IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE OF LAW CAN BE AN EXCUSE
The general principal of law is that “ignorance of law is not an excuse” i.e. maxim IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSANT which, means that if someone breaks the law, he or she is still liable even if they had no knowledge of the law being broken. In the application of the maxim the word “ignorantia” has been translated as “ignorance” and as “mistake”; and these terms have generally been used interchangeably. However, that the two English words convey different ideas, which difference has been recognized in some instances. “Ignorance” may be defined as lack of knowledge; whereas a” mistake” is a wrong conclusion frequently caused by insufficient knowledge.
The maxim was originally formulated at a time when the list of crimes, broadly speaking, represented current morality. The exception to the maxim was created by the courts due to change of time the modern company and corporate laws/regulations/rules came into play for corporate liabilities.
The exception in the rule laid down by maxim IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSANT has been created by courts worldwide in certain circumstances. The Courts have accepted ignorance of law as an excuse or refused to impose penalty when the violation of law was not deliberate or was innocently violated. The general rule is not applied where defendant’s mistake of law must be reasonable. However, the defense of mistake of law applies in cases where the mistake of law has to be honest and made in good faith. In England the Maxim is applied only when facts and circumstances justify its application. The same position is taken by American Courts and have been followed by Indian and Pakistani Courts in some circumstances. The position of law in different jurisdictions have been briefly explained with case laws below.
Position of English Law in common law jurisdiction:
In England the Maxim is applied only when facts and circumstances justify its application. Over a hundred and thirty years ago Maula J. pointed out that “… there is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law, it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so….” [ref: Martindalev. Falkner [1846] 2 CB 706]. Justice Lush observed “there is no maxim which says that for all intents and purposes a person must be taken to know the legal consequences of his acts…” [ref: R v Tewkesbury corporation (LR 3 QB 629)]. The great common law judge of the 20th century Lord Atkin observed in Evans Vs Bartam that ““The fact is that there is no and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law. There is the rule that ignorance of the law does not excuse a maxim of very different scope and application”. According to Lord Westbury the word “Jus” in the maxim ignorantia juris excusant is used in the sense of “general law, the law of the country,” not in the sense of “a private right.” The true meaning of that maxim is that parties cannot excuse themselves of liability from all civil or criminal consequences of their acts by alleging ignorance of the law, but there is no presumption that parties must be taken to know all the legal consequences of their acts, and especially where difficult questions of law, or of the practice of the court are involved”” [ref; Cooper v. Phibbs, L. R. 2 H. L. 170]. Lord Westbury in Spread V Morgan 11 HL case 588(602) observed “… it is true that the law will not permit the excuse of ignorance of law to be pleaded for the purpose of exempting persons from damages for breach of contract or for crimes committed by them but on other occasions and for other purposes it is evident that such ignorance existed will sometimes be recognized so as to affect a judicial decision”.
Position of Law in America
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the conviction of John L. Cheek, a tax protester, for willful failure to file tax returns and tax evasion. The Court held that an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax laws.
Position of Law in India
The position of law was discussed by Supreme Court of India in Motilal Padampat Mills Ltd. vs. UP (1979) 118 ITR 326(SC) as follows:
“It must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. it is always said that everyone is presumed to know the law but this is not correct statement, there is no such maxim known to the law. “
Position in Pakistani Law
Although Pakistani law is not developed on the subject however, in a judgement PLD 2002 Peshawar 50 the court discussed the following maxim and held as follows:
Held (h) “Ignorantia praesumitur ubi scientia non probatur” (ignorance in presumed where knowledge is not proved and “lex neminem cogit ostendere qued nescire praesumitur” (law compels no one to divulge that which he is presumed not to know) — Applicability — law compels no one to divulge that which he is presumed no to know were applicable in circumstances.”
