This document summarizes the key differences between mistakes of law and mistakes of fact, and provides examples of cases where mistake of fact was used as a defense. It begins with an overview of the differences: mistakes of fact may provide a defense, while mistakes of law generally do not. It then summarizes several cases where the defendant claimed a mistake of fact defense for charges of theft, bigamy, or other crimes, and in some instances the defense was successful because the mistaken belief was found to be reasonable under the circumstances.
This document summarizes the key differences between mistakes of law and mistakes of fact, and provides examples of cases where mistake of fact was used as a defense. It begins with an overview of the differences: mistakes of fact may provide a defense, while mistakes of law generally do not. It then summarizes several cases where the defendant claimed a mistake of fact defense for charges of theft, bigamy, or other crimes, and in some instances the defense was successful because the mistaken belief was found to be reasonable under the circumstances.
This document summarizes the key differences between mistakes of law and mistakes of fact, and provides examples of cases where mistake of fact was used as a defense. It begins with an overview of the differences: mistakes of fact may provide a defense, while mistakes of law generally do not. It then summarizes several cases where the defendant claimed a mistake of fact defense for charges of theft, bigamy, or other crimes, and in some instances the defense was successful because the mistaken belief was found to be reasonable under the circumstances.
This document summarizes the key differences between mistakes of law and mistakes of fact, and provides examples of cases where mistake of fact was used as a defense. It begins with an overview of the differences: mistakes of fact may provide a defense, while mistakes of law generally do not. It then summarizes several cases where the defendant claimed a mistake of fact defense for charges of theft, bigamy, or other crimes, and in some instances the defense was successful because the mistaken belief was found to be reasonable under the circumstances.
Differences Mistake of law Mistake of fact It is an Erroneous belief about the law It is an erroneous belief as to something factual. Interference of right of others No such interference There is no excuse for mistake of Law. There is excuse Criminal Liability : Absolute Criminal Liability: May be executed as exception under Sections 72 and Section 69 of Penal Code. [People v. Russell, Cal. Court of Appeals, 2006] An individual took an old and rusty motorcycle with expired tags that was parked behind a repair shop next to some trash bins in the belief that it was abandoned. The defendant testified that he attempted to find the owner before he took the motorcycle. The defendant was acquitted from the charge as it was an honest mistake of fact. People v. Navarro (1979) The defendant was not charged with theft for taking four wooden beams from a construction site. There was evidence “from which the jury could have concluded that [the] defendant believed the wooden beams had been abandoned and that the owner had no objection to his taking them․” R v Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168 The appellant married in Sept 1880. In Dec 1881 her husband went missing. She was told that he had been on a ship that was lost at sea. Six years later, believing her husband to be dead, she married another. 11 months later her husband turned up. She was charged with the offence of bigamy.
Held: She was afforded the defence of mistake as it was reasonable in
the circumstances to believe that her husband was dead. R v King [1964] 1 QB 285 The defendant (illiterate) had remarried while his previous marriage was still valid. He was prosecuted for bigamy contrary to section 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which states that: “Whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place in England or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony…” (OAPA 1861, s.57). His argument had been that he had entered into the new marriage under the honest mistaken belief that his previous marriage was void. R v King • Held- • Mistake can be used successfully as a defence in this context only where the belief is not only honest, but also reasonable. • An unreasonable belief does not suffice, inter alia, because he failed to inquire into the facts whether he has received the final divorce order from competent court or not? R v. Bailey (1800) R&R 1; 168 E.R 651 – The accused was convicted of a crime of carrying drugs in public, which Parliament had created while he was on the high seas, and there was no way of finding out that a law had been enacted. It was held him guilty ignorance of the law is no excuse Ogbu v. R (1959) N.R.N.L.R An accused said that he did not know that paying a bribe to be appointed village headman and tax collector was illegal - was rejected by the appellate court. Complete blindness from knowing the law is not a defense. (Mistake of law is not a defense) R v Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 Henry Prince (H) was convicted under to section 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 of taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father without the father’s consent. The girl, Annie Phillips (A), was in fact 14 years old, however A had told H that she was 18, and H reasonably believed that that was her age.
It was held that H’s belief was not reasonable because defendant failed to exercise due care and attention to know the true age of the girl. Ignorance of law is not excusable. Section 69 Penal Code of Sri Lanka State of West Bengal vs Shew Mangal Singh (1981) A subordinate officer opened fire in pursuance of the orders of the Commissioner of Police caused the death of some persons. Here the police personal fired on a mob by the order of superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law.
Held - acts of the subordinate officer is justifiable by law and he done
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.
