What is Ignorance of Law?

This is where ignorance of the law comes into play. "Ignorance of the law" means that you didn’t know that your actions were against the law. This generally is not a legal defense. Ignorance of the law is not even recognized as an actual legal excuse. Being told that something is illegal doesn’t change the legal status of your actions. It simply lets you know that your actions, whatever they may have been , were illegal.
Ignorance of the law is an important thing in the judicial system because individuals can’t use it to defend themselves against crimes that they’ve committed. To do so would allow the laws to be broken, even by a simple mistake or accident.
To better understand how this works, think about it in terms of taxes. If you haven’t done your taxes properly, it does not matter if you did not know what exactly was required of you when you first filled out your taxes. The IRS will still fine you the extra money that you owe them with or without the knowledge that you were doing it wrong.

A Brief History of Ignorance of Law

Historically, this judicial refrain against the ignorance of the law has deep roots. The underlying legal principle in the Anglo-American common law tradition that a person is not excused from liability for violating a law because she was ignorant of the law can be traced back to "perceptions among [the English and American] bar and bench that would seem bizarre if the accused were permitted to draw on his ignorance of the law to escape liability for a criminal act." See Dedrick D. Pope, Not 49 Times, But Seventy Times Seven: The Case Against the Mistake-of-Law Defense, 89 Mich. L. Rev. 657, 664 (Jan. 1990). It is therefore no accident or coincidence that the "willful blindness" prong of a criminal statute "knowledge of the law" can still be found in the United States Code today.
Unlike the United States, some foreign jurisdictions may exempt individuals from criminal liability when charged with violating statutes they could not reasonably understand to be criminal. For example, under Dutch law, a defendant may be released from liability based on the ground that a mistake of law may be excused. Dutch courts and scholars have opined that whether the information is published or not, the individual is only responsible "if the individual in question is prone to be mistaken, in all normality." See Whitney V. Hansen, Mistake of Law in the Netherlands: The Dutch Evasion, at 2 (Sept. 5, 2011).
Similarly, Ukrainian law provides that persons may not be held criminally responsible if it is proven that the misdemeanor or offense was committed due to an honest error in understanding the real situation of the parties. See Law of Ukraine on the Application of the Norms of Criminal Legislation in Time and Place No. 3445-IV, 17 November 2005, art. 42 (Ukrainian Nightingale Translation).
In Taiwan, a defendant’s ignorance of law may be an affirmative defense to his criminal charge, provided that: (i) the ignorance is directed toward the essence of the crime, the punishment, or the legal rules applied; (ii) at the time of the offense, the act has not been officially published; and (iii) due to personal relation, sufficient cause, or other reasonable causes, the excuse is believable. See Christie Chen, Guilty or Not? Legal Experts Debate Whether Ignorance of the Law Is Excusable, WantChinaTimes.com (20 Jan. 2013).

When is Ignorance of Law Excusable?

There are few notable exceptions to the maxim that ignorance of the law is no defense. In fact, very few courts have even addressed any such argument. In one such instance a court held that ignorance of the law is a defense to criminal prosecution only when the particular law is "well concealed … obscure, doubtful and difficult of ascertainment." Umbehr v. Chisholm Creek Utility Services, 69 P.3d 217, 220 (Okla.Crim.App. 2003). In Umbehr the Court discussed the issue of actual knowledge of the defendant’s conduct or activity. The court noted that in order to prove strict liability type crimes, an actus reus or guilty act must be made with a mens rea or guilty intent accompanying the prohibited conduct or the forbidden results of that conduct. An example would be theft where the defendant must appropriate property in order to be guilty of that crime. However, even though a defendant has committed the deed for which he is charged, he may still be innocent and not subject to punishment if he did not have the requisite mental state accompanying the deed. The mental state must accompany the act or omission constituting the offense unless a mental state is not required. The possibility of exception to the rule occurs, when a person could not be charged with a duty such as keeping books or issuing tickets must have actual knowledge of a statute or ordinance requiring a specific act. However, a person can rarely claim ignorance as defense to a charge of violating an ordinance to which he has not gained actual knowledge. Under Oklahoma law, the defendant has no duty to keep informed after he has once acquired knowledge. An individual presumably has the capability of knowledge when he has had information or opportunity to learn it. Id; See also State v. Marcellus, 552 N.E.2d 242 (Ohio 1990).

Case Studies & Examples

When it comes to the principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", there are always exceptions and loopholes when it comes to case law. In general, legislatures and courts do not look favorably on people who claim they did not know about a particular law or regulation.
Case law shows us that in certain circumstances, ignorance of the law may be a valid defense. For instance, if the defendant does not have the mental capability to understand what the law says or means, or if the defendant claims a second language barrier that prevented him or her from understanding the law, then the defendant may successfully argue ignorance.
Let’s start with a few hypothetical examples:
A New Jersey couple purchases a new home and decides to renovate the interior. Neither spouse is able to read or speak Spanish and none are bilingual. As they hire contractors to perform this renovation, no permits are pulled and no approvals are sought. The work exceeds the 100 square foot limit before a permit is needed but the unsuspecting homeowners thought that as long as they kept the work area to less than 100 square feet, they did not need the permit. They also furnished the remodeling work to a neighborhood handyman who was not licensed. Unfortunately for the husband and wife, this is how they discover that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
A business owner who owned a small bar and grill, which served alcohol, decided to have a night-time parking attendant available to assist customers in securing their cars. This was a bustling bar and grill, and the patrons seemed to appreciate the additional security detail. One night, a customer was found dead in his car apparently from a drug-related incident. The police arrested the owner of the establishment since alcohol sales are strictly regulated and establishments are required to get a license to serve alcohol, not allowing a "self" assigned individual to supervise. The business owner did not know there were restrictions in place specifically settling forth parking regulations and alcohol regulations. Pleading ignorance is no excuse.
Consider these actual cases where ignorance was admitted by the defendants and discussed in the court’s opinion or ruling.
In State v. Bianco, 2004 WL 2851150 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 14, 2004), the defendant was a butcher who admitted to taking money from the grocery store till, but stated he did not know that this was a "theft". The court implied that it did not matter to the court; again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In State v. Murphy, 1996 WL 191872 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 1996), the court stated that a party intending to challenge the constitutionality of a statute must be aware of the law in order to have standing.
In People v. Sapio, the defendant here argued that the statute under which he was convicted in a prosecution alleging sexual abuse had not been drawn to define the age of the victim. However, the court overruled his argument and stated that, a criminal defendant’s lack of knowledge that his act constituted a crime, or the social unacceptability of the act, does not constitute a defense.
Therefore, while it may be natural and commonplace for people to be disturbed by what may seem arbitrary laws or even unrealistic laws, ignorance is certainly not an excuse when it comes to violating the law.

Today’s Controversies & Debates

As with most legal issues, the principle that ignorance of the law is never a valid defense has its critics. They argue that the law is not consistent or unchanging enough to justify the assertion that it is universally knowable. Furthermore, they point to the extraordinary range of legal and regulatory provisions that can apply to a person’s conduct, often at both Federal and State levels, and that deriving a substantive understanding of legal obligations, let alone passing knowledge , requires a significant investment of both effort and resources that should not be expected of the average citizen or business owner.
Critics further assert that the law is not easily accessible and what information is available is not readily comprehensible to a layperson (and sometimes not even to some lawyers) so that ignorance of the law is often a reasonable expectation. In this context, critics emphasize the need for greater access to, and understanding of, the laws to which individuals and businesses are subject.
Although these criticisms have merit with respect to certain areas of the law, advocates of the rule of law are generally not persuaded.

The Practical Application for the Average Person

This principle has far-reaching implications, especially for individuals. There are innumerable cases where the law requires something materially related to their life, employment or business. Take, for instance, an employee who works at a great company. She has worked hard and is well compensated. It looks like she will be earning a promotion, and then the unfortunate happens – out of nowhere, she is let go. Then the company tells her she will not be receiving Unemployment Insurance benefits because she accepted money from her employer under the table and did not report it.
Or consider a person who receives a notice of an eviction proceeding. The notice, which they discard as junk mail, states that they have been charged with a crime. The morning of what would otherwise be a routine appearance before the housing court to defend against the eviction they arrive only to learn that criminal charges were filed and a bench warrant for their arrest issued. Or another person receives a notice to appear in the justice court for shoplifting. When they show up they learn that a Class B misdemeanor has become a Class A misdemeanor because the law changed while they sat in jail. In both cases, ignorance of the law would contribute to and compound the difficulty these individuals will face.
At a minimum, all people should be aware of state and federal changes in the law. While the Internet offers a wide variety of ways to learn about the law, an attorney who subscribes to Westlaw or another database is in a good position to be alerted to changes in the law and provide advice accordingly. Additionally, it is not unreasonable to expect (and consumers have every right to demand) that an attorney review state and federal websites that provide notices of bills or other legislative actions. Most importantly, unless otherwise stated a bill becomes law on the date the Governor signed it. Thus, while it is wise to check the website to see whether a bill has been signed or otherwise becomes law, you should always count from the Governor’s signature rather than the notification date.

Global Considerations

In Germany, ignorance of the law is not generally a defense. Under the principle of legal certainty, citizens are expected to know that which is publicly available and to familiarize themselves with the obligations of the law. An exception to this rule is in tax law, where ignorance or mistake can operate as a defense, although the conditions under which this is possible are quite strict. For example, practitioners will advise cautious clients always to respond to a tax (inquiry) notice even if they think the tax authority has made a mistake in issuing the notice. Judicial review of this process has also ensured that mistakes are generally rectified by the tax authority before they have traction in the court system.
France, like Germany, operates a "you must know" system. Citizens are deemed by the law to know what is publicly available and enforced by the authorities. But the application of this law in practice is different. French citizens have a right to be informed in simple and accessible language about their obligations, and the law places the burden on the tax authorities to provide this. This means that the assumption of knowledge may in practice be relaxed, particularly when enforcement of the law is exercised in an asymmetrical manner (for example, against one individual), and this is difficult for an ordinary person to object to without legal assistance. There is no waiver of liability in cases of drunken driving , where fines can be significantly increased for repeat offenders; but the French courts have been prepared to mitigate liability on these grounds.
In the United States, there is at least one state supreme court case in which the court was prepared to accept that a robbery suspect did not understand the law or its application in circumstances of duress. In that case, the suspect, facing a threat of violence, was not charged with robbery; but it is widely accepted that the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defense.
The UK is similar to France in that, while ignorance of the law is not a defense (except in specific areas, such as, controversially, insider trading), the means by which the law is enforced is subject to independent review. This allows a great deal of jurisprudential development because the application of the law is overseen by the courts, but with particular vigilance where the issues relate to minorities or other groups that can be easily marginalized.
The European Union maintains a MACH Network of judges across the continent, that allows for rapid exchange of law and language to support hefty legal decisions (such as those right in EU administrative law) to be made with a sense of urgency. As part of the preparation of this report, the author of the thesis in which the MACH Network is discussed has written to senior judges in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, France, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, asking for guidance on their position on ignorance of the law and drug addiction as a defense. The following countries have responded.