Ignorance of the Law

karlitob

General query

Obviously, there are an awful lot of laws. And clearly, a normal citizen - and even solicitors - can’t know all of them. If you did break a law, could ignorance that that law existed be a valid defence?

Esel

From Wikipedia

>Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not" and "ignorance of law excuses no one" respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058205051/ignorance-of-the-law

No, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for any offence, it is the long held position since the R vs Bailey [1800] Russ & Ry 1 case, with theoretical and historical underpinnings traced back to at least the R vs Bishop of Chichester [1365] YB Pasch 7, 39 Ed 3 case and ancient Roman law.

There are very few exceptions to the maxim, indeed there is only one - officially induced error/mistake of fact, but officially induced error is not a defence known to law, rather it is a procedural issue.

karlitob

Thanks for that. It’s very interesting.

I get it and all but it does seem a little unfair that it can’t even be considered a defence. Is there an academic debate in the literature that it is unfair in some cases, do you know?

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117783698#Comment_117783698

Very few serious academics will argue it is unfair because they know the reasoning behind the maxim, justification for such a rule is not made on the basis of fairness, but rather on the basis of necessity.

Imagine if we could successfully raise such a defence - the chaos that would unfold in the courts with the prospect that it would be near impossible for the prosecution to prove what you knew.

karlitob

Understood. I take the point. Thanks for your time in responding.