It has always been a fundamental principle of the law that "ignorance of law is no excuse". However in recognition of the enormous increase in the number of laws that have been created since this principle was first enunciated, an exception to this rule was enunciated by a minority concurring decision of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1995 case of R. v. Jorgensen.1 In this case, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer proposed an exception to the rule called "officially induced error". In doing so, he reasoned that While knowledge of the law is to be encouraged, it is certainly reasonable for someone to have assumed he knows the law after consulting a representative of the state acting in a capacity which makes him [an] expert of that particular subject.2 After reviewing the commentary of legal scholars, American court
cases and some lower level Canadian court cases, the Chief Justice set out six elements to be established by an accused person in order to establish a defence or excuse of officially induced error.
These elements are as follows:
1. The accused made an error of law or an error of mixed law and fact3;
2. The accused considered the legal consequences of his or her actions before
committing the prohibited act;
3. The accused obtained advice from an appropriate official, such as a government
official involved in the administration of the law in question;
4. The advice received was on its face reasonable;
5. The advice received was erroneous; and
6. The accused relied upon the erroneous advice in committing the prohibited act.
Under Justice Lamar's proposed test, if all six elements were clearly established, the
accused would be excused from committing the offence in spite of its wrongfulness and a judicial stay of proceedings would be entered.
Hammurabi
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
The latin is ignorantia legis neminem escusat.
Law excuses no one. Every citizen of the country is supposed to know law of his country. No cone can plead in the court of law that he is not aware about a certain Act or Law. This is no excused.
No one is exempted because it is stated in the Article 3 of the Civil Code of the Philippines "Ignorance of the law EXCUSES NO ONE from compliance therewith."
One example of scientific law, is The Law Of Gravity.
One example of scientific law, is The Law Of Gravity.
It is easy for anyone to state that they are unaware of a law, and if to say so was to aquit yourself of any crimes then it would be impossible to discern who was lying or not, unless there was specific evidence either way. Also, since most laws are common interpretation of general moral or societal values, it is expected that most would understand what is right. Mistaking a law can sometimes excuse, providing you can prove that you were mistaken.
Invention of scripting and painting revolutionized Ignorance. it is one of the example.
ignorance revelation anticipation seeking decision discovery clearing outpicturing law of one mind release objective secrecy reserve nourishment resistance mastery
Jehovah God does not need to produce excuses. He has no one to answer to. He is the Creator; and he can also be The Destroyer. Why would he waste time with excuses?
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a common phrase in the law. It means that if an individual breaks a law, they cannot defend themselves by claiming that they did not know that there was a law to be broken, or that they were breaking it.This topic is often tied in with "mens rea." Mens rea is a concept the law uses to describe a mental element of a crime. Often, a crime is defined as requiring that the individual have both committed the act of the crime (the "actus reus") and intended to commit the crime ("mens rea.") There was a time when criminals would claim that they did not intend to commit the crime, because they did not know that the act which they committed was a crime.This is why the law developed the concept that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." It creates an irrebutable presumptionthat every person knows what the law is, and that no one can claim that they did not have the mens rea because they did not know what the law is.