Ignorance of the law is generally not a valid defense in legal systems, as laws are available to the public and seeking advice is possible. Exceptions include situations where a law changes or bad advice is given by officials. Ignorance of the facts can be a defense in some cases.
Ignorance of the law is the lack of knowledge of a statute, resulting in the commission of an offense without being aware of it. Most legal systems believe in the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse and will hold defendants liable for violations of the law even if they can prove they were unaware of them. There are some exceptions to this rule, such as cases where a defendant could not possibly have been aware of a law and this can be clearly demonstrated. For the most part, the legal system assumes knowledge of the law.
The argument is that if ignorance of the law were a valid defense, the accused could always claim they did not know the law and could not be held liable. Proving ignorance is difficult, and so this could provide a mechanism for escaping justice. The justice system assumes knowledge on the basis that laws are available to the public in a number of formats, and members of the public can seek advice from government officials if they are unsure of the legality of a particular activity. This can play into the idea of ”willful blindness,” where a defendant does not seek advice about an activity to avoid knowing if it is legal in hopes of avoiding liability.
There are some exceptions to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. One is a situation where a law changes and a person may not be aware of it. For example, someone hiking in a very remote area without communication devices would not be aware of the law changes made and announced during this time; if that person broke fishing or hunting laws after a change, he could plead ignorance of the law on the grounds that he had no way of knowing about the change.
Likewise, bad advice from officials can be a mitigating factor, although it is usually not accepted as a defense. This means that a person will be convicted of the crime, but may have a reduced or waived sentence because he sought advice from a government representative and was given bad information. In this case, the defendant operated on the belief that his actions were legal because he had been told they were by someone in the know.
Ignorance of the facts is considered separately from ignorance of the law. In cases where ignorance of the facts clearly plays a role, this can be considered a defense in a case. This emerged in a 2010 Supreme Court case on debt collectors, in which judges ruled that making a call outside daylight hours was defensible if debt collectors had incorrect time zone information. In this case, the company acts on incorrect factual information while trying to comply with the law and is not held responsible for not having the right facts.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
