Error of law is a rare criminal defense. It may apply if a defendant has drawn an incorrect conclusion about the legal status of a writ or if a court official explains a law incorrectly. It may also apply if a defendant was following laws that have since been overturned or changed. Publication of laws is important, and clerical errors in documents of judicial origin may permit an error-of-law defense. It is distinct from an error of fact.
Error of law is a rather rare type of criminal defense in modern law. In most cases, ignorance of the law is not an adequate defense, unless the defendant is found to be too young or mentally incapable to have a reasonable understanding of the laws and their consequences. A legal defense error suggests that a defendant, while having knowledge of the law, has drawn an incorrect conclusion about the legal status of a writ.
One situation where a legal defense error might apply is if a judge, legal officer, or other court official explains a law to a person incorrectly. The theory behind this exception is that court and legal system officials are supposed to be reliable experts, and therefore their interpretation is reasonably expected to be correct. This exception does not apply to lawyers’ interpretations of the law.
Another occasion where an error of law may be a defense is if the defendant was following laws that existed when the action was committed, but have since been overturned or changed. For example, if a person has their car towed to park in an area that was recently declared no parking, but the area has not yet been marked or identified, nor has the decision been made public in any way, he or she may be able to tell that the tow was the result of an error of law.
Publication of the laws is a very important consideration when discussing a legal defense error. In most common law jurisdictions, the legal body has the responsibility of making laws public and publicly available for review. If the public has no way of accessing the terms and conditions of a law, they cannot reasonably be expected to know or follow the law.
Judicial precedent has also generally supported the idea that clerical errors in documents of judicial origin may permit an error-of-law defense. If, for example, if a written ruling reads that a convicted person must attend rehabilitation meetings twice a year, but would have had to read twice a month, the defendant may be able to avoid misdemeanor charges. The argument, in this case, would be that the document was a verified court judgment and, therefore, reasonably believed to be correct.
An error of law is distinct from an error of fact. In a factual misdemeanor, the defendant suggests that a mistake was made through faulty factual assumptions. For example, if a person took the wrong order at a restaurant, believing it to be him, he made a factual mistake. If, however, he accepts the take-out order because he believes he is entitled to it because the person who ordered it owes him money for the exact amount of the cost of the food, he could be mistaking the law.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
