Lawyers often quote the maxim “ignorantia juris non excusat” (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”) as if it were an unbreakable rule. Two points should catch the reader’s attention. First, the maxim applies to ignorance of law, not to ignorance of fact. Second, like all maxims, it has a specific domain: it belongs to a particular legal field. No maxim freely roams without boundaries.
On the first point, remember the countervailing maxim: “ignorantia facti excusat” (“ignorance of fact excuses”). Despite the apparent absolute translation, its legal meaning is more modest: ignorance of fact CAN serve as an excuse. It does not always provide relief, but, as Black’s Law Dictionary notes, “whatever is done under a mistaken impression of a material fact is excused or provides grounds for relief.” Therefore, the maxim supports the idea that acts and contracts made under a material mistake are voidable.
Regarding the second point, ignorance of the law (‘ignorantia juris non excusat’) clearly falls under criminal law—and even there, only against a defendant who claims ignorance of criminal law. Black’s Law Dictionary states it concisely: “Lack of knowledge about a legal requirement or prohibition is never an excuse to a criminal charge.” Glanville Williams, the notable criminal-law scholar, highlights the limitation: the maxim applies “only to ignorance of criminal law” (Textbook of Criminal Law, 456).
The doctrinal problem occurs when this maxim is taken out of its limited context and treated as a universal rule. It is not. It should not be used when criminal liability is not at stake. Lawyers must resist the urge to apply it beyond its specific scope. They should remember two key points: (a) ignorance of facts can be a defense, and (b) ignorance of law can also serve as a defense outside criminal cases. In fact, even in criminal trials, ignorance of civil law might negate mens rea and thus function as a defense.
Regarding ignorance of fact, the law distinguishes between minor mistakes and those that affect the core issue. If the error involves a material fact, relief may be granted. This principle applies to contract, tort, restitution, and certain criminal defenses. But the mistaken party must act in good faith and without negligence. When those conditions are met, the law may forgive the mistake.
The law, at its most humane, is not mechanical. It is flexible and open to reason, fairness, and the moral aspects of human conduct. It recognizes that ignorance—especially when honest, reasonable, and not negligent—can sometimes excuse what would otherwise be wrongful. Legal practitioners and judges must avoid relying too heavily on maxims as if they were divine truths. Instead, they should remember that ignorance can provide an excuse, and at times, justice truly demands that it does.
Remember Frank Caprio.
READ MORE:
- Should Capriology Be Taught in Judicial School? By Chinua Asuzu
- Concurrent Findings? That’s a Misnomer! By Chinua Asuzu
- What’s the difference between “pending” and “impending”? _By Chinua Asuzu
