ABSTRACT
It is sometimes said that ignorance of the law is no defence. There is some judicial authority for this. Chief Justice Ellenborough, for example, said in one case in 1802, ‘Every man must be taken to be cognizant of the law; otherwise there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorant might not be carried. It would be urged in almost every case.’1 That judicial opinion, however, has often been repudiated in other courts. In 1846, for example, Mr Justice Maule said, ‘There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law; it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so.’2 The idea that lawyers or judges should be legally omniscient has been even more indignantly denied: ‘God forbid that it should be imagined that an attorney, or a counsel or even a judge is bound to know all the law.’3
