Mistake of law and Facts

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

it in the good faith.