Ignorance Of The Law: A Valid Defense Strategy?

The legal principle of ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat, derived from Roman law, asserts that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. In other words, if someone breaks a law, they are liable even if they were unaware of the law's existence. This principle is based on the rationale that allowing ignorance as an excuse would encourage false claims of ignorance to avoid legal consequences. While it is unreasonable to expect everyone to know every law, it is assumed that people are familiar with generally recognised wrongs, such as violence and dishonesty. This principle has been upheld in various court cases, but there are also exceptions, such as when a law is unclear or when a person has good intentions.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

The legal principle of ignorantia juris non excusat ("ignorance of the law excuses not") or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one") is derived from Roman law. Essentially, it means that if someone breaks the law, they are liable even if they were unaware of the law being broken. This is because, if ignorance were a valid excuse, anyone charged with a criminal offence or civil lawsuit could simply claim that they were unaware of the law in question to avoid liability.

However, this does not mean that everyone is expected to be a legal expert and know every law. Rather, it means that people cannot defend their actions by claiming that they were unaware of the law. The government has a duty to appropriately disseminate new laws to the public and make them publicly accessible. In criminal law, ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, but it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly when the law is unclear or when the defendant sought advice from relevant authorities.

There are some exceptions to the rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. For example, in the 1957 case of Lambert v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's failure to register as a felon after moving to Los Angeles could not be considered a crime because she was unaware of the ordinance requiring her to register, and there was no proof that she was likely to have known about it. Another exception is when a law is particularly complex, such as certain tax laws, ignorance may be considered a valid excuse.

In certain crimes, a defendant must have had a certain mental state in order to be convicted. If the crime requires that the defendant knew that their conduct was unlawful, and the defendant did not know that their conduct was unlawful, then ignorance of the law can be a defence because an element of the offence cannot be proven.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

The legal principle of 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), or 'Ignorantia legis neminem excusat' ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), is derived from Roman law. In other words, it means that a person who is unaware of a law may still be held liable for violating that law. The rationale behind this doctrine is that if ignorance were a valid excuse, anyone charged with a criminal offence or a subject of a civil lawsuit could simply claim that they were unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if they genuinely knew what the law was.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the Internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In criminal law, ignorance of the law 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.

While the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defence, there are exceptions. Certain crimes require, as an element, that the defendant had a certain mental state in order to be convicted. Therefore, if a crime requires that the defendant knew they were in violation of the law at the time of the offence, and the defendant did not know their conduct was unlawful, the necessary mental state does not exist. In this limited circumstance, ignorance of the law would be a complete defence because an element of the offence cannot be proven.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat

The legal principle of 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' or 'Ignorantia legis neminem excusat' (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not" or "ignorance of law excuses no one") holds that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content. In other words, ignorance of the law is generally not a valid defence for breaking it. This principle is derived from Roman law and is intended to prevent people from avoiding liability by claiming ignorance of the law.

The rationale behind this doctrine is that if ignorance were an acceptable excuse, individuals could easily escape punishment for criminal offences or civil lawsuits by simply asserting their lack of knowledge about the law in question. This would undermine the rule of law and the administration of justice. The doctrine assumes that laws have been properly promulgated, meaning they have been published, distributed, and made accessible to the public.

However, it is important to note that this principle does not require individuals to memorise every single law. Instead, it is based on the presumption that individuals are familiar with generally recognised wrongs, such as violence and dishonesty, as well as community standards based on their lived experience. Additionally, the government has a responsibility to appropriately disseminate new laws and make them publicly accessible.

While ignorance of the law is not a defence, there may be limited circumstances where it can be considered. For example, in criminal law, ignorance of the law can be a mitigating factor during sentencing, especially when the law is unclear or when the defendant sought advice from authorities. Additionally, certain crimes may require the defendant to have a specific mental state or knowledge that their conduct is unlawful, and in such cases, ignorance of the law may be a valid defence.

In conclusion, the principle of 'Ignorantia legis neminem excusat' upholds the importance of individuals taking responsibility for their actions and being aware of the laws that govern their society. While it may seem unfair to hold someone liable for breaking a law they did not know existed, the principle aims to maintain the integrity of the legal system and ensure that ignorance cannot be used as a loophole to escape justice.

Ignorance as a defence

The legal principle of ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of the law is no excuse") is derived from Roman law. This means that if someone breaks a law, they are liable even if they were unaware of it. In other words, a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.

The rationale behind this doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person could avoid liability by merely claiming that they were unaware of the law in question, even if they actually knew what the law was. Thus, the law assumes that all persons within its jurisdiction have knowledge of all laws, regardless of how transient their presence is. While it would be impossible for anyone to be aware of every single law in operation, this is considered a necessary trade-off to ensure that willful blindness cannot be the basis for escaping liability.

However, this principle assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated, meaning it has been published and distributed by the government through official channels, such as being printed in a government gazette, made available online, or sold to the public at affordable prices. The government has a duty to appropriately disseminate new laws and make them publicly accessible.

While ignorance of the law is generally not a valid defence, there are some exceptions. Certain crimes require that the defendant had a particular mental state, including knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. In such cases, if the defendant genuinely did not know their actions were illegal, they may be able to argue that the necessary mental state for the crime does not exist, and therefore, ignorance of the law can be a defence.

Additionally, in criminal law, ignorance of the law may be considered during sentencing, especially when the law is unclear or when the defendant sought advice from authorities. For example, in a Canadian case, a person was charged with possessing gambling devices but received an absolute discharge because they had been advised by customs officials that importing such devices was legal.

Furthermore, there may be situations where a person is genuinely ignorant of a law due to distance or isolation. For instance, in a case in British Columbia, hunters were acquitted of game offences because the law had changed while they were in the wilderness hunting and they had no means of knowing about the change.

While ignorance of the law is typically not a defence, it is important to note that this does not mean that everyone is expected to memorise all laws. The legal system recognises that it is not realistic for everyone to know every single law, and even lawyers do not possess such comprehensive knowledge.

Mitigating circumstances

While ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it, there are some cases where it can be considered a mitigating circumstance. Mitigating circumstances are factors that may lessen accountability but do not excuse a defendant from guilt. In other words, ignorance of the law may not clear a defendant of guilt, but it can be a consideration in sentencing.

For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with possessing 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 instance, four hunters in British Columbia were acquitted of game offences because the law had been changed while they were in the wilderness hunting and they had been genuinely ignorant of the new law.

In the US, the Supreme Court has also made some exceptions to the "ignorance is not an excuse" defence. In the 1957 case of Lambert v. California, the Court ruled that the defendant's failure to register as a felon after moving to Los Angeles was a "wholly passive act". The defendant, who had been previously convicted of forgery, was unaware of an ordinance requiring felons to register if in the city of Los Angeles for more than five days. The Court reversed the conviction, stating that "where a person did not know of the duty to register and where there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge, he may not be convicted consistent with due process."

Another exception made by the US Supreme Court concerns the tax code. In the 1991 case of Cheek v. United States, the Court noted the complexity of tax laws and stated that "Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses."

Frequently asked questions