This came up on another thread.
[quote
ignorance of the law is not an excuse in court, btw!
[/quote]
I've been thinking about this. Since 1997 over 3600 new offences have been created (around 2600 laws have been passed each year). Wouldn't you have to be a genius to know all those laws and offences? Therefore isn't it reasonable for the man on the Clapham omnibus to plead ignorance of the law as an excuse.?
Well I certainly couldn't list them... does a list actually exist? :-X
A toffee paper blowing out of the car window by accident now that's a serious offence, ;)
Law is as much about retribution as prevention. If your man on the Clapham omnibus bludgeoned his fellow passenger for talking anoyingly loud on his phone it makes no difference whether assault is an offence or not because he wouldn't be bothered either way.
To a large extent laws just codify morality, so if the man on the Clapham omnibus finds himself unexpectedly up before the beak then his offence is really that his morals aren't the same as the rest of us, and no society takes kindly to that, so again, ignorance is no defence.
How many laws is the man on the Clapham omnibus likely to break? It's reasonable to expect everyone to know the basics. I'm guessing that most of the new laws apply in special fields - like banking, retail, health & safety, environment - that kind of thing, so now we're not talking about the man on the Clapham omnibus, we're talking about professionals who's job it is to understand the legislation that affects their work.
And then finally, like Homer Simpson said - "shoot the lot of them, let god sort them out".
I'm fairly certain the Homer Simpson quote is a paraphrase from the Albigensan Crusade... Simon De Motefort and all that... ::)
Well, actually it`s not really as simple as Unwashed says. In this context we have to include all the petty regulations which are not debated and approved by Parliament as "Laws", but are tagged on later as Ministerial Orders without any debate or consideration by Parliament, and this applies to every Statute which this government has passed, whatever its subject matter.
For instance many of the little things that the average D.I.Y person would do without further thought would actually contravene Health & Safety Regs. If a light bulb blows in Church on Sunday evening the Churchwarden can`t simply put up his step ladder and change it, that is now an offence and he must get a qualified light bulb changer (complete with scaffolding), who won`t come until Monday so the congregation can`t read the words in the hymn books.
I doubt whether any M.P. has any real idea just how many additional rules and regulations have been made in his/her name, and the bulk of them are probably known only to the petty beaurocracy which now exists to enforce them. If the next Parliament simply passed a new law repealing every Ministerial Rule and Regulation created during the present Parliament I doubt if anyone would even notice except that self same army of petty beaurocrats.
Isn't it a fact that if there were not silly things like judges fining people for making faces or passing wind in a church the tabloids would go out of business?
Judges don`t fine people for making faces or passing wind in Church, that`s a chore imposed on magistrates. A Judge would no doubt feel obliged to decide that everyone has a human right to make an involuntary facial contortion or to allow painful wind to escape, and would quash the magistrates` verdict as being a breach of the accused`s human rights.
You may not be aware of this but under the the London Olympics Act the police have the right to force entry into your house to remove any political poster displayed in your front window(s).You may also be subjected to a fine of up to £20,000. Wonder if the residents round the Olympics site are aware of that one? I think this may be because the powers to prevent unauthorised advertising have been drafted so widely.
Quote from: Barnowl on July 01, 2009, 11:55:19
You may not be aware of this but under the the London Olympics Act the police have the right to force entry into your house to remove any political poster displayed in your front window(s).You may also be subjected to a fine of up to £20,000. Wonder if the residents round the Olympics site are aware of that one? I think this may be because the powers to prevent unauthorised advertising have been drafted so widely.
Do you have a source for that? One that isn't Twitter?
Quote from: Unwashed on July 01, 2009, 12:54:33
Do you have a source for that? One that isn't Twitter?
Sections 19 and 22:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060012_en_1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060012_en_1)
Quote from: ceres on July 01, 2009, 13:05:48
Quote from: Unwashed on July 01, 2009, 12:54:33
Do you have a source for that? One that isn't Twitter?
Sections 19 and 22:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060012_en_1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060012_en_1)
and section 25
- I got it from the Beeb then looked it up. I don't twitter >:( :)
After reading that it`s obvious that there is scope for Ministerial Regulation to create another few hundred offences punishable by fine or imprisonment that Parliament won`t have the chance to debate or vote on, and will probably have never heard of.
But we are supposed to know them all.
Clucking bell, we really do live in a poice state!
Never mind. Look at it this way. All those lovely fines are bound to help Mr. Gordon Madoff Brown spend HIS way out of OUR recession (or should it be spend OUR way out of HIS recession?)
For me, big no because the law is created in many process. It is definite and broad form.
_________________
California Orange County Lawyer (http://skbesq.com/)
I think that what it's saying is that you can't advertise where the events are taking place or on access roads to the events any product or service that conflicts with the olymipc sponsors. It's in the host city contract - makes easier reading than the wotsit act.
So if the games are sponsored by cococola you can't put an advert for pepsi in your front room.
They can also charge you (in money) for the police time used to remove said advert. ::)
Quote from: Barnowl on June 30, 2009, 16:27:28
This came up on another thread.
Quote
ignorance of the law is not an excuse in court, btw!
I've been thinking about this. Since 1997 over 3600 new offences have been created (around 2600 laws have been passed each year). Wouldn't you have to be a genius to know all those laws and offences? Therefore isn't it reasonable for the man on the Clapham omnibus to plead ignorance of the law as an excuse.?
Even the judges are ignorant of the Law
Stop giving us all these new laws, says chief justice (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199839/Government-passed-crime-laws-says-senior-judge.html)
Quote from: Lord Chief Justice, Lord JudgeI'm getting a little confused
Gosh! Having neglected my garden for 3 years to take a law degree do I now see I could just have stayed on A4A? Haha!
CLx ;)
PS: And Labrat's quite right, ignorance of the law is no defence to breaking it.
Quote from: CotswoldLass on July 16, 2009, 12:56:17
CLx ;)
PS: And Labrat's quite right, ignorance of the law is no defence to breaking it.
Actually I wasn't making that point. The quote was from someone else.
I think there is a case to some degree when not only are judges ignorant of some laws (loads of cases of mistrials and acquittals because of mistakes made by judges) but the police as well. I'd go as far to say that some of the ignorance displayed by police officers actually qualifies as wilful misrepresentation of the law. There is a thread on here about someone's conversation with a policeman regarding among other things TV licensing where the policeman is wholly ignorant about the law or is wilfully misrepresenting the law to intimidate the citizen in question.
Regardless of intent the best way to pursue justice and enforce the law is to keep it simple. In that way it helps the authorities and helps the public understand. What is daft is that you get the highway code book when you learn to drive but you don't get a book about all the laws of the land. Most of us probably break the law on a daily basis because there are so many laws and so many restrictions that the majority of the public are unaware of.
Err...let's be clear on facts. The CPS prosecute, not the police. And I can't agree with your sweeping claim that judges are 'ignorant' of the law. That ignorance of the law is no defence to breaking it is a fact, not an opinion.
Ho hum, I'm going back to gardening. Cheers all!
CLx
Quote from: CotswoldLass on July 16, 2009, 14:58:28
Err...let's be clear on facts. The CPS prosecute, not the police. And I can't agree with your sweeping claim that judges are 'ignorant' of the law. That ignorance of the law is no defence to breaking it is a fact, not an opinion.
Ho hum, I'm going back to gardening. Cheers all!
CLx
I refer you back to my original post where the Chief Justice himself has problems with the plethora of laws that abound. And he is speaking for the judiciary.
I also have to take you up on your 'sweeping' and mistaken assertion that I said all judges are ignorant of the law. I didn't. I said they are ignorant of some laws. It should go without saying that no judge is familiar with the entire legal code. Otherwise they'd all be superhuman. But as the Chief Justice says, judges are having particular difficulty handling the huge amounts of new legislation.
As for your CPS (irrelevant) comment you appear to be content that the police can put mostly law abiding citizens under pressure and fear of the law under false circumstances due to police ignorance. You don't have to go anywhere near the CPS or a court for people to feel so mistreated by the police that they suffer health problems including several reported deaths. And as many of these newer laws allow the police to exact on-the-spot fines many people will never see a solicitor or a judge regardless of their right to appeal (as again the Chief Justice has complained about the dilution of judicial power to the police).