As far as I know that argument will never guarantee that you get off. First there is the maxim the majority, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, uses to define its opinion: "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Heard: 13/05/2010. While “ignorance of the law” is not an excuse, Basciano says in some cases, it may be a mitigating circumstance when considering sentencing in a criminal case, or reduced damages in a civil case. However, in some limited circumstances, ignorance of the law can be an excuse. What are some examples of situations where ignorance of the law is an excuse? The rule that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” was born at a time when there were fewer than a dozen common law felonies, and all those crimes stemmed from and mirrored a … Though this argument has a certain rhetorical appeal, it misconceives the implication of … The expression ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ is well-known. Case No: 579/2009. This principle is at the heart of the recent decision by the state supreme court in State v. Miller, ___ N.C. ___, (June 9, 2017). However laws have to be applied sensibly. Because it deals with the motives (or lack thereof) for committing a crime, it addresses mens rea , the degree of legal culpability that arises from the … “[The defense assert] the well-known maxim, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and contend that it is fundamentally unfair to let police officers get away with mistakes of law when the citizenry is accorded no such leeway. Delivered: 18/06/2010 ... the cliché that "every person is presumed to know the law" has no ground for its existence and that the view that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is not legally applicable in the light of the present day concept of mens rea in our law. An ancient maxim of the law is ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorance of the law does not excuse. This case is an exception to the legal principle ignorantia legis non excusat—that the ignorance of the law is not a suitable excuse for breaking it. There is one simple concept that law students learn in their very first weeks of criminal law class: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. ... mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse, long thought to be basic to criminal law, is no longer appropriate when crim-inal law applies in surprising ways to otherwise ordinary behavior. The general principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse holds true for most cases. A recent Supreme Court case, Liparota v. United States,' is the latest in a long series of Supreme Court cases involving the place, if any, for mens This principle means that when an individual violates the law, it doesn’t matter whether or not they knew what the law said. For example, if there was not public notice about a law, then you could truly be said to be ignorant of the law in question. One case decided by the Supreme Court this week had a decidedly everyman theme to it. Put another way, it is presumed that the public knows the laws, and a defense of ignorance is typically not allowed. In implementing the law on reasonable excuse, HMRC – and the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise before it – has tended to apply an absolutist approach, but recent case law indicates that there are circumstances in which ignorance of the law can be a reasonable excuse for a taxpayer’s failure to meet an obligation. In the case of WTO vs S. P. Jayakumar 1982 (7) TMI 178 - ITAT MADRAS-A “ The Bench observed that the plea of ignorance of law can be treated as a proper explanation. Ignorance of the law isn’t an acceptable defense for ordinary citizens; neither should it be for the police.