You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 3.89.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪L235‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 18:20, 24 March 2026.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Wiki13‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: Visit the FAQ if you are affected .
- Start of block: 13:43, 5 May 2022
- Expiry of block: 13:43, 5 May 2024
Your current IP address is 3.89.215.189. The blocked range is 3.89.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((short description|Legal doctrine that one cannot escape punishment by being unaware of the law))
((Italic title))
In [[law]], '''((lang|la|ignorantia juris non excusat))''' ([[Latin]] for "[[ignorance]] of the law excuses not"),<ref name="BLD672">''[[Black's Law Dictionary]]'', 5th Edition, pg. 672</ref> or '''((lang|la|ignorantia legis neminem excusat))''' ("ignorance of law excuses no one"),<ref name="BLD673">''[[Black's Law Dictionary]]'', 5th Edition, pg. 673</ref> is a [[legal principle]] holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape [[legal liability|liability]] for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content. 

European-law countries with a tradition of [[Roman law]] may also use an expression from [[Aristotle]] translated into Latin: '''((lang|la|nemo censetur ignorare legem))''' ("nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law") or '''((lang|la|ignorantia iuris nocet))''' ("not knowing the law is harmful").((cn|date=June 2021))

==Explanation==
((see also|Promulgation|Promulgation (Catholic canon law)))
The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with [[criminal offense]]s or a subject of a civil [[lawsuit]] would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law [[imputation (law)|imputes]] knowledge of all laws to all persons within the [[jurisdiction]] no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a [[Jurisdiction (area)|state's]] activities, this is the price paid to ensure that [[willful blindness]] cannot become the basis of [[exculpatory|exculpation]]. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a [[government gazette]], made available over the [[Internet]], or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the ancient phrase of [[Gratian (jurist)|Gratian]], ''Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur'' ("[[Canon law (Catholic Church)|Laws]] are instituted when they are promulgated").<ref>[[Gratian]], [[Decretum Gratiani|''Decretum'']], Distinctio 4, dictum post c.3</ref> In order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by their being given notice by promulgation. A law can bind only when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies to acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it, even if actual knowledge of the law is absent for a particular individual. A secret law is no law at all.

In [[criminal law]], although ignorance may not clear a defendant of [[guilt (law)|guilt]], it can be a consideration in [[Sentence (law)|sentencing]], particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one [[Canada|Canadian]] case, a person was charged with being in possession of [[gambling]] devices after they had been advised by [[customs]] officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.<ref>''R v Potter'' (1978), 39 CCC (2d) 538, 3 CR (3d) 154 (PEISC).</ref> Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an [[absolute discharge]].

In addition, there were, particularly in the days before [[satellite]] communication and [[cellular phones]], persons who could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in [[British Columbia]], four hunters were [[acquitted]] of game offenses where the law was changed during the period they were in the wilderness hunting.<ref>Rex v. Ross (1944) 84 C.C.C. 107. British Columbia County Court.</ref> Another case, in early [[English law]], involved a seaman on a [[clipper]] before the [[invention of radio]] who had shot another. Although he was found guilty, he was pardoned, as the law had been changed while he was at sea.<ref>Rex v. Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1, 168 E.R. 651</ref>

Although ignorance of the law, like other [[mistake of law|mistakes of law]], is not a defence, a [[mistake of fact]] may well be, depending on the circumstances: that is, the false but sincerely held belief in a factual state of affairs which, had it been the case, would have made the conduct innocent in law.

== In literature == 
((Refimprove|section|date=June 2021))
The doctrine, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", first shows up in the Bible in Leviticus 5:17: "If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the ((LORD))'s commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible." An alternate explanation of the origin of the maxim, though not particularly relevant to the modern context, can be found in the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. Such were cultures heavily influenced by customary legal systems. Within such a system, law is learned as a person participates in the culture and customs of the community. Thus it is unreasonable to believe a person could have avoided learning them. These rules and customs were also interwoven with ethical and religious dialogue so that laws expressed what is right and that which is not. We find that [[Cicero]] wrote the following in ''[[De re publica]]'' (On the Republic):

<blockquote>There is a true law, right reason, agreeable to nature, known to all men, constant and eternal, which calls to duty by its precepts, deters from evil by its prohibition. This law cannot be departed from without guilt. Nor is there one law at Rome and another at Athens, one thing now and another afterward; but the same law, unchanging and eternal, binds all races of man and all times.</blockquote>

[[Minos (dialogue)|Minos]] (attributed to [[Plato]]) states the following conversation between [[Socrates]] and his companion:

;Socrates
:Come then, do you consider just things to be unjust and unjust things just, or just things to be just and unjust things unjust?

