This article titled ‘Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat: Origin, Meaning and Case Laws.’ is written by Sahajpreet Bhusari and discusses the doctrine of non-excusat. I. Origin and Meaning Ignorantia juris non excusat is a legal term of Latin origin. It literally means that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’[1]. Ignorance of fact can be excused however ignorance of the law cannot. II. Explanation According to the maxim, ignorance of the law is not a reason not to obey it. It is...
This article titled ‘Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat: Origin, Meaning and Case Laws.’ is written by Sahajpreet Bhusari and discusses the doctrine of non-excusat.
I. Origin and Meaning
Ignorantia juris non excusat is a legal term of Latin origin. It literally means that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’[1]. Ignorance of fact can be excused however ignorance of the law cannot.
II. Explanation
According to the maxim, ignorance of the law is not a reason not to obey it. It is a Latin adage that says that lack of facts can be excused, but ignorance of the law cannot. Each person must be familiar with the laws of the country in which he resides and lack of awareness cannot be a reason to not abide by it. Even if the person is in a different nation, he must obey the rules of the country while he is in that country. This maxim is often used in criminal law.
III. Application
Ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defence to avoid the consequences of your actions. If this was the case, it would become quite easy for anyone to use ignorance as a defence, even after being fully aware of the law and its implications. The law enforcement machinery will be paralyzed. Since it is a negative fact, the court cannot request evidence. It requires a thorough examination of the lawbreaker’s mental state, which is a demanding task. For all these reasons, the legal policy has always been to reject the claim of ignorance of the law.
Illustrations
- A owns a rifle without a license. B, a policeman caught him. He asked for the defence of legal error, that is, he did not know the law. A is not defended here because it is assumed that everyone knows the laws of the country in which they are located.
- A murdered B, in this case, A cannot take the defence of ignorance of the law.
IV. Important Case Law
In the case of Grant v. Borg[2], the person was charged under the Immigration Act of 1971 for exceeding the vacation period. He goes ahead and pleads ignorance of the law and the court held that it will not be considered as a defence.
Reference
[1] B&B Associates, Available Here, Accessed on 11/10/2021.
[2] (1982) 1 WLR 638 HL.
