Introduction Show
People and sometimes even legal experts express the maxim in a different way by stating that “every person is presumed to be aware of law” as if both are same and carry the same effects or produce same consequences. They assert or believe that “Every person is presumed to know the law or ought to have known the law” is a statement which emerges from the statement “ignorance of law is no excuse”. There is a real difference between the two statements. This article examines both the statements and makes an attempt to establish that both do not produce the same result or impact. Origin of the maxim It is quite often said ‘ignorance of law is not an excuse’. As already stated above, it is based on the Latin Maxim “ignorantia legis neminem excusat” or “ignorantia juris, quod quisque, saire tenetur neminem excusat ”. It may be noted that ignorance of fact can be an excuse but not that of law. To quote an instance, if a legal heir on whom the estate falls is ignorant of the death of his ancestor, he is ignorant of a fact. But even if he is aware of the death, he is said to be ignorant of a law if he is not
aware of his rights as the heir (see in 1 spence’s chin juris 632-633). Take another example. In India hunting of a Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is an offence as per section 9 of the Wild life Protection Act 1972. If a person, who is ignorant of section 9 of the Wild life protection Act, shoots a wild Buffalo thinking that it is a domestic buffalo he is said to be acting in ignorance of law as well as of a fact. The earliest reference of the maxim in English law can be found in Blackstone’s commentaries where he observed like this “often a mistake in point of law which every person of discretion not only may, but is bound and presumed to know, is in criminal cases no sort of defense. Ignorantia juris, quod quisque teneture scire, neminem excusat is as well the maxim of our own law as it was of the Roman”. From the above it is clear that he traces the origin of the maxim to Roman law and states that every person is bound or presumed to know the law. But he states that in Criminal cases it is not a defense. From there onwards English courts applied this maxim consistently as a rule of law and thus firmly got established in English law. Is the rule rigid and without exceptions? Viewed thus, there is a good justification for dilution of this rule. In fact courts in India , England and elsewhere refused to apply the maxim bluntly so as to render justice and to provide relief wherever it was found to be due applying the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Every person is presumed to be
aware of the law? Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maula J. pointed out in Martindalev. Falkner [1846] 2 CB 706: "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." Justice Lush in R v Tewkesbury corporation (LR 3 QB 629) observed that "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;" The great common law judge of the 20th century Lord Atkin observed in Evans Vs Bartam as follows “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” The position in England According to Lord Westbury in Cooper v. Phibbs, L. R. 2 H. L. 170, the word “Jus” in the maxim ignorantia juris baud excusat 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 from liability from all civil or criminal con sequences 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. At this juncture, it may be worthwhile to take note of the observations of Lord Westbury in Spread V Morgan 11 HL case 588(602) which is reproduced below: “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 the fact that such ignorance existed will sometimes be recognised so as to affect a judicial decision” Thus it is clear that the maxim has been applied in England only when facts and circumstances justify its application. Position in America “When applied to a person who has no actual knowledge of his duty to register, and where no showing is made of the probability of such knowledge, this ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In Cheek v CHEEK v. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) the Supreme Court of America made the observations which are reproduced below. “The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system. See e.g., United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153, 182 (1820); Barlow v. United States, 7 Pet. 404, 411 (1833): Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable, the common law presumed that every person knew the law. This common law rule has been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing criminal statutes. See, e.g., United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 US 558 (1971); Hamling v. United States,418 U.S 87 (1974): Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States,342 U.S 337 (1952). The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend (498 U.S 192 at 200) the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. 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. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term "wilfully" as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule. This special treatment of criminal tax offenses is largely due to the complexity of the tax laws. In United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S 389 (1933), the Court recognized that: "Congress did not intend that a person, by reason of a bona fide misunderstanding as to his liability for the tax, as to his duty to make a return, or as to the adequacy of the records he maintained, should become a criminal by his mere failure to measure up to the prescribed standard of conduct." Thus in the US also the maxim has been applied cautiously with so many exceptions. Position in India The maxim was considered by the Hon Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Mills Ltd V State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1979) 118 ITR 326(SC). The Hon Court observed as follows: “It must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law.” So the Hon court in very clear terms has stated the law. There is no room for doubt. In a case decided by the Hon Supreme court the judges openly admitted that they have never heard of the law which was stated to have been violated by an illiterate person in a remote village. Therefore, the Hon court acquitted the person charged for violating that law. India did not bluntly apply the maxim. Attention is again invited to the decision of the Hon
Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v P.S.S. Investments P. Ltd reported in [1977] 107 ITR 0001 wherein the Hon court made these important observations which requires special attention. Thus it is clear that 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. Conclusion Sivadas Chettoor is an LLM and chartered accountant. Disclaimer: Any content, views, opinions and/or responses on any of the pages of www.indiainfoline.com, expressed or submitted by the creators, contributors, sponsors or advertisers, other than the content provided by IIFL, are solely the views, opinions and responsibility of the person submitting them and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of IIFL. IIFL does not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information. Nothing contained in or provided through this page is intended to constitute advice or solicitation for any investment/financial products or services, neither does it constitute an offer for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or confirmation of any transaction. IIFL does not hold any responsibility for the consequences of any action or omission thereof based on any information related to investment/financial products or services that may be available on /through this page. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We may include links to other web pages, but these links are not an endorsement of those pages, products or services. IIFL is not responsible for the content of any web site by other operators. Under no circumstances will IIFL be responsible or liable in any way for any content, including but not limited to, any errors or omissions in the content, or for any injury, death, loss or damage of any kind by any person as a result of any content communicated whether by IIFL or a third party. In no event shall IIFL be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits arising out of or in connection with the availability, use or performance of any information communicated on this page. Please read our other disclaimers and Privacy Policy. Disclaimer | Disclaimer - Research | Disclaimer - Discussion Boards | Disclaimer - Chat | Disclaimer - Twitter | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy What is a key difference between law and ethics quizlet?What is the difference between ethics and law? ethics refers to moral conduct (right and wrong behavior, "good" and "evil"). Laws are the minimum standards of behavior established by statutes for a population or profession.
What is a policy how does it differ from a law quizlet?How does it differ from a law? A policy is a formalized body of expectations that describe acceptable and unacceptable employee behaviors in the workplace. The difference between a policy and a law is that ignorance of a policy is an acceptable defense.
What is the difference between law and ethics Why are laws and ethics relevant to information security?1. What is the difference between law and ethics? The key difference between laws and ethics is that laws carry the authority of a governing body and ethics do not. Ethics, in turn, are based on cultural mores.
What is another name for the Kennedy Kassebaum Act 1996 and why is it important to organizations that are not in the healthcare industry quizlet?Also called Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and HIPAA.
|