;Companion
:I consider just things to be just, and unjust things unjust.<ref>((Cite web|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0180:text=Minos:section=315e|title=Plato, Minos, section 315e|website=www.perseus.tufts.edu))</ref>

;Socrates
:And are they so considered among all men elsewhere as they are here?

;Companion
:Yes.
.
.
.
;Socrates
:Are things that weigh more considered heavier here, and things that weigh less lighter, or the contrary?

;Companion
:No, those that weigh more are considered heavier, and those that weigh less lighter.

;Socrates
:And is it so in Carthage also, and in Lycaea?

;Companion
:Yes.

;Socrates
:Noble things, it would seem, are everywhere considered noble,<ref>((Cite web|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0180:text=Minos:section=316a|title=Plato, Minos, section 316a|website=www.perseus.tufts.edu))</ref> and base things base; not base things noble or noble things base.

;Companion
:That is so.

==Translation==
((Refimprove|section|date=June 2021))
'''Presumed knowledge of the law''' is the principle in [[jurisprudence]] that one is bound by a law even if one does not know of it. It has also been defined as the "prohibition of ignorance of the law".

The concept comes from [[Roman law]], and is expressed in the [[Brocard (law)|brocard]] ''ignorantia legis non excusat''.

The essential public character of a law requires that the law, once properly promulgated, must apply to anyone in the [[jurisdiction]] where the law applies. Thus, no one can justify his conduct on the grounds that he was not aware of the law.

Generally, a convention exists by which the laws are issued and rendered accessible by methods, authors and means that are simple and well known: the law is readable in certain places (some systems prescribe that a collection of the laws is copied in every local city council), is made by certain authorities (usually sovereign, government, parliament, and derivative bodies), and enters into effect in certain ways (many systems for instance prescribe a certain number of days - often 15 - after issue). This is commonly intended as a [[constitutional law|constitutional]] regulation, and in fact many [[constitution]]s or [[statute]]s exactly describe the correct procedures.

However, some recent interpretations weaken this concept. Particularly in [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]], regard can be had to the difficulty of being informed of the existence of a law considering the lifestyle of the average citizen. On the penal side, the quality of the knowledge of the law can affect the evaluation of the [[animus nocendi]] or the [[mens rea]], in that certain subjective conditions can weaken personal responsibility.

The theme was widely discussed, also for political reasons, at the time of [[the Enlightenment]] and in the 18th century, given the heavy proportion of illiterate citizens in European countries (who would have some difficulties being aware of all the laws in a country). It was then argued that both the presumed knowledge and the heavily increasing corpus of national legislation were working in favour of lawyers rather than citizens.

In recent times, some authors have considered this concept as an extension of (or at least as analogous to) the other ancient concept (typical of [[criminal law]]) that no one can be punished under a law that was issued after the action was committed (non-retroactivity of the law. See [[ex post facto]]). This interpretation is however disputed, given that the matter would hierarchically more properly refer to a constitutional doctrine rather than to a civil or penal one.

Some modern criminal statutes contain language such as stipulating that the act must be done "knowingly and wittingly" or "with unlawful intent", or some similar language. However, this does not refer to ignorance of laws, but having [[Intention (criminal law)|criminal intent]].

==Statutory law==
This principle is also stated in [[statute]]s:

*Brazil: 
**Article 3rd of the Law of Introduction to Brazilian Law Norms.<ref>[http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/Del4657compilado.htm Law-Decree 4.657 (compiled)], Law of Introduction to Brazilian Law Norms</ref>
**Article 21 of the Brazilian Penal Code.<ref>[http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/Del2848compilado.htm Law-Decree 2.848 (compiled)], Brazilian Criminal Code.</ref>
*Canada: [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]], section 19<ref>[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-19.html Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-34, s 19].</ref>
*Philippines: [[Civil Code of the Philippines|Republic Act No. 386 "Civil Code of the Philippines"]], Article 3<ref>((Cite news|url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1949/06/18/republic-act-no-386/|title=Republic Act No. 386 ((!)) GOVPH|work=Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines|access-date=2018-10-15|language=en-US))</ref>

