A legal view of ig­no­rance

24 Sep, 2022

Cri­mi­nal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
❗ res­pon­si­ble e­ven if ig­no­rant

9.3 Mis­take or ig­no­rance of sta­tute law

(1) A per­son can be cri­mi­nal­ly res­pon­si­ble for an of­fence e­ven if, at the time of the con­duct con­sti­tu­ting the of­fence, he or she is mis­ta­ken a­bout, or ig­no­rant of, the ex­is­tence or con­tent of an Act that di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly cre­ates the of­fence or di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly af­fects the scope or o­pe­ra­tion of the of­fence.

⇪ top

Cri­mi­nal Code Act 1899 (QLD)¹
！ ig­no­rance is no ex­cuse

Ig­no­rance of the law—bo­na fi­de claim of right

22 Ig­no­rance of the law—BO­NA FI­DE CLAIM OF RIGHT

(1) Ig­no­rance of the law does not af­ford any ex­cuse for an act or o­mis­sion which would other­wise con­sti­tute an of­fence, un­less know­ledge of the law by the of­fen­der is ex­press­ly de­clared to be an e­le­ment of the of­fence.^{2 3}

⇪ top

Syd­ney Cri­mi­nal Law­yers
🖊️ ig­no­rance is no de­fence

SEC­TION 9.3 CRI­MI­NAL CODE ACT 1995

Mis­take or Ig­no­rance of Le­gis­la­tion is Not a De­fence⁴

Sec­tion 9.3 of the Cri­mi­nal Code Act 1995 (Cth) co­di­fies the prin­ci­ple that ​ig­no­rance of the law is no de­fence.

The sec­tion makes clear that a per­son can be cri­mi­nal­ly res­pon­sible for an of­fence un­der the Act e­ven if at the time of com­mit­ting the con­duct that cons­ti­tu­tes the of­fence the per­son was mis­taken a­bout, or ig­no­rant of, the ex­is­tence or con­tent of a law that di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly cre­ates an of­fence or in­di­rect­ly af­fects the scope of the ope­ra­tion of an of­fence.

⇪ top

Rep-Re­vi­ve Law­yers
🖊️ not know­ing does not ex­cus­e

Ig­no­rance of the law does not ex­cuse him

Just be­cause a per­son does not know the law, does not mean that he​/​she can­not be held ac­coun­table to the law.

⇪ top

En­cy­clo­pæ­di­a Bri­tan­ni­ca
✎ ig­no­rance is no de­fence

ig­no­rance

In ge­ne­ral, ig­no­rance is no de­fence to a cri­min­al charge that the ac­cused was un­a­ware that the con­duct was cri­min­al.

This prin­ci­ple has been thought to be es­sen­ti­al to the ef­fec­tive ad­mi­ni­stra­tion of law and is jus­ti­fied by the prac­ti­cal con­si­de­ra­tion that, in ca­ses of se­ri­ous cri­mi­na­li­ty, the ac­cused is or­di­na­ri­ly a­ware of the wrong­ful­ness of the con­duct if not its cri­mi­na­lity.

⇪ top

Wi­ki­pe­dia
✎ un­ware­ness is no ex­cuse

Ig­no­ran­ti­a ju­ris non ex­cu­sat⁵

This le­gal max­im 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.

⇪ top

📂 · ☁️ · 🌐 · 📧

#ignorance #legal #notes