - the facilities are there for one to check.


  • #4
    loremolis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 944 ✭✭✭loremolis


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Insurance is a strict liability offence in other words unlike a lot of offences mens rea is not required. You are either insured or not if not then guilty. There are a few defences one of which is you are employed and driving the vehicle under instruction of employer.

    The issue of ignorance of the law is not being able to raise as a defence that you did not know a certain law existed, an example saying I had no insurance but I did not believe I needed it because I did not know it was illegal to drive with out it.

    Another example of ignorance of the law is a 18 year old boy has sex with a 16 year old girl because he thinks that's the age of consent is 16, knowing the girl is 16 he may not be able to raise the defence of ignorance of the law as the age of consent is 17.

    I understand the 'ignorance is no defence' argument being invalid in situations like insurance and under age sex. These are clear and valid examples.

    What about in situations where the law isn't so clear, so well know or is possibly technical in nature?

    Are there any situations or cases that you know of where ignorance of the law is a valid defence?


  • #5
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    loremolis wrote: »
    I understand the 'ignorance is no defence' argument being invalid in situations like insurance and under age sex. These are clear and valid examples.

    The law as it stands on underage sex is hardly clear, intuitive or non-technical to be fair.


  • #6
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Probably a bit off topic but this is one of the reasons the Constitution does not allow the delegation of legislation - except in narrow terms. The idea being that if ministers can amend primary legislation it becomes difficult for the citizens to keep track. As if it wasn't already.

    I suppose what I'm trying to say is - the facilities are there for one to check.

    More of an Art. 15 discussion one would have thought, vires. In re. John Grace Fried Chicken test per Feeney J.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Tom Young wrote: »
    More of an Art. 15 discussion one would have thought, vires. In re. John Grace Fried Chicken test per Feeney J.

    Yep - think you might have guessed what I was procrastarevising when the thread came up :D


  • #8
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    loremolis wrote: »
    I understand the 'ignorance is no defence' argument being invalid in situations like insurance and under age sex. These are clear and valid examples.

    What about in situations where the law isn't so clear, so well know or is possibly technical in nature?

    Are there any situations or cases that you know of where ignorance of the law is a valid defence?

    You have brought up a slightly different issue. If the law is unclear well then statutory interpretation says the law must be interpreted to the benefit of the accused. In that situation it's not ignorance of the law but a clear misunderstanding.

    An interesting area where the law is very technical in nature is fisheries law, it's a huge area of very technical law, with scientific ways of measuring nets etc. there is the added problem of a lot of the legislation originally drafted in French and say then legislation passed in Ireland in English and say in Spain in Spanish. Then add a Spanish boat where the captain only speaks Spanish fishing in Irish waters. Said Captain believes he is operating correctly under the Spanish law, but he is not under the Irish law. I know very complicated, but if the law is clear in Ireland then ignorance of the Law may not be a Defence, I say maybe because I believe the CCA has or is about to decide this issue.


  • #9
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    The law as it stands on underage sex is hardly clear, intuitive or non-technical to be fair.

    So very very true.


  • #10
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Another example of ignorance of the law is a 18 year old boy has sex with a 16 year old girl because he thinks that's the age of consent is 16, knowing the girl is 16 he may not be able to raise the defence of ignorance of the law as the age of consent is 17.

    What if he meet her in a nightclub, he never asked her age, just assumed she was 18

    Everyone in Ireland knows the drinking age limit and you need to be 18 to be in the nightclub. You meet someone there, you should be able to confidently assume they are old enough to be there

    It later turns out she was 16, she got in with fake ID, the pair of them never discussed ages but boom, he gets charged

    Surely that's a defence?
    Sorry, if I've gone offtopic


  • #11
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    What if he meet her in a nightclub, he never asked her age, just assumed she was 18

    Everyone in Ireland knows the drinking age limit and you need to be 18 to be in the nightclub

    It later turns out she was 16, boom and he gets charged

    Surely that's a defence?
    Sorry, if I've gone offtopic

    Well thats partly the reason why the original legislation got over turned as it did not allow for reasonable belief of age. At least thats my cack handed understanding of it. Was that A v Gov. Arbour Hill btw or have I got my cases mixed up again.

    Not really ignorance of the law though.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Not really ignorance of the law though.

    Yeah sorry, bit of a thread hijack :o


  • #13
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    What if he meet her in a nightclub, he never asked her age, just assumed she was 18

    Everyone in Ireland knows the drinking age limit and you need to be 18 to be in the nightclub. You meet someone there, you should be able to confidently assume they are old enough to be there

    It later turns out she was 16, she got in with fake ID, the pair of them never discussed ages but boom, he gets charged

    Surely that's a defence?
    Sorry, if I've gone offtopic

    Yes that is a defence, the defence of honest mistake. The Criminal Law Sexual offences Act 2006 replaced the earlier s 1.1 of Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 which was found to be unconstitutional In the CC case. I was clear in my example the the person knew the age of the girl.


  • #14
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,632 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    It looks likely that there will be a high profile trial on a strict liability matter soon - a s60 Companies Act financial assistance case involving certain former directors of Anglo Irish Bank. It will be a bit of a landmark for some of the major solicitors firms too as the transactions in question will have involved a large number of lawyers on both sides prior to the transactions having been incepted.

    I suspect the issue will turn on the ny effective defence available - that the transactions were in the ordinary course of the bank's business. It's highly unusual for matters involving such indents advance legal consideration to be the matter of charges not to mind a trial.


  • #15
    234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Well thats partly the reason why the original legislation got over turned as it did not allow for reasonable belief of age. At least thats my cack handed understanding of it. Was that A v Gov. Arbour Hill btw or have I got my cases mixed up again.

    Not really ignorance of the law though.

    What you need to remember is that there is a distinction between ignorance of the law and ignorance of a fact that is an ingredient of an offence. Here the defendnat is not saying that he did not know that it was illegal to have sex with a 16 year old, just that he did not know here age. That raises whe separate issue of strict liability offences.


Advertisement