0

I thought that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat is one of the core principles of the law and how it is structured.

Here is a snippet from the UK law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/97

In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the published material was intended, or likely, to identify the child.

The Court order itself:

The names of the children set out in the heading of this Order and the names of the persons set out in paragraph 1 are not to be disclosed in public without the permission of the Court.

My understanding is that I cannot disclose my name, because that would identify the children.

I am not talking about the Court using my legal name, I am talking about the Court using the fictitious name "Michael Freeman".

But if for some reason they go back and match the fictitious with my legal name then I can use the defence that I did not know?

2

The legal principle refers to ignorance of what the law is. You are expected to know what the laws are in whatever jurisdiction you are in, and cannot say "I didn't know that that was against the law". There is no requirement that you know all facts of the world that enter into a determination of legal guilt. Indeed, typically for a criminal conviction, it is required that the person know ("or should know") that the facts of the situation match what the law describes, and knowing that you still do the act. The crime of fraud requires that you know that the claim that the other party relies on is false, thus being factually mistaken is not a crime. Except in certain cases involving sex with under-age individuals, for instance (strict liability offenses).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.