Ignorance of Law

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

Defendants sometimes defend their actions by saying that they did not know
that what they were doing was wrong. However, s25 of the Crimes Act 1961
states that the fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for
any offence committed by them.

This ruling applies whether the offender is from this country or from
overseas.

Question 2

Legislation

Answer 2

Section 25 of the Crimes Act 1961 deals with ignorance of the law.

25 Ignorance of law

The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence
committed by him.

Question 3

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

Answer 3

In P v Taggart32, the defendant obtained some tablets labelled “miumbin”
which he knew were designed to stimulate sexual activity but did not know
that the active element was an alkaloid of yohimba, nor that the latter was a
statutory poison. He managed to drop some of the tablets into the drinks of
two female companions who as a result went to hospital.

He was convicted on a charge of selling an alkaloid of yohimba contrary to
s8(1) of the Poisons Act 1960. Under the Act the term “sale” includes the
“disposal … by way of gift … or otherwise”. The defence was that the
element of mens rea was absent. The court did not decide whether the
offence was one of strict liability or not, but assumed that mens rea was an
element of the offence.

The fact that a person does not know that a drug is a statutory poison is
ignorance of the law which affords no defence.

Question 4

Child

Answer 4

Where a child does not know their act was contrary to law, they will not be
liable for any offence (s22 Crimes Act 1961).

Question 5

Summary

Answer 5

• Legal insanity is defined in s23 of the Crimes Act 1961.
• The prosecution has a duty to raise the issue of insanity. Where the
  defendant poses a risk to the community they can become the subject of a
  “restricted patient’ order under s54(1) of the Mental Health (Compulsory
  Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.
• M’Naghten’s test is based on the rationality of the defendant and depends
  on whether the person was:

− suffering from a disease of the mind that they did not know
− aware of the nature and quality of their actions
− aware that their actions were wrong.

• Automatism is a state of total blackout when a person is not conscious of,
  nor in control of, their actions.
• A defence of automatism may depend on whether the state of automatism
  is involuntary or self-induced and whether intent is present.
• Intoxication can be used as a defence to any offence that requires intent.
• In offences requiring simple or basic intent, a defence of intoxication is
  unlikely to succeed but may be used by way of mitigation of penalty.