==Exceptions==

In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. For example, under U.S. Federal criminal tax law, the element of ''willfulness'' required by the provisions of the [[Internal Revenue Code]] has been ruled by the courts to correspond to a "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty" under which an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law" is a valid legal defense. See ''[[Cheek v. United States]]''.<ref>Jon Strauss, [https://uakron.edu/dotAsset/4ea43a5b-7873-49cb-afc4-c37f776fd6f2.pdf "Nonpayment of Taxes: When Ignorance of the Law Is an Excuse"], 25 ''Akron Law Review'' 611 (Winter/Spring 1992).</ref><ref>Mark C. Winings, [http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6786&context=jclc "Ignorance Is Bliss Especially for the Tax Evader"], 84 ''Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology'' 575, 582 (Northwestern Univ. School of Law, Fall 1993).</ref><ref>Steven R. Toscher, Dennis L. Perez, Charles P. Rettig & Edward M. Robbins, Jr., ''Tax Crimes'', Tax Management Portfolio, Volume 636, Bloomberg BNA (3d ed. 2012).</ref>

In ''[[Lambert v. California]]'' (1957), the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled that a person who is unaware of a ''[[malum prohibitum]]'' law cannot be convicted of violating it if there was no probability he could have known the law existed. It was subsequently ruled in ''[[United States v. Freed]]'' (1971) that this exception does not apply when a reasonable person would expect their actions to be regulated, such as when possessing narcotics or dangerous weapons.<ref>((cite journal |last=Booke |first=A. F. II |year=1992 |title=When Ignorance of the Law Became an Excuse: ''Lambert'' and Its Progeny |journal=American Journal of Criminal Law |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=279&ndash;312 |issn=0092-2315 |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ajcl19&i=287|access-date=26 February 2019|quote=''Lambert'', ''Freed'', ''International Minerals'', and ''Papachristou'' are important landmarks in criminal jurisprudence. Together they stand for the proposition that ignorance of the law will excuse the violation of a ''malum prohibitum'' law where there is neither constructive nor actual notice.))</ref>

In ''[[Heien v. North Carolina]]'' (2014), the Supreme Court held that even if a police officer incorrectly believes that a person has violated the law due to a mistaken understanding of the law, the officer's "[[reasonable suspicion]]" that a law was being broken does not violate the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]].<ref>((Cite news|url=https://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-gives-police-more-leeway-in-traffic-stop-case-1418665366|title=Supreme Court Gives Police More Leeway in Traffic Stop Case|first=Brent|last=Kendall|newspaper=Wall Street Journal |date=December 15, 2014|via=www.wsj.com))</ref>

==See also==
*[[Edict of government]]
*[[Indeterminacy debate in legal theory]]
*[[Imputation (law)]]
*[[Mistake of law]]
*[[Problem of the criterion]]
*[[rule-following paradox]]
*[[rules of inference]]
*[[Secret law]]
*[[Qualified immunity]]
*[[Zero tolerance]]

==References==
((reflist|30em))

==Bibliography==
* "''Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat''((-")), ''Manitoba Law Journal'', Vol. 2, Issue 10 (October 1885), pp. 145–157
* Nuhiu, Agim; Ademi, Naser; Emruli, Safet, "''Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat'' in the Area of Equality and Non-Discrimination—The Case of Macedonia", ''Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization'', Vol. 43, pp. 62–66
* Van Warmelo, P., "''Ignorantia Iuris'', ''Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis''/''Legal History Review'', Vol. 22, Issue 1 (1954), pp. 1–32
* Volcker, Sven B., "''Ignorantia Legis non Excusat'' and the Demise of National Procedural Autonomy in the Application of the EU Competition Rules: Schenker", ''Common Market Law Review'', Vol. 51, Issue 5 (October 2014), pp. 1497–1520

((English criminal law navbox))

[[Category:Brocards (law)]]
[[Category:Common law rules]]
[[Category:Criminal law]]
[[Category:Ignorance]]
[[Category:Legal rules with Latin names]]
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]
[[Category:Promulgation]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Ignorantia juris non excusat (edit)
Template:-" (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Cn (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:English criminal law (edit)
Template:English criminal law navbox (edit)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Italic title (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:LORD (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Refimprove (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:See also (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Sp (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Space+double (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Exponential search (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Italic title (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang/ISO 639 synonyms (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana languages (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana regions (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana suppressed scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana variants (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:TableTools (view source) (protected)
Module:Unicode data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unicode data/scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat"