Ignorance of the law

“The victim who refuses to press charges” [Mythconceptions, FT402:25] comes up regularly on

TV and in conversation. Legally it is, of course, nonsense but even police use the expression from time to time, presumably in cases where an alleged victim simply will not testify against an accused. In a Scottish court in 2017 a case of violent assault had to be dropped when the victims “couldn’t remember” the crime, even though one of them had had his ear ripped off. Proof positive, M’Lord, that it is the Crown that does the prosecuting, naively assuming perhaps that fear of the judicial process outweighs fear of a violent attacker. Bob Johnston

Glasgow

Mat Coward is not precise enough on the concept of “ignorance of the law”. The maxim is of long-standing in the common law (in the Latin phrase ignorantia legis excusat neminem) and was intended to prevent defendants from claiming that they did not know that they were breaking the law and so should be acquitted. This was, of course, in a time when there was much less law to be ignorant of. Apparently, the only occasion when it was successfully used to achieve an acquittal was in the case of a sailor who was at sea when the law in question was passed and so could not be expected to be aware of its introduction.

Where “ignorance of the law” is allowable in defence is not to avoid acquittal but in mitigation – that is, to reduce the punishment on the basis that the defendant acted in ignorance. Even this is strictly limited. Mat Coward’s example of a taxpayer ignorant of tax regulations would not help a professional who would be expected to keep up to date with the rules applying to his profession.

Which brings me naturally to the other classic formulation: “Ignorance of the law does not prevent the losing lawyer from collecting his fee.”

Martin Jenkins

London