Ignorance Of The Law: A Valid Defense Strategy?

Ignorance of the law is generally not a valid defense, as it is assumed that people are aware of the laws and cannot use ignorance as an excuse. This principle, known as ignorantia juris non excusat in Latin, is based on the idea that laws are publicly known and accessible, and accepting ignorance as a defense would create chaos and undermine the legal system's stability. However, there are limited circumstances where ignorance of the law may be considered a legitimate defense, such as when a new law has been passed without sufficient time for the public to become aware or when specific intent is required for a crime.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence

Ignorance of the law is a legal defence in very limited circumstances. The general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defence. This principle, known as ignorantia juris non excusat in Latin, is essential to the functioning of the legal system, which assumes that laws are publicly known and accessible. If ignorance were an acceptable defence, it could create chaos and undermine the system's stability and predictability.

The principle of ignorantia juris non excusat is based on the idea that laws have been made known to the public by the government through various sources such as journals, newspapers, printed publications, and online platforms. Therefore, citizens are expected to understand and act according to the laws within their jurisdiction. However, there may be limited circumstances where ignorance of the law can be presented as a legitimate defence.

For example, ignorance of the law may be considered a valid defence if a new law has been passed without sufficient time for the public to become aware of it. In such cases, ignorance may be a defence if the law is not well-publicised or widely known. Additionally, specific intent crimes, where the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a particular harmful act, may allow for an ignorance defence if the defendant was unaware that their actions constituted a crime.

In certain jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the general rule. For instance, under U.S. Federal criminal tax law, the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code has been recognised as a valid legal defence for those who acted in good faith but had a misunderstanding of the tax law. Similarly, in early English law, a seaman who shot someone while at sea was pardoned because the law had changed during his time away, and he could not have known of the change.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

The concept of ignorantia juris non excusat comes from Roman law, where law was learned through participation in the culture and customs of the community. These customs had rules that reasonable people would know, and ignorance was not a defence. However, ignorance of civil rules that were not common sense was a defence for women, young men, soldiers, peasants, and people legally declared incompetent.

In criminal law, ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, but it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in a Canadian case, a person was charged with possession of gambling devices after being advised by customs officials that it was legal to import them into Canada. Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge. In another case, four hunters in British Columbia were acquitted of game offences because the law had been changed while they were hunting in the wilderness.

In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. For example, under US federal criminal tax law, the element of willfulness required by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code has been ruled to correspond to a "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty" under which an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law" is a valid legal defence. Additionally, in Lambert v. California (1957), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person unaware of a malum prohibitum law cannot be convicted of violating it if there was no probability that they could have known the law existed. However, this exception does not apply when a reasonable person would expect their actions to be regulated, such as when possessing narcotics or dangerous weapons.

Ignorance as a defence in specific intent crimes

The general principle is that ignorance of the law is not a defence in criminal law. This principle is often expressed in Latin as ignorantia juris non excusat ("ignorance of the law excuses not") or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"). The rationale is that if ignorance were a defence, anyone charged with a crime could claim ignorance to avoid liability.

However, there are limited circumstances where ignorance of the law can be a defence. For example, ignorance of the law may be a defence if a new law has been passed without sufficient time for the public to become aware of it. In such cases, the defendant must show that there was no way they could have reasonably known about the existence of the law.

Ignorance of the law can also be a defence in specific intent crimes. Specific intent crimes require prosecutors to prove that the defendant intended to commit the act and had an intent or purpose beyond the act itself. Examples include arson, burglary, embezzlement, robbery, forgery, and conspiracy. In these cases, ignorance of the law can be a defence if it negates the requisite intent.

In addition, ignorance of the law may be a defence if the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in a Canadian case, a person was charged with possessing gambling devices after being advised by customs officials that it was legal to import them. Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.

Finally, in some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a defence. For example, under US federal criminal tax law, the element of willfulness required by the Internal Revenue Code has been interpreted to correspond to a "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty". Therefore, an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law" can be a valid legal defence.

Mistake of fact vs. mistake of law

Ignorance of the law is generally not a viable defense in court. The rationale behind this is that if ignorance were a valid defense, anyone charged with a criminal offense could claim they were unaware of the law in question to escape liability. The legal principle of ignorantia juris non excusat ("ignorance of the law excuses not") reflects this.

However, there are limited circumstances in which ignorance of the law can be used as a defense. For example, if a new law has been passed and the public has not been given sufficient time to become aware of it, ignorance may be a valid defense. Mistake of fact can also be a valid defense in many cases.

Mistake of fact refers to a legal defense where the defendant shows that they did not have the intent to commit a crime because they misunderstood a particular fact. For instance, if an individual is charged with larceny but believed that the property they took was rightfully theirs, this misunderstanding negates any intent to deprive another of their property. This mistake must be honest and reasonable, and the defendant must not have known the true situation. Mistake of fact defenses can be used in either misdemeanor or felony cases, but they do not apply to every type of crime.

Mistake of law, on the other hand, is a defense that the defendant misunderstood or was ignorant of the law as it existed at the time. This defense is rarely allowed and only applies in very limited circumstances. For example, a defendant may be able to argue that they were unaware of some obscure traffic law. Mistake of law can be used as a defense when the defendant relied on a law or statute that was later deemed unconstitutional or when the defendant relied on an applicable official's interpretation.

Exceptions to the rule

While ignorance of the law is generally not considered a valid defense, there are indeed exceptions to this rule.

Firstly, in the case of specific intent crimes, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a particular harmful act, such as robbery, forgery, arson, or burglary. If the person who committed the crime was unaware that their actions were considered a crime, there may be room for a valid defense of ignorance because specific intent was not clear or present.

Secondly, ignorance of the law may be considered a valid defense if a brand new law has been passed and the public is not given sufficient time to be aware of it. In such cases, ignorance can be a valid defense until the law is no longer new and most citizens are aware of the changes.

Thirdly, in some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. For example, under U.S. Federal criminal tax law, the element of willfulness required by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code has been ruled to correspond to a "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty". Therefore, an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law" is a valid legal defense.

Lastly, in some cases, ignorance of civil rules that were not common sense was considered a defense for women, young men, soldiers, peasants, and people legally declared incompetent.

Frequently asked